Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a distressing problem facing our citizens, our Nation's law enforcement officers, and our public health officials. This problem is the growing threat of bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction--both real and perceived. The recent bioterrorist attacks affecting the media, Congress, and the U.S. Postal Service have spawned a great number of anthrax hoaxes across the Nation. These hoaxes, aside from adding to the widespread public panic over terrorism, have created another serious problem: They are taxing our already strained emergency management and public health resources, which are vital to protect our national security. Suprisingly, there is no existing Federal code that directly prohibits biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon hoaxes. Therefore, there is no Federal law that directly punishes the current anthrax hoaxes. These acts waste scarce Federal resources, negatively affecting interstate commerce and national security interests. Yet, there is no Federal law on the books to prosecute these offenders. In all likelihood, the current anthrax hoaxes will be prosecuted under a provision for ``mailing threatening communications'' or threatening the ``use of certain weapons of mass destruction,'' 18 USC 876, 2332a. The problem with prosecuting the anthrax hoaxes under these statutes is that they require the prosecutor to prove that the offender has crossed a threshold of threatening language. But what constitutes sufficiently threatening language? Unfortunately, not all of these hoaxes meet this threshold. For example, under current law, it is difficult to prosecute the acts of an eighth-grade science teacher in Ohio. This teacher placed powered lime in a school envelope and attempted to mail it through the postal system to her brother in another city. The envelope was found en route at the school, before it could leave the building. The school was evacuated, frightening hundreds of already shaken children and parents. Emergency management teams wasted valuable time and resources testing the site. Right now, this woman faces a State charge of inducing panic. That is it; no other charges are pending. There is no clear Federal law on the books to prosecute her offense, because there was no threat. Had there been an actual incident where anthrax was released while police and emergency crews were tied up looking into this hoax, who knows how widespread the damage could have been. Many people could have been infected in the time that it took emergency crews to clear up this ``joke.'' So far, the U.S. Postal Service reports that it has evacuated over 353 postal facilities for varying amounts of time as a result of more than 8,600 hoaxes, threats, and suspicious incidents related to anthrax since just mid-October. That is an average of 578 a day for an agency used to dealing with only a few hundred such calls a year. In my home State of Ohio, alone, health officials have tested nearly 800 suspicious specimens from around the State, but have found no anthrax or other dangerous substances. A significant number of those reports appear to have been hoaxes. On a national scale, the financial and physical strain imposed by hoaxes on our national law enforcement and public health systems have been enormous. In regard to our citizens, these pranks cause great panic and are really acts of terrorism. That is why, along with my colleagues, Senator Schumer and Ranking Member Hatch, I have introduced a bill that would create a new crime for hoaxes involving the purported use of a weapon of mass destruction. This bill will prohibit any conduct that gives the false impression that a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon may be used, when it is reasonable to assume that there will be an emergency response. The required conduct may involve the communication of information, whether in written or verbal form, as well as physical actions. Under our bill, there is no legal burden to identify a specific threat. For example, we would be able to prosecute someone who mails an envelope of white powder with a note that says, ``Smile, you have been exposed to anthrax.'' Furthermore, anyone convicted under this bill would be responsible for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in responding to a hoax, including the cost of any response by any Federal military or civilian agency to protect public health or safety during the course of an investigation. Convicted cohorts also would share in financial liability for such a hoax. The Ohio Department of Health, alone, has spent more than $500,000 of the taxpayers' money investigating false anthrax claims--a large percentage of which were hoaxes. This bill would discourage hoaxes, while helping to alleviate the financial burden that these pranks and false reports are imposing on our Federal, State, and local government agencies. It is indeed shocking that some people want to capitalize on the recent horrific acts of terrorism in order to play a joke or intentionally cause widespread panic, or worse, inflict physical harm. Unfortunately, this is the reality we confront today. To deal with this threat, we need to give our Federal Government the necessary tools to prosecute those who would stage these hoaxes and disrupt the sense of normalcy that we have all struggled to recover since September 11th.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu, for doing a great job on this bill. This is a bill that will make a difference for people of the District of Columbia, particularly children of the District. I thank Senator Landrieu and her staff, Chuck Kieffer and Kate Eltrich, for their hard work on this bill. I also thank my appropriations team, particularly Mary Dietrich, who has been working hard on this bill for a long time, as well as Stan Skocki from my team. I also commend and thank the other members of our subcommittee: Senator Hutchison, Senator Durbin, and Senator Reed. Mr. President, as Senator Landrieu has indicated, this was a bipartisan effort. This bill makes a downpayment and is a real beginning on what we said we were going to do several years ago. In Congress, we took on the responsibility of trying to improve the court system, specifically the court system that deals with our young people. I do not have to remind anyone in this Chamber of the tragedy of the children's system in the District of Columbia--headline after headline, story after story, tragedy after tragedy, of children who have died in the system in the District of Columbia. This bill provides the money to begin to change that system. Senator Landrieu and I have also been working, along with some of our other colleagues, to get a family court bill passed. Money in this bill will go a long way to making the changes that we have outlined in that family court bill. This bill we are about to vote on also provides some significant money for Children's Hospital in the District of Columbia, which serves not only children who come from the District but serves children who come from many States. It also provides money for the Safe Kids Program, a program that saves lives. I am convinced the money we will provide will help to save the lives of young children in the District of Columbia. We also provide money for the Green Door Program, a mental health program of which Senator Domenici has been a strong supporter. Finally, the bill provides, as Senator Landrieu indicated, some much needed money and resources to tie our communications system together in the District of Columbia. That need has been apparent for some time. Certainly, after the events of September 11, it is even more apparent and more obvious. So this bill provides money to do that as well. I, again, thank my colleague for her great work on the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote aye, to pass the bill. I hope we will be able to work any differences out with the House fairly quickly and get this bill on to the President. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her comments but, more importantly, for the great work she has done over the last few months. It has been a great pleasure to work with the Senator from Louisiana. Her dedication to her job, her dedication to children in the District of Columbia, comes out every single day I meet with her and every time we talk about these issues. This bill is truly a reflection of that dedication. Senator Landrieu and I have really been partners in our efforts to ensure that the children who come into contact with the court system in the District of Columbia are placed in a safe and a stable environment. The bill before us today will go a long way toward ending the suffering of innocent children by providing resources to strengthen the District's family court system. Today, as Senator Landrieu has outlined, we are providing $140.2 million for the DC court system, an increase of approximately $35 million over last year's enacted level. The majority of these funds will be dedicated to improving the family courts so case workers can adequately address the individual needs of the children and the families who come into contact with the court system. These funds will help implement the reforms outlined in the family court bill that Senator Landrieu and I have introduced. These reforms will help the District hire, train, and equip additional staff and construct additional courtrooms. It is not a question of money. That is why we have, as Senator Landrieu outlined and talked about a moment ago, introduced the family court bill, a bill I hope we will have within a short period of time for debate and for passage. We are fulfilling today part of our commitment to the children of the District of Columbia. We need the reforms outlined in our DC family court bill, and we need the money contained in this bill to implement those reforms. The family court bill we will take up later has a fundamental principle. And, that is that we have judges who, every single day, spend 100 percent of their time worrying about the children in the District of Columbia. ``Family court'' means exactly what the title indicates: The judges deal with family problems. They deal with children every single day. We need these judges to do this full time-- we don't want them to be spending their time on felony trials or other civil cases. We need them to develop the expertise in family law. Teachers tell me it takes 4 or 5 years before an eager new teacher becomes a seasoned, experienced, and excellent teacher. The same is true with a judge. Our bill provides that longevity, that experience, that training, to focus on our children. Our family court bill also has the basic principle: One judge, one family--again, this is so the children are not moved from judge to judge to judge. There needs to be an institutional memory with that family. If that judge knows whom he is dealing with, knows what has happened in the past, that judge can better deal with that family. That is the family court bill. It is not before us today, but it will be before the Senate, we hope, in the next few weeks. I don't have to remind anyone in this Chamber or anyone who reads the newspaper about what a mess the District of Columbia child welfare system has been and still is today. There are a lot of good people working very hard to change that. I believe we have to do our part. The bill before the Senate is a downpayment--a downpayment--on that job and that obligation. Next, this bill contains $147.3 million for the court services and offender supervision agency, an increase of $34.7 million over last year's level. With these funds, the District will have the resources to provide drug treatment services to over 2,700 offenders in the District of Columbia criminal justice system, an increase in treatment slots of about 54 percent over last year. Initially, funds will be used to repair and renovate the District drug facilities. Some of the money will be used to hire additional drug treatment counselors. This increase, which meets the President's request, is particularly important because 80 percent of the individuals in the District of Columbia criminal justice system have a substance abuse problem. This is not unique to the District of Columbia. I saw it when I was a county prosecuting attorney. I saw it when I was lieutenant governor in Ohio. One of my responsibilities was to oversee the Ohio criminal justice system. Roughly that 80 percent of the people in Ohio prisons and our jails had substance abuse problems. That is true for the District of Columbia, as well. Spending money on treatment of people behind bars may not be the most popular thing to do, but it does make sense. It is cost effective. It is the right thing to do. The sad truth is we already pay to house, feed, and clothe the prisoners. Doesn't it make sense, while we have their attention, while they cannot leave, that we work to try to give them some drug treatment while they are in prison or jail? Almost every single prisoner will someday walk out the door and return to society. It makes good sense to spend money for drug treatment. We do this and provide a significant increase in the funding of this bill. Third, the bill includes $16 million to provide security protection for those living and working in the District of Columbia. The September 11 Pentagon tragedy and the tragedy in New York and Pennsylvania clearly demonstrated the need in every district in this country to have an integrated emergency management system in place. It certainly demonstrated that need in the District of Columbia. This funding will pay for a coordinated emergency plan for the District of Columbia in national security situations including, of course, terrorist threats, protests, natural disasters, or other unanticipated events. As a condition of receiving these funds, in this bill, we are requiring that the District develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to improve security measures and procedures in the District of Columbia. Fourth, the bill includes funding for the local Federal Police Mobile Wireless Interoperability Project to provide equipment to facilitate direct communication to between the D.C. Metropolitan Police, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Park Police, and the U.S. Capitol Police. We were pushing this prior to the September 11 attacks. The recent tragedy highlighted how important it is that the District's law enforcement teams are able to communicate effectively. It is important in every city in this country, but in this city we have a unique problem. Our unique problem is we have so many different agencies that have authority: The D.C. Metropolitan Police, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Park Police, and the U.S. Capitol Police. This effort will coincide with the integrated emergency planning to help enhance the District's overall response to security threats. Briefly, I will mention three other important initiatives included in this bill. I am pleased the bill includes funds for the Green Door Mental Health Clinic