Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated October 31, 2007, from myself and Senator Specter to the majority leader.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, oil prices closed at another record high yesterday over $93.50 a barrel. That is nearly triple the average price just 4 years ago, and we have reason to fear that oil may be on its way to over $100 a barrel and possibly to $120 a barrel. Gas prices are reportedly 65 cents a gallon higher than they were just a year ago. This is an unacceptable burden to hundreds of thousands of families across the country, and it harms American consumers as well as the American economy. This winter, the price of home heating oil will be a serious burden on thousands of Vermonters. The relentless rise in oil prices should be another clear signal that we need to redouble efforts toward energy independence. As we develop alternative energy sources, we must keep focus on the artificial manipulation of oil and gas prices today. Demand for oil is rising, but members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, continue to collude to prevent the supply from matching that demand. As the Centre for Global Energy summarized it: ``Without more oil from OPEC, prices will continue to rise over the winter.'' In a properly functioning market, OPEC members would compete to serve the demand, but OPEC acts outside the basic principles of competition. As the weather cools, rising prices for heating oil are an even greater cause for concern. Thousands of hard working Vermont families, seniors and disabled persons will experience considerable strain in coming months as they try to balance the cost of such necessities as home heating oil, prescription drugs and food on their tables. The Energy Information Administration forecasts that the average U.S. household will see a winter increase of 22 percent in heating-oil expenditures from last year. In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated over $3 billion for the critical Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. Yet in his fiscal year 2008 budget, President Bush has requested only half that amount, or $1.5 billion. While LIHEAP grants are decreasing, the number of applications is rising. The American consumer is being harmed for the benefit of oil producing cartels. This is just wrong. When the President took office, Americans could fill their cars, heat their homes, and run their businesses on gasoline that cost $1.45 a gallon. Today, fuel prices have skyrocketed to an average $2.87 a gallon. Prices will, at times, fall, but because fuel prices are not properly subject to competition oversight and enforcement, the American consumer will only benefit from lower prices when it serves some other purpose of the cartel and foreign governments. The administration must stop OPEC from artificially affecting prices in the United States. I joined Senator Kohl as an original cosponsor of his bipartisan NOPEC legislation that would hold accountable certain oil producing nations for their collusive behavior that has artificially reduced the supply and inflated the price of fuel. When entities engage in anticompetitive conduct that harms American consumers, it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute. It is wrong to let members of OPEC off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of national governments. It is time for the administration to take the side of American consumers, not the side of oil cartels. We cannot claim to be energy independent while we permit foreign governments to manipulate oil prices in an anticompetitive manner. Vermont families, and families across the country, need our help to make essential home heating more affordable this winter.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the days following the terrorist attacks of September 11, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle came together to pass comprehensive legislation entitled ``The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act.'' This measure provided victims the option of filing a claim with a national compensation program or seeking limited damages in one Federal district court--the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Unfortunately, the legislation we passed failed to grant that trial court with the power to serve and enforce subpoenas outside of the traditional 100-mile radius of the Southern District of New York, even in the very cities where the hijacked flights originated and where two of them crashed on the morning of September 11. We were able to pass a legislative fix to this problem recently in the Senate. I understand that the House of Representatives is poised to pass the Senate bill today. I praise my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers for acting to provide nationwide service of subpoenas for the September 11 victims. Although no amount of compensation can replace a lost loved one, the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act offers a technical fix that is crucial to allowing victims and their families to have their claims fairly and thoroughly heard in court. I urge the President to sign this legislation into law without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to one of Vermont's outstanding teachers, Diane Bahrenburg, who last month was named the 2008 Vermont Teacher of the Year. Diane is an English teacher at Colchester High School in Vermont, where she has taught since 1979. I recently had the opportunity to meet Diane in my Washington office, and I was impressed with her intellect, her passion for teaching, and her commitment to the students of Colchester High School. As we talked about her classes and students, it was evident how much Diane cares about teaching. In being chosen as Vermont's Teacher of the Year, Diane will have the opportunity to visit schools throughout our State and others around the country. Her travels will allow her to work with other teachers, sharing and discussing the methods that have helped her become so successful. Hopefully she will share with all of us how she has been able to balance the everyday demands of teaching in the classroom, with the work she has done as an adjunct instructor at Johnson State College and UVM, acting as the Vermont debate-forensics lead coach at Colchester High School, and being a parent. We