Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues, Senators Levin, Dorgan, and Bond, to introduce the Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act. This important legislation would clarify Section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). Section 301 makes it a felony ``for any person to knowingly acquire, receive or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in organ transplantation.'' This provision simply makes it illegal to buy and sell human organs. The bill that Senator Levin and I are introducing would clarify that paired donations do not violate Section 301. When NOTA was first enacted, the only living organ donations took place between a single biologically compatible living donor and recipient. In the past decade, a new type of living donation procedure has developed. It's called the paired organ donation. The best way to describe a paired donation is through an example: Patient A is on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. Various family and friends have offered to donate a kidney to Patient A, but none of the potential donors are compatible. However, one of Patient A's potential donors is compatible with Patient B, who is also on the waiting list for a kidney. Patient B has a potential donor who is compatible with Patient A. Patient A and B could exchange donors and both get transplants. With the development of paired donations, concerns have arisen that the mutual promises to donate organs could be considered ``valuable consideration'' under Section 301 of NOTA. It is important to note that while paired donations were not conceived at the time NOTA was written over 20 years ago, they are in keeping with all of NOTA's provisions and protections and should be permitted. Paired donors may not receive a monetary payment, except for reimbursement for expenses. I don't think that Congress would have intended to prohibit the practice of paired donations with the enactment of NOTA. The benefits of paired donations are tremendous. Successful kidney transplants eliminate the need for dialysis for the recipient, as well as decrease costs to Medicare. And, the practice of paired donations has the potential to increase the number of living donor transplants dramatically, as there are a large number of potential living donors who are biologically incompatible with their intended recipients. My own State of Ohio has the first state-sponsored program that arranges paired kidney donations. There have been at least four paired kidney donations in Ohio during the last two years arranged through the Paired Donation Kidney Consortium. With over 62,000 men, women, and children waiting for a kidney donation, we cannot afford to turn our back on the paired donation procedure. That is why it is critically important that Section 301 of NOTA be clarified to permit these donations. Clarification of the intent of Congress would encourage transplant centers throughout the country to implement their own paired donation programs. It also would enable the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network to create a national list of pairs of incompatible donors so that as many recipients can be matched up as possible. I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues, Senators Levin, Dorgan, and Bond, to introduce the Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act. This important legislation would clarify Section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). Section 301 makes it a felony ``for any person to knowingly acquire, receive or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in organ transplantation.'' This provision simply makes it illegal to buy and sell human organs. The bill that Senator Levin and I are introducing would clarify that paired donations do not violate Section 301. When NOTA was first enacted, the only living organ donations took place between a single biologically compatible living donor and recipient. In the past decade, a new type of living donation procedure has developed. It's called the paired organ donation. The best way to describe a paired donation is through an example: Patient A is on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. Various family and friends have offered to donate a kidney to Patient A, but none of the potential donors are compatible. However, one of Patient A's potential donors is compatible with Patient B, who is also on the waiting list for a kidney. Patient B has a potential donor who is compatible with Patient A. Patient A and B could exchange donors and both get transplants. With the development of paired donations, concerns have arisen that the mutual promises to donate organs could be considered ``valuable consideration'' under Section 301 of NOTA. It is important to note that while paired donations were not conceived at the time NOTA was written over 20 years ago, they are in keeping with all of NOTA's provisions and protections and should be permitted. Paired donors may not receive a monetary payment, except for reimbursement for expenses. I don't think that Congress would have intended to prohibit the practice of paired donations with the enactment of NOTA. The benefits of paired donations are tremendous. Successful kidney transplants eliminate the need for dialysis for the recipient, as well as decrease costs to Medicare. And, the practice of paired donations has the potential to increase the number of living donor transplants dramatically, as there are a large number of potential living donors who are biologically incompatible with their intended recipients. My own State of Ohio has the first state-sponsored program that arranges paired kidney donations. There have been at least four paired kidney donations in Ohio during the last two years arranged through the Paired Donation Kidney Consortium. With over 62,000 men, women, and children waiting for a kidney donation, we cannot afford to turn our back on the paired donation procedure. That is why it is critically important that Section 301 of NOTA be clarified to permit these donations. Clarification of the intent of Congress would encourage transplant centers throughout the country to implement their own paired donation programs. It also would enable the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network to create a national list of pairs of incompatible donors so that as many recipients can be matched up as possible. I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a brave young man, who was known for his incredible spirit and selflessness. Marine LCpl Wesley Davids, from Dublin, OH, was killed by an explosion in Iraq on May 11, 2005--exactly one day after his 20th birthday. Ronald Reagan once said that ``some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem!'' Indeed, all of our U.S. Marines are making a difference each and every day, and Marine LCpl Wesley Davids was no exception. Wesley was born to loving parents Michael and Jody Davids. Even from the time he was a little boy, he loved anything that moved fast. When he got older, he loved driving fast cars and fast boats. He owned a Mustang GTS and two other cars. He also worked at a National Tire & Battery store on the North side of Columbus. Wesley's friends at Dublin Scioto High School, from which he graduated in 2003, describe him as having boundless energy and that between working on his cars and going off-roading, Wesley lived a very active, very full life. He loved a challenge and testing his own limits. Wesley was a stand- out member of his high school's crew team. According to his coach, Russ Merritt, ``Wesley was just a very impressive, strong young man. You just had no doubt that he would give 100 percent.'' Amy Speck, who rowed with Wesley, wrote the following about her teammate in a posting on an Internet tribute site dedicated to Wesley: I had the privilege to be Wes's coxswain in his crew boat his sophomore year and my senior year. Wes helped lead us to winning the Midwest Championships. He always led by example and was a fighter with a courageous spirit from the beginning. It was that courageous spirit and strong sense of leadership that prompted Wesley to join the Marine Corps after the September 11 terrorist attacks. His mother, though concerned about Wesley's safety, came to accept his choice to enlist and respected the passion he brought to his decision. Jody knew that her son's determination in this pursuit was strong, and she was very proud of him. She said that the same passion that defined Wesley in the boat when he rowed for the crew team, defined