to expand the facility. Our friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, has been a very strong advocate and supporter of this program. I thank him for his strong support and his dedication. The Green Door is a community program for people with severe and persistent mental illness. The Green Door program serves about 300 people. Of the people it serves, 70 percent are African American. Of those 300 people, about 75 percent are schizophrenic. In a separate, but equally important provision of the bill, we have included funds to assist the D.C. Safe Kids Coalition to expand their permanent child safety seat fitting station programs. These stations are vital to help reduce motor vehicle-related deaths and injuries--the leading cause of injury-related deaths among children age 14 and under. Funds will help the District distribute additional child safety seats to low-income families. The Safe Kids Coalition is a group I worked with in Ohio. I have seen their great work in Ohio. I have seen their great work in the District of Columbia. I have seen it across our country. They are literally saving lives every single day. They are doing things that matter. The small amount of money we have included in this bill, I believe, will help them save the lives of children in the District of Columbia. Finally, this bill provides funding to the Children's National Medical Center to help renovate its facilities, update its equipment, and provide private areas for families. Each year, the children's hospital in the District of Columbia provides care to approximately 200,000 infants, toddlers, youngsters, teenagers, from every State in the Union. Kids from all over the country are treated here. Kids travel here, their families travel here. This children's hospital really has a national focus. The Center conducts Federal research for the National Institutes of Health and supports pediatric specialists who are nationally and world renowned. We are very fortunate to have the children's hospital here in the District of Columbia, the Children's National Medical Center. We do serve children, not just in the District, but throughout the world. Anyone who has a child has probably at one time or the other taken that child to a children's hospital. My wife, Fran, and I have had that experience on several occasions. Each time we go into that setting as very apprehensive, worried parents, I can tell you it is a great relief to deal with professionals who know what they are doing, who know children are not just miniature adults, that they are different and they have to be dealt with differently. That is something with which I think we need to help the District of Columbia and help private agencies that are helping the National Children's Medical Center to improve its facilities, to improve its research to better help with our children. So we have provided money in this bill to do that. Let me again thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu, for her great work. It has been a pleasure to work with her. As she has indicated, we do have maybe two or three amendments that we will, I think, dispose of tomorrow. I anticipate it will not take us very long to debate these issues. There were a couple of issues we just could not get resolved in the committee. They will be resolved within an hour or two tomorrow, and I hope we will then be able to move, by about mid-day, to final passage of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank Senators Landrieu and Rockefeller for cosponsoring my amendment, which has been incorporated into the managers' amendment. Earlier this month, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and I introduced a bill to reauthorize the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act. This is a vital program that provides grants to children services agencies to help place foster children in permanent homes, provide post-adoption services, and reunify families when appropriate. I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for working with me to increase the appropriations level for this important program. As reported out of committee, the Senate bill only provided $305 million for the program, while the House bill included $375 million. I worked with the managers to increase the Senate level to $375 million. I am very pleased that we have increased this funding level because the Safe and Stable Families program provides critical services to at- risk children. The reality is that many thousands of children in our country are at risk because they are neglected or abused by parents or because they are trapped in the legal limbo that denies them their chance to be adopted. Over a half-million children go to bed each night in homes that are not their own. We have an obligation to these children. We have an obligation to protect these innocent lives. The Safe and Stable Families program is there for these children. The funding provided to the States through this legislation is used for four categories of services: family preservation, community-based family support, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. These services are designed to prevent child abuse and neglect in communities at risk, avoid the removal of children from their homes, and support timely reunification or adoption. And, quite candidly, Promoting Safe and Stable Families is a very important source of funding for post-adoption services. With a nearly 40 percent increase in the number of adoptions since the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, funding for adoption promotion and support services is especially vital. In Baltimore, MD, for example, 5 years ago, there were only 160 adoptions. So far this year, 514 adoptions have been finalized. Such increases demonstrate the need for these services and the necessity for these services to ensure that the adoptions are not disrupted, which risks further traumatizing a child. Again, I thank my colleagues for increasing the current Senate funding level. Protecting this vital program is simply the right thing to do.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, yesterday our neighbors to the south in Nicaragua went to the polls to elect a new President. The liberal party candidate, Enrique Bolanos, appears to be the winner. With part of the vote counted this afternoon, he has 53 percent of the vote, while Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, trails with 45 percent. Although votes still remain to be counted, Ortega has conceded defeat. But right up to yesterday, when people actually went to the polls in Nicaragua, the candidates were running neck and neck, we are told, in a very heated and very tight race. It is disconcerting that the race was even close at all. The very fact that Ortega, a Marxist Communist sympathizer, could come close to regaining power tells us that it is time for the United States to wake up and start paying attention to our neighbor to the south. If we do not, we will see Daniel Ortgega or another leftist radical regain power sometime in the future. The fact is that unless we pay attention, unless we take notice, history may well repeat itself. Sometimes we in the United States have a tendency to go from crisis to crisis. We try to deal with the crisis and then, once the crisis is over, we forget about that region or that part of the world or that country. That is what I think we have done in Central America. In the 1980s, when I was a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the world's spotlight, and this Congress' spotlight, the country's spotlight was on Nicaragua; it was on El Salvador; it was on many of our neighbors in South and Central America. The 1980s and the 1990s brought a very significant increase in democracy in this hemisphere. Many of us have come to the Chamber and talked about that. We have talked about the fact that this hemisphere is so much more democratic today than it has ever been in the past. Today, all but one of our region's 33 countries have democratically elected heads of state. But we have seen a retrenching of that in the last few years. While we justifiably are worried about many other parts of the world, we should not forget about our neighbors to the south. In fact, a recent poll indicates a steep decline in support for democracy among Latin American and Central American countries. If we look at Nicaragua, that same poll shows that only 43 percent of Nicaraguans support democracy. That figure was at 72 percent just 3 years before, nearly a 30-percent drop. In the same poll, Nicaragua registered the largest increase in support for authoritarian government, a 16-percent increase over the previous year's figure. Maybe these startling figures should come as no surprise. History does offer us a sober reminder that oppressive regimes often spring from misery, despair, and joblessness. Nicaragua has never recovered from the war of the 1980s, the earthquake of the early 1970s, the droughts, the hurricanes, the political corruption, the economic collapse. If we look at the per capita income today, what we find is per capita income in Nicaragua in real terms is still less than 25 percent of the level reached in the 1970s--an absolutely unbelievable figure. Nicaragua today is still the second poorest country in the hemisphere behind Haiti. There is something wrong with this picture. Yes, democracy won out in Nicaragua in the 1980s, but the economic environment and political leadership were not stable enough to allow that democracy to fully take hold and thrive. In the recent election, the apparent winner was clearly handicapped by the fact that he had been Vice President for President Aleman, who has certainly been a disappointment to his country and a disappointment to the United States and other people who care about democracy. We should think about this. Just yesterday that nation, Nicaragua, came all too close to sending Daniel Ortega back to the Presidency, the very leader under whose direction inflation rose as high as 33,000 percent. Regretfully, the United States has not done as much as we should have over the last decade. We have done some things. We have been involved. We tried to help but, candidly, not as much as we should have. We tried to implement judicial reforms and change in the rule of law, but democracy is not a hobby;, it is a lifetime commitment. It is not enough to believe in it;, it has to be practiced every day, day in and day out. Yesterday's elections represent a close call but also a new opportunity for democracy in Nicaragua. I believe the United States must do what we can to help our friends in Nicaragua. With the election of Enrique Bolanos, we have a unique opportunity to bring about lasting change for the people of Nicaragua. We need to support and work closely with USAID in that effort to create economic and social conditions that will produce a greater margin of safety for the poor. Hurricane Mitch demonstrated how vulnerable the country is to natural disasters. Overall economic losses were estimated at $1.5 billion. While growth rebounded to about 7 percent in 1999, low world coffee prices and an internal financial sector crisis caused Nicaragua more than 10-percent drop in GDP in the year 2000. There is an urgent need for Nicaragua to pay systematic and immediate attention to environmental issues and problems, including watershed management, natural resource management, reforestation, and land use. We also need to expand our food-for-work programs, strengthen our education and training initiatives, and encourage alternative crop development. Furthermore, we need to foster economic growth by strengthening our microenterprise programs and increasing the number of rural credit unions. I know my colleague in the Chair has been a great supporter of microenterprise programs. They work in Nicaragua as they work around the world. I think we have to do more to promote them. These are efforts that we have supported in the past, and we need to support in the future. We need to provide individual Nicaraguans the tools to permanently free themselves from poverty. We should also support soon-to-be-President Bolanos in any attempt to scale back some of the electoral and judicial reforms brought about in the late 1999 pact between the Aleman government and the Sandinistas. Specifically, we need to work towards: No. 1, restoring the autonomy of the judicial branch; No. 2, restoring the autonomy of the comptroller; No. 3, reducing barriers for third party participation and increased accountability of the Supreme Electoral Council; and finally, we need to also develop increased accountability of government officials and make aid contingent on a transparent government that proactively works to root out corruption. Finally, we should take advantage of opportunities for bilateral and multilateral counterdrug operations with the Nicaraguan military. Operations such as these, closely monitored, not only can produce tangible results in the form of interdictions and deterrence but also could help increase the skills and professionalism of the indigenous forces in Nicaragua. Ultimately, we need to keep a very close watch on the entire hemisphere to see what we can do to help the democratic forces. They need our help. It is in the best interests of the United States to see these countries remain democratic. We also need to understand how very closely economic progress for the poor is tied to democracy. If we expect democracy to flourish and to grow in our neighbors to the south, it is essential that we do what we can to help their economies grow so everyone in those countries, whether it be Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, or any of our neighbors to the south, anyone who lives in these countries will see they do have opportunity under democracy. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for her nice comments. I appreciate the fact that she has yielded to me. I congratulate her for not only this amendment but for all the work she does for all children, and particularly poor children. There is no one in this Chamber more dedicated than is she to the children of this country. I rise today to express my support for Senator Landrieu's amendment as well as for Senator Gregg's amendment. These amendments target our limited, finite Federal resources to the school districts and to the children most in need. I am cosponsoring both because each is an effort to get funding to those school districts with high concentrations of poor children. Each amendment will put at least $1 billion into the title I targeted grant formula so impoverished school districts, those children, get what they need, so the children in those school districts get the quality education they deserve. A little history. This grant formula, this targeted grant formula, as it is called, was created in 1994. It recognized the great disparity in this country between poor school districts and rich school districts, the great disparity between children who are in poverty and children who are not in poverty. However, unbelievably and tragically, since the creation of these grants in 1994, not a single Federal dollar, not one dollar, has been appropriated to fund this grant program--that is until now with these two amendments. These amendments would fundamentally begin fulfilling the promise and commitment the Federal Government made to the poor children of this country in 1994. This is unprecedented. It is historic. So I congratulate both of my colleagues for their amendments. Under Senator Gregg's amendment, the districts most in need would not only receive the money they deserve but they also would have the flexibility to decide how best to use their title I funds, whether that is to hire more teachers, provide professional development, to put computers in classrooms, or purchase instructional material--whatever they wanted to do. The districts, the local communities, would be able to decide for themselves where and how those dollars would do the most good. For example, one school may have a lot of students who are having problems in math. That school district could use their title I dollars on math instructional materials or to better train their math teachers. Another school might have a small group of students who would need more individualized instruction in reading and the language arts. The point is this funding enables the local school to use this money to help the distinct needs of their own students. By funding these targeted grants, we are finally focusing on those kids truly in need. This gets us back to the original intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the title I program, which is to help address the needs of children in low-income areas where the districts simply cannot meet their basic needs on their own. The problem has been that over the course of the last 3\1/2\ decades, the Federal Government really has strayed from this point, from its intent, with politics often driving education policy needs of these low-income students. As a result, the money intended to reach the most impoverished districts, and the most poor children, has simply not been getting there. These amendments go a long way to begin to rectify that. Because the Federal role in education accounts for only a small percentage of school spending--about 8 percent--we must be especially prudent and wise in allocating those very limited, finite Federal resources. That means we should direct those dollars first and foremost to America's most needy children. That means we need to fund the targeted grant program. The tragedy today is that not all children are getting the quality education they deserve because our society is divided along economic and educational lines. This division is nothing new. Scholars and sociologists warned us really for decades that this was where our Nation was heading, particularly if we did not properly educate our children. Unfortunately, we did not heed the warnings and, as a result, our Nation today is a nation split really into two Americas, one where children get educated and one where, tragically, they do not. This gap in educational knowledge and economic standing is entrenching thousands upon thousands of children into an underclass and into futures filled with poverty and little hope, little opportunity, and little room for advancement. That is exactly what is happening in my home State of Ohio and across the country. Ohio generally is a microcosm of what we see in the country. When we look at this growing gap, when we see this development of the two Americas, what we see in Ohio is also what we see in our Nation. In Ohio, growing income and educational disparities are creating our own very permanent underclass. Most of Ohio is still doing pretty well and doing pretty well educationally. Children in those areas have a great future. However, when we look across our State, when we look across the Nation, we see two areas where that is not taking place, areas where the children are not being educated as well as we would like and where the income level shows that disparity. One place is in rural Appalachia, our Appalachian counties, and the other is in our core cities or our inner cities. This is where we as a society, we as a people, face our greatest challenge. The children living in these high-poverty areas are at risk, every single one of them. The structural conditions of poverty make it very difficult for these children to succeed in life and to move up and out of their impoverished circumstances. The fact is that with poverty often come drugs, crime, broken homes, unemployment, violence, and lower educational levels. In fact, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 1999, young adults living in families with incomes in the lowest 20 percent of all family incomes were five times as likely to drop out of high school as their peers with families in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. The point is not that money solves all problems. The point is we have an obligation, with the finite dollars we have available to us, to spend them wisely and prudently. We need today to fulfill to what we have committed in the past and have not done; that is, help poor children of this country. In conclusion, because of the cyclical nature of poverty and the systemic problems associated with it, I believe the best way we can get to these children before we lose them is through quality education. Education is the ticket out of poverty. It has been throughout the history of this country. We need to provide all children, regardless of their economic circumstances or family backgrounds or how poor the school district in which they live, with the tools they need to make it as adults in our society, with the tools necessary to rise above individual situations in poverty and instability and individual situations of hopelessness and despair. When education is not working to give our kids the tools they need to move ahead in life, those children suffer. We can't solve all the problems of this country. We can't fix all the broken homes. But we can use Federal dollars in ways that help close the educational gap in America. That is exactly what we are doing with my colleague's amendment and with Senator Gregg's amendment. We are finally putting our money where our mouth is. No more lip service. This funding would go to enable schools to provide opportunities for low-income and low-achieving children to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in school and later in life. In doing so, we will help education equalize the environment for our children. That is the right thing to do. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague, and I again congratulate her for the excellent amendment and for the work she does for children every day.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague and congratulate him for the great job he has done during his career in the Senate as an advocate for children. The bill he and I worked on several years ago, I think it is safe to say, we anticipated would do good things, but neither one of us had a full appreciation of what it would do until we saw several years later the advances and the help it has given to children. We hope, by the bill we were able to pass last week unanimously in this body, we will continue and actually expand that work. The whole idea that when new drugs come on the market they would be appropriately labeled for children so pediatricians and parents understand and will know exactly, based on scientific data, what the best and proper dosage of that drug is. So I thank him for that work. He and I have also been working in the last few days on the bioterrorism bill. Many people are involved in putting this legislation together. We are going to be drafting and ultimately debating this legislation to protect our Nation against chemical and biological terrorism. Senator Frist and Senator Kennedy are working on that bioterrorism bill. Senator Dodd and I are working to help them on it. Several weeks ago, Senator Clinton introduced a bill that would address some of these issues. This is going to be a real bipartisan bill. As we develop this legislation, it is absolutely essential we remember our children. It is critical that any measure we develop addresses the unique risk children face against the threat of chemical and biological terrorism. Children are not just small adults. My wife Fran and I, with our eight children, grandparents of six, we are well aware of that. We can't treat children the same way we treat adults. So, again, as we consider steps to protect adults against bioterrorism, it is really absolutely essential that any measures we employ also protect our children. The sad fact is that currently little scientific data are available about how the chemicals and microbes that terrorists might use, from anthrax to sarin gas, could affect children. It is not a leap in logic, however, to suggest that children, because of their size, their developing immune system, and higher respiratory rates, are at a very high risk. Our Nation today is not fully prepared to treat the specific needs of children in the event of a large-scale chemical or bioterrorist attack. That is the sad truth. Health care professionals, childcare providers, educators, and parents lack basic information about how to identify and treat biological attacks. Furthermore, we lack research on antidotes and antibiotics, and their effects on children. We need more information on the proper drug dosages for children, and we need to learn if certain drugs can or even should be administered to children at all. My point is very simple. Any legislation that we consider to address the chemical and biological terrorism must, absolutely must at a minimum contain provisions to protect the needs of our children. In doing so, I believe there are four primary areas that must be addressed. First, we need to fund more drug research for children. Our Best Pharmaceuticals For Children bill is a step in making sure children are protected. We need to continue to ensure that drugs are tested and used appropriately for children. Basically we need to do two things. One is to spend more money on research for children, and we need to put the resources behind developing the protocols and the testing so once the drugs are developed we know how they can be best used for children. Second, we need to train health care workers to recognize and treat symptoms of chemical and biological attacks. Pediatricians must be included in disaster planning and such plans should take into account the need for special equipment and medications for children. Parents and emergency response personnel also should be given information on the care and treatment of children in the event of an attack. Third, we need to provide adequate mental health services for children to address the very real psychological effects of terrorism. Children are scared just as adults are. We have to focus on how children are perceiving the world around them. We have to listen to them. We have to hear their concerns. Fourth, we need to educate childcare providers, teachers, schools, daycare providers, childcare facilities--anyone who takes care of children. They all need to have information available so they are prepared to act in the case of a bioterrorist attack. Ultimately, all the measures we debate to fight against terrorism are about the future, about making our world safe, stable, and secure. This is all about the future. Children, of course, are our future. When I think about that I am often reminded of something very powerful that the great American President Abraham Lincoln once said: A child is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He is going to sit where you are sitting and when you are gone attend to those things which you think are important. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. He is going to move in and take over your churches, your schools, your universities and corporations. The fate of humanity is in his hands. Lincoln's words are as true today as they were more than a century and a half ago. There is no question that we have an obligation to protect our children to make sure they are safe now so they can grow into healthy, happy adults. So I urge my colleagues to remember that and to support antiterrorist efforts that will protect our children. I thank my colleague for his kind comments. I, again, congratulate him on the birth of his child. We talked about that a little last week. I know what a wonderful occasion that is, what a great joy. I had the opportunity to see my colleague come into the Senate office building, probably for the first time, with his baby and see what a happy time that was. I thank him again for his deep and longstanding commitment to the children of this country.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. One of the things that passed today was a bill that Senator Dodd and I have been working on for some time. Senator Dodd talked a little bit about it on the Senate floor earlier today. This bill is S. 838, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. This is reauthorization legislation which Senator Dodd and I wrote to ensure that more medicines are tested for children and that useful prescribing and dosing information appears on labels. Let me take a moment on a personal note to congratulate my friend, Senator Dodd, and his wife Jackie on the recent birth of their daughter Grace. I had the opportunity a couple of days ago when Senator Dodd and his wife Jackie brought baby Grace into the Capitol to see baby Grace, a beautiful child--a great joy. So our congratulations go to both of them. It is appropriate that the first piece of legislation that Senator Dodd passed after the birth of his little girl was a bill that will help children, a bill that will make sure that good pharmaceuticals are available for children and that doctors, specifically pediatricians, and parents will know what the dosage for each medicine should be for their particular child, for the age of that child. Four years ago, Senator Dodd and I first learned that the vast majority of drugs in this country that came on the market every week-- in fact over 80 percent--had never been formally tested or approved for pediatric use and therefore lacked even the most basic labeling information regarding dosing recommendations for children. When we found that out, we began writing what is now referred to as the pediatric exclusivity law. That bill passed. In the 3 years since that law went into effect, the FDA has issued about 200 written requests for pediatric studies. Companies have undertaken over 400 pediatric studies, of which over 58 studies have been completed, for a wide range of critical diseases, including juvenile diabetes, the problem of pain, asthma, and hypertension. Mr. President, 37 drugs have been granted pediatric exclusivity. Some studies generated by this incentive have led to essential dosing information; for example, Luvox. Luvox is a drug prescribed to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder. Pediatric studies performed pursuant to our law have shown