Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2003, legislation which will reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF, Program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. Congress created the SRF in 1987 to replace the direct grants program that was enacted as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or, as it is also known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a community bank, where each State determines which projects are built.

The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular. Total Federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non- Federal funding sources, including State contributions, leveraged bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes are participating in the program, and approximately 11,000 low-interest loans totaling more than $34.3 billion have been approved to date. As in many States, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2002, a level of $1.35 billion was appropriated for the Clean Water [SRF program nationwide. However, according to the EPA's 1996 Clean Water] Needs Survey, Ohio's 20-year capital investment needs for publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities are $7.4 billion. Of that amount,

over $4 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to address combined serve overflow, CSO, problems in over 100 communities in Ohio. The city of Akron, for example, has proposed to spend $377 million over 30 years to fix the city's CSO problems.

Due to the CSO problem, many Ohio communities face millions of dollars worth of wastewater infrastructure improvements and the likelihood of increased sewer rates without receiving outside funding. In recent years, Ohio cities and villages also have been spending more on maintaining and operating their systems in order to postpone the inevitable upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will soon need to be replaced.

While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the condition of our Nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996 documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide. In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary sewer needs. Private studies demonstrate that total needs exceed $300 billion, when anticipated replacement costs are considered. EPA's most recent Clean Water Gap Analysis projected a $6 billion per year capital payments gap for clean water over the next two decades.

Authorization for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a national priority. The longer we wait to re-authorize this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which could delay or in some cases prevent project financing. In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water SRF program is necessary.

The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only would this authorization help bridge the enormous infrastructure funding gap, the investment also would pay for itself in perpetuity by protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans.

The health and well-being of the American public depends on the condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me emphasize to my colleagues that the costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored. Last year marked the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act. We have come a long way since the Clean Water Act's implementation in 1972. Yet, we still have a long way to go. After 30 years since the passage of the Clean Water Act approximately 45 percent of U.S. waters are still not clean enough for fishing or swimming. The 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act is cause for celebration of our accomplishments. It is also an opportunity to recommit ourselves to achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act. The Federal Government must maintain a strong partnership with States and local communities and share in the financial burden of sustaining hard-won water quality gains and making additional improvements to the quality of the Nation's waters.

In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable component in the overall development of our Nation's infrastructure for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2003, legislation which will reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF, Program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. Congress created the SRF in 1987 to replace the direct grants program that was enacted as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or, as it is also known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a community bank, where each State determines which projects are built.

The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular. Total Federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non- Federal funding sources, including State contributions, leveraged bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes are participating in the program, and approximately 11,000 low-interest loans totaling more than $34.3 billion have been approved to date. As in many States, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2002, a level of $1.35 billion was appropriated for the Clean Water [SRF program nationwide. However, according to the EPA's 1996 Clean Water] Needs Survey, Ohio's 20-year capital investment needs for publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities are $7.4 billion. Of that amount,

over $4 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to address combined serve overflow, CSO, problems in over 100 communities in Ohio. The city of Akron, for example, has proposed to spend $377 million over 30 years to fix the city's CSO problems.

Due to the CSO problem, many Ohio communities face millions of dollars worth of wastewater infrastructure improvements and the likelihood of increased sewer rates without receiving outside funding. In recent years, Ohio cities and villages also have been spending more on maintaining and operating their systems in order to postpone the inevitable upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will soon need to be replaced.

While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the condition of our Nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996 documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide. In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary sewer needs. Private studies demonstrate that total needs exceed $300 billion, when anticipated replacement costs are considered. EPA's most recent Clean Water Gap Analysis projected a $6 billion per year capital payments gap for clean water over the next two decades.

Authorization for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a national priority. The longer we wait to re-authorize this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which could delay or in some cases prevent project financing. In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water SRF program is necessary.

The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only would this authorization help bridge the enormous infrastructure funding gap, the investment also would pay for itself in perpetuity by protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans.