all know that teaching is a hard job. And it is a crucial job an indispensable link between our young people and their futures, as well as our Nation's future. The opportunities for recognition of teachers' accomplishments are too few and too far between. So I am so pleased that Diane is being recognized for all she has done over three decades, day in and day out, to educate our children and to make a constructive difference, one child at a time. Teachers are the instrument by which we measure the success of our schools. The knowledge, skill, and experience of teachers like Diane are exactly what we need in each and every one of our classrooms. We are fortunate in Vermont. I continue to be impressed by the high level of achievement of Vermont's students and the academic gains that have been made because of the strong and committed efforts of teachers like Diane. In spite of the countless hours spent sorting through the maze of No Child Left Behind requirements, our teachers are able to inspire students to look beyond tests and find the true lessons of the classroom. As an alumnus of St. Michael's College in Vermont, I would be remiss if I failed to note that Diane received her master's in education degree from St. Michael's College in 2000. I believe that she embodies the core principles of the college's education programs with her skill in maintaining an inclusive classroom, while keeping a balance between challenge and support and between individual and community. Diane is a model teacher, and after decades of teaching, she is incredibly worthy of this recognition. Diane, again I say thank you for all that you do, and on behalf of the Senate, we say congratulations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to commend Senator Durbin and Senators Hatch, Lugar, Hagel, and Menendez for their commitment to this bill. This legislation would allow young people who have grown up in the United States a chance at stability, and a chance to achieve the American dream by attending college or serving in our military. I do not believe it is the American way to punish young people for the mistakes of their parents. When these young people have the opportunity to reach their potential by service in our Armed Forces or through higher education, we all win. Opening the door to opportunity, not squandering the potential of young people, is part of what America is all about. So let us take a first step toward sensible immigration policy and move beyond the rhetoric and give these people a chance of fulfilling the American dream. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial appearing in today's New York Times.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Durbin.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered and for the first time reported a bill to establish a Federal statutory privilege to safeguard the freedom of the press. The Free Flow of Information Act, S. 2035, is bipartisan legislation that was reported on a strong bipartisan vote. The House has already passed legislation on this same subject, H.R. 2102, with a strong, bipartisan and apparently veto-proof majority of 398 to 21. Thus, both S. 2035 and H.R. 2102 are available for Senate action on the Senate business calendar. I strongly support the enactment of a Federal shield law for journalists, and I urge the Senate to promptly consider Federal shield legislation. All of us have an interest in enacting a balanced and meaningful first amendment privilege. Sadly, the press has become the first stop, rather than the last resort, for our Government and private litigants when it comes to seeking information. This is a dangerous trend that can have a chilling effect on the press and the public's right to know. Enacting Federal shield legislation would help to reverse this troubling trend. In fact, proceeding promptly to consideration of this legislation is something I strongly support. Should the Senate take up the bipartisan shield bill that overwhelmingly passed in the House, Federal shield legislation could go immediately to the President's desk and be signed into law without delay this year. The Senate bill has the support of a bipartisan coalition of Senators, including Senators Specter, Schumer, Lugar, Dodd, Graham, and myself, who have all united to cosponsor this legislation. In addition, more than 50 news media and journalism organizations support this legislation, and the call for Senate action on this historic bill extends to editorial pages across the country, including the New York Times, Arizona Republic, L.A. Times, Salt Lake Tribune, and San Francisco Chronicle, among others. The Senate and House bills protect law enforcement interests and safeguard national security. Moreover, both of these bills follow the lead of 33 States and the District of Columbia which have shield laws, and many other States, including Vermont, which recognize a common law reporters' privilege. Tellingly, the Bush administration has not identified a single circumstance where a reporters' privilege has caused harm to national security or to law enforcement, despite the fact that many courts have recognized such a privilege for years. When he testified before the Judiciary Committee in favor of Federal shield legislation in 2005, William Safire told the Committee that the essence of newsgathering is this: [I]f you don't have sources you trust and who trust you, then you don't have a solid story--and the public suffers for it. On behalf of the American public, I urge the Senate to protect the public's right to know by promptly considering and passing a Federal shield law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand before the Senate today to tell my friends about Vermont's Northeast Kingdom--a place that is known as much for its natural beauty as the rural and industrious Vermonters who have settled there. This region, defined by the three northeastern-most counties of Vermont that sit between the headwaters of the Connecticut River and the U.S.