Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tomorrow, the country will commemorate Missing Children's Day. Ceremonies at the Department of Justice and elsewhere will remember our commitment to work together in locating and recovering missing children. I am proud that today, Congress has also realized its obligation to our Nation's children by passing the Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2007, which takes important steps toward this goal. For more than 5 months, one Senator has prevented this important legislation from becoming law. This is regrettable. The authorization for National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, and all that it does to help children and families expires at the end of this fiscal year. This is a bill that passed the House by a vote of 408 to 3. There were 95 cosponsors in the House, both Democrats and Republicans. I introduced a Senate companion bill with Senator Hatch, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Shelby last summer. The Senator Judiciary Committee considered and reported our Senate bill, S. 1829, last December. We have been trying to pass it in the Senate ever since. I am glad the objecting Senator has reconsidered his hold on this legislation. The National Center will now have the security of being able to plan and to maintain their services and staff for the future. It pains us all to see photo after photo of missing children from all around our country. As a father and grandfather, I can imagine that an abducted child is any parent's worst nightmare. Unfortunately, it is a nightmare that happens all too often. Indeed, the Justice Department estimates that 2,200 children are reported missing each day. There are approximately 114,600 attempted stranger abductions every year, with 3,000 to 5,000 of those attempts succeeding. These families need the assistance of the American people and a helping hand from Congress. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children spearheads national efforts to locate and recover missing children and raises public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, molestation, and sexual exploitation. Further, NCMEC works to make our children safer by acting as a national voice and advocate for those too young to vote or speak up for their own rights. The national center's professionals have busy, stressful and important jobs. They have worked on more than 127,700 cases of missing and exploited children since the national center's 1984 founding, helping to recover more than 110,200 children. The national center reports that it raised its recovery rate from 64 percent in the 1990s to 96 percent today. It has set up three nationwide tip lines: a toll free, 24-hour telephone hotline to take reports about missing children and clues that might lead to their recovery; a national child pornography tipline to handle calls from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children through the production and distribution of pornography; and a cybertipline to process online leads from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children. The national center has taken the lead in circulating millions of photographs of missing children, and it serves as a vital resource for the 17,000 law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation who are one the frontlines in the search for missing children and in the pursuit of adequate child protection. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children manages to do all of this good work with an annual DOJ grant, which is set to expire after fiscal year 2008. It is important to act now to extend its authorization so that it can continue to help keep children safe and families intact around our Nation. We should continue to do everything we can to protect our children and I thank my friends on both sides of the aisle for joining me in this effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate continues to make progress by confirming another lifetime appointment to one of our important Federal circuit courts. The circuit court nomination we consider today is that of Justice G. Steven Agee of Virginia. His nomination to a long-vacant circuit court seat is the result of a breakthrough with the White House. Even more important, it fills a vacancy listed as a judicial emergency on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I commend the Senators from Virginia, Senator Warner and Senator Webb, for their work in bringing this forward. It was a bipartisan exercise on their part. I thank Senator Cardin of Maryland for taking the time to chair the hearing on this nomination. It is interesting that Judge Agee's nomination gives us an opportunity to be productive even in a Presidential election year, where following normal history we tend to be far less productive. There has been a string of controversial nominations from Virginia. Until recently, President Bush had insisted on confrontation with the Senate by nominating Jim Haynes, who contributed to the torture memos, Claude Allen, and Duncan Getchell. I think he became aware they were not going to go anywhere. When Republicans come to the Senate to discuss the pace at which we are considering judicial nominations, I am almost amused watching them because something is always wrong. It is sort of like Goldilocks. It is kind of like Goldilocks in the fairly tale--the porridge is too hot; the porridge is too cold. When I schedule hearings and even break into my recess where I should be in Vermont and come back because they are so insistent that they need to have hearings on this, and I come back and hold a hearing for nominees of President Bush, oh, golly, I am moving too quickly. They have actually criticized me for doing that. Of course, if we slow the pace down, well, then we are criticized for moving too slowly. I was thinking of that situation when I was reading ``Goldilocks'' to one of my grandchildren the other night. Of course, ``Goldilocks'' is a child's story, and they should not play childish games here. One thing has been apparent from the outset of the year: My friends on the Republican side hope that by ignoring their own history--pocket filibustering more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations while they were in the majority--that somehow they can rewrite history. Democrats, to their credit, have not retaliated. I think of pocket filibustering 60 of President Clinton's nominees. But they say, after voting one of those 60 out of committee, they allowed him to come to a vote on this floor. This was a very prominent African-American justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, who later became chief justice. It is obvious why they let this African-American justice come to a vote on the floor of the Senate. Every single Republican, including those Republicans who had voted for him in the Senate Judiciary Committee, came on the floor in a humiliating gesture and voted down his confirmation. It was one of the low marks of this body. As I said, we have not retaliated. But also the Democratic majority has a responsibility not to push through the confirmation process nominations who are there simply to advance a political agenda instead of there to maintain the impartiality of our Federal judiciary. In fact, in contrast with the Republican Senate majority that more than doubled circuit court vacancies during the Clinton administration, we have reduced vacancies by nearly two-thirds. We have reduced them in nearly every circuit during the Bush administration. With the confirmation of Steven Agee today, the Fourth Circuit will have fewer vacancies than at the