The health and well-being of the American public depends on the condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me emphasize to my colleagues that the costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored. Last year marked the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act. We have come a long way since the Clean Water Act's implementation in 1972. Yet, we still have a long way to go. After 30 years since the passage of the Clean Water Act approximately 45 percent of U.S. waters are still not clean enough for fishing or swimming. The 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act is cause for celebration of our accomplishments. It is also an opportunity to recommit ourselves to achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act. The Federal Government must maintain a strong partnership with States and local communities and share in the financial burden of sustaining hard-won water quality gains and making additional improvements to the quality of the Nation's waters.

In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable component in the overall development of our Nation's infrastructure for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Steve Young, the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, who passed away on January 9, 2002. One of the most rewarding things about serving in the government is having the opportunity to meet some very special people, and Steve was one of them. Every so often in life a person is fortunate enough to cross paths with someone who makes them feel good about being in their presence, someone who is caring, genuine, sincere and who brings a special life to the lives of others. That was Steve Young and I feel blessed to have known him. Steve, a native of Upper Sandusky, OH and graduate of upper Sandusky High School, is survived by his wife, Denise; his two sons, Steven David and Staten Daniel; ;his three sisters Gloria Steurer, Kay Baker, and Deborah Smith and his mother, Lillian Heffelfinger.

Serving as a member of the Fraternal Order of Police, F.O.P., for 26 years, Steve dedicated his life and career to law enforcement. His distinguished membership included eleven years as

President of the Ohio State lodge, four years as National Vice President, and 17 months as National President.

Steve's understanding of the rigorous demands placed on law enforcement officers who protect our citizens each and every day made him an extremely effective and well-respected leader. His innovative leadership style produced a list of accomplishments that set a new standard for success.

During his career, Steve helped to create the Ohio Labor Council, with more than 8,000 members, to improve the effectiveness of labor- management negotiations within police forces. Remarkably, fourteen States across our Nation are using this methodology as a model for improving labor-management relations. He also implemented the Critical Incident Response program, to rapidly assist officers psychologically damaged in the line of duty, a program that has been implemented across the country.

It came as no surprise that Steve's numerous accomplishments led to his overwhelming election as the National President of the F.O.P. in August 2001. During his tenure, Steve's enthusiasm, spirit, and love of law enforcement never diminished. In fact, he continued to dedicate his career to the citizens of Ohio serving as Lieutenant in the Marion City Police Department, until his passing.

One would not know by looking at his achievements, but his term as President of the F.O.P. was all too brief. Under his Presidency, the F.O.P. developed a close relationship with the Bush Administration, which led to Steve's appointment to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Thanks to Steve, the F.O.P. will now play an important role in the transition as the various law enforcement agencies are folded into the new Department of Homeland Security.

Under Steve's presidency and at the request of the Administration, the F.O.P. was asked to serve as a Charter member of the National Citizens Corps Council. This group is dedicated to bringing together national leaders from first responder groups, emergency management agencies, volunteer service organizations, State and local governments, and the private sector in an effort to engage citizens in homeland security and promote community and family safety practices across the country.

Recognizing the importance of family and the commitment that law enforcement officers make each day, Steve worked with Secretary Elaine Chao to obtain a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Labor so that the F.O.P. could design and administer a scholarship program for the spouses of fallen officers.

It is evident that Steve Young served our country and his community with honor, courage, and distinction. However, in times of great loss, words often fail to comfort the anguish loved ones feel for their departed. I can only hope that the entire Young family will find solace in the thoughts and prayers of loved ones, friends, and the countless other lives that Steve touched.

May God bless Steve Young and his entire family.

Mr. President, I rise today, as the Chairman of the Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. While the Act was first passed in 1957 and has been renewed three times, the current authorization expired on August 1, 2002 for Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees. The growth of nuclear power depends greatly on the reauthorization of this Act, which provides liability for damages to the general public from nuclear incidents.

It is important for the American public to understand how the Price- Anderson liability program works. The nuclear industry actually funds the program; it is not a Federal subsidy. Each nuclear power plant purchases liability insurance from private insurers to cover the first $200 million for immediate response in the case of an accident. If the damages amounted to more than this amount, a second level of financial protection would apply. In these cases, each of the U.S. licensed nuclear units would pay up to $10 million annually into a collective fund to cover the damages, with a maximum payment of $88.1 million per accident. This, together with the $200 million in insurance money, provides a total of about $9.3 billion in insurance coverage to compensate the public in the case of a nuclear accident. If more than this amount is needed, Congress could then go back to the industry and demand a larger contribution.