-Canadian border, became one of America's first National Geographic geotourism destinations. The designation highlights the character and sense of place that has come to define the dozens of mountain valley communities that sit in Orleans, Essex, and Caledonia Counties. My wife Marcelle was born in the Northeast Kingdom, just south of the Canadian border in the city of Newport. Since then, like many Vermonters, we have often found ourselves heading to this part of Vermont to visit friends, go for a hike, or find a special place to have a meal. The people of the Northeast Kingdom have made this region of Vermont advance while carefully holding on to the key elements of their identity. Whether they are crafting furniture from the forests of the north woods or diversifying their family farm, these individuals have helped the communities of northeastern Vermont grow. This autumn, Michelle Edelbaum and Daria Bishop of the Burlington Free Press published an article about a trip the two of them shared through the area, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the text of the article offering a glimpse into these ``Kingdom Gems.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate considers the controversial nomination of Leslie Southwick to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Unlike so many of President Clinton's nominees, Mr. Southwick was accorded a hearing on his nomination. I refused to ambush Leslie Southwick the way Republicans ambushed Ronnie White in 1999. Thus, despite my opposition to this nomination, I made sure that Mr. Southwick was treated fairly and that his nomination was debated and voted upon by the Judiciary Committee. The process has been open and fair and the rights of every Senator Democratic or Republican have been respected. During the Clinton administration, several outstanding nominees to the Fifth Circuit were pocket filibustered successfully by the Republicans. They included Judge Jorge Rangel of Texas, Enrique Moreno of Texas, and Alston Johnson of Louisiana. They were pocket filibustered without a hearing or committee consideration. This is a seat on the Fifth Circuit that would have been filled long ago but for a series of troubling nominations. In the last Congress, President Bush nominated Michael Wallace to this seat, the first circuit court nomination since 1982 to receive a unanimous rating of ``not qualified'' from the American Bar Association. This is the seat to which President Bush had previously used a recess appointment to put Charles Pickering on the bench, after his nomination was voted down by the Judiciary Committee in 2002. President Bush announced that appointment, as I recall, on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend in 2004, despite the significant concerns and open debate about that controversial nomination. Those concerns included Judge Pickering's intervention with the Department of Justice in an attempt to get the sentence of a convicted cross burner reduced. The nomination we consider today has engendered significant opposition. Those opposing this nomination include: the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Human Rights Campaign, the Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Lambda Legal, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the Magnolia Bar Association, the National Organization of Women, the National Urban League, the AFL-CIO, the Congressional Black Caucus, and many more. A number of members of the Judiciary Committee spoke eloquently about their concerns and doubts during committee consideration on August 2. I have given careful consideration to Mr. Southwick's record. Many share with me my concern about Judge Southwick's deciding vote in Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, 1998. This decision reinstated a white state social worker who had been fired for using a racial epithet what has come to be known colloquially as ``the n word'' in referring to an African-American coworker during a meeting with high-level company officials. That epithet was called by one Fifth Circuit opinion ``a universally recognized opprobrium, stigmatizing African-Americans because of their race.'' Yet the hearing officer at her appeal before the State Employee Appeals Board suggested that the use of the racial slur ``was in effect calling the individual a 'teacher's pet.''' I am not sure any African American would consider it being called a ``teacher's pet.'' Judge Southwick provided the deciding vote to uphold the hearing officer's conclusion, the opinion he joined finding that the racial slur was ``not motivated out of racial hatred or animosity directed at her co-worker or toward blacks in general, but was, rather, intended to be a shorthand description of her perception of the relationship existing between the [co-]worker and [a] DHS supervisor.'' In dissent, two judges criticized this opinion for presenting a ``sanitized version'' of the facts and for suggesting that ``absent evidence of a near race riot, the remark is too inconsequential to serve as a basis of dismissal.'' The dissent found that this racial epithet is ``inherently offensive, and [its] use establishes the intent to offend.'' The dissent was right. In my view, the Mississippi Supreme Court did the right thing in reversing that decision and I commend them. There is no place for ``the n word'' in the workplace or in use by a supervisor to and about an employee. None. Just as there is no place for it in this body or anywhere else. I am not naive enough not to know the word is used in parts of America, but it should be condemned by all wherever it is used, and it certainly is by me. If, as Mr. Southwick now says, his view of the Richmond case was the narrow, technical, legalistic one that he now says justifies his providing the deciding vote to the majority opinion, he could have said so back then, in a separate opinion. He could have noted that he felt such use of ``the n word'' was inexcusable, but that he felt constrained by his limited role on appeal to apply a standard of review that compelled him to reverse Judge Graves of the Circuit Court and reaffirm the Employee Appeals Board's reinstatement of the offending supervisor with back pay. That is not what he did, however. In the face of a cogent dissent, he provided the deciding vote to uphold the decision excusing that remark. Likewise I am troubled by Judge Southwick's actions in S.B. v. L.W, in which he voted to uphold a decision taking an 8-year-old child away from her biological mother due to her mother's sexual orientation and the fact that she was living with a female partner. My concern is not just that Judge Southwick joined the majority opinion but that he went out