inadequate dosing for adolescents, which resulted in ineffective treatment. The studies also have shown that some girls between the ages of 8 and 11 were potentially overdosed, with levels up to 2 to 3 times that which was really needed. Since our law has been in effect, the private sector has increased its investment in pediatric training and developing a infrastructure to support and expand pediatric research. The FDA stated in a January 2001 report: The pediatric exclusivity provision has done more to generate clinical studies and useful prescribing information for the pediatric population than any other regulatory or legislative process to date. The bill this Senate and House passed 3 years ago has done a great deal of good. We are seeing more drugs for children on the market that have a label that tells how they can be used, and more basic information for pediatricians. So when they look at that little child and they know the age of that child and they know the weight of that child, they can look it up and see exactly what the prescription should be, what the dosage should be, what the indicators are. They can do that because we have given the pharmaceutical companies an incentive to do that research, research they were doing prior to passage of this bill in only 20 percent of the cases. A great deal of progress has been made, but we have further to go. That is what we were about today with the passage of the bill that I am now describing. Senator Dodd and I and the other cosponsors knew that the law we passed 3 years ago could be improved. We knew that it had some holes in it. We set out to improve that, to fill the gaps, and address the outstanding issues, such as the testing of off-patent drugs, which the original law was never designed to include. It is understandable why the original law wasn't designed to include off- patent drugs. The original law extended the patent by 6 months. They extend it for 6 months if and only if they tested these drugs for children. If a drug is not on-patent, if it is off-patent, the patent has basically expired, obviously that incentive doesn't do any good. What we tried to do with this bill that we passed today was to change that and therefore expand it and expand the purpose of this bill to include off-patent drugs as well. For some products and some age groups, the existing market incentives are simply inadequate to encourage new pediatric research. In the bill we passed several hours ago, we have built upon the existing law's basic incentive structure to further ensure that these essential products, and young age groups, are included within the scope of the program. To make perfectly clear the need for additional legislation, I would like to quote a significant passage from the FDA's January 2001 report, which stated the following: A majority of marketed drugs are not labeled for use in pediatric patients, or are labeled for use only in specific pediatric age groups . . . And many of the drugs most widely used in pediatric patients carry disclaimers in their labeling stating that safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established. The absence of pediatric labeling information poses significant risks for children. Inadequate dosing information exposes pediatric patients to the risk of adverse reactions, usually age-specific adverse reactions that could be avoided if such information were provided in product labeling. The absence of pediatric testing and labeling may also expose pediatric patients to ineffective treatment through underdosing, or may deny pediatric patients therapeutic advances because physicians choose to prescribe existing, less effective medications in the face of insufficient pediatric information about a new medication. These facts are very disturbing. Through our bill, we have sought to find a way to improve the labeling process. Since our law has not been implemented for very long, many labels are still in the process of being requested and negotiated by the FDA. In this new bill, the new timeframes established in the bill for labeling negotiations, together with the enforcement authority under the existing misbranding statute, will help to ensure that essential pediatric information generated from studies implemented under this law, will result in necessary and timely labeling changes. Our bill establishes timeframes for responding to written requests, timeframes and processes for negotiating label changes, and authorizes the federal government to deem a drug misbranded if the company refuses to relabel its drug. The government would then begin an enforcement action under its existing authority to seek a court order regarding the relabeling of the drug. Through the bill that we are about to pass today, we will ensure that priority drugs which lack patent or other market exclusivity will be tested for children. For example, the Ritalin label states the following: Precautions: Long-term effects of Ritalin in children have not been well established. Warning: Ritalin should not be used in children under six years since safety and [effectiveness] in this age group has not been established. The point is that Ritalin is being prescribed off-label for children under six years of age, and yet we do not know the safety and effectiveness, since it has only been tested in children older than six, and we do not know long-term effects on children of any age. Our bill creates a mechanism to ``capture'' the off-patent drugs for which the Secretary determines additional studies are needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug's use in the pediatric population. In other words, our bill provides for the testing of some cases of these off-patent drugs. By expanding the mission of the existing NIH Foundation to include collecting and awarding grants for conducting certain pediatric studies, we have provided a funding mechanism for ensuring studies that are completed for both off-patent drugs and those marketed on-patent drugs that a company declines to study--and for which the Secretary determines there is a continuing need for information relating to the use of the drug in the pediatric population. That is the language in the bill. That is the correct area. By first seeking funding through the Foundation, we provide a mechanism for drug companies to contribute to the funding of mainly off-patent drugs and also to a narrow group of on-patent drugs, including those for neonates, for which companies have declined to accept the written request to pursue the six month market exclusivity extension. The Neonates, of course, are young children up to one-month of age. If the Foundation lacks the funds to study that prioritized drug, the Secretary may then issue a request for proposal--``RFP''--for a third party to study the commercially available drug using money from a Research Fund that we create in this bill. The Secretary may then publish the name of the company that declined to study the drug, the name of the drug, and the indication or use that is being requested to be studied. This would ensure that more data is collected and reported, so that we can better understand which drugs are not being studied. A condition of the RFP or contract with a third party is that all data and information generated from the pediatric study in the form of a report must be submitted to the NIH and the FDA. The FDA must then review the report and data and negotiate whatever labeling changes the FDA determines is appropriate. I thank Senator Bond for his determined focus on helping to further ensure that neonates also benefit from this pediatric testing law. I congratulate and thank him. We have included neonates in the definition of ``pediatric studies'' to which this pediatric exclusivity applies. Throughout the bill we have also encouraged the inclusion of neonates in written requests, when appropriate. To further ensure that the safety of children in clinical trials is protected, this bill requires that the Institute of Medicine--IOM-- conduct a review of federal regulations, reports, and research involving children and provide recommendations on best practices relating to research involving children. The IOM is to consider the results of the study by HHS that Senator Dodd and I included as part of the Children's Health act last year. I look forward to working with Senators Dodd, Frist, and Kennedy on the issue of human subject protections, especially in focusing on protections of children participating in clinical trials. I want to thank my friend, Senator Dodd for his relentless efforts in making this reauthorization a reality, and for his relentlessness in improving the bill. I look forward to working on many more pediatric initiatives with him in the future. Let me also thank Senators Kennedy and Clinton for their strong support of this bill and of children's health overall. Let me also thank Senator Collins for her support and for her work in regard to this bill. I want to acknowledge and thank Debra Barrett, Jeanne Ireland, Christie Onoda, David Dorsey, David Nexon, Paul Kim, Christina Ho, John Gilman, and Tim Trushel for their hard work in helping us reach agreement on such a well-crafted bill. I cannot think of a bill that took more hard work, more Members and staff than this bill. I also extend my appreciation to Elaine Holland Vining with the American Academy of Pediatrics for the tenacious effort, technical assistance, and expertise she brought to this bill. She is expecting her first child shortly, and I wish her and her husband, Paul, my very best wishes as they begin their family. I also appreciate the diligent work of Mark Isaac and Natasha Bilimoria with the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation in helping us negotiate and pass this important reauthorization. Finally, I must say a very special thanks to a former member of my staff, Helen Rhee, who is now working for Senator Frist on the HELP Committee. She has been absolutely instrumental in seeing this legislation through from its inception to its passage. Without her tireless efforts, her dogged determination, and a work ethic that is just unsurpassed, we would not be at this point today, we would not have seen this bill pass. Literally, right up until the last moment, literally, before the bill passed, Helen was continuing her work. So I pay tribute to her. This bill is a real tribute to her dedication and to her efforts. So I thank Helen and all the members of the different staffs who have worked so hard on this bill. Let me also take a moment to thank Senator Hatch and his staff, Bruce Artim, for their work in drafting language to correct and clarify this bill, specifically to clarify that pediatric exclusivity law is not and was never intended to eliminate incentives granted to generic drug manufacturers that are awarded 180 days of exclusivity under the 1984 Hatch-Waxman law for successfully challenging a patent. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise late in the afternoon today of what has been a highly unusual day in the Senate--in Washington. I want to take a moment to congratulate all the people who are working, all the people who are working in the Senate Chamber, all the Members' staffs who are working. Hearings have been held today. The Senate has been in session and work is continuing. I thank them for their dedication. I thank them for what they mean for our country and what they have done to help our country. The vast majority of people who work on Capitol Hill, at least from my perspective in life, are fairly young. They have gone through something that no members of staffs have ever gone through before. They have done very well. I congratulate them and thank them. I want to pay particular tribute to my staff and thank them. Eight members of my staff have been tested, as have hundreds of other members of other staffs. I also want to pay particular tribute to my State director, Barbara Schenk. Barbara has gone through a very difficult time in the last few weeks. Her brother, Doug Cherry, died in the World Trade Center. So our thoughts and prayers go to her and to her family and the Cherry family.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Hollings and Senator McCain for their hard work and diligence in getting the aviation security bill passed this evening. I congratulate them for this accomplishment. Let me also thank and commend my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, for his contribution to this bill. I cosponsored and I spoke earlier today in support of his amendment to put certain aspects of aviation security in the hands of the Justice Department. I support this effort because the Justice Department is in the law enforcement and security business. The Department has a law enforcement mindset, a security mindset, and that is the mindset, a way of thinking, that is essential to making sure our airports and aircraft are safe and our people are secure. Having said that, the bill we passed today, though it has some very good and very important provisions, also has, in my opinion, a very significant problem. That problem is the bill as currently written mandates all security functions at the Nation's major airports be handled exclusively by Federal employees. I believe this is a problem because this provision does not allow for the hiring flexibility necessary to protect the traveling public. How can this Congress say with absolute certainty that a 100-percent federalized security force will in every case do the best job in carrying out security measures? I do not think we really can say that. The reality is we do not know right now. Yes, we do know we need the Federal Government to be in charge at our airports, and this bill, thank Heavens, does that. I also believe strongly that flexibility is key to determining the best makeup of the security workforce. Flexibility in hiring between Federal workers and private contractors is absolutely essential. At the same time, we need the Government to establish and enforce higher, more stringent security standards. That is clear. The Government must set the security standards. The Government must be in charge. The Government must assess the risks, set the standards, and then test compliance with those standards. The standards, yes, must be strict and they must be tough and they must be comprehensive. The public demands we do this, and the public is right. That does not necessarily mean a 100-percent federalized security workforce at our airports is in every case going to be the best security; that somehow a Federal takeover and full Government presence at our airports will restore the public's confidence in air travel. Rather, higher standards and enforcement of those standards by our Government will give the public back its trust in the system. There are certainly gaps in our current airport security system. The way security works now is the airlines that have the biggest presence at a given airport usually are the ones responsible for hiring contract security employees. Not surprisingly, the jobs normally go to the lowest bidders. It should come as