him as a Marine. ``He wanted the camaraderie--the team spirit--of being part of something bigger than he was.'' During their last phone conversation, Jody said that Wesley sounded very happy and enthusiastic. She said, ``Wes, you sound really great. Are you having a good time?'' Wesley replied to his mother, ``I'm having a great time. I love the guys I'm serving with. I love what I'm doing. We're really well-trained. The mission is worth it.'' One of Wesley's very good friends and high school classmates, Brian Fry, addressed the crowd at Wesley's funeral. He greeted Wesley in a way that I am sure he would have loved. Brian said this: Wes, we know you're in Heaven. And your Heaven is probably one big mud pit! We'd just like to say, take a ride for us, and we'll see you soon. During the funeral, Wesley's Uncle Brian read a prayer he wrote titled Twenty Years and a Day. He asked God to tell his nephew that he missed and loved him and to thank him for the memories he left behind. Brian concluded the poem by saying: Thank you for sending this wonderful gift to us--even if it was for just 20 years and a day. An Air Force chaplain who had known Wesley well read from a poem titled Dash, which refers to the mark between the birth and death dates on a tombstone: He never made it to mid-dash. But he lived, and paid the ultimate sacrifice for people he didn't even know. And, that--that is love. This past Veterans Day held special meaning for Wesley's family and friends. As his mom Jody said: Previously, Veterans Day was a day; it could just slip by even though my dad is a veteran and my husband's father is a veteran. This year, it has new and intense meaning for us. She went on to say: To stand up for what they believed in, to stand up for their country, to show their love for their families and their country and show pride to be an American citizen and do something about it, we have to appreciate all of them for that. While Wesley's death is a tragic loss, he died doing something he felt passionately about. He was the best that this country had to offer. Wesley once said, ``I don't want to die, but I understand it is a responsibility, and I'm willing to accept that risk.'' Wesley Davids was a brave, model Marine. Did he make a difference in his all-too- brief lifetime? Absolutely. He made a difference, and this statement demonstrates a maturity level and selfless spirit well beyond his 20 years and a day. As Reverend Charles Kuck said so well, ``Wesley Davids saw more life than most of us see in an entire lifetime.'' Indeed, he did, Mr. President, indeed he did. My wife Fran and I continue to keep Wesley's parents and his brother Steven in our thoughts and prayers. Private First Class Christopher Dixon Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a fellow Ohioan-- Marine PFC Christopher Dixon--who was killed on May 11, 2005, when his amphibious assault vehicle struck an explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Iraq. Christopher was only 18 years old at the time of his death, making him the youngest service member from Ohio to be killed in Iraq. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in paying tribute to the sacrifices young men like Christopher Dixon make during times of war, said the following: In all of the operations of our Armed Forces, the toughest job has been performed by the average easy-going, hard- fighting young American who carries the weight of battle on his own young shoulders. It is to him that we and all future generations must pay grateful tribute. And so today, I pay tribute to Christopher, a hard-fighting young American, who carried the weight of battle on his own young shoulders. Christopher--Chris to his family and friends--was a fun-loving young man, who took great joy in making others laugh. Friends remember Chris as both a daredevil and as a handsome ladies' man. Chris didn't have a girlfriend, but his friends describe him as a charmer, with blue eyes and light brown hair that bleached to blonde in the summertime. His mother said that when it came to girls, ``He liked them all.'' Not afraid of anything, Chris was a true adventurer. He loved to fish, hunt, and ride his dirt bike, while standing on the seat, going full speed into Wayne National Forest. An avid bowler, Chris would show off bowling tricks at Rainbow Lanes on South High Street in his hometown of Obetz, OH. He worked in the bowling alley before joining the marines and liked to impress his friends by knocking down pins after facing backwards and rolling a ball through his legs. As friend Michele Hatfield remembers: He'd do it just to show off. Anything to get a laugh out of people. Chris graduated from Hamilton Township High School in 2004, and joined the marines a week later. According to his mom, Chris dreamed of becoming a marine since the start of high school. He was assigned to Lima Company, which is part of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment out of Columbus. When he was sent to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to Regimental Combat Team 2, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. On May 22 of this year, I had the honor of meeting Chris Dixon's family and friends at the calling hours following his death. I saw pictures of Chris and talked with his mom and his dad, Beckie and David Dixon, and his older brother Chad. Beckie said that after she learned of Chris's death, she put up 18 flags, one for each year of his all too brief life. Chris's closely knit town of Obetz was devastated by the young marine's death and the community grieved together. Allen Lantrip, 17 at the time, said Chris was among the best the town had to offer. Chris was one of the first people who welcomed Allen to Hamilton Township High School last year. The two talked before Chris departed for Iraq. Allen said Chris was very optimistic about going on the mission and coming home safe. Another friend, Jordan Wall, also said Chris never worried about the possibility of not coming home. She had known him for 7 years, as he had lived one street over from her. Jordan said Chris wasn't scared at all and that he was happy to be in the marines. She said Chris was always trying to help somebody. He knew he would be helping people in the marines by serving his country. At Chris's memorial service, Reverend William L. Snider said: While Chris's death at such a young age is devastating, he did not waste his youth and he died living his dream of protecting his country as a marine. He gave his best for what he believed in. He gave his best for the best. Several of Chris's friends paid their respects to his life through postings on an Internet tribute site. Chris's friend Danielle from Columbus wrote the following: Chris, my good friend, I miss you so, but I could not be any more proud with how you lived your life. You are a true hero, and now, my guardian angel. I will never forget all our phone conversations and how beautiful that smile of yours was. You lived out your dream and I know you are so happy right now in heaven. I know I will see you again. Your mark and your heart will be forever with me. Chris Dixon epitomizes everything a good friend should be. People adored this young man and deeply respected his commitment to serving our country. He was a good person, a good person who loved what he was doing and was proud to be helping to protect America and help rebuild the lives of the people in Iraq. I wish to conclude my remarks with something that Chris's friends Danielle and Nick from Obetz wrote in tribute to him: Chris, you are someone who will be in our hearts forever. We think of you daily and talk about our precious memories, laughing about the crazy things you did. I'll always remember going on double dates with you and your girlfriends, going to the zoo, or trying to find a haunted house on my first date with Nick. I am blessed that I got the pleasure of knowing you. Spending the precious time you spent with Nick before you left are some of the fondest memories he has of you, and believe he, he couldn't be happier having all of those memories--hanging out in the hot tub, playing pool and Ping- Pong and, most of all, all the long talks. You were always someone Nick could talk to no matter what it concerned and he will never forget that. We are proud of you. We knew you would do something great with your life. You died for us at home so we could live free and be safe. You made a sacrifice that no one will ever forget. You are truly our hometown hero. We love you, Chris. My wife Fran and I continue to keep Christopher Dixon's family in our thoughts and in our prayers. lieutenant commander wittwer