of his way to sign on to a concurring opinion that suggested that sexual orientation is an individual ``choice'' and an individual must accept that losing the right of custody over one's child is one of the ``consequences flowing from the free exercise of such choice.'' I also have concerns about his approach in some cases involving allegations of race discrimination in jury selection, such as his opinion in a 1997 case, Brock v. Mississippi upholding a criminal conviction where the prosecution struck an African-American juror, purportedly because he lived in a high crime area. The dissenting judge criticized Judge Southwick's opinion for accepting a strike which ``on its face appears geared toward a racially identifiable group.'' In another case involving jury discrimination, Bumphis v. State, 1996, three judges criticized Judge Southwick's majority opinion for ``establishing one level of obligation for the state, and a higher one for defendants on an identical issue.'' His legal writing also points to a narrow view of the role of the Federal courts in upholding protections against race discrimination. In one article, he found ``compelling'' a statement of a Mississippi Supreme Court Justice that ``the judiciary is not the avenue to effectuate the removal of the Confederate battle flag from public property.'' I have questions whether he would be balanced in protecting the rights of employees given the overwhelming number of cases 160 out of 180 written decisions--in which he has offered a narrow interpretation of the law to favor protecting business and corporate interests at the expense of the rights of workers and consumers. In one 1999 case, Dubard v. Biloxi, H.M.A., Judge Southwick authored a dissent expressing the virtues of a legal doctrine that would allow employers to fire employees for any reason, even though such an analysis was not relevant in the case before him. My concerns about his bias are heightened by a law review article he wrote characterizing litigation against tobacco companies led by former Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore as destabilizing and posing separation of powers concerns. As I said in opposing this nomination in committee, this is not a decision I come to lightly. I take seriously the strong support of Senator Cochran and Senator Lott whom I respect, and I have expressed my concerns directly to them as well as to the White House. I also take seriously Mr. Southwick's answers to my questions and to those of others in connection with his hearing. I was glad to see that he now acknowledged the offensiveness of the racial epithet used in the Richmond case and also that human rights law has evolved since 2001 when he joined the decision in the child custody case. Still, I share the deep disappointment of members of the African- American and civil rights communities that this administration continues to renege on a reported commitment to appoint an African American to the Mississippi Federal bench. In more than 6 years, President Bush has failed to do so. He has appointed only 20 African-American judges to the Federal bench, compared to 52 African-American judges appointed by President Clinton in his first 6 years in office. With an ever-growing number of outstanding African-American lawyers in Mississippi, the State with the highest percentage of African Americans in the country, it is not as if there is a dearth of qualified candidates. Nonetheless, President Bush has now submitted 10 nominees to the Federal bench in Mississippi, seven at the district level and three to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and none of these nominees has been African American. Our Nation's diversity is one of its greatest strengths, and I am disappointed that the President has missed yet another opportunity to reflect this great strength in our Federal courts. Many of us believe that diversity makes America what it is. It is the diversity in our States, our courts, this body, and our families that makes us stronger. When viewed against his record on the bench, the importance of this seat on the Fifth Circuit, and the troubling lack of diversity on that court, I am not convinced that he is the right nominee for this vacancy at this time. I shall vote no on cloture and, if it is invoked, no on this nomination. I ask unanimous consent that letters of opposition and others be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for 6 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, I had a long talk with Mara Williams, the wife of former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge James Oakes. Jim, who had served as Vermont's attorney general, as our Federal district judge, and with distinction as chief judge of the Second Circuit, had died the previous weekend at the age of 83. Mara told me how the family had been with Jim a few days before he died, and we then talked about the legacy he left. I spoke of knowing Jim for 40 years, and how I, and my family of lifelong Democrats, had voted for him for attorney general and had hoped he might be our Governor. As it turned out, the country was far better off having him on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and would have been even better off had he been elevated to the Supreme Court, a position he would have held with great distinction. We all knew of Jim's legal mind and great ability, his dedication to public service, his wonderful sense of humor, and his love for his family, but I knew him especially as a man with a great and good conscience. Jim Oakes epitomized the role of judge as the protector of our fundamental rights. A decade ago he noted that he was a person who ``still believe[d] that a federal judge can make a difference and--in cases of extreme necessity where basic rights are being infringed-- should make a difference when the rest of our political structure bogs down.'' This appreciation for the role of judicial independence is something we must admire and remember. We worked together when he was attorney general and I was State's attorney, and I particularly remember one very difficult and tragic murder case where we were able to forge an unprecedented use of a grand jury to bring about justice when it looked like that would not have been possible. We talked about that as recently as a couple of years ago, but then, with Jim, we could