end of the Clinton administration, and that, of course, was when the Senate Republican majority pocket filibustered five Fourth Circuit nominees. In fact, they refused to consider any Fourth Circuit nominees during the last 2 years of President Clinton's Presidency. Today, we will reduce vacancies among the 13 Federal circuit courts throughout the country to 11. That, incidentally, is the lowest number of vacancies in more than a decade. When Republican Senators are ready to allow us to consider and confirm the President's nominations to fill the last two remaining vacancies on the Sixth Circuit, if Republicans will allow us to go forward with President Bush's nominees there, we can reduce the total number of circuit court vacancies to single digits for the first time in decades. So for all the smoke and mirrors on the other side, the fact remains that we have succeeded in lowering circuit court vacancies to a historically low level. Let's take a moment and go to the charts. These are circuit court vacancies. For most of the time when President Clinton was President, the Republicans were in charge. Look what they did. By their use of pocket filibusters, they pushed the number of vacancies in the circuit courts from 16 up to 32. Were there nominees for those seats? Of course there were, but they were pocket filibustered. I use one example, one nomination that was pocket filibustered: Well, we don't know if she is really qualified. She is now the dean of the Harvard Law School, the most prestigious law school in this country. When we came in halfway through the first year of President Bush's term, people thought that maybe the Democrats might retaliate and do the same thing to him. We did just the opposite. We started bringing down the number of circuit court vacancies, and we continued. When I became chairman for the first time, in the summer of 2001, we quickly and dramatically lowered vacancies. We confirmed 100 nominations in only 17 months. We set an all-time record for the Senate being controlled by one party and the Presidency by another. We confirmed 100 nominations in only 17 months. That was with an uncooperative White House. And we reduced vacancies by 45 percent. Look at the numbers. Look how the vacancies went up when the Republicans were in charge with a Democratic President, and when Democrats were in charge with a Republican President, they came down. It is the Democratic Senate majority that has worked hard to lower them in this Congress. We have gone from more than 110 vacancies to less than 50. We have reversed course from the days when the Republican Senate majority more than doubled circuit vacancies. We have lowered the circuit court vacancies that existed when I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the summer of 2001--32 vacancies--we lowered them to 12. Today, we lower it to 11. Of the 178 authorized circuit court judgeships, after today's confirmation, only 11 will remain vacant. We took the vacancy rate Republicans gave us of 18 percent and brought it down to 6 percent. With 166 active appellate judges and 104 senior status judges serving on the Federal courts of appeals, there are 270 circuit court judges. I think that is the most in our history. In fact, our work has led to a reduction in vacancies in nearly every circuit. Both the Second and Fifth Circuits had circuit-wide emergencies due to the multiple simultaneous vacancies during the Clinton years with Republicans in control of the Senate. Both the Second Circuit and the Fifth Circuit now are without a single vacancy. We have already succeeded in lowering vacancies in the Second Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit, the DC Circuit and the Federal Circuit. With the confirmation of Justice Agee, the Fourth Circuit will join that list. Circuits with no current vacancies include the Seventh Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit and the Federal Circuit. When we are allowed to proceed with President Bush's nominations of Judge White and Ray Kethledge to the Sixth Circuit, it will join that list of Federal circuits without a single vacancy. Less than 2 weeks ago, President Bush nominated Judge Glen E. Conrad to the second and final Virginia vacancy on the Fourth Circuit. With the support of Senator Warner and Senator Webb, we may still have time this year to proceed to that nomination and resolve another longstanding vacancy, further reducing vacancies on the Fourth Circuit and on Federal circuit courts in general. I remain determined to prioritize progress and focus the Judiciary Committee on those nominations on which we can make progress and, in particular, on those in which the White House has finally begun to work with the Senate. However, when I tried to expedite consideration of two Sixth Circuit nominations of President Bush's this month, all I got was criticism from the Republican side of the aisle. In fact, at the hearing on May 7, Republican Senators all but attacked one of the President's nominees. Senator Brownback publicly apologized for his actions at the hearing, and I commend him for doing so. His apology was in the best tradition of the Senate. Of course, last Wednesday, the same Republicans who were saying hurry up with these nominees sent scores of time-consuming questions to the nominees, all but ensuring the nominees cannot be considered this month. We will not hear them until they answer the questions. We will get the ABA reports. Disputes over a handful of controversial judicial nominations have wasted valuable time that could be spent on the real priorities of every American. I have sought, instead, to make progress where we can. The result is the significant reduction in judicial vacancies. By turning today to the Agee nomination, we can make additional progress. The alternative is to risk becoming embroiled in contentious debates for months and thereby foreclose the opportunity to make progress where we can. The most recent controversial Bush judicial nomination took 5\1/2\ months of debate after a hearing before Senate action was possible. We also saw what happened during the last several months of the last Congress, which was not even a Presidential election year. There were many hearings on many controversial nominations. That resulted in a great deal of effort and conflict but not in as many confirmations as might have been achieved. I prefer to make progress where we can and to work together to do so. I am sure there are some who prefer partisan fights designed to energize a political base during an election year, but I do not. I am determined to prioritize progress, not politics, and focus the committee on those nominations on which we can make progress. The Republican Senate majority during the last 5 years of the Clinton administration more than doubled vacancies on our Nation's circuit courts, as they rose from 12 to 26. Those circuit vacancies grew to 32 during the transition to the Bush administration. The statistics are worth repeating: we have been able to reverse that trend and reduce circuit vacancies by almost two-thirds. Today there are fewer circuit court vacancies than at any time since the 1996 session. In fact, our work has led to a reduction in vacancies in nearly every circuit. We are heading toward reducing circuit court vacancies to single digits for the first time in decades. I have been speaking during the last several weeks about the progress we are making in repairing the terrible damage done to the confirmation process and about our progress in reducing judicial vacancies. We can do a number of things. We can work as the White House finally did after three strikes; they finally