This is an incredible system. I am not aware of any facility in the country or world that is insured for up to $9.3 billion. Neither do I know of any other industry in which all of the competitors agree up front to pay for the mistakes or acts of God that affect any one company. Furthermore, instead of fighting claims in court, the industry waives its traditional tort defense so that the fund begins making payments immediately. This means that if there were a nuclear disaster somewhere, the insurance companies would immediately start paying out claims. In fact, after the Three Mile Island incident, claims offices were on the site within 24 hours. This program provides extensive insurance coverage and provides it up front.

The expiration of this program affects only new NRC licenses, not existing licensees. Without the program, a new nuclear facility would be unable to obtain the liability insurance that this program provides, making new licenses very improbable, if not impossible.

Nuclear energy is important to our Nation's national security, economy, and environment. America's nuclear energy industry currently provides approximately 20 percent of our energy. It is a safe, reliable, and zero-emission source of energy. This has had a tremendous positive effect on the environment and public health. Since 1973, nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide, a key component of acid rain, and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone, from being released into the atmosphere. Arguably, nuclear power has contributed more to achieving a reduction in emissions than any other source of energy, except possibly solar, wind, and hydropower.

Our Nation needs to do whatever it can to promote a safe and efficient nuclear energy industry and encourage the development of new nuclear reactors. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step in that direction.

During the previous administration, both the Department of Energy and the NRC issued reports to Congress recommending the reauthorization of Price-Anderson. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to reauthorize Price-Anderson, S. 1360, and included these provisions in an amendment that I proposed to the energy bill. My amendment, S. Amdt. 2983, was agreed to by a vote of 78-21 on March 7, 2002. This amendment reauthorized the program for both DOE contractors and NRC licensees. The amendment falls under the shared jurisdiction of both the Energy Committee for contractors and the Environment and Public Works Committee for NRC licensees. I look forward to working with the EPW Committee to pass this bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act for 10 years for NRC licensees.

I thank Senator Inhofe for joining me in cosponsoring this bill. The Price-Anderson Act is so vital to the future expansion of our nuclear energy industry. I urge the speedy consideration and passage of this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, as the Chairman of the Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. While the Act was first passed in 1957 and has been renewed three times, the current authorization expired on August 1, 2002 for Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees. The growth of nuclear power depends greatly on the reauthorization of this Act, which provides liability for damages to the general public from nuclear incidents.

It is important for the American public to understand how the Price- Anderson liability program works. The nuclear industry actually funds the program; it is not a Federal subsidy. Each nuclear power plant purchases liability insurance from private insurers to cover the first $200 million for immediate response in the case of an accident. If the damages amounted to more than this amount, a second level of financial protection would apply. In these cases, each of the U.S. licensed nuclear units would pay up to $10 million annually into a collective fund to cover the damages, with a maximum payment of $88.1 million per accident. This, together with the $200 million in insurance money, provides a total of about $9.3 billion in insurance coverage to compensate the public in the case of a nuclear accident. If more than this amount is needed, Congress could then go back to the industry and demand a larger contribution.

This is an incredible system. I am not aware of any facility in the country or world that is insured for up to $9.3 billion. Neither do I know of any other industry in which all of the competitors agree up front to pay for the mistakes or acts of God that affect any one company. Furthermore, instead of fighting claims in court, the industry waives its traditional tort defense so that the fund begins making payments immediately. This means that if there were a nuclear disaster somewhere, the insurance companies would immediately start paying out claims. In fact, after the Three Mile Island incident, claims offices were on the site within 24 hours. This program provides extensive insurance coverage and provides it up front.

The expiration of this program affects only new NRC licenses, not existing licensees. Without the program, a new nuclear facility would be unable to obtain the liability insurance that this program provides, making new licenses very improbable, if not impossible.