pick up a conversation from where we had left off 6 months before when we had last seen each other. Fran Lynggaard Hansen quoted his eldest daughter, Cynthia Meketa, as saying: He had a very high intellect, but he was never a snob. He had ups and downs in his early life and always identified with everybody, the cashier at the bank, the guy at the market, the man working at the dump. . . . But that was who he was, kind, generous to people who needed a helping hand. He was a sentimental softie and loved to be a mentor to people, especially his law clerks, shepherding their careers along. My good friend, Judge Garvan Murtha, said: He was never afraid to stand up for the rights for others and to name what was wrong. He was a brilliant, caring, funny man and appreciative of people. . . . He was a very wise man. . . . In the Pentagon Papers case, he was dissenting, so he ended up on the wrong side of the Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court ended up agreeing with him. His daughter Betsy Oakes said: I think everyone who loved and admired my father will want to carry on his tremendous spirit of social justice. Mara tells me of the love all the family had for Jim--and I know the love he had for her, his three children, four stepchildren, grandchildren, and his brother. Adam Liptak wrote of Judge Oakes in the New York Times, and I ask unanimous consent that his article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate will have an opportunity to consider and adopt the DREAM Act. I have, again, cosponsored Senator Durbin's initiative along with Senators Lugar and Hagel and urge all Senators to join us in proceeding to consideration of S.2205, the latest version of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. The DREAM Act was first introduced in 2001, during the 107th Congress. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill with bipartisan support in 2002 and, again, in 2003 during the 108th Congress. When the Senate Judiciary Committee took up comprehensive immigration reform in 2006 during the 109th Congress, the DREAM Act was adopted by voice vote as an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill reported by the Judiciary Committee, and it was included in the comprehensive immigration reform measure that the Senate ultimately passed in 2006. Senator Durbin worked hard to have the DREAM Act included in the bill the Senate took up this past summer. I hope the spirit of bipartisanship that has been evident throughout this bill's history in the Senate can carry it to final passage this year. The bill sets the right tone and policy. It seeks to enhance educational opportunities for thousands of young people who wish to enter college, but who are prevented from doing so due to circumstances over which they have little control. We should send the clear signal that the Senate majority is committed to doing what it can to move positive immigration reforms forward. It makes good sense to invest in our future by enhancing educational opportunities for our Nation's young people. Children brought to the United States by their parents or guardians occupy a unique position in our society. They are technically illegal in status, but the Supreme Court has determined that these children are not responsible for the actions of their parents for purposes of elementary and secondary public education, recognizing that we disserve ourselves when we discriminate against them. The DREAM Act builds upon the rationale underlying the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe in the interest of strengthening our Nation's future. It builds upon the American dream. Upon graduation from high school, thousands of talented young people find themselves without the legal status to obtain aid to attend college. The DREAM Act would give currently undocumented eligible young people the conditional legal status they need to allow them to obtain assistance to attend college or to join our military and eventually to obtain permanent legal residency and citizenship. Those who would benefit from the DREAM Act are young people we should be encouraging to follow their dreams. The status quo, in which our policies create barriers to advancement for so many young people who yearn to achieve and contribute, works to the disadvantage of the United States. Rather than barring young people from entering the American mainstream, we should strengthen our Nation's future through increased participation in higher education and in the military. As the Senate prepares to take up the DREAM Act, I hope that those who opposed comprehensive immigration reform will pause to consider the very real benefits the DREAM Act will bring. Let the Senate do the right thing, endorse the DREAM Act and reinforce the American dream for all.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3373

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, more than 2 months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee originated the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, a legislative package that responds to the tragic deaths that occurred this past April, almost exactly 6 months ago, on the campus of Virginia Tech and to the ongoing problem of violence in our schools. We have attempted to show deference to Governor Kaine and the task forces at work in Virginia and to complement their work and recommendations. Working with several Senators, including Senators Boxer, Reed, Specter, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin, the committee originated this bill and reported it before the start of the academic year in the hope that the full Senate could pass these critical school safety improvements this fall. Over the past few weeks, Senator Schumer and I have tried separately to pass the component of the bill designed to fix flaws in the Nation's background check system. Regrettably, our efforts were blocked by a single Senator. I do not think the Senate should continue to stand by and wait for the next horrific school tragedy to make the critical changes necessary to ensure safety in our schools and on our college campuses. Risks of school violence will not go away just because Congress may shift its focus. In just the last few weeks we have seen tragedy at Delaware State, University of Memphis, and SuccessTech Academy in Cleveland, Ohio, as well as incidents