worked with the Senators from Virginia, and we have a circuit court of appeals judge going through. There are other circuits where they could do the same thing, work with Republican Senators, work with Democratic Senators, and they could get them through. If they want to simply continue and have judges who are obviously nominated to carry out a political agenda, obviously nominated to politicize the Federal court, these people are not going to go through. What a waste of time. Why not realize that the American people do not want judicial nominations rooted in partisan politics? They want Federal judges who understand the importance of an independent judiciary. Our independent courts are a source of America's strength, endurance, and stability. Our judicial system has been the envy of the world. The American people expect the Federal courts to be impartial forums where justice is dispensed without favor to the right or the left or to any political party or faction. The only lifetime appointments in our government, these nominations matter a great deal. The Federal judiciary is the one arm of our government that should never be political or politicized, regardless of who sits in the White House. With the Agee confirmation today, the sixth so far this year and the second circuit court confirmation, the Senate is ahead of the pace the Republican Senate majority established during the 1996 session, a Presidential election year, in which no judicial nominations were considered or confirmed by the Senate before July. That is right--today we stand six confirmations, including two circuit court confirmations, ahead of the pace Republicans set in the 1996 session. In fact, with the Agee confirmation we are already two circuit court confirmations beyond the total the Republican Senate majority allowed for that entire session, when they refused to proceed on any circuit court nominations. So today we demonstrate progress about which I have been speaking and on which I have been working. I continue in this Congress and I will continue with the new President in the next Congress to work with Senators from both sides of the aisle to guarantee we have nonpartisan judges. Justice Agee has 7 years of judicial experience on the State bench as a Justice on the Supreme Court of Virginia and a former judge on the Court of Appeals of Virginia. For more than 20 years prior to his judicial service, Justice Agee worked in private practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was elected by the people of Virginia as a Delegate to the Virginia General Assembly where he served for over a decade. Justice Agee graduated from Bridgewater College with a B.A. and he received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law. He received an L.L.M. degree in taxation from New York University School of Law. I congratulate Justice Agee and his family on his confirmation today, and I look forward to making further progress by working together on judicial nominations. The Virginia and Michigan vacancies on the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, respectively, have proven a great challenge. I want to commend Senator Warner and Senator Webb, and Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow for working to end these impasses. I have urged the President to work with the Virginia and Michigan Senators and, after several years, he finally has. During the last 3 months, our extensive efforts culminated in significant developments that can lead to filling two Virginia vacancies on the Fourth Circuit and two Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit, three of which have been classified as judicial emergencies. This accomplishment stands in sharp contrast to the actions of Senate Republicans who refused to consider any of the highly qualified nominations to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration or to consider any of the highly qualified nominations to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals during the last 2 years of the Clinton administration. The Republican Senate majority left open five vacancies on the Fourth Circuit and four on the Sixth Circuit at the end of the Clinton administration. The Fourth Circuit is a good example of how much time and effort we have wasted on controversial nominations by President Bush. For example, there was the highly controversial and failed nomination of William ``Jim'' Haynes II to the Fourth Circuit. As General Counsel at the Department of Defense, he was the architect of many discredited policies on detainee treatment, military tribunals, and torture. Mr. Haynes never fulfilled the pledge he made to me under oath at his hearing to supply the materials he discussed in an extended opening statement regarding his role in developing these policies and their legal justifications. The Haynes nomination led the Richmond Times-Dispatch to write an editorial in late 2006 entitled ``No Vacancies,'' about the President's counterproductive approach to nominations in the Fourth Circuit. The editorial criticized the administration for pursuing political fights at the expense of filling vacancies. According to the Times-Dispatch, ``The president erred by renominating . . . and may be squandering his opportunity to fill numerous other vacancies with judges of right reason.'' The Times-Dispatch editorial focused on the renomination of Mr. Haynes, but could just as easily have been written about other controversial Fourth Circuit nominees. The President insisted on nominating and renominating Terrence Boyle over the course of 6 years to a North Carolina vacancy on the Fourth Circuit. This despite the fact that as a sitting U.S. district judge and while a circuit court nominee, Judge Boyle ruled on multiple cases involving corporations in which he held investments. The President should have heeded the call of North Carolina Police Benevolent Association, the North Carolina Troopers' Association, the Police Benevolent Associations from South Carolina and Virginia, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Professional Fire Fighters and Paramedics of North Carolina, as well as the advice of Senator John Edwards. Law enforcement officers from North Carolina and across the country opposed the nomination. Civil rights groups opposed the nomination. Those knowledgeable and respectful of judicial ethics opposed the nomination. This President persisted for 6 years before withdrawing the Boyle nomination. I mention these ill-advised nominations because so many Republican partisans seem to have forgotten this recent history and why there are continuing vacancies on the Fourth Circuit. The efforts and years wasted on President Bush's controversial nominations followed in the wake of the Republican Senate majority's refusal to consider any of President Clinton's Fourth Circuit nominees. All four nominees from North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit were blocked from consideration by the Republican Senate majority. These outstanding nominees included U.S. District Court Judge James Beaty, Jr., U.S. Bankruptcy Judge J. Richard Leonard, North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge James Wynn, and Professor Elizabeth Gibson. The failure to proceed on these nominations has yet to be explained. Had either Judge Beaty or Judge Wynn been considered and confirmed, he would have been the first African-American judge appointed to the Fourth Circuit. In contrast, I worked with Senator Edwards to break through the impasse and to confirm Judge Allyson Duncan of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit when President Bush nominated her. I worked to