no shock that current security is not what it should be. Screeners of baggage are low-skilled, low-paid employees. Turnover is subsequently often as high as 100 percent in a given year, with the average employee today staying no longer than 6 months in that job. The fact is, unless there is accountability, unless there is a way to ensure the security personnel are doing their jobs, we cannot protect the traveling public. If private sector personnel are not doing the job, we will and can cancel their contract. It is that simple. They have a very real and very practical incentive to do a good job. Further, it is difficult for the Government to be in the business of ``regulating security'' and carrying out its actual operation. Other nations around the world don't do it that way. Israel, with one of the best security records and one of the most dangerous terrorist-ridden parts of the world, does not do it that way. They do not do what this bill mandates. Most nations in Europe had total federalization, and now they have changed to a mixed system. Most of the countries in Europe, as the chart indicates, contract out well over a majority of the security operations while the government maintains the regulatory role. The average Federal private personnel split in airport security across Europe is 85-percent private employees, mostly handling screening; 15 percent are government employees, performing the main law enforcement duties. The chart clearly shows this. European passenger screening is the responsibility of the government, not the airlines, but the European governments, in turn, have the flexibility to use either civil servants or private contractors to do the job. This works and it works very well. It is a public-private mix. A recent FAA study found airport screeners in an unnamed European country were twice as likely as their American counterparts to spot dangerous items in scanned baggage. Additionally, in European airports they have a 2.5 times greater personnel outlay than in the United States. They pay more. The cost is 2\1/2\ times for security in Europe than in the United States. We see the results. The fact is, privately contracted security personnel in Europe are seen as professionals. They take their jobs very seriously and the public respects that. It is no secret that there is a perception problem at home at our airports about the image of the current airport screening workforce. I understand that. But the way to repair that image is by setting better standards, repair that by raising the bar. Like the U.S. Marshals I spoke about earlier today, the men and women tasked with protecting our Federal buildings and our courtrooms, we respect them. They do a fine job. The Marshal Service is able to do this great job largely because it sets high standards and then contracts out many of the functions of its security in the protection of our courtrooms and courthouses. For example, the Federal Marshal Service hires and manages about 3,300 contracted court security officers, CSOs. They are mostly, as we would expect, former law enforcement personnel who assist with the court security. They get the job done. They do it well. That blend works very well. The Marshal Service stays in charge, they are the professionals, but they contract out a portion of what they do. There is no question we need to pay people better. We need to train them better, and we need to make this a professionalized workforce, one that gets respect and reflects the importance of the work they do. We need to think about things differently. The first step in doing so involves improving and enhancing security measures at our airports. That means we need better standards; we need better enforcement. I hope by the time this bill reaches the President, we will have given the executive branch more flexibility. What we really need to do is to say to the executive branch and through our legislation, set higher standards. Then give them the job. Whether that is the Justice Department, the FAA, give the administration the job to get that job done and then hold them accountable. When you give someone a job, when you say you are going to hold them accountable and when you set high standards but give them the obligation to get the job done, it only makes sense to allow them some flexibility in deciding how best to get that job done. Judge them by the results but give them the flexibility. I hope we will look at this again, and by the time this bill finally reaches the President of the United States, we will give the President the tools he needs to get the job done for our security. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Burns amendment. First, I congratulate my colleague for his work on this amendment. He has been very diligent in explaining in meeting after meeting off the floor of the Senate for the last week or 10 days why his amendment should pass. I congratulate him on his amendment. I congratulate him on his diligence and his perception of what we should be doing. This is a simple amendment, one that I believe makes a very big statement. The statement says we believe our Justice Department is best suited to manage particular aspects of security at our airports. The reality is we need accountability. We need to know there is an agency in charge that knows how to manage security. That agency, I believe, is the Justice Department of the United States. I say that because the Justice Department is in the business of law enforcement, and it is in the business of security in the Marshal Service. Protecting our airports and protecting the traveling public is a law enforcement and a security function. It is a function, I believe, best handled by the Department of Justice. The fact is, those in charge of law enforcement have a different way of looking at things. I first understood that when I became an assistant county prosecuting attorney at the age of 25. I could not believe how the police officers in Xenia, OH, or the sheriff's office in Fairborn, OH, saw things differently than I saw them. They saw things through the eyes of a trained officer. They saw things from the law enforcement point of view. They saw things from a security point of view. We would go to crime scenes, and they would explain what they saw. We would look at situations where we were worried about security, and they would see things that I would never see. It is not just training. It is not just experience. It also is a culture. I guess we use the word ``culture'' when we do not know another word to explain it, but it is a fundamental way of approaching things. I believe it makes eminent sense to take an agency that is concerned every single day about the security of Americans--that is what they get paid to do--and say we are going to put you in charge of the flying public's security while they are on the ground. We are going to leave it up to the FAA, the experts, about how to fly, when those planes fly, when they do not fly, and things that go on in the air. But when we are talking about ground security, we are going to leave that up to other experts, and those experts are in the Justice Department. We have an example of how this is done. Justice really does two things: They do law enforcement, but they also do security. The Marshal Service does security every single day. They break it down. They make a distinction between the sworn officers and the contract employees. Later on in this debate, before final passage, I am going to have a little more to say about that. When you go in, for example, to a Federal courthouse, or when you go into a Federal building, it is the U.S. Marshal Service that is in charge of that security. So there is precedent for doing this. There is an experience level that exists in the Justice Department. I do not want to take a lot of the time of my colleagues, but I again congratulate my colleague, Senator Burns, for this idea. I think it is the right idea. It basically says the whole issue of security on the ground--not just the checking of the baggage, not just the checking of the passengers, but the whole view and concept of what should be done in regard to each individual airport in this country--should be in the hands of the experts. And I believe those experts are in the Justice Department. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we have confirmed Greg Lockhart to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. I am in full and strong support of this nomination. I have known Greg Lockhart for over 25 years. I know from my personal experiences working with Greg that he is an extremely well qualified nominee, who possesses great integrity and personal virtue. Greg's experience is extensive. He served in the U.S. Air Force for three years from 1966 to 1969, including service in Vietnam. Following his military service, he attended Wright State University, where he graduated in 1973. He then earned a law degree from Ohio State University in 1976. He's been a career prosecutor ever since. I worked with Greg first in Xenia, when he was the legal advisor to the Xenia and Fairborn police departments and I was serving as Greene County prosecutor. I hired him to be assistant county prosecutor in 1978. He became an assistant U.S. attorney in 1987. While in this position, Greg served as Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) prosecutor for two years, with duties including the prosecution of all violations of federal law, such as contract fraud, murder, firearms, drugs, money laundering, and organized crime. Additionally, Greg has handled the civil defense of all manner of lawsuits brought against the United States, including medical and tort claims, discrimination, the training of agents and appellate practice. There is no doubt in my mind that Greg Lockhart has the qualifications and skills necessary to serve in this post. With 25 years of experience as a prosecutor, Greg will fill this position in a pragmatic, tempered, and thoughtful way. I thank my colleagues for joining me in supporting this nomination.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Rockefeller, to introduce the ``Promoting Safe and Stable Families'' bill. This legislation reauthorizes four programs designed to help child welfare agencies establish and maintain permanency by providing grants to States and Indian tribes. The bill also includes programs that the President has proposed, which have my utmost support, as well as a technical correction that Senator Rockefeller and I have proposed to ensure that special needs children continue to be eligible for adoption assistance. It would be impossible for me to talk about the challenges facing children and the agencies dedicated to protecting them, without saying a few brief words about the recent terrorist bombings in New York and Washington. Following those tragic events, we awoke to a whole new world, a world forever changed by a faceless, cowardly band of terrorists, a world filled with sorrow at the senseless, needless injury and loss of countless members of our American family. Though it is going to take time to eradicate the terrorist enemy, I am confident that our efforts will bring about peace and security both here at home and across that globe. Ultimately, our efforts to protect the Nation is about the future of our children and grandchildren. And so, we must do all we can to protect them and give them a world that is safe and secure. In creating that kind of a world, we have to realize that there are thousands of children in this Nation right now who don't live in safe and secure environments, children who have only one parent or no parents at all, as sadly is now the case for many of the children who lost parents in the terrorist attacks. Far too many children in our country are at risk, not because of the terrorist threat, but because they are neglected or abused by parents or because they are trapped in the legal limbo that is our child welfare system. Because of this, we have an obligation to these children. We have an obligation to protect these innocent lives. With the bill we are introducing today, we are taking a big step toward meeting that obligation. By reauthorizing and improving the Safe and Stable Families program, we can help strengthen families and ensure the safety of vulnerable children. The funding provided to the States through this legislation is used for four categories of services: family preservation, community-based family support, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. These services are designed to prevent child abuse and neglect in communities at risk, avoid the removal of children from their homes, and support timely reunification or adoption. Our bill reauthorizes the only program that provides funding for post-adoption services. With a 30-percent increase in the number of adoptions since the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, funding for adoption promotion and support services is especially vital. These services are necessary to ensure that adoptions are not disrupted, which risks further traumatizing a child. Our bill also amends the Foster Care Independent Living Program to extend the eligibility age from 21 to 23, so that children aging out of foster care can qualify for educational and training vouchers. Currently, too many of the 16,000 children youth who age out of foster care are not able to pursue educational or vocational training because they just don't have the money. This provision helps these young people get the education and career training they need and deserve. The bill doubles the funding for the Court Improvement Program, CIP, and reauthorizes it through 2006. The CIP program provides grants to the States to develop a system of more timely court actions that provides for the safety of children in foster care and expedites the placement of such children in appropriate permanent settings. This money helps ensure that state courts have the resources necessary to stay in compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In my own home State of Ohio, this money has been used to develop and implement an attorney certification program in family law. Additionally, the CIP money has been used to implement the Court Appointed Special Advocate, CASA, program throughout Ohio and to implement five pilot programs that uniquely address family law issues. Also, Senator Rockefeller and I have added a technical correction to the bill that would clarify how Adoption Assistance Payments are distributed. Prior to January 23, 2001, title IV-E Adoption Assistance Payments were available to parents adopting children who met three special needs criteria, regardless of whether a child was placed by a private agency or the State foster care system. Unfortunately, some private agencies were using only one of the three special needs criteria to access payments for these adoptive families. The January 23rd Adoption Assistance decision draws a distinction between private and State foster care systems to prevent the misuse of funds. However, the decision has had the unintended consequence of adversely