in California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Oregon. I urge the Senate to move aggressively with the comprehensive school safety legislation. It includes background check improvements, together with other sensible yet effective safety improvement measures supported by law enforcement across the country. Accordingly, I urge the Senate to take up and swiftly pass S. 2084. If we are prohibited by objection from doing so by unanimous consent, then let us move to it and let those with objections seek to amend those provisions to which they object. There are too many incidents at too many colleges and schools nationwide. This terrorizes students and their parents. We should be doing what we can to help. Just a few weeks ago, a troubled student wearing a Fred Flintstone mask and carrying a rifle through campus was arrested at St. John's University in Queens, NY, prompting authorities to lock down the campus for 3 hours. The next day, an armed 17-year-old on the other side of the country in Oroville, CA, held students hostage at Las Plumas High School, also resulting in a lock-down. The incidents have continued this month, with the arrest last week of an armed student suspected of plotting a Columbine-style attack on fellow high school students in Norristown, PA. Just today, in Happy Valley, OR, police arrested a 10-year-old student who brought a semi-automatic weapon into his elementary school. The students in these situations were lucky and escaped without injury. University of Memphis student Taylor Bradford was not so lucky. He was killed on campus on September 30 in what university officials believe was a targeted attack. He was 21 years old. Shalita Middleton and Nathaniel Pew were not so lucky. They were both wounded during an incident at Delaware State. They are each only 17 years old. High school teachers Michael Grassie and David Kachadourian and students Michael Peek and Darnell Rodgers--all of whom were wounded by a troubled student at SuccessTech Academy on October 10--were not so lucky. The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act responds directly to incidents like these by squarely addressing the problem of violence in our schools in several ways. The bill enlists the States as partners in the dissemination of critical information by making significant improvements to the National Instant Background Check System, known as the NICS system. The bill also authorizes federal assistance for programs to improve the safety and security of our schools and institutions of higher education, provides equitable benefits to law enforcement serving those institutions, and funds pilot programs to develop cutting-edge prevention and intervention programs for our schools. The bill also clarifies and strengthens two existing statutes--the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act-- which are designed to improve public safety. Specifically, title I would improve the safety and security of students both at the elementary and secondary school level, and on college and university campuses. The K-12 improvements are drawn from a bill that Senator Boxer introduced in April, and I want to thank Senator Boxer for her hard work on this issue. The improvements include increased funding for much-needed infrastructure changes to improve security as well as the establishment of hotlines and tip-lines, which will enable students to report potentially dangerous situations to school administrators before they occur. These improvements can save lives. After the four students and teachers were wounded last week at SuccessTech Academy, the press reported that parents had been petitioning to get a metal detector installed and additional security personnel added, and that the guard who was previously assigned to the school had been removed 3 years ago. In fact, the entire City of Cleveland has just 10 metal detectors that are rotated throughout the city's more than 100 schools. Title I of the bill would enhance the ability of a school district to apply for and receive grant money to fund the installation of metal detectors and the training and hiring of security personnel to keep our kids safe. Over the past 4 years, this administration has spent over $15 billion to equip, train, and build facilities for the Iraqi security forces. Surely, Congress can stand up for American kids who face unrelenting school violence by supporting just a small fraction of this figure for much-needed school safety improvements. To address the new realities of campus safety in the wake of Virginia Tech and more recent college incidents, title I also creates a matching grant program for campus safety and security to be administered out of the COPS Office of the Department of Justice. The grant program would allow institutions of higher education to apply, for the first time, directly for Federal funds to make school safety and security improvements. The program is authorized to be appropriated at $50,000,000 for the next 2 fiscal years. While this amounts to just $3 per student each year, it will enable schools to more effectively respond to dangerous situations on campus. Title II of the bill seeks to improve the NICS system. The senseless loss of life at Virginia Tech revealed deep flaws in the transfer of information relevant to gun purchases between the States and the Federal Government. The defects in the current system permitted the perpetrator of this terrible crime to obtain a firearm even though a judge had declared him to be a danger to himself and thus ineligible under Federal law. Seung-Hui Cho was not eligible to buy a weapon given his mental health history, but he was still able to pass a background check because data was missing from the system. We are working to close gaps in the NICS system. Title II will correct these problems, and for the first time will create a legal regime in which disqualifying mental health records, both at the State and Federal level, would regularly be reported into the NICS system. Title III would make sworn law enforcement officers who work for private institutions of higher education and rail carriers eligible for death and disability benefits, and for funds administered under the Byrne grant program and the bulletproof vest partnership grant program. Providing this equitable treatment is in the best interest of our Nation's