reduce Federal judicial vacancies in North Carolina by confirming three judges last year Judge Schroeder, Judge Reidinger and Judge Osteen. Previously during the Bush administration, I cooperated in the confirmation of Judge Whitney, Judge Conrad, Judge Dever, Judge McKnight, and Judge Flanagan. That totals nine Federal judges in North Carolina, including a Fourth Circuit judge, during the Bush Presidency. By contrast, during the entire eight years of the Clinton administration, only one district court judge was allowed to be confirmed in North Carolina. We have also made progress in South Carolina. Senator Graham follows Senator Thurmond as South Carolina's representative on the Judiciary Committee. Despite the controversy that accompanied the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd, and my own opposition to it, I presided as chairman when we considered that nomination and when the Senate granted its consent. I also presided over consideration of the nomination of Terry Wooten. More recently, we acted favorably on the nominations of Harvey Floyd and Robert Bryan Harwell. While I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee from the summer of 2001 to the end of 2002, I presided over the consideration and confirmation of three Fourth Circuit judges nominated by President Bush. All together, President Bush has already appointed five judges to the Fourth Circuit. By contrast, President Clinton was allowed by Senate Republicans to appoint three and left office with five vacancies existing on that court. Of course, during the Clinton administration, Republican Senators argued that the Fourth Circuit vacancies did not need to be filled because the Fourth Circuit had the fastest docket time to disposition in the country. If the Agee nomination is confirmed, as I expect it will be, the Fourth Circuit will have fewer vacancies than it did when Republicans claimed no more judges were needed. Judge Agee will succeed Judge Michael Luttig, who retired a few years ago to take a more lucrative position in the private sector. Judge Luttig was known as a very conservative judge on the Fourth Circuit. He was involved in the Padilla case a few years ago and condemned the shifting legal positions of the Bush administration in that case involving an American citizen. He noted that the Bush administration's maneuvering had consequences ``not only for the public perception of the war on terror but also for the government's credibility before the courts in litigation ancillary to that war.'' Judge Luttig went on to note that the administration's behavior in ``yield[ing] to expediency'' left an impression that ``may ultimately prove to be [at] substantial cost to the government's credibility.'' In those independent observations, Judge Luttig performed a public service. I have likewise urged the President to work with the Michigan Senators, and, after 7 years, he finally has. Last month, our extensive efforts culminated in a significant development that, unless partisanship interferes, can lead to filling the last two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit before this year ends. This accomplishment stands in sharp contrast to the actions of Senate Republicans who refused to consider any nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration. Ultimately, the Republican-led Senate left open four vacancies on that circuit. Mine has been a different approach and one that has led to significant progress. I am glad to see that progress continue today with our confirmation of the nomination of Justice G. Steven Agee of Virginia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a bill today to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act for 3 years, through 2012. This legislation has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress since it was enacted in 1998, and I thank Senators Specter, Mikulski, Shelby and Hatch for joining me in today's introduction. I am also glad to be joined by Congressmen Visclosky who will introduce this bill in the House of Representatives today as well. Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice has distributed $234 million to State and local jurisdictions. Those grants have resulted in the purchase of an estimated 818,000 vests. Since its enactment, over 11,900 State and local jurisdictions have participated in this program. Congress can be proud of the fact that this legislation has directly provided life-saving equipment to so many law enforcement officers. I know that when State and local jurisdictions receive the matching grants through this program, their budgets can go farther in fighting crime in their communities. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the importance of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. We heard from a law enforcement officer who was shot in the chest at pointblank range during an auto theft investigation. He lived to tell the committee and others his story, thanks to the bulletproof vest he was wearing. In my home state of Vermont, the program has allowed the Vermont police to purchase over 350 sets of armor in the last 10 years. The program has had a tremendous impact on the ability of States and localities to give our law enforcement officers the protection they deserve while serving the needs of our communities. As a Nation, we ask much of our law enforcement officers. Men and women who serve face constant and unknown risks, and too often make the ultimate sacrifice. During this week in Washington, law enforcement officers from around the country will remember those officers who died in the line of duty while protecting their fellow citizens. Unfortunately, an ongoing trend of rising violent crime in the U.S. underscores the continuing need of this program that has had such a positive impact on the safety of law enforcement officers. Reauthorizing and funding this program is the right thing to do, and it is something I hope all Senators will support. Every additional officer who is able to put on a vest today as a result of this grant program means that one more officer may survive a violent attack. Protecting the men and women who protect all Americans should be a priority for Congress and we have a chance to advance that priority with the continuation of this important program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a bill today to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act for 3 years, through 2012. This legislation has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress since it was enacted in 1998, and I thank Senators Specter, Mikulski, Shelby and Hatch for joining me in today's introduction. I am also glad to be joined by Congressmen Visclosky who will introduce this bill in the House of Representatives today as well. Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice has distributed $234 million to State and local jurisdictions. Those grants have resulted in the purchase of an estimated 818,000 vests. Since its enactment, over 11,900 State and local jurisdictions have participated in this program. Congress can be proud of the fact that this legislation has directly provided life-saving equipment to so many law enforcement officers. I know that when State and local jurisdictions receive the matching grants through this program, their budgets can go farther in fighting crime in their communities. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the importance of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. We heard from a law enforcement officer who was shot in the chest at pointblank range during an auto theft investigation. He lived to tell the committee and others his story, thanks to the bulletproof vest he was wearing. In my home state of Vermont, the program has allowed the Vermont police to purchase over 350 sets of armor in the last 10 years. The program has had a tremendous impact on the ability of States and localities to give our law enforcement officers the protection they deserve while serving the needs of our communities. As a Nation, we ask much of our law enforcement officers. Men and women who serve face constant and unknown risks, and too often make the ultimate sacrifice. During this week in Washington, law enforcement officers from around the country will remember those officers who died in the line of duty while protecting their fellow citizens. Unfortunately, an ongoing trend of rising violent crime in the U.S. underscores the continuing need of this program that has had such a positive impact on the safety of law enforcement officers. Reauthorizing and funding this program is the right thing to do, and it is something I hope all Senators will support. Every additional officer who is able to put on a vest today as a result of this grant program means that one more officer may survive a violent attack. Protecting the men and women who protect all Americans should be a priority for Congress and we have a chance to advance that priority with the continuation of this important program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in a short while I am going to call up an amendment, and I will move at that time to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 4759. I am not going to do it yet because I want the distinguished Republican manager of the bill, Senator Enzi, to have a chance to see what it is before I do. But let me describe it a little bit before I do call it up. The amendment would reauthorize and extend the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. This is a program that some may recall the former Senator from Colorado, Mr. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and I began some years ago. This morning, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing about this important grant program. We heard compelling testimony from an officer, Detective David Azur of Baltimore, whose life was saved in 2000 when he was shot at pointblank range in the chest. He said he had enormous pain and a huge bruise from it, but the bullet did not penetrate his vest. I said to Detective Azur from Baltimore--and I know his family; his father served as a police officer in Burlington, VT, when I was a prosecutor--at least he felt the bruise. Had he not had the vest on, he would not have felt anything. He would have died instantly. We also heard from Vermont State police lieutenant Michael Macarilla. I know Lieutenant Macarilla very well. He spoke about the assistance Vermont law enforcement officers have received from the program. This week, thousands of law enforcement officers from around the country have come to Washington to honor the men and women who have given their lives in service over the past year. One thing everybody in this Senate could agree on, all Americans could agree on: We should offer our gratitude to the officers and their families. On Thursday, May 15--this week--Congress and the American people are going to pause to reflect upon the sacrifices too many have made, as we celebrate Peace Officers Memorial Day. This week, at the Police Officers Memorial, we will recognize and remember the 181 officers who were lost in the line of duty during the past year. Every death is a tragedy, but 181, Mr. President--that is the largest yearly total since the extraordinary losses on 9/11 and in its aftermath. Think of that: 181 officers lost, lost in the line of duty. It also means that a family lost a loved one: a spouse, a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister. We need to do all we can for the men and women who risk their lives protecting us and the public's safety every day. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program saves lives. It makes a real difference to our officers and their families. The officers who testified before the Judiciary Committee today have firsthand experience with the importance of armor vests. So I am grateful to Detective David Azur from Baltimore and grateful to Lieutenant Michael Macarilla from the Vermont State police for their willingness to share their experiences with the committee and the Senate and the Congress. I was proud to initiate the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act with Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 1998. Both of us relied on our own experience in law enforcement, experience both of us had in law enforcement before we came to the Senate. Between 1999 and 2007, our program has assisted in the purchase of an estimated 818,044 vests. We have taken a giant step away from the days in which law enforcement officers were required to purchase their own vests or go without the vest. Actually, I do believe the bulletproof vests should be standard issue equipment for law enforcement, just as we have standard equipment issuing a badge and a weapon. In addition, as we were reminded at this morning's hearing, body armor is not effective forever. You buy it but it wears out. In fact, manufacturers offer only a 5-year warranty for these lifesaving vests. They have to be replaced periodically. In fact, for Detective Azur, his warranty was just about to run out when he was shot. Despite the fact that the President's budget has repeatedly-- repeatedly--neglected to request authorized funding for this program, Congress has stepped up and recognized its importance and appropriated the funds needed to keep it strong. I hope Congress will do so again this year. It may be easy to just look at Federal grant programs as just numbers, and say: Here's a number we can cut. It is a good way to reduce Federal spending. But when it comes to the safety of law enforcement officers, I can think of no rational excuse not to fully meet Congress's determined levels of support for the men and women who protect us all. Look what we have done in Iraq. This administration has provided the Iraqi police forces with a virtual blank check over the past several years. American taxpayers have seen hundreds of millions-- some would say billions--of dollars sent to Iraq and misspent, this just on the police forces there. Large sums of cash and weapons disappear. We sent over thousands of weapons, and we didn't even know where they went until some of them showed up in the hands of the people trying to kill our own soldiers. If we can afford to pay for training and equipment for the Iraqi police, we ought to be able to afford bulletproof vests for the officers who protect Americans here at home. There is money in the President's budget for the Iraqi police forces. I would like a little bit of money in the budget for American police forces. I worked with these police officers for 8 years when I was State's attorney. I think we ought to start paying a little bit of attention here at home. State and local law enforcement officers assist Federal authorities in many areas, and this grant program should be viewed in the spirit of this cooperation. In an era when State and local law enforcement are shouldering more responsibilities on the front lines in the name of national security or in cooperation with Federal authorities in fighting interstate crime, then the Federal Government owes it to them to provide them with some support. Much of our Nation's strength lies in our rule of law, and Congress should support the men and women who uphold the laws and protect our democracy. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act expires next year, so the amendment I filed would reauthorize this program for another 3 years. It is drawn from the bill that Senators Specter, Mikulski, Shelby, Hatch and I have introduced today. It also includes giving discretionary authority to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Justice Department to waive the matching requirement for jurisdictions experiencing financial hardship. That provision is drawn from the Leahy-Shelby bill, S. 2511. I think that in a narrow and tighter budget and a troubled economy, it makes sense to give the agency making these plans the authority and the flexibility to ensure that no jurisdiction is excluded from such critical assistance simply because it can't afford to meet the matching requirements. Local law enforcement agencies don't have oil revenues. They don't have outside sources of revenue. If we are going to have the administration say send money to the Iraqi police force, which does have enormous oil revenues, and ask the American taxpayers to pay for it, let's pause and do something to help American police forces. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4759.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to someone who has touched the lives of millions not just in this country but across the world. This week, tenor Placido Domingo sings the title role in the new Washington National Opera production of Handel's ``Tamerlano.'' It is his 130th role, an unprecedented feat. He has made each of these parts into something alive and multidimensional. Tragic figures like Otello or Cavaradossi have come to life and, through their actions, have laid out time-honored truths about human emotions and how we live. Mr. Domingo's singing, marked by a clarion tone and natural sense of the shape of a musical phrase, can move us to great heights and the deepest depths. He is a positive force in the world and someone that everyone can celebrate. Next year marks the 40th anniversary of his debuts at the Lyric Opera of Chicago and the country's premiere opera house, the Metropolitan Opera. He frequently sings across the globe, gracing stages of esteemed European opera houses like London's Royal Opera and Milan's La Scala. He might be most widely known as one of the ``3 Tenors.'' His recording of grand productions and solo recitals fill store racks in my home State of Vermont, as well as the whole country. These are unheralded achievements for any tenor, undertakings that have led to numerous awards like several Grammy awards and his recent election by a respected British magazine as the ``King of Singers.'' Thankfully, his ego is not nearly as long or wide as that list of laurels. He is a deeply respectful individual, and he takes interest in others. He came be extremely kind. He paid me one of the nicest favors last year, when, at a special function, my wife Marcelle asked him to sing ``Happy Birthday'' to me. Rarely has the simple tune been heard with such color and finesse. It was a moment that I will never forget. Even in that straightforward, if always sweet, tune that amazing sense of the inner workings of music was there. There have been other great tenors but few who have shown such a strong musical sense. The word used most often to describe Mr. Domingo's approach to each score is ``scrupulous,'' a word that means meticulous, fastidious, conscientious. That quality extends into his work from the podium as a conductor and from the boardroom as a general manager, not only of the Washington National Opera but also the Los Angeles Opera. He gets inside whatever he is doing--singing, conducting, administration--and makes it come out fresh, natural, and seemingly right. He has literally lived and breathed opera throughout his life. As a child, he sang the popular Spanish operas known as zarzuela. The two companies that he directs have commissioned new operas, and it is new operas that make all the difference between a ``has-been'' and a living, breathing art form. Just 2 years ago, the Washington National Opera put on Scott Wheeler's ``Democracy.'' Its themes of politics, love, and Washington still resonate today. Mr. Domingo spends a great deal of time in the United States, which has received him like the hero he often sings on stage. He knows New York, Washington, and Los Angeles like a native. He undertakes tours to sing across the Nation, sometimes bringing music to communities that may not have a major opera house. He is not an American citizen, but he embraces some of the best qualities of what it means to be an American, energetic and open, alive to life's possibilities. He has forged a special bond with the country, and for that we are all grateful. As Mr. Domingo takes on his role this week at the Washington National Opera, I know the entire Senate joins me in congratulating and thanking him for his relentless work and his spectacular ability to move us to tears, laughter, and sheer joy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported S. Res. 537 to the Senate floor. In recognition of those officers who lost their lives in 2007, the full Senate has now passed this resolution. I thank Senators Specter, Kennedy, Durbin, Kohl, Feinstein, Schumer, Hatch, Whitehouse, Biden, Cardin, and Baucus for joining me in sponsoring this resolution. And I thank the full Senate for showing its strong support and appreciation of America's law enforcement officers by unanimously passing this resolution. It is something in which we can all take pride. Last year, in 2007, 181 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty. That is a regrettable and significant increase from just 1 year earlier. Tragically, it is the most line-of-duty deaths since 2001 and the losses from September 11 of that year. The magnitude of this loss should remove any doubts in Congress that it is necessary to give these men and women everything they need to stay safe, and to do their jobs as effectively as they can. Currently, more than 900,000 men and women who guard our communities do so at great risk. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 18,200 law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. There is lots of talk about the war on crime. Our law enforcement officers are all too often the casualties in that effort, and the officers who lost their lives in 2007 are a stark reminder that we must not let up in our support of those who work day- in and day-out in the service of their communities and fellow citizens. I also take this opportunity to recognize that the names of 358 fallen officers will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on May 13 during a candlelight vigil that will be held in their honor. These are officers from the past and present whose memory will be preserved at the memorial, ensuring that their bravery and sacrifice will not be forgotten. National Peace Officers Memorial Day provides the people of the United States, in their communities, in their State capitals, and in the Nation's Capital, with the opportunity to honor and reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by those members of our police forces. More than 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington in the days leading up to May 15, to join with the families of their fallen comrades. It is right that the Senate show its respect on this occasion, and I thank all Senators for joining me in honoring their service and their memory by approving this bipartisan resolution.