affecting agencies like Catholic Charities and their ability to provide adoptive families with payments. Our correction focuses on the children, not the placement agency, by making special needs children adopted through voluntary relinquishment eligible for adoption assistance payments. I am particularly pleased with some of the President's new initiatives authorized in our bill. For example, the President has proposed that the Department of Health and Human Services be authorized to provide competitive grants to support mentoring programs for children of incarcerated parents. With more than 2 million children with incarcerated parents, this program would provide valuable outreach to this vulnerable group of children. I would like to conclude my remarks by drawing my colleagues' attention to a recent Washington Post series on the dire state of the District of Columbia's child welfare system. This series outlines multiple mistakes made by the Government by placing children in unsafe homes or institutions. Unfortunately, these same mistakes occur in the child welfare system throughout our country. Here in Washington, these mistakes resulted in over 180 deaths of children in foster care since 1993, 40 of whom died as a direct result of government workers' failure to take key preventative actions or because they placed children in unsafe homes or institutions. The bill we are introducing today will help make sure that these kinds of mistakes are never repeated. The Senate has a tradition of helping our most vulnerable children, and so I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Rockefeller, to introduce the ``Promoting Safe and Stable Families'' bill. This legislation reauthorizes four programs designed to help child welfare agencies establish and maintain permanency by providing grants to States and Indian tribes. The bill also includes programs that the President has proposed, which have my utmost support, as well as a technical correction that Senator Rockefeller and I have proposed to ensure that special needs children continue to be eligible for adoption assistance. It would be impossible for me to talk about the challenges facing children and the agencies dedicated to protecting them, without saying a few brief words about the recent terrorist bombings in New York and Washington. Following those tragic events, we awoke to a whole new world, a world forever changed by a faceless, cowardly band of terrorists, a world filled with sorrow at the senseless, needless injury and loss of countless members of our American family. Though it is going to take time to eradicate the terrorist enemy, I am confident that our efforts will bring about peace and security both here at home and across that globe. Ultimately, our efforts to protect the Nation is about the future of our children and grandchildren. And so, we must do all we can to protect them and give them a world that is safe and secure. In creating that kind of a world, we have to realize that there are thousands of children in this Nation right now who don't live in safe and secure environments, children who have only one parent or no parents at all, as sadly is now the case for many of the children who lost parents in the terrorist attacks. Far too many children in our country are at risk, not because of the terrorist threat, but because they are neglected or abused by parents or because they are trapped in the legal limbo that is our child welfare system. Because of this, we have an obligation to these children. We have an obligation to protect these innocent lives. With the bill we are introducing today, we are taking a big step toward meeting that obligation. By reauthorizing and improving the Safe and Stable Families program, we can help strengthen families and ensure the safety of vulnerable children. The funding provided to the States through this legislation is used for four categories of services: family preservation, community-based family support, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. These services are designed to prevent child abuse and neglect in communities at risk, avoid the removal of children from their homes, and support timely reunification or adoption. Our bill reauthorizes the only program that provides funding for post-adoption services. With a 30-percent increase in the number of adoptions since the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, funding for adoption promotion and support services is especially vital. These services are necessary to ensure that adoptions are not disrupted, which risks further traumatizing a child. Our bill also amends the Foster Care Independent Living Program to extend the eligibility age from 21 to 23, so that children aging out of foster care can qualify for educational and training vouchers. Currently, too many of the 16,000 children youth who age out of foster care are not able to pursue educational or vocational training because they just don't have the money. This provision helps these young people get the education and career training they need and deserve. The bill doubles the funding for the Court Improvement Program, CIP, and reauthorizes it through 2006. The CIP program provides grants to the States to develop a system of more timely court actions that provides for the safety of children in foster care and expedites the placement of such children in appropriate permanent settings. This money helps ensure that state courts have the resources necessary to stay in compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In my own home State of Ohio, this money has been used to develop and implement an attorney certification program in family law. Additionally, the CIP money has been used to implement the Court Appointed Special Advocate, CASA, program throughout Ohio and to implement five pilot programs that uniquely address family law issues. Also, Senator Rockefeller and I have added a technical correction to the bill that would clarify how Adoption Assistance Payments are distributed. Prior to January 23, 2001, title IV-E Adoption Assistance Payments were available to parents adopting children who met three special needs criteria, regardless of whether a child was placed by a private agency or the State foster care system. Unfortunately, some private agencies were using only one of the three special needs criteria to access payments for these adoptive families. The January 23rd Adoption Assistance decision draws a distinction between private and State foster care systems to prevent the misuse of funds. However, the decision has had the unintended consequence of adversely affecting agencies like Catholic Charities and their ability to provide adoptive families with payments. Our correction focuses on the children, not the placement agency, by making special needs children adopted through voluntary relinquishment eligible for adoption assistance payments. I am particularly pleased with some of the President's new initiatives authorized in our bill. For example, the President has proposed that the Department of Health and Human Services be authorized to provide competitive grants to support mentoring programs for children of incarcerated parents. With more than 2 million children with incarcerated parents, this program would provide valuable outreach to this vulnerable group of children. I would like to conclude my remarks by drawing my colleagues' attention to a recent Washington Post series on the dire state of the District of Columbia's child welfare system. This series outlines multiple mistakes made by the Government by placing children in unsafe homes or institutions. Unfortunately, these same mistakes occur in the child welfare system throughout our country. Here in Washington, these mistakes resulted in over 180 deaths of children in foster care since 1993, 40 of whom died as a direct result of government workers' failure to take key preventative actions or because they placed children in unsafe homes or institutions. The bill we are introducing today will help make sure that these kinds of mistakes are never repeated. The Senate has a tradition of helping our most vulnerable children, and so I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, earlier today we welcomed to the historic House Chamber President Vicente Fox, the President of Mexico. At this moment, President Bush and President Fox are in my home State of Ohio. They traveled to Toledo, OH, making several visits there. So we welcome both Presidents to our home State. As an opposition candidate, President Fox's election and inauguration last year overturned 71 years of one-party rule in Mexico, one-party rule domination of the executive branch by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI. That election made history. And today, with his Presidency, and with President Bush in office, we are continuing to make history, as our nations have the unprecedented opportunity to implement positive changes and to create lasting progress for our entire hemisphere. I say to my colleagues, it is important that we not squander this opportunity, that we not squander this chance. Because of Mexico's critical importance to our Nation and our hemisphere, it was not at all surprising that President Bush chose to travel to Mexico for his first official foreign trip as President. This week we welcome President Fox to our country. These historic meetings demonstrate the vital nature of our relationship with Mexico and the importance of bilateral cooperation. I commend both leaders on their ongoing commitment to hemispheric partnership, and look forward to even greater cooperation stemming from this week's meetings. No one can deny the importance of our involvement with Mexico--our neighbor--a nation with which we share an over 2,000-mile common border. Additionally, over 21 million Americans living in this country are of Mexican heritage; that is 67 percent, two-thirds of our total U.S.- Hispanic population. Indeed, many people and many issues bind our nations together. It is in the interest of both Mexico and the United States that we make that bond even stronger. That is why we want to see President Fox succeed. He is off to a good start. President Fox's election was received as a positive step in Mexico's maturing economy and has fueled new investment in the country, raising expectations for better economic opportunities for the Mexican people. At the same time, Mr. Fox also has raised expectations here in Washington for better opportunities to improve U.S.-Mexico bilateral cooperation on a wide range of issues. As an advocate of free trade in the Americas, Mr. Fox recognizes that a strong, steady economy in Mexico can be the foundation to help solve many of our shared challenges and advance our mutual interests. I am confident that President Fox's visit to the United States will advance our growing and strengthening partnership and that both leaders will engage in constructive dialog to promote cooperation, enhance the security and prosperity of both nations, and enable each country to establish mutually agreed-upon goals in at least four areas: First, economic development and trade; two, the environment; three, immigration; and four, law enforcement and counterdrug policy. In each of these four areas, both countries should seek to implement realistic and practical steps that will build confidence in our partnership and help set the stage for continued discussions and further progress. A good demonstration of our relationship's success is the economic cooperation spearheaded by the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. Thanks to this partnership, trade between the United States and Mexico now amounts to over $250 billion annually, making our neighbor to the south now our second largest trading partner behind Canada. In the last decade, U.S. exports to Mexico have increased over 200 percent, and today 85 percent of Mexico's entire exports go to the United States. However, progress in our partnership cannot occur absent continued progress in Mexico's economy. Although Mexico is in its fifth consecutive year of recovery following the 1994-1995 peso crisis, improved living standards and economic opportunities have not been felt nationwide in Mexico. In fact, as could be expected, the slowdown in the U.S. economy has also had an impact on Mexico. Lack of jobs and depressed wages are particularly acute in the interior of the country, once you get away from the U.S.-Mexican border in the north. That is even true in President Fox's home state of Guanajuato. As long as enormous disparities in wages and living conditions exist between Mexico and the United States, our Nation will simply not fully realize the potential of Mexico as an export market, nor will we be able to deal adequately with the resulting problems that come about because of that poor economy, because of that great disparity in wealth that brings about illegal immigration, border crime, drug trafficking, and other problems. In keeping with the market-oriented approach that we started with NAFTA, the United States can take a number of constructive steps to continue economic progress in Mexico and secure its support for a free trade agreement with the Americas, which is something that clearly this administration and this Congress must push. First, we can bring to Mexico the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a loan program that also assists U.S. small business investments in many other countries. Second, we can encourage entrepreneurship in Mexico through increased U.S. funding of microcredit and microenterprise programs, which will encourage small business development. Third, we should expand the mandate of the North American Development Bank beyond the current situation where it only extends to the U.S.