educators and students and will serve to place the support of the Federal Government behind the dedicated law enforcement officers who serve and protect private colleges and universities nationwide. I commend Senator Jack Reed for his leadership in this area. Title IV of the bill makes improvements to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. These amendments to existing law will streamline the system by which qualified retired and active officers can be certified under LEOSA. It serves us all when we permit qualified officers, with a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement and no adverse employment history, to protect themselves and their families wherever they may be. Title V incorporates the PRECAUTION Act, which Senators Feingold and Specter asked to have included. This provision authorizes grants to develop prevention and intervention programs for our schools. Finally, title VI incorporates the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007, at the request of Senator Kennedy. Let us go forward and act now on this important bill. The Virginia Tech Review Panel--a body commissioned by Governor Tim Kaine to study the Virginia Tech tragedy--recently issued its findings based on a 4- month long investigation of the incident and its aftermath. This bill would adopt a number of recommendations from the review panel aimed at improving school safety planning and reporting information to NICS. We must not miss this opportunity to implement these initiatives nationwide, and to take concrete steps to ensure the safety of our kids. I recognize that there is no solution to fully end the sad phenomenon of school violence. But the recent tragedies should prompt us to respond in realistic and meaningful ways when we are presented with such challenges. I hope the Senate can promptly move this bill forward to invest in the safety of our students and better support law enforcement officers across the country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I offer a modified amendment that will provide an additional $15 million for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America so the Clubs can continue to help our Nation's children become productive, law abiding teenagers and contributing adults. We have a responsibility to make sure that our children are safe and secure. I know firsthand how well Boys and Girls Clubs work and what topnotch organizations they are. When I was a prosecutor in Vermont, I was convinced of the great need for Boys and Girls Clubs because we rarely encountered children from these kinds of programs in criminal activity. In fact, after I became a U.S. Senator, a police chief was such a big fan of the work of the Boys and Girls Clubs, that he asked me to help fund a club in his district rather than helping him secure funding for a couple more police officers. In Vermont, Boys and Girls Clubs have succeeded in preventing crime and supporting our children. The first Club was established in Burlington 63 years ago. Now we have 6 clubs in Vermont and 25 other locations throughout the State managed by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. These clubs serve well over 10,000 kids statewide. In a small State such as mine, that is a significant number. I had a terrific visit last month at the Boys and Girls Club of Burlington, VT, and was approached by parents, educators, law enforcement officers and others who told me: Keep doing this. It gives our children a chance to grow up free of drugs, gangs and crime. That is my ultimate proof. If these folks are asking for more clubs and more support, then we ought to do it. As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have pushed for more Federal funding for Boys and Girls Clubs. Since 1998, Congress has increased federal support for Boys and Girls Clubs from $20 million to $85 million. Due in large part to this increase in funding, there now exist more than 4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs in all 50 States serving almost 5 million young people. In 2004, Senator Hatch and I worked together to shepherd into law a reauthorization of Justice Department grants at $80 million for fiscal year 2006, $85 million for fiscal year 2007, $90 million for fiscal year 2008, $95 million for fiscal year 2009 and $100 million for fiscal year 2010 to Boys and Girls Clubs to help establish 1,500 additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. Because of these successes, I was both surprised and deeply disappointed to see that the President requested no funding in his budget for Boys and Girls Clubs for fiscal year 2008 in an effort to consolidate and cut grant funding in the Department of Justice. That request will leave thousands of children and their clubs behind. We cannot allow such a thing to happen. We seem to find an unlimited amount of money to send to Iraq, where half the time we cannot even find out what happened to the money after it went there. I would like to spend a little bit of that money in the United States to help protect our children. We owe it to them. This will do it. If we had a Boys and Girls Club in every community, prosecutors would have a lot less work to do because of the values that are instilled in children from the Boys and Girls Clubs. They deliver results and represent the best of what communities can do to improve the lives of their young people. Across the Nation, Boys and Girls Clubs are proven and growing successes in preventing crime and supporting our children. Our amendment will restore funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to reach $75 million. It also provides an offset by rescinding $15 million in unobligated balances from the Department of Justice in prior fiscal years. It would have no effect on budget authority. This is not a Democratic or Republican idea; it is just an idea that makes sense. It is also an idea that works. We all know instinctively that our Nation's strength and ultimate success lies with our children. I urge the Senate to adopt the Leahy amendment to provide an additional $15 million for the 2008 fiscal year for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Our greatest responsibility is to help children inhabit this century the best way possible and we can help do that by supporting the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this month the