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act of 2008 along with Senator Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. This legislation would reauthorize and improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, RHYA. The programs authorized during the past 30 years by the RHYA have consistently proven critical to protecting and giving hope to our Nation's runaway and homeless youth. The prevalence of homelessness among young people in America is shockingly high. The problem is not limited to large cities. Its impact is felt strongly in smaller communities and rural areas as well. It affects our young people directly and reverberates throughout our families and communities. That this problem continues in the richest country in the world means that we need to redouble our commitment and our efforts to safeguard our Nation's youth. We need to support the dedicated people in communities across the country who work to address these problems every day. On April 29, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to focus the Senate's attention on these problems and to identify and develop solutions to protect runaway and homeless youth. It was the first Senate hearing on these matters in more than a decade. We heard from a distinguished panel of witnesses, some of whom spoke firsthand about the significant challenges that young people face when they have nowhere to go. Our witnesses demonstrated that young people can overcome harrowing obstacles and create new opportunities when given the chance. One witness went from living as a homeless youth in his teens to earning two Oscar nominations as a distinguished actor. Another witness is working with homeless youth at the same Vermont organization that enabled him to stop living on the streets and is on his way to great things. Our witness panel gave useful and insightful suggestions on how to improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act to make it more effective. We have included many of these recommendations in our bill. The Justice Department estimated that 1.7 million young people either ran away from home or were thrown out of their homes in 1999. Another study suggested a number closer to 2.8 million in 2002. Whether the true number is one million or five million, young people become homeless for a number of reasons, ranging from abandonment to running away from an abusive home to having no place to go after being released from state care. An estimated 40 to 60 percent of homeless children are expected to experience physical abuse, and 17 to 35 percent experience sexual abuse while on the street, according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services. Homeless youth are also at greater risk of mental health problems. While many receive vital services in their communities, others remain a hidden population, on the streets of our big cities and in rural areas like Vermont. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act is the way in which the Federal Government helps communities across the country protect some of our most vulnerable children. It was first passed the year I was elected to the Senate. We have reauthorized it several times since then, and working with Senator Specter and Senators on both sides of the aisle, I hope that we will do so again this year. While some have tried to end these programs, a bipartisan coalition has worked to preserve and continue the good that is accomplished through them. I remember Senator Specter's efforts early in his Senate career to preserve these programs when he chaired the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the programs it funds provide a safety net that helps give young people a chance to build lives for themselves, and helps reunite youngsters with their families. Given the increasingly difficult economic conditions being experienced by so many families around the country, it is time to recommit ourselves to these principles and programs. Under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, every State receives a Basic Center grant to provide housing and crisis services for runaway and homeless youth and their families. Community-based groups around the country can also apply for funding through the Transitional Living Program and the Sexual Abuse Prevention/Street Outreach grant program. The transitional living program grants are used to provide longer-term housing to homeless youth between the ages of 16 and 21, and to help them become self-sufficient. The outreach grants are used to target youth susceptible to engaging in high-risk behaviors while living on the street. Our bill makes improvements to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act reauthorizations of past years. It doubles funding for States by instituting a minimum of $200,000, which will allow states to better meet the diverse needs of their communities. This bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop performance standards for grantees. Providing program guidelines would level the playing field for bidders, ensure consistency among providers, and increase the effectiveness of the services under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. In addition, our legislation develops an incidence study to better estimate the number of runaway and homeless youth and to identify trends. The incidence study would provide more accurate estimates of the runaway and homeless youth population and would help lawmakers make better policy decisions and allow communities to provide better outreach. In my home State of Vermont, the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth, the New England Network for Child, Youth, and Family Services, and Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington all receive grants under these programs and have provided excellent services. In one recent year, the street outreach programs in Vermont served nearly 10,000 young people. The overwhelming need for services is not limited to any one state or community. Many transitional living programs are forced to turn away young people seeking shelter. We heard testimony of an exemplary program within blocks of our nation's Capitol that has a waiting list as long as a year. This is unacceptable. The needs in our communities are real, and reauthorizing the law will allow these programs to expand their enormously important work. These topics are difficult but deserve our attention. Finding solutions to this growing problem is an effort we can all support. I thank Senator Specter for joining with me and urge all Senators to support prompt passage of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act of 2008 along with Senator Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. This legislation would reauthorize and improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, RHYA. The programs authorized during the past 30 years by the RHYA have consistently proven critical to protecting and giving hope to our Nation's runaway and homeless youth. The prevalence of homelessness among young people in America is shockingly high. The problem is not limited to large cities. Its impact is felt strongly in smaller communities and rural areas as well. It affects our young people directly and reverberates throughout our families and communities. That this problem continues in the richest country in the world means that we need to redouble our commitment and our efforts to safeguard our Nation's youth. We need to support the dedicated people in communities across the country who work to address these problems every day. On April 29, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to focus the Senate's attention on these problems and to identify and develop solutions to protect runaway and homeless youth. It was the first Senate hearing on these matters in more