- Mexico border. This bank has been a successful source of private-public financing of infrastructure projects along our borders. Extending its authority inland not only would bring good jobs into the interior of Mexico but also would help to develop and further nationalize a transportation and economic infrastructure. Continued investments in the NADBank also would facilitate greater environmental cooperation between the United States and Mexico through projects geared toward advancing the environmental goals and objectives set forth in NAFTA and also would enhance the overall protection of U.S. and Mexican natural resources. Both nations need to pursue a joint immigration policy that takes into account the realities of the economic conditions of our countries. At a minimum, President Bush should continue to evaluate the temporary visa program for unskilled workers, which has proven burdensome for U.S. farmers and small business men and women. Any liberalization of this program should be linked to concrete programs to reduce illegal immigration into the United States. This is not going to be an easy issue. We have heard discussion from President Fox and President Bush over the last several days about this. Many Members of Congress have very strong opinions about it. I believe it is important for us to deal with this issue in a practical and rational way. Additionally, in a quick and simple fix, the administration should eliminate the annual cap on the number of visas issued to Mexican business executives who enter the United States. Currently, the cap stands at 5,500. And under current law, it will be phased out in the year 2004. The United States does not have such a cap for Canada. Repealing the cap now would send a very positive signal to President Fox and to the Mexican people about their nation's value to us as an economic partner. Further, it is important for the United States to be seen as a partner and resource, as President Fox undertakes his pledge to reform Mexico's entire judicial system. I have had the opportunity, as I know many Members of the Senate have, to travel to Mexico and see the problems, the inherent problems, historic problems, problems of long standing in regard to the police and the judicial system. It was very insightful and important that today, when President Fox spoke to the Congress, he talked about the need for judicial reform. This is an area where, frankly, for all the problems of this country, we do it very well. We have the ability to help Mexico. We have the ability to help them in this area. We should continue to do so. With the law enforcement system in Mexico plagued with inherent corruption and institutional and financial deterioration, President Fox will face numerous challenges. It is in our interest to help Mr. Fox in his quest, if needed, whether it be through financial or technical assistance. It is in our own interest in the United States that Mexico succeed in this reform because our country cannot reverse effectively the flow of drugs across our common border without the full cooperation and support of our Mexican law enforcement friends. The relationship between our law enforcement--our DEA, FBI, Border Patrol, and their counterparts in Mexico--is so very important. I have watched this over the years, and that relationship has been problematic. But I will say this: I believe it is improving. I believe clearly President Vicente Fox has made this a top priority of his administration. It will not be easy, but we can help. The issues that impact the United States and Mexico are numerous. It is not going to be easy to resolve these problems. All are important, and each is, in a sense, interrelated with the other. Together they present an enormous task for the Presidents of both countries. Perhaps most important, they are evidence of the enormous importance of Mexico to the future prosperity and security of our country, as well as our entire hemisphere. I commend President Bush and President Fox for the many advancements they have achieved so far. I encourage them to continue this cooperation and this effort. Together, our nations can, in this historic time, redefine the United States-Mexican relationship and protect and promote prosperity throughout our shared hemisphere. In conclusion, President Fox mentioned a topic which has been debated on this floor many times and which we have taken up and looked at, and we have thought a lot about it; that is, the drug certification process that we go through as a country every year, where we basically say how well other countries are doing in their antidrug effort and whether they are cooperating with the United States. I think the time is here for us to re-evaluate our law. I think the time is here for us to put a temporary moratorium on this certification process. I think it will help our relationship with Mexico. I think it would help our relationship with other countries. I think the time is appropriate to do this. Mexico has a new President. Mexico has a President who has stated that one of his main objectives is the reform of the judicial system, to do away with the corruption in the judiciary, to do away with the problems they have had in the law enforcement realm. So I think the time is right. If we are ever going to do this, the time is right to do it. I don't think we have a great deal to lose. The current system has not worked very well. It has not accomplished a great deal. So I think the time is ripe now for us to put a temporary moratorium on the certification process. President Fox, throughout his speech, talked about trust. I think that is the right word. We have to have trust between our two countries. That does not mean we are not going to have disputes. It doesn't mean we are not going to have problems. It doesn't mean these problems are going to be easy to resolve. We know they are not--the immigration problem and the drug problem, just to name a few. We know they are not easy. I think the right tone was set in today's speech by President Fox. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my friends and colleagues Senator Landrieu and Senator Levin, that will have a vital impact on children and families in the District of Columbia. Our bill, the ``District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001'' is aimed at guiding the District, as the Superior Court strives to reform its role in the child welfare system through its creation of a Family Court. This legislation takes a very important step forward in helping to ensure that the best interest of children in contact with the DC child welfare system are always paramount. In making sure that is the case, judges in the system play a key role. I learned this first-hand nearly thirty years ago when I was serving as an assistant county prosecutor in Greene County, OH. One of my duties was to represent the Greene County Children Services in cases where children were going to be removed from their parents' custody. I witnessed then that too many of these cases drag on endlessly, leaving children trapped in temporary foster care placements, which often entail multiple moves from foster home to foster home to foster home, for years and years and years. Such multiple placements and lack of permanency for these kids is abuse in it's own right. Since being appointed to the District of Columbia Appropriations Committee, I have made it my personal mission to find financial solutions for the problems facing DC's foster children. In March, Representative DeLay and I laid the groundwork for a DC Family Court Bill that would be bipartisan and effective. In drafting this bill, we have held numerous hearings, met with child welfare advocates from across the District, and had countless meetings with the DC Superior Court Judges. In particular, I want to thank Chief Judge Rufus King for making himself available to members of Congress and their staffs and for appearing before the DC Subcommittee on Appropriations. Judge King has made reforming the Family Division of the DC Court his number one priority, and I look forward to working with him in the future to implement the reforms established by our DC Family Court Bill. Our legislation includes a number of important reforms that would ensure that the judicial system protects the children of the District. First, it would increase the length of judicial terms for judges from one year for judges already presiding over the Superior Court to three years. New judges appointed to the Superior Court and then assigned to the Family Court would have five-year terms. This change would enable judges to develop an expertise in Family Law. Second, the bill would create magistrates so that the current backlog of 4500 permanency cases can be properly and adequately addressed. These magistrates would be distributed among the judges according to a transition plan, which must be submitted to Congress within 90 days of passage of this bill. We want to make sure the court has the flexibility to deal with these important child welfare issues. Third, the bill provides the resources for an Integrated Judicial Information System, IJIS. This would enable the court to track and properly monitor family cases and would allow all judges and magistrates to have access to the information necessary to make the best decisions about placement and child safety. Fourth, a reform in the bill that I find extremely important is the One-Judge/One Family provision. This policy would ensure that the same judge, a judge who knows the history of a family and the child, would be making the important permanency decisions. This provision is essential for those hard cases involving abuse and neglect. It ensures consistency. It ensures safety. And, it just makes sense. Ultimately, our bill would provide consistency through the One-Judge/ One-Family provision, it would provide safety and security, and it would provide stability for the children of the District. We need to give the children in the District's welfare system all of these things. It is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill. We must never, ever lose sight of our responsibility to the children involved. Their needs and their best interests must always come first. And today, I believe we are putting children first and taking a step forward on their behalf. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise as a cosponsor of the Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners Act of 2001, sponsored by my colleague, Senator Charles Schumer, to whom I am grateful for introducing this important legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to appropriate $10 million annually for the support of programs that utilize Sexual Assault Forensic Nurses in the treatment and counseling of rape victims. Somewhere in America, a woman is sexually assaulted every two minutes. In the past year alone, 307,000 women were sexually assaulted in this country, and unlike other violent crimes, rape is not decreasing in frequency. Unfortunately, the treatment that many rape victims presently receive is far from adequate. Most victims of sexual assault who report their crimes do so in a hospital emergency room, where they frequently wait hours for treatment only to see doctors without specialized training who lack the proper forensic tools for evidence collection. Many victims report that their post-traumatic experiences in hospitals constitute another humiliating victimization. Victims of sexual assault should not be traumatized twice, especially when there are better programs in place that could help them. A Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner, often referred to as a SAFE, is a registered nurse who has received advanced training and clinical preparation in the forensic examination of sexual assault victims. As opposed to rape survivors seen by typical emergency room personnel, patients seen by these SAFEs rarely wait for treatment, see a single specially trained examiner instead of any number of different doctors, and receive sensitive, specialized care. The intervention of SAFEs in a sex crimes case bolsters the odds of prosecution and conviction of offenders, as these nurses are trained in the proper methods to utilize ``rape kits'' and collect forensic evidence. Furthermore, the expertise of SAFE nurses renders them better witnesses than most emergency room personnel during trials, which can make the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. The Department of Justice reports that in areas where SAFE programs have been established for more than 10 years, there is a 96 percent rape conviction rate, as opposed to the 4% average conviction rate in areas without SAFE facilities. Five hundred SAFE programs currently exist in the United States, but these programs treat less than 5 percent of all sexual assault victims. Financial hurdles hinder the growth of SAFE programs, which frequently compete with other law enforcement and victims' programs to obtain the limited Federal funds available from existing sources. By creating a specific and substantial source of Federal funding for SAFE programs, more SAFE programs will be established, improving both the quality of care provided to victims and the conviction rate of their assailants. In the short time that I have been speaking here, two women became victims of sexual violence. By lending your support to the ``Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner Grant Act of 2001,'' you can help assure that the hundreds of thousands of women who are raped each year receive the sensitive medical care that hey both require and deserve.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, to offer a resolution designating September 23 through September 29, 2001, as ``National parents Week.'' During this week, advocates would wear purple ribbons and communities all over would take time to reflect on how important parents are in our children's lives. As proud parents of eight children and now six grandchildren, my wife, Fran, and I know that our Nation's future is in the hands of our children. They are the next doctors, firefighters, teachers, and parents, themselves. To quote Abraham Lincoln, ``a child is a person who is going to carry-on what you have started . . . the fate of humanity is in his hands.'' President Lincoln's worlds hold as true today as they did well over one hundred years ago. To safeguard this future, parents must fulfill many demanding responsibilities. They must guide their children, teach them right from wrong, share in their joy and comfort, and support them in times of need. As any parent knows, this is not always easy. It takes a parent's constant dedication, constant attention, and constant love. This resolution will serve as a giant ``thank you'' to all the parents who work so hard every day to provide for their children. With this resolution, we congratulate and adulate parents in order to assure them that we are behind them--100 percent. They must know how important it is to stay the course and continue to provide the values and lessons that will secure a bright and promising future for our children.