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this proposal would instruct the conferees to accept the House provision that expands the qualified veterans mortgage bond program. The qualified veterans mortgage bond program allows States to issue tax-exempt bonds that are used to fund mortgages for our veterans. Because the States borrow this money at low, tax- exempt interest rates, they are able to pass that lower rate on to veterans for home mortgages. This means veterans are able to finance a home at a lower interest rate than they otherwise would have been able to. The program in place today is limited to veterans who served before 1977. Mr. President, this motion will instruct the conferees to accept the House provision eliminating that limit. By doing so, we can offer to all the brave men and women who have served and are serving our Nation the important benefits of this program. The current program is also limited to veterans who settle in Alaska, California, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin. This motion instructs the conferees to bring back a provision that would permit veterans of all States to have access to these lower rate mortgages. This is the right thing to do for our veterans. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the men and women who have served our country in the armed services. These brave men and women, with their honor and courage, have kept our Nation secure and our future bright. They deserve the assistance that we can provide with this mortgage bond program. It is simple to do and it will have a profound impact on many military families. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support it. Mr. President, while Senators cannot cosponsor motions to instruct, Senators Santorum, Grassley, Burns, and Chafee have expressed their support of this motion. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill which designates the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Sister Dorothy Stang, who was brutally murdered nearly a year ago on February 12, 2005. Two hired assassins shot and killed her while she was traveling to visit a remote rural settlement near the Trans-Amazon Highway. She was 73 years old. In May 2005, I introduced a resolution here in the Senate to honor Sister Dorothy--known as Dot to family and friends--for devoting her life to the cause of justice for the dispossessed in Brazil. Refusing to back down in the face of death threats from those who opposed her efforts, she doggedly continued assisting impoverished families and worked to protect the rain forest. Her life exemplifies the highest ideals of reverence for human dignity, compassion for those who lack a voice in their own society, and respect for nature. Born in Dayton, OH, Dot was one of nine children. While she was growing up, she expressed a wish to one day become a missionary. Her siblings say their sister was always a strong, adventurous woman who truly loved life. After joining the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur in 1948 and taking her final vows in 1956, Sister Dorothy taught elementary classes at St. Victor School in Calumet City and St. Alexander School in Villa Park in Illinois and Most Holy Trinity School in Arizona. She began working in Brazil in 1966, and in the early 1980s, she moved to a rural area 1,300 miles north of Rio de Janeiro. There, she worked with the Catholic Church's Pastoral Land Commission, an organization that seeks to eradicate poverty and protect the environment by helping impoverished Brazilians to secure land. Sister Dorothy's passionate commitment to this mission was an inspiration to many. She was known for riding a motorcycle and camping outside the offices of local officials when they refused to meet with her. She lived her lifelong passion for teaching by organizing peasant groups and educating hundreds of families about sustainable farming techniques, land tenure issues, and the importance of conservation. Her extensive knowledge of Brazilian law, which was entirely self-taught, won her great respect from locals and other activists. While she worked hard, she did not see her endeavors as a sacrifice. Rather, she professed a love for the region and its people, becoming a Brazilian citizen and instructing her family that she would someday like to be buried in the place about which she cared so deeply. Last year, Sister Dorothy testified before a Brazilian congressional committee on deforestation and did not hesitate to name companies that were engaged in illegal logging. Furthermore, only days before her death, she met with Brazilian human rights officials to voice her concern about the dangers that she believed some loggers and landowners posed to the peasant farmers with whom she lived. Although she received death threats for years, she told those around her that the Bible was the only weapon she needed. Sister Dorothy lived her commitment to her faith in the bravest of ways, demonstrating courage and determination to the end. Witnesses recall that, when the gunmen confronted her, she read to her killers from the Bible before she was murdered. Sister Dorothy was a much beloved figure in the communities where she worked. Last year, the Brazilian state where she spent more than two decades of her life named her ``Woman of the Year,'' and the Brazilian Bar Association honored her with its Humanitarian of the Year award. At her funeral, thousands of peasants mourned the loss of a woman whom they knew as both a determined leader and a fun-loving friend. The Brazilian Government sent troops to stabilize the area following the tragedy, and it also has honored Sister Dorothy's legacy by setting aside disputed lands for a sustainable development program that she supported. In addition, President Lula da Silva denounced the killing and restated his government's commitment to defending Brazil's rain forests from destruction and environmentally unsound development. Despite these positive signs, many peasants in the areas where Sister Dorothy worked remain landless; Brazil has one of the world's largest wealth gaps. Violence also continues in the region, which is widely recognized as a place where federal Government control is often tenuous. During the past two decades, hundreds in the area have died in violent clashes between poor settlers and landowners who resent government attempts to resettle landless families and prohibit illegal logging. Sister Dorothy recognized the many daunting obstacles that face Brazil's poorest people and, rather than simply hoping for conditions to someday improve, happily devoted her life to fighting for what she believed was right. There is much to be done, but she has set an outstanding example of how one person can make a difference in the face of hopelessness. It is up to us to keep her memory alive and never forget her determination and her commitment to helping those most in need.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill which designates the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber this afternoon to support the asbestos reform bill, S. 852. This bill is simply about helping victims. It is about doing the right thing for extremely sick individuals. It is about doing the right thing for very sick people by compensating them quickly and fairly. As we know, this bill addresses the asbestos litigation crisis by removing most cases from the court system and paying claims from a national trust fund, using money contributed by company defendants and insurance companies. Let me say up front that removing cases from our court system is not something we should ever do lightly. Our civil justice system usually works well. Our State and Federal courts are a vital part of our system of government. That is where cases should normally be. Our court system, as a rule, ensures a level of fairness and justice for our citizens that is second to none, and I don't like removing cases from that system. But our justice system is not perfect. Unfortunately, we all know that our justice system, in this case, has failed to deal with the asbestos crisis. The system is not adequately protecting the rights of victims, nor is it adequately protecting the rights of defendants. In fact, the system has been overwhelmed by asbestos litigation. The numbers tell the story. The sheer volume of claims is staggering. More than 750,000 individuals have made claims for asbestos exposure, and approximately 300,000 of those claims