Nation is observing National Cyber Security Awareness Month and, today, I am pleased to have Senator Specter join me in introducing our Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2007. This bipartisan criminal bill will provide new tools to federal prosecutors to combat identity theft and other cyber crimes. Senator Specter has been a valuable partner in addressing the growing problem of identity theft for many years. When he served as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we worked closely together on comprehensive data privacy legislation to combat identity theft. During my tenure as Chairman, we have continued our efforts to enact comprehensive data privacy legislation. I appreciate Senator Specter's willingness to work with me once again on this important privacy issue and I look forward to our close partnership yielding results in this Congress. When Senator Specter and I first introduced our comprehensive data privacy bill in 2005, we both knew that there was an urgent need to bring data privacy reforms to the American people. The Judiciary Committee has twice favorably reported the Leahy-Specter Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, most recently in May 2007, and that important privacy bill is now awaiting consideration by the full Senate as S.495. The privacy reforms in that bill are long overdue and I sincerely hope that the Senate will fulfill its obligation to bring meaningful privacy protections to the American people. The bipartisan Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act that we are introducing today takes several important steps to build upon our past efforts to protect Americans from the dangers of identity theft. First, our bill provides the victims of identity theft with the ability to seek restitution in Federal court for the loss of time and money spent restoring their credit and remedying the harms of identity theft. Unfortunately, under current law, restitution for identity theft victims is only available to recover the direct financial costs incurred by victims, such as recovering funds for unauthorized credit card charges. But, many identity theft victims incur other, indirect costs, such as lost wages due to time taken off from work to resolve credit disputes. Our bill amends the Federal criminal code to clarify that restitution orders in identity theft cases may include a recovery of these kinds of indirect costs, so that identity theft victims can be made whole. Second, to address the more sophisticated and complex identity theft crimes committed in today's digital era, our bill also expands the scope of the Federal identity theft statutes so that the law keeps up with the ingenuity of today's identity thieves. The bill expands the definition of ``aggravated identity theft'' under existing law, to include the crime of ``conspiracy'' to commit any of the crimes defined as aggravated identity theft in the criminal code. The bill also adds three new crimes--passing counterfeit securities, mail theft, and tax fraud--to the list of predicate offenses for aggravated identity theft. In order to better deter this kind of criminal activity, the bill significantly increases the criminal penalties for these crimes. In addition, our bill addresses several growing and disturbing trends in the area of cyber crime. To address the increasing number of computer hacking crimes that involve computers located within the same state, the bill eliminates the jurisdictional requirement that a computer's information must be stolen through an interstate or foreign communication in order to federally prosecute this crime. Our bill also addresses the growing problem of the malicious use of spyware to steal sensitive personal information, by amending the criminal code to eliminate the requirement that the loss resulting from the damage to a victim's computer must exceed $5,000 in order to federally prosecute this offense. Our bill also addresses the increasing number of cyber attacks on multiple computers, by making it a felony to employ spyware or keyloggers to damage ten or more computers, regardless of the aggregate amount of damage caused. By making this crime a felony, the bill ensures that the most egregious identity thieves will not escape with minimal punishment under Federal cyber crime laws. Lastly, our bill strengthens the protections for American businesses which are more and more becoming the focus of identity thieves. Because in today's digital economy, cyber-criminals often seek to extort money from American businesses without explicitly threatening to shut down or otherwise cause damage to a company computer, our bill amends the Federal criminal code to expressly cover extortion plots that do not involve a specific threat to damage a computer. The current law does not reach this kind of bad conduct; but, our bill corrects this shortcoming by adding two new causes of action under the cyber extortion statute, threatening to obtain or release information from a protected computer and demanding money in relation to a protected computer, so that this bad conduct can be federally prosecuted. In addition, because a business as well as an individual can be a prime target for identity theft, our bill also closes several gaps in the federal identity theft and the aggravated identity theft statutes, so that identity thieves who steal sensitive information belonging to a small business or a corporation may also be prosecuted under these laws. Senator Specter and I have worked closely with the Department of Justice in crafting this criminal legislation and the Leahy-Specter Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act has the strong support of the Department of Justice, the Secret Service and the Federal prosecutors and investigators who are on the front lines of the battle against identity theft and other cyber crimes. The bill is also supported by the business community and consumer groups. Enacting good, bipartisan legislation to combat identity theft and to protect American consumers should be one of the Senate's top legislative priorities. Senator Specter and I are deeply committed to bringing long overdue data privacy protections to the American people. I hope that all Members of the Senate will join with us in supporting this important privacy legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.