Nuclear energy is important to our Nation's national security, economy, and environment. America's nuclear energy industry currently provides approximately 20 percent of our energy. It is a safe, reliable, and zero-emission source of energy. This has had a tremendous positive effect on the environment and public health. Since 1973, nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide, a key component of acid rain, and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone, from being released into the atmosphere. Arguably, nuclear power has contributed more to achieving a reduction in emissions than any other source of energy, except possibly solar, wind, and hydropower.

Our Nation needs to do whatever it can to promote a safe and efficient nuclear energy industry and encourage the development of new nuclear reactors. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step in that direction.

During the previous administration, both the Department of Energy and the NRC issued reports to Congress recommending the reauthorization of Price-Anderson. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to reauthorize Price-Anderson, S. 1360, and included these provisions in an amendment that I proposed to the energy bill. My amendment, S. Amdt. 2983, was agreed to by a vote of 78-21 on March 7, 2002. This amendment reauthorized the program for both DOE contractors and NRC licensees. The amendment falls under the shared jurisdiction of both the Energy Committee for contractors and the Environment and Public Works Committee for NRC licensees. I look forward to working with the EPW Committee to pass this bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act for 10 years for NRC licensees.

I thank Senator Inhofe for joining me in cosponsoring this bill. The Price-Anderson Act is so vital to the future expansion of our nuclear energy industry. I urge the speedy consideration and passage of this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to again join my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, to reintroduce legislation which will encourage young teachers to go into early childhood education, encourage further learning and credentialing of early learning educators, and lead to better education for our Nation's youngest children.

There is no more important time in a child's life than their earliest years. Scientific research tells us that babies are born with 100 billion neurons, or brain cells, that are waiting to make connections, or synapses, with one another. These synapses empower the brain and dictate healthy development and future learning. By the time a baby is three, 1,000 trillion connections have been made, twice as many synapses as most adults have.

However, at age 11, children start eliminating those brain connections that have not been used, thus decreasing their potential for learning and development.

To maximize their learning potential, we must begin to teach our children the necessary skills before they reach kindergarten. Researchers have found that focusing on these earliest years can make the greatest difference in a child's development and learning, and I know of few other programs that provide the same focus as Head Start.

Our bill, the Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act of 2003, is designed to encourage currently enrolled and incoming college students working on a Bachelor's or a Master's degree to pursue a career as a Head Start teacher. In exchange for a 5-year teaching commitment in a qualified Head Start program, a college graduate with a minimum of a bachelor's degree could receive up to $5,000 in forgiveness for their Federal Stafford student loan.

I was pleased that in the 107th Congress, during debate over the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, this bill was offered as an amendment and was overwhelmingly passed by the Senate. Unfortunately, the amendment was not included in the final version of the No Child Left Behind Act. However, the support our bill received in the Senate gives me great hope that this legislation will be enacted in the 108th Congress.

When I was Governor of Ohio, we invested heavily in Head Start so that there was room for every eligible child in Ohio. Because of our efforts, Ohio is 4th in the nation in terms of children served by Head Start with nearly 38,000 students served in the year 2000.

I have carried my passion for early childhood education with me to the U.S. Senate. I continue to believe that it is absolutely critical that we do more to help our young people prepare to begin school and it is why I was pleased to work with Senators Jeffords and Stevens to help pass the Early Learning Opportunities Act of 2000. Still, we must now do more to help those teachers who educate our youngest children.

The results of a survey undertaken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the past two years has shown a significant correlation between the quality of education a child receives and the amount of education that child's teacher possesses. That is, the more education a teacher has, the more effectively they teach their students cognitive skills, and the more likely that students are to act upon those skills.

Current Federal law requires that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers must have an associate, bachelor's, or advanced degree in early childhood education or a related field with teaching experience by 2003. Under Ohio law, by 2007, all Head Start teachers must have at least an associates degree. The more education our teachers have, the better off our children will be. Unfortunately, as we all know, education is expensive.

In Ohio today, only 11.3 percent--242--of the 2,126 Head Start teachers employed in the state have a bachelor's degree. Additionally, less than 1 percent--20--of Ohio's Head Start teachers have a graduate degree. We must do more to help our teachers afford the education that will be used to help educate our children.