are still pending. The most recent Rand study estimates that anywhere between 2.5 million and 3.3 million individuals could make claims in the future. Part of the problem is the unusual nature of the illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos. Specifically, there is a long latency period between exposure to asbestos and the actual illness or impairment. In other words, people can be exposed to asbestos for long periods of time but usually don't show symptoms of illness for 25 or 30 years. Not everybody exposed to asbestos gets sick, but our tort system requires a potential victim to file a claim for injury within a year or two of discovering the potential harm. So a vast majority of people who are filing claims are not actually sick at that time, and many may not ever get sick, but to protect their legal rights, they file suit. This enormous volume of lawsuits--again, many from people who are not ill at that time--crowds court dockets, slows the decisionmaking on claims from those who are sick, and imposes huge costs on defendants. As more and more defendants are pushed toward bankruptcy, actual payments to victims are diminished. Perversely, the process creates a greater incentive to sue immediately because someone who has been exposed to asbestos--even if he or she has no symptoms--may decide to sue now or take the risk that nobody will be left to pay a claim down the road. This increases the problem, and the cycle of excessive litigation and decreasing payments to victims continues. As a result, justice is not being served. Many victims wind up with no one to sue and receive pennies on the dollar for their claims from asbestos bankruptcy trusts. That is not right. That is not just. That is not fair to these victims. We have to do something about that. On the other extreme, a few victims receive huge awards or settlements that are, frankly, sometimes out of proportion to their injuries. The bottom line is that very few people are compensated fairly, and more and more victims face a risk of never being compensated at all for asbestos-related illnesses. It is our responsibility in the Senate to deal with this crisis. We simply must not wait any longer to act. We must take steps to help the victims of asbestos exposure, and the bill we have in front of us today does just that. There is another critical problem we have to address with regard to asbestos, and that is the issue of jobs. Not only is the current mass of litigation hurting victims, but it is also causing tremendous problems for the business community and, subsequently, of course, for the creation and retention of jobs, which hurts workers. As more and more businesses are drawn into this endless cycle of litigation, more and more money is being spent on legal fees. These costs, and the uncertainty that engulfs these businesses, make it harder to invest in improving their companies and creating new jobs. In fact, asbestos liability is actually bankrupting many potential defendants. It has gotten to the point where claims are now being brought against businesses that have a very remote connection with the manufacture of asbestos. So the impact of asbestos claims today is simply overwhelming--not just to some of our Nation's largest companies but to our small businesses as well. This is not just some abstract or academic problem. When businesses are harmed, workers are harmed, too. Tens of thousands of workers--real people employed by these businesses--are today being affected. Many employees and their families--people who never had any exposure to asbestos at all--are feeling the effects in lost wages, lost jobs, and diminished pensions. The impact in my home State of Ohio is particularly severe. Ohio is one of the top States in which asbestos litigants choose to file their suits. In fact, literally thousands of companies have been named as defendants in Ohio courts. Out of the more than 8,000 firms that have been named as defendants nationwide, over 7,000 of these businesses have been named in cases filed in Ohio. Of the almost 80 companies that have filed bankruptcy because of asbestos-related liability, more than 20 of those companies are headquartered or have significant facilities in the State of Ohio. Let me be clear: I believe companies should be held accountable for their conduct. That is a basic principle of American jurisprudence. But most of the companies that manufacture asbestos are today now bankrupt. The legal system already has decided their liability, and they are paying their liability through asbestos trusts. I am concerned, however, about the many companies that now find themselves held responsible for the actions of other companies. These companies have little to do with asbestos production or use, but they employ thousands of people who contribute to our economy and to our tax base. No one, including the victims of asbestos, is helped when these companies are punished. I believe it is clear, bluntly, that we have a legal disaster--yes, a disaster--on our hands. The court system is clogged with claims by people who are not ill and may never get ill, and victims who are ill must wait a long time for sometimes very little compensation. Employers are at risk even when they have had little to do with asbestos, and their current employees and retired workers as well are paying the price. Anyone who looks at this honestly has to conclude that the current system does not work for anyone involved. In fact, the Supreme Court on three separate occasions has called for a national solution, has called on Congress to take a look at this issue. We have to do something about this crisis. We need to protect the rights of victims, and we need to provide business--the group of businesses which will provide compensation to those victims--with some way to predict how much this crisis will cost so they can plan for it and figure out a way to stay in business while they pay for it. The FAIR Act--this bill--provides that needed protection to victims and provides that needed predictability to businesses so they can continue to provide for their employees and retirees. We know, of course, that no bill is perfect. This bill is not perfect. Many people believe it must be amended. As a matter of fact, I have heard from a number of Ohio companies that they are not happy about some of the provisions in this bill. Not surprisingly, some think the bill goes too far and some think it doesn't go far enough. We have spent a great deal of time discussing and modifying this bill over the years. I believe it has improved the process. During this whole process, I think we have simply improved it as a result of the work that has been conducted in the Judiciary Committee. As we debate this bill in the Senate, I plan to work with Chairman Specter and many others to make some additional refinements to the bill. It truly is a work in progress. But the bottom line is that we must move forward and we must move forward now. The status quo is simply not acceptable. It is not fair to the victims, and it is not fair to the companies. We all know this bill is not perfect and, in fact, this issue is so complicated that no bill could ever be perfect. But the bill we have before us is far better than the current situation. We must move forward. I would like to conclude my remarks with a story that illustrates why we need to vote for this legislation. A fellow Ohioan came to my office recently and explained that he is very ill from asbestos exposure. He has retained a lawyer and has a trial date scheduled. He was worried that this bill would remove his ability to sue without giving him enough compensation to take care of his family and provide for their future and not give him the compensation he deserves. After discussing the details of his case and explaining how the FAIR Act would apply to him, it was clear that the bill, if enacted, would likely provide him with more money much more quickly than he likely will get if he pursues his claim in court, although, of course, litigation is notoriously difficult to predict. Even though this Ohioan still has a difficult road to walk in dealing with his illness, he is now reassured that this bill, if it becomes law, will provide his family with hope for the future and provide him with some just compensation. Nothing can ever be fair. Nothing can ever provide a victim with what would be considered just, but I think he was assured and felt better after my staff was able to discuss this bill with him, and the details of it. As I have said, this bill is not perfect, but it will help the victims of this asbestos crisis. It will help the real people most at risk, and it will help save countless jobs. That is why I am supporting it. It simply is the right thing to do. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I met with Judge Alito on the day after his nomination. I was very impressed with him from the start. After spending an hour or so with him, I could tell that he is a modest, honest, and fair man, a person with a solid understanding of the proper role of a judge. At the time, however, I said I would not make a final decision about his nomination at that point. I started my career as a county prosecuting attorney, and I believe in trials before verdicts. We just had the trial, and during that trial, the hearing, this is what I saw: I saw a man who is forthright and honest. Over the course of 3 days before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito was asked 677 questions on issues ranging from abortion to executive power to Vanguard. He answered at least 659 of them, or 97.3 percent of the questions. To give you some perspective on these numbers, Chief Justice Roberts, when he was in front of our committee, was asked only 574 questions and answered 89 percent of them. Justice Ginsburg was asked just 384 questions, answering only 80 percent of them. Justice Breyer was asked 355 questions, answering 82 percent. Judge Alito was asked more questions and gave more answers than any recent nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. At that hearing, I saw a man of character and integrity. Judges do not shed their values when they don their robes. Our Founders themselves recognized this important point. In Federalist No. 78, for instance, Alexander Hamilton said that only a few individuals would really have the expertise in the law to become a Supreme Court Justice. But fewer still would have the ``integrity'' and the ``dignity'' befitting the office. In my opinion, Judge Alito has the integrity, the character, and the dignity befitting the office of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The best evidence on this point is the testimony of those who know Judge Alito best--his colleagues on the Third Circuit, people he has worked with day in and day out. Judge Edward Becker described Judge Alito as ``modest and self-effacing.'' Judge Becker continued: I have never seen a chink in the armor of his integrity, which I view as total. Judge Leonard Garth, his first boss, called him a ``morally principled judge.'' Even former Judge Tim Lewis, a man who said he occasionally disagreed with Judge Alito, endorsed his elevation to the High Court. To me, all of this testimony carries substantial weight. We can judge a man by his record, we can judge him by his judicial philosophy, certainly, but there is no better judge of a man than those who know him best. Unfortunately, some who hardly know Judge Alito have tried to smear his reputation by raising his recusal in the so-called Vanguard case. This case got a lot of play during the hearing. In my opinion, this attack is clearly frivolous. I wish to talk for a moment about it. This so-called Vanguard case arose out of a financial dispute between two people. The plaintiff won a suit against a woman by the name of Monga, requiring her to turn over about $170,000 that she had in some Vanguard accounts. Ms. Monga then went to court to prevent Vanguard from turning over the money. So while Vanguard was technically a defendant in the case, in the classic sense of the term, it really was not accused of any wrongdoing. It didn't stand to lose anything. The only question was whether Vanguard would transfer the funds it held for Ms. Monga to another person. They just held the money. Nothing about this case could realistically have affected Vanguard as a company, nor Judge Alito. The judge did not own Vanguard; he held mutual funds that were managed by Vanguard. Mr. President, that is why everyone who has looked into that matter has concluded that the allegations against Judge Alito are absurd. The ABA looked into this allegation and unanimously concluded that Judge Alito was entitled to its highest rating, a rating which explicitly considers ethics and integrity. Five legal experts concluded that Judge Alito did nothing wrong. Judge Becker, the former Chief Judge of the Third Circuit, said he was ``baffled'' by these allegations. The Washington Post wrote in a January 13 editorial that Judge Alito's own testimony ``revealed the frivolousness of the charge.'' Before these hearings began, one of Judge Alito's opponents, Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, said, ``you name it, we'll do it'' to defeat Judge Alito. With Vanguard, Judge Alito's opponents resorted to an outrageous attack on him in an effort to undermine his integrity. This attack clearly failed. Although some waged a full-scale war against Judge Alito, what Judge Becker said at the hearing remains true today: There is simply ``not one chink in the armor of his integrity.'' At the hearing, I saw an experienced judge with a brilliant legal mind. Judge Alito came to the Judiciary Committee with a lengthy and distinguished legal career. He served for several years as a Federal prosecutor, taking on the mob, drug dealers, and white-collar criminals. He argued 12 cases himself before the U.S. Supreme Court. And for more than 15 years, he has served as a judge on the Third Circuit, deciding thousands of cases and authoring hundreds of opinions with his own pen. This background certainly attests to his extraordinary competence and shows why he received a unanimously well- qualified rating from the ABA. His judicial opinions attest to his competence as well. He writes crisply and clearly without any kind of overstatement. For the most part, he decides only the issues before him and has proven himself capable of tackling complex areas of the law with clear and yet simple language. In my mind, however, the way Judge Alito answered our questions is perhaps the best example of his extraordinary legal talent. During our hearings, he demonstrated a mastery of constitutional law and his own voluminous jurisprudence. Over the course of 3 days, he spoke clearly and succinctly without using notes. It was an amazing performance. He provided us with detailed information about how he thinks, how he reasons, how he comes to his conclusions. I found his testimony thorough, forthcoming, and informative, and I believe the American people felt the same way. At the hearing, I also saw a man who is openminded and fair, a man who is compassionate. During our hearings, some complained that Judge Alito has a bias toward Government or big business. But that is not what was said by those who, again, know him best. Take, for example, the testimony of Judge Alito's former law clerks. Kate Pringle, a self-described ``committed and active Democrat,'' said that Judge Alito ``approached each case without a predisposition toward one party or the other.'' She said he treated all litigants ``in a fair and openminded way.'' Jack White, a member of the NAACP and the ACLU, said that Judge Alito had an ``abiding loyalty to a fair judicial process,'' not ``an enslaved inclination toward a political or personal ideology.'' In fact, Mr. White ``never witnessed an occasion when personal or ideological beliefs motivated a specific outcome in a case.'' Finally, Professor Nora Demleitner, who described herself as ``a left-leaning Democrat, a member of the ACLU, a woman, and an immigrant,'' also had praise for Judge Alito: In the years I have known the judge, he has never decided a case based on a larger legal theory about the Constitution or conservative worldview, but instead has looked at the merits of each individual case. Judge Alito also understands that judicial opinions are more than ink in the Federal Reporter. He understands that they are decisions that affect real people and have real consequences. The judge himself put it best: [W]hen a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant . . . I can't help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. . . .