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise as a cosponsor of the Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners Act of 2001, sponsored by my colleague, Senator Charles Schumer, to whom I am grateful for introducing this important legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to appropriate $10 million annually for the support of programs that utilize Sexual Assault Forensic Nurses in the treatment and counseling of rape victims. Somewhere in America, a woman is sexually assaulted every two minutes. In the past year alone, 307,000 women were sexually assaulted in this country, and unlike other violent crimes, rape is not decreasing in frequency. Unfortunately, the treatment that many rape victims presently receive is far from adequate. Most victims of sexual assault who report their crimes do so in a hospital emergency room, where they frequently wait hours for treatment only to see doctors without specialized training who lack the proper forensic tools for evidence collection. Many victims report that their post-traumatic experiences in hospitals constitute another humiliating victimization. Victims of sexual assault should not be traumatized twice, especially when there are better programs in place that could help them. A Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner, often referred to as a SAFE, is a registered nurse who has received advanced training and clinical preparation in the forensic examination of sexual assault victims. As opposed to rape survivors seen by typical emergency room personnel, patients seen by these SAFEs rarely wait for treatment, see a single specially trained examiner instead of any number of different doctors, and receive sensitive, specialized care. The intervention of SAFEs in a sex crimes case bolsters the odds of prosecution and conviction of offenders, as these nurses are trained in the proper methods to utilize ``rape kits'' and collect forensic evidence. Furthermore, the expertise of SAFE nurses renders them better witnesses than most emergency room personnel during trials, which can make the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. The Department of Justice reports that in areas where SAFE programs have been established for more than 10 years, there is a 96 percent rape conviction rate, as opposed to the 4% average conviction rate in areas without SAFE facilities. Five hundred SAFE programs currently exist in the United States, but these programs treat less than 5 percent of all sexual assault victims. Financial hurdles hinder the growth of SAFE programs, which frequently compete with other law enforcement and victims' programs to obtain the limited Federal funds available from existing sources. By creating a specific and substantial source of Federal funding for SAFE programs, more SAFE programs will be established, improving both the quality of care provided to victims and the conviction rate of their assailants. In the short time that I have been speaking here, two women became victims of sexual violence. By lending your support to the ``Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner Grant Act of 2001,'' you can help assure that the hundreds of thousands of women who are raped each year receive the sensitive medical care that hey both require and deserve.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my friends and colleagues Senator Landrieu and Senator Levin, that will have a vital impact on children and families in the District of Columbia. Our bill, the ``District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001'' is aimed at guiding the District, as the Superior Court strives to reform its role in the child welfare system through its creation of a Family Court. This legislation takes a very important step forward in helping to ensure that the best interest of children in contact with the DC child welfare system are always paramount. In making sure that is the case, judges in the system play a key role. I learned this first-hand nearly thirty years ago when I was serving as an assistant county prosecutor in Greene County, OH. One of my duties was to represent the Greene County Children Services in cases where children were going to be removed from their parents' custody. I witnessed then that too many of these cases drag on endlessly, leaving children trapped in temporary foster care placements, which often entail multiple moves from foster home to foster home to foster home, for years and years and years. Such multiple placements and lack of permanency for these kids is abuse in it's own right. Since being appointed to the District of Columbia Appropriations Committee, I have made it my personal mission to find financial solutions for the problems facing DC's foster children. In March, Representative DeLay and I laid the groundwork for a DC Family Court Bill that would be bipartisan and effective. In drafting this bill, we have held numerous hearings, met with child welfare advocates from across the District, and had countless meetings with the DC Superior Court Judges. In particular, I want to thank Chief Judge Rufus King for making himself available to members of Congress and their staffs and for appearing before the DC Subcommittee on Appropriations. Judge King has made reforming the Family Division of the DC Court his number one priority, and I look forward to working with him in the future to implement the reforms established by our DC Family Court Bill. Our legislation includes a number of important reforms that would ensure that the judicial system protects the children of the District. First, it would increase the length of judicial terms for judges from one year for judges already presiding over the Superior Court to three years. New judges appointed to the Superior Court and then assigned to the Family Court would have five-year terms. This change would enable judges to develop an expertise in Family Law. Second, the bill would create magistrates so that the current backlog of 4500 permanency cases can be properly and adequately addressed. These magistrates would be distributed among the judges according to a transition plan, which must be submitted to Congress within 90 days of passage of this bill. We want to make sure the court has the flexibility to deal with these important child welfare issues. Third, the bill provides the resources for an Integrated Judicial Information System, IJIS. This would enable the court to track and properly monitor family cases and would allow all judges and magistrates to have access to the information necessary to make the best decisions about placement and child safety. Fourth, a reform in the bill that I find extremely important is the One-Judge/One Family provision. This policy would ensure that the same judge, a judge who knows the history of a family and the child, would be making the important permanency decisions. This provision is essential for those hard cases involving abuse and neglect. It ensures consistency. It ensures safety. And, it just makes sense. Ultimately, our bill would provide consistency through the One-Judge/ One-Family provision, it would provide safety and security, and it would provide stability for the children of the District. We need to give the children in the District's welfare system all of these things. It is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill. We must never, ever lose sight of our responsibility to the children involved. Their needs and their best interests must always come first. And today, I believe we are putting children first and taking a step forward on their behalf. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today, along with my good friend, Senator Kennedy, to introduce the ``Linking Educators And Developing Entrepreneurs for Reaching Success Act of 2001'' (LEADERS Act). This bipartisan measure will help foster business development by strengthening academic affiliated business incubators. Our Nation's ability to expand economically hinges on new business growth. Small businesses provide 75 percent of the new jobs in this country, and in 1999, the number of new employer firms outnumbered the amount of business closures. Though our American entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well, as most businessmen and women can attest, starting and maintaining a business is very difficult. In the first two years, more than half of all new businesses fail and, after four years, the failure rate climbs to more than 60 percent. That's why business incubation is so important. These incubators are centers designed to accelerate the successful development of new companies. They offer an array of business support resources. Most of the incubators provide their clients with access to appropriate rental space and flexible leases, shared services and equipment, technology support services, and assistance in obtaining financing for growth. They also provide a range of services like management guidance, technical assistance, and consulting. Such support an incubation increases the chance of small business survival to about 86 percent. Our LEADERS Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to provide competitive grants to nonprofit organizations that manage incubators and are affiliated with academic institutions. These grants can be used to acquire or renovate space for an incubator or to support curriculums developed by businesses, faculty, entrepreneurs, and local leaders. The Secretary also can award a grant to help fund feasibility studies to help colleges or local development officials determine the viability of an incubator in their respective communities. The Act would authorize $20 million for grants in each of the next three fiscal years. The nonprofit organizations that receive funding under the bill would be required to match federal contributions dollar for dollar, and their proposals must have the support of local community leaders. Many of the non-profit incubators include universities, which are an integral part of the business incubation process. Academic affiliated incubators provide unique educational opportunities for students and entrepreneurs. This is accomplished with enhanced access to a skilled workforce and a wealth of resources. Ohio is the home of one of the oldest university-based business incubators, the Ohio University Innovation Center, which was established in 1982. Since it's inception, the Center has created 625 jobs, including 125 for students. A number of other important institutions in Ohio, such as The Ohio State University, Bowling Green State University, Case Western Reserve University, Franklin University, John Carroll University, University of Cincinnati, and University of Dayton operate business incubators. The goal of the incubator is simple: to produce successful, financially viable firms. And, studies show that business incubation works. Almost 87 percent of incubated companies remain in operation, with roughly 84 percent of them remaining in their home communities. It is vital that we give small businesses the necessary tools to stay afloat and to prosper. This legislation will help to foster the next generation of successful entrepreneurs and ultimately further bolster the stability of our economy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and our efforts to help America's entrepreneurs.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding achievement resulting from a century of hard work and perseverance. This spring, the Kuhlman Corporation, a family-owned, Toledo-based company that provides Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan with quality concrete and building supplies, celebrated its 100th anniversary. This is quite a milestone--a testament to the Kuhlman Corporation's commitment to its customers. In 1901, German immigrant and bricklayer, Adam Kuhlman, helped establish the Toledo Builders Supply Company. Mr. Kuhlman put up much of his own money to provide the Toledo Builders Supply Company with new brick oven equipment. The purchase of this equipment was a risky investment, but Mr. Kuhlman had the foresight to sacrifice his own money for the good of the company. The investment proved to be a good one, and, with his strong work ethic and solid business sense, Mr. Kuhlman turned Toledo Builders Supply into a very successful brick business. In the mid-1920's, he became the majority stockholder and founded a new company, called Kuhlman Corporation--a fitting tribute to the man who shaped the early success of the company. Since then, the Kuhlman Corporation has remained a family-owned and operated business and maintains the values that made it so successful--hard work and innovation. In 1928, the Kuhlman Corporation set the precedent for Northwest Ohio building suppliers by becoming the first company in the region to enter the ready-mixed concrete business. With a fleet of advanced mixing trucks, the Kuhlman Corporation traveled all over Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan, helping build structures, like Scott and Waite High Schools in Toledo, Anthony Wayne Bridge in Toledo, the Toledo Zoo, and the Medical College of Ohio. The Kuhlman Corporation has survived two World Wars, a depression, severe inflation, and the constant fluctuation of the construction market to remain a leader in concrete and building supplies, now accumulating annual revenue of $36 million. The company has helped the people of Ohio and Michigan to build their dreams. At the same time, the Kuhlman Corporation has achieved the American dream. So today, I salute the Kuhlman Corporation for a century of demanding work, inspiration, and commitment to the Toledo community. I wish them all the best for the next 100 years.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am here on the Floor to recognize the Cleveland Indians because this year, the team is celebrating an incredible achievement, both for baseball and America. On April 24th, the Indians celebrated their 100th Anniversary. Over the last century, Indians fans have seen their team win two World Series and five American League Pennants. One of my most vivid baseball memories is the 1954 World Series, which I attended with my dad when I was seven years old. I think the inaugural Indians manager, James McAleer, would have been proud to lead the Tribe teams of the past five years in their string of five Central Division Titles and two World Series appearances. The Indians claim 22 players in the Hall of Fame, including the following: Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Cy Young (1937); Jesse Burkett (1946); Bob Feller (1962); Elmer Flick, Sam Rice (1963); Stan Coveleski (1969); Lou Boudreau (1970); Satchel Paige (1971); Early Wynn (1972); Ralph Kiner (1975); Bob Lemon (1976); Joe Sewell, Al Lopez (1977); Addie Joss (1978); Frank Robinson (1982); Hoyt Wilhelm (1985); Gaylord Perry, Bill Veeck (1991); Phil Niekro (1997); Larry Doby (1998). Additionally, the Indians have retired the numbers of six players, including: Bob Lemon (21); Earl Averill (3); Lou Boudreau (5); Larry Doby (14); Mel Harder (18); Bob Feller (19). Adding to these accomplishments, by the end of the 2000 season, the team had racked up 7,896 total wins. Also, the Indians are just one of four American League teams to spend their entire history in one city. The Indians have been loyal to their fans, and the fans have, in turn, been loyal to their team. After Jacob's Field was built in 1994, fans responded by selling out 455 consecutive games. And, the Indians led Major League Baseball in attendance last year for the first time since 1948. The Indians are a treasure for the City of Cleveland and the State of Ohio, but I also believe the Indians hold a larger significance for America. Walt Whitman once wrote that baseball was ``America's game . . . it belongs as much to our institutions, fits into them as significantly as our Constitution's laws . . . and it is just as important in the sum total of our historic life.'' I think Whitman had it absolutely right. Baseball is a vital part of our American culture, and for 100 years, the Cleveland Indians have served as an outstanding ambassador for the sport of baseball. I congratulate the Cleveland Indians on a century of rich history, loyal fans, and great success. I hope that my colleagues will join me in wishing the Indians the best of luck in the next 100 years.