Recruiting and retaining Head Start and early childhood teachers continues to be a challenge for Ohio and other states. The Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act of 2003 will help communities, schools and other funded Head Start providers to meet the challenge of recruiting and retaining high quality teachers. It is one of the best ways that I know of where we can make a real difference in the lives of our most precious resource--our children.

I am pleased to have been able to work with the National Head Start Association and Ohio Head Start Association, and my colleague Senator Feinstein, on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors of this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today as an alumnus of Ohio State University and a Senator filled with pride for our 2002 national champions, the Ohio State Buckeyes.

I congratulate my home team and their outstanding coach, Jim Tressel, on a spectacular win and the best season ever in the history of Ohio State University--14 wins and no losses. Throughout the season, the Buckeyes showed a remarkable spirit of determination, cooperation, and the best teamwork that I have seen in a football team, frankly, during my lifetime.

The Buckeyes have good people and a great leader who inspired his team to do their best--as athletes and young men with character, determination, pride, and loyalty to each other and to their alumni.

On the night of the game, some of the sports pundits said that the other team had more talent than the Ohio State Buckeyes. But throughout this season, we utilized our talent more fully than any other opponent.

The Buckeyes have that special ingredient--sticking together and working together--a true symbiotic relationship. They understood that the more they cooperated on behalf of the team as a whole the better off all of them would be. That is the spirit that shone through during the whole season--unselfish determination and genuine teamwork. That is what it was about.

Their lesson is a good one for us in the Senate. It is the same kind of spirit that we are going to need on the floor of the Senate and in our country if we expect to win the war on terrorism and to become national champions for our hard-working citizens who put their trust in us. We would all do well to emulate the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes. I congratulate our 2002 national champions and again underscore that if we can maintain the spirit they have of working together, teamwork, and bipartisanship, we are going to have an outstanding season here in the 108th Congress.

I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to James R. Tilling, who is retiring after 33 years of service to the State of Ohio.

Mr. Tilling came to Ohio in September, 1969 to begin a career as a political science professor at my alma mater, Ohio University in Athens. He spent 6 years at Ohio University where he taught courses in American national government, urban government and politics, and Soviet government and foreign policy. In academic year 1973-1974, he was named a ``University Professor,'' an honor given each year to the 10 best teaching professors at Ohio University.

Following his tenure as a distinguished Ohio University professor in 1977, Mr. Tilling joined public service, as director of communications and research of the Ohio Senate's Republican caucus. He served twice as minority chief of staff, in 1979 to 1980 and 1983 to 1984. He was elected clerk of the senate for 1981 to 1982.

From January 1984 until April 1994, Mr. Tilling served as chief executive officer of the senate under then-senate presidents Paul Gillmor and Stanley J. Aronoff. In that capacity, he was responsible for the day-to-day operation of the senate's staff and also worked with senate Republican members to develop their legislative policy agenda.

Through the years, Mr. Tilling made significant contributions which helped improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ohio Legislature. For example, in 1981 and 1992, he was the principal coauthor of the bipartisan congressional redistricting plans which determined congressional district boundaries for the 1980s and 1990s. In 1991, he served as the secretary for to the Ohio Apportionment Board, where he helped craft the districting plan for the Ohio General Assembly in the last decade.

In addition to creating the redistricting plans that have been in effect for 20 years, Mr. Tilling has been a key advisor in major policy debates in the Ohio Legislature, he has recruited candidates to run for the U.S. Congress and he has the regard of legislators and policymakers on both sides of the aisle.

I worked with him and appreciated his contributions when I was Governor of Ohio during the 1990s. For the past 7 years Mr. Tilling has served as chief of staff and chief policy advisor to Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery. I recruited Betty Montgomery to run for attorney general and I know how valuable Mr. Tilling has been to her over the years.

James R. Tilling has over three decades of dedicated and distinguished public service to the people of Ohio and our Nation. I commend his intellect and his passion for public service which have inspired colleagues and students alike. His contributions are longlasting and should be emulated for years to come.