[W]hen I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, this could be your grandfather. This could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country. When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the case that's before me. . . .When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender, and I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who has been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people whom I've known and admired very greatly who had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up[.] To me, this testimony accurately reflects Judge Alito's record while on the bench. No matter who comes before him and no matter what the case, Judge Alito approaches each case with an open mind and a real- world sense of the consequences of his actions. To me, that is truly the approach of a fair, openminded, and compassionate judge. Finally, I saw a man who understands the proper role of a judge. I believe judges play a limited, but obviously important, role in our constitutional system. Judges are not Members of Congress, State legislators, Governors, or Presidents. Their job is not to pass laws or make policy. Instead, it is the job of a judge--to use the words of Justice Byron White--simply ``to decide cases.'' Nothing more. Judge Alito seems to embody this thinking as well. Several years ago at a ceremony honoring one of his Third Circuit colleagues, Judge Alito reminded his colleagues about the attributes of a good judge. Always remember, he said, to ``act like a judge.'' He went on to say: Do what good judges do, what they have done for a long time. Decide the cases that come before you, decide them as best you can. . . .Speak straightforwardly on the matters that are properly before you. Exercise the important powers that are rightfully yours, but keep in mind that you are a judge. On the first day that I met Judge Alito, I was impressed with him, but I am even more impressed today. He is a good, decent, and honest man. He has extraordinary legal talent, and he approaches each case with an open mind and understanding heart. In spite of some of the frivolous attacks on his reputation and character, Judge Alito has conducted himself with dignity, patience, and, yes, poise. He is an excellent judge and, in my opinion, will make an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court. I am proud to support his confirmation. I conclude by noting that when Judge Roberts was sworn in as our Nation's 17th Chief Justice, he reminded us of a ``bedrock principle.'' And that is that ``judging is different from politics.'' Similar to John Roberts, Samuel Alito understands the difference, and when he takes a seat on the Supreme Court, as I expect he will, I know he will remember that. When tough cases come up, he will, in fact, I am sure, act like a judge. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DeWINE. What is the request?

Mr. DeWINE. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to instruct the conferees to support something that 72 Senators have already supported in letters they have signed in the past, 72 Members of this body, and I have the list for anyone who would like to see it when they come to the Chamber. This is to support a bill that is currently law, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. It is a bill that has helped companies in 48 States across this country. More importantly, it has helped workers in 48 States across this country. It has helped employers who create additional jobs. The idea is to compensate companies that have been victimized by illegal foreign dumping in this country. Instead of giving money to the Treasury, it goes to these companies, and these companies have the right then to reinvest and create jobs. Some people have argued this is some sort of special interest. I ask Members of the Senate, when in the world did it become a special interest to protect American jobs? This is a proven way to fight back against illegal trade. It is a proven way to protect American jobs. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the motion that I am offering today, with Senator Byrd's support, urges the Senate conferees on the reconciliation bill to oppose efforts by the House to eliminate current law, to eliminate the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. This act, which is current law, which Senator Byrd and I originally introduced in 1999 and which was signed into law in 2000, continues to play a very important role in defending American companies from the injuries that unfair trade causes to American workers. Repealing this legislation would be a grievous mistake. Let there be no mistake about it, this is about jobs. This is about American jobs. This is about protecting and saving jobs all across our great country and in my home State of Ohio, as well as in 47 other States. This is about punishing illegal trade practices, and it is about giving something back to the victims. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act is really very simple. We have heard a lot of talk about it. We have heard some criticism about it. But when you boil it down, it is very simple. When foreign companies illegally violate our trade laws, they get punished. They get fined. What this act does is it takes those fines and gives them to the companies that were harmed instead of giving the money back to the U.S. Treasury. That is it. That is what it does. This compensation provides these injured companies and their workers with a remedy and helps them recover from the damage done by the illegal trade practices. Without this financial compensation, companies would continue to get hurt, jobs would continue to be lost, and that would be the end of the story. When we passed this bill a few years ago, we began to change that. The truth is these foreign violators of the law--and that is what they are, they are violators of the law--think that this is just a cost of doing business, and they continue to do it. That is why we labeled this bill the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. The point is they continue to do it. They look at the penalties they pay as a cost of doing business. The idea behind this act when we passed it was we were not going to let them continue to get away with that and look at this as a cost of doing business. So instead of taking this money and giving it to the U.S. Treasury and letting them go merrily on their way, we would take this money and give it to the affected companies so these U.S. companies who employ U.S. workers could then take that money and invest it back into those companies, invest it for U.S. workers. That is what they have to do by law. And it has worked. After the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act was implemented a few years ago, the disbursement reports have demonstrated the full extent of the dumping and the unfair trade problems our country faces. Let me give an example. In 2004, no less than 458 companies received funds through this act. That means 458 of them were violated, had been abused. Across the United States, more than 700 producers in 48 States have received distributions from duties collected under our trade laws under this act which tells us that nearly every State in the United States of America is affected by unfair trade. Virtually every Senator in this body represents a State that has been helped by this law. These recipients range from large, medium, small companies to family- owned businesses, independent workers, farmers, and fishermen. In my home State of Ohio alone, over 35 companies have benefited from the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, including businesses in Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Columbus, Youngstown, Warren, and Wooster. The financial distributions have allowed businesses to reinvest in their operations, train workers, provide health care and pension programs, and keep high-wage, high-skilled jobs in our country. It matters. It is important. Despite the many benefits that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act has given our economy, some opponents argue that we must repeal it. Why? They say we must repeal it to comply with the WTO's rulings against the law. We must follow what the WTO tells this Congress to do, tells this country what to do. I disagree. There is no reason the United States should abandon this law as an effective tool in trade talks. Why should we give it up? Like my friend and colleague, Senator Craig, said on this floor yesterday, there is nothing in any WTO ruling that tells countries what to do with the proceeds from the fines collected from illegal trade practices. We never agreed to that. The United States never entered into any agreement where we said we couldn't do this. Why are we letting the WTO tell us these fines can't go back to the true victims, can't go back to the companies and the employees, can't go back to the people who have been hurt by foreign companies' dumping practices? I find it somewhat ironic that some of the people who want to repeal this law that has worked so well are some of my same colleagues who come to the floor and talk about and criticize activist judges in the United States. We do not like activist judges in the United States. We do not like judges who dream up laws, who go beyond the letter of the law, who go beyond what Congress has written. Why do we want then to follow the WTO when the WTO goes well beyond any agreement this country has entered into? Why do we want to follow them down the road when they have been creative, when they have been activists? Why do we want to follow the logic that says we have to follow them? It makes no sense. They are the ones who are being the activist judges, so to speak. We should not do it. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act enjoys broad bipartisan support in this Chamber because Members know that the act has provided a lifeline to thousands of manufacturers, farmers, and fishermen throughout our Nation, people who have faced aggressive, unfair trade practices on the part of foreign producers. Over the past couple of years, at least 71 other Senators currently serving in this body have joined me in opposing the act's repeal. Today--and tomorrow when we vote on it--we need to reiterate that support and to vote to build upon our past successes. Unless our laws work to encourage all competitors to play by the rules, it is more difficult for U.S. producers to regain a declining market share and it makes it impossible to restore jobs that have been lost. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act is simply good public policy. It helps ensure that our domestic producers can compete freely and fairly in global markets. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose its repeal. I conclude by one additional comment. I have heard people say that this act, this law, represents special interests. I am dumbfounded by that comment. When in the world did it become a special interest to protect American jobs? When is looking out for American workers a special interest? Are American workers a special interest group? Is making sure we have a level playing field in regard to trade practices a special interest? Are American workers a special interest group? I am dumbfounded by that comment. I do not understand it. I am the strongest supporter in the world of free trade, fair trade, but to say that a law such as this that only goes into effect when it has already been proven that there has been a violation of trade laws, when it has already been proven that there has been illegal dumping, a law that only does the simple thing of compensating victims who have suffered by illegal dumping, and to say that is special interest legislation, I do not understand it. It makes absolutely no sense. Seventy-one of my colleagues in this body who are currently serving have said this is not special interest, that standing up for American workers is the right thing to do. I hope the day never comes when Members of the Senate think that standing up for American workers is special interest. So I hope when this vote comes, probably tomorrow, we will do what we have every right to do, and that is to instruct the conferees on what the will of the Senate is. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I assume my colleague has his own time under the rules.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. DeWine pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 321 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening on the floor of the U.S. Senate to pay tribute to a brave, young Ohioan, who lost his life while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Army Private First Class Harrison J. Meyer, a combat medic from Worthington, OH, was killed on November 26, 2004, while attempting to rescue a wounded comrade during a firefight. Born on Veterans Day--November 11, 1984--he was barely 20 years old at the time of his death. When I think about the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, I am reminded of something President Ronald Reagan said about the strength of the American people. He said this: Putting people first has always been America's secret weapon. It's the way we've kept the spirit of our revolutions alive--a spirit that drives us to dream and dare, and take risks for the greater good. Harrison Meyer was always taking risks for the greater good--always putting others first and selflessly giving of himself for his fellow man. According to Medical Platoon Sergeant Randolph L. Nutt: [Private First Class Meyer] fully knew what the dangers were and willingly accepted them as a risk to save others' lives. He made the ultimate sacrifice so that others may live. Six other soldiers are still alive directly due to his actions. Indeed, Mr. President, Harrison Meyer--Harry to his friends and family--embodied the true American spirit that President Reagan described. Harry grew up in Worthington and attended Thomas Worthington High School. He graduated in 2003. While in high school, Harry belonged to the track team for 3 years. He competed as a pole-vaulter. Andy Cox, a U.S. history teacher and track coach at Thomas Worthington, remembers Harry as a ``teddy bear who made everybody laugh. He was a real team player--always wanting to help people.'' Coach Cox went on to say that ``Harry was the kid who was trying to make all the other kids relax, feel good about competing.'' Harry often brought homemade treats to the track meets for the entire team. Coach Cox emphasized the popularity of his cheesecake. As he affectionately recalls, ``[Harry] was a great cook!'' Hary did not join the track team during his senior year because he wanted to focus his attention on his upcoming military career. Still, however, he attended all of the school's track meets, and, according to Coach Cox ``he'd always bring something homemade for the team.'' Harry was also a member of the school's choir, and for four summers, Harry worked at the Worthington municipal pool doing various jobs, including serving as a lifeguard. According to his mother, Harry was deeply affected by the September 11th terrorist attacks. He enlisted in the Army's pre-graduation program, and shortly after his high school graduation, he was inducted. He was stationed in Korea and assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, Camp Howze, before leaving in August 2004, for Iraq. His mom said that Harry's selflessness was one of the reasons he decided to become a medic after joining the Army. In fact, according to Chris Begin, a good friend of Harry's, Harry wanted to go on to medical school after returning from Iraq. While in Iraq, Harry and his comrades faced danger daily. Harry's mom recalls that before he was killed, Harry had treated a dozen seriously wounded soldiers. She said that ``he knew (insurgents) were targeting medics. He indicated it was a very dangerous place. ``But, he always told me--`Don't worry, Mom.' '' The dangers became too grave on November 26, 2004 near Ar Ramadi. Harry was killed the day after Thanksgiving, while trying to pull a wounded comrade to safety during an insurgent attack on his unit. At the services held in Harry's honor after his death, friends and family recalled Harry's heroism and generosity, saying that the cause of his death reflected how he had lived. According to his mom, ``Harry had always wanted to help people. He didn't think about his own welfare. He'd give you anything he had.'' I recently came across a touching reminder of Harry's lasting impact on others. It is a posting on an Internet tribute for service members who have been killed in either Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. A friend of Harry's--Pamela Moorehead from Worthington--posted the following email message: Harry, I was thinking about you today. I'm not sure what made me think of you. I think I was just reminded by something someone said. It's September 26, 2005, so in one month you will have been gone for a year. Everyone still misses you. The memories from pole vaulting with you and hanging out with you and Brandon make me both happy and sad. To your family--Harry is one of my heroes, and we all still think about him. We miss him and continue to keep him and all of you in our thoughts and prayers. Harrison Meyer was a kind soul, with a warmth that touched many people. My wife Fran and I keep Harry's family--his parents Deborah and William; and his three sisters--Lynn, Bronwyn, and Kelley, in our prayers. I would like to conclude my remarks with an excerpt from a poem titled ``American Hero, written by Harry's cousin Jordan Michael Meyer. The poem is in remembrance of Harry: He is out there on the front lines. He knows the risk. He knows the sacrifice. He is going to put it all on the line and role the dice. The man is fighting for a better life. The American soldier found his home after this brutal fight. Now looking down upon us he sets flight. Always keeping us in sight. He won't stop protecting us, day and night. He is an American soldier, brought up on love, alone, feeling so far from home. He hides his fear, doing anything to protect those who are dear, knowing death is near. He is a young man taking upon the sacrifice of a nation he holds dear. Harrison Meyer held his Nation dear, and we hold dear his memory. We will never forget him.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, while deployed in Iraq, Marine Corporal Nathan ``Nate'' Anderson made sure to write his family back home in Howard, OH, as often as he could. After witnessing the death of a good friend, Nate wrote that ``the service of freedom demands sacrifice.'' He tried to calm his family's fears as he continued, ``No worries. I will be fine wherever I end up. I have the Lord on my side and guardian angels on both shoulders. I am good to go.'' I rise today on the floor of the United States Senate to pay tribute to this brave Marine. With the Lord on his side, Nate left this Earth on November 12, 2004, as he was killed while fighting insurgents in Al Anbar province in Iraq. He was 22 years-old. Nate gave his life the day after Veterans Day, just over a year ago now. It is fitting in a sense, given his deep devotion to protection our Nation. When I think about Nate and the dedication of all our men and women in uniform, I am reminded of something President Ronald Reagan once said about freedom. He said that ``the task that has fallen to us as Americans is . . . to keep alive the hope and dream of freedom.'' Nate Anderson accepted this task wholeheartedly. He believed in freedom. And he believed that he had a mission to protect it and promote it around the world. Nathan Anderson was born in Zanesville, OH on May 22, 1982. Growing up in Apple Valley, Nate enjoyed hunting, fishing, snowboarding, and bull riding. Older sister, Meg, remembers her brother as a ``happy and good spirited'' kid who liked swimming, making mud pies, and riding roller coasters at Cedar Point amusement park. She said that Nate was ``the life of the party.'' He had a real zest for life. He loved country music, rodeos, and the military. Even at the young age of 10, Nate dreamed of someday becoming a Marine. Nate attended East Knox High School, where he was both a dedicated student and gifted athlete. Karen Smith, a guidance counselor and teacher, described him as ``a very likable, well-rounded young man'' who had a lot of friends. Nate's football coach, Chet Looney, said that Nate's ``contribution to the team was outstanding. He was one of those guys you need because he was a great team player. He was kind of fiery at times and then other times he was a jokester.'' Kathy Frere, an English teacher at East Knox High, fondly remembers Nate. ``He was just a special student,'' she said. ``He was so enduring. To know him is to love him--it's an old saying, but it's true.'' Following his high school graduation in June 2001, Nate's dream of joining the Marines became a reality. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, based in Camp Lejeune, NC. In 3 short years, Nate's service took him to over ten countries, including his final deployment in 2004 to Iraq in 2004. Nate's family recalled the pride that Nate displayed as a result of serving his country and his desire to be the best Marine and the best son, brother, and friend he could be. April Buckingham, Nate's close friend and former high school classmate, described his outgoing and compassionate personality as always uplifting others. She recalls gathering around the campfires that Nate often built, with the help of friends, in his parent's backyard. She said that ``Nate was an honest guy--the heart and soul of all our friends. He was the one who tried to keep us all together after graduation. He was an amazing person. We all loved him, and will miss him very much.'' Nate's sisters remember him with great love, affection, and respect. His sister Traci describes her brother as ``soaring on wings like eagles. I salute you, my brother. I salute the way you lived. I salute your sacrifice. I will always be in your debt.'' Nate's sister Meg said that he was her best friend. She last spoke to him on the phone 2 weeks before his death, when he told her that they would be on a special mission. Meg said that Nate told here ``it'd be two weeks and not to worry. He said he loves me. He said he'll be home soon.'' At Nate's funeral service, held at North Bend Church of the Brethren, 400 mourners gathered to say goodbye. As the Reverend Patrick Bailey said, ``They had come to honor a great son, an awesome brother, a great friend, a fellow [marine] and hero.'' Nate was all of those things and more. He loved his family. He loved his country. He fought for freedom. And, we will never forget him. His parents, Mary and Neil Shaw and Richard Anderson; sisters Meg, Traci, and Kelly; and his brother Adam all remain in our thoughts and in our prayers. I would like to conclude my remarks by reciting an e-mail message that was posted on an Internet tribute to Nate. Someone who just signed her e-mail as ``Amy of Ohio'' wrote the following: Thank you Nate for your sacrifice--for protecting me and my children and for being our hero. We hope and pray that your reward will be great in Heaven. To Nate's family-- we pray for you and will never forget your son's courage or the price he paid for our great country. May you find peace in God's love and know your son will always be with you, and you will one day be reunited. I hope and pray that all Americans are grateful of our men and women, sons, daughters, moms, dads, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, and grandchildren who are fighting for our freedom while we enjoy our lives in the comfort of our own homes. Nate, you will never be forgotten and will be our hero forever and always. God bless you and your family and God bless America.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased today join with Senator Harkin to submit a resolution commemorating the many contributions and achievements of Alan Reich, who was an inspirational figure in the disability community. Alan Reich devoted his own life to the improving the quality of life for so many others--especially individuals with disabilities. He recently passed away on November 8, 2005, at the age of 75. Alan Reich was the founder of the National Organization on Disability. This organization is active on a local, State, and national level in efforts to seek full and equal participation for people with disabilities in all aspects of life. You see, at the young age of 32, Alan became a quadriplegic following a swimming accident. He used a wheelchair as a result of this injury. While Alan was told he would not drive or write again, he relearned both skills and went on to become an inspiration for all those in the disability community. In 1990, he received the George H.W. Bush Medal for outstanding service under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alan Reich is probably best known for leading an effort that raised $1.65 million to add the statue of FOR in a wheelchair to the former President's memorial here in Washington, DC. As Alan said in 2001: The unveiling is a major national moment, the removal of the shroud of shame that cloaks disability. The statue will become a shrine to people with disabilities, but it will also inspire everyone to overcome obstacles. When you see the memorial that follows the statue, what will be in your mind is that he did all this from a wheelchair. Alan Reich married his best friend and partner in life, Gay Forsythe Reich. They shared 50 years of marriage and were deeply committed to each other and to their 3 children--James, Jeffery, and Elizabeth-as well as their 11 grandchildren. Alan Reich's contributions to his family, his community, and to this Nation will never be forgotten. As Chesterton said many years ago, ``Great men do great things even when they're gone.'' That is certainly true of Alan Reich. His legacy will live on always. My wife Fran and I extend our deepest sympathy to Alan Reich's family for their loss.