than a decade. We heard from a distinguished panel of witnesses, some of whom spoke firsthand about the significant challenges that young people face when they have nowhere to go. Our witnesses demonstrated that young people can overcome harrowing obstacles and create new opportunities when given the chance. One witness went from living as a homeless youth in his teens to earning two Oscar nominations as a distinguished actor. Another witness is working with homeless youth at the same Vermont organization that enabled him to stop living on the streets and is on his way to great things. Our witness panel gave useful and insightful suggestions on how to improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act to make it more effective. We have included many of these recommendations in our bill. The Justice Department estimated that 1.7 million young people either ran away from home or were thrown out of their homes in 1999. Another study suggested a number closer to 2.8 million in 2002. Whether the true number is one million or five million, young people become homeless for a number of reasons, ranging from abandonment to running away from an abusive home to having no place to go after being released from state care. An estimated 40 to 60 percent of homeless children are expected to experience physical abuse, and 17 to 35 percent experience sexual abuse while on the street, according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services. Homeless youth are also at greater risk of mental health problems. While many receive vital services in their communities, others remain a hidden population, on the streets of our big cities and in rural areas like Vermont. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act is the way in which the Federal Government helps communities across the country protect some of our most vulnerable children. It was first passed the year I was elected to the Senate. We have reauthorized it several times since then, and working with Senator Specter and Senators on both sides of the aisle, I hope that we will do so again this year. While some have tried to end these programs, a bipartisan coalition has worked to preserve and continue the good that is accomplished through them. I remember Senator Specter's efforts early in his Senate career to preserve these programs when he chaired the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the programs it funds provide a safety net that helps give young people a chance to build lives for themselves, and helps reunite youngsters with their families. Given the increasingly difficult economic conditions being experienced by so many families around the country, it is time to recommit ourselves to these principles and programs. Under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, every State receives a Basic Center grant to provide housing and crisis services for runaway and homeless youth and their families. Community-based groups around the country can also apply for funding through the Transitional Living Program and the Sexual Abuse Prevention/Street Outreach grant program. The transitional living program grants are used to provide longer-term housing to homeless youth between the ages of 16 and 21, and to help them become self-sufficient. The outreach grants are used to target youth susceptible to engaging in high-risk behaviors while living on the street. Our bill makes improvements to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act reauthorizations of past years. It doubles funding for States by instituting a minimum of $200,000, which will allow states to better meet the diverse needs of their communities. This bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop performance standards for grantees. Providing program guidelines would level the playing field for bidders, ensure consistency among providers, and increase the effectiveness of the services under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. In addition, our legislation develops an incidence study to better estimate the number of runaway and homeless youth and to identify trends. The incidence study would provide more accurate estimates of the runaway and homeless youth population and would help lawmakers make better policy decisions and allow communities to provide better outreach. In my home State of Vermont, the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth, the New England Network for Child, Youth, and Family Services, and Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington all receive grants under these programs and have provided excellent services. In one recent year, the street outreach programs in Vermont served nearly 10,000 young people. The overwhelming need for services is not limited to any one state or community. Many transitional living programs are forced to turn away young people seeking shelter. We heard testimony of an exemplary program within blocks of our nation's Capitol that has a waiting list as long as a year. This is unacceptable. The needs in our communities are real, and reauthorizing the law will allow these programs to expand their enormously important work. These topics are difficult but deserve our attention. Finding solutions to this growing problem is an effort we can all support. I thank Senator Specter for joining with me and urge all Senators to support prompt passage of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the people who has done the most to protect so much in Vermont is Paul Bruhn. We Vermonters know that Paul, as the executive director of the Preservation Trust, has done an enormous service by leading conservation efforts to save the very best of our State. I ask unanimous consent that the full article by Virginia Lindauer Simmon, from the April edition of Business People Vermont, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Marcelle and I have a good friend in Vermont named Cornelius Hogan, although everyone knows him as Con Hogan. In our State, we have been fortunate to have people, of both political parties, who have given a great deal of themselves to serve the people of Vermont, and Con is an excellent example of that. Recently, the newspaper the Times Argus published an excellent profile of him. I called Con and Jeanette to say how much I enjoyed it. I would like to share the piece with my fellow Senators, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are considering a bipartisan resolution to express the common sense of all in this Chamber that Senator McCain is a ``natural born Citizen,'' as the term is used in the Constitution of the United States. Last week the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report this resolution to the Senate. I urge Senators to come together to pass this bipartisan resolution without delay. Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person to be eligible to be President--the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a ``natural born Citizen'' of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator McCain is of sufficient years on this Earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. ``However, some have raised the question whether he is a ``natural born Citizen'' because he was born outside of the United States. John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His father was serving in the Navy at that time. It is possible that at the time of our Nation's founding, the Framers of our Constitution could not imagine how pronounced our commitments overseas would become but it would make no sense to limit the careers of children born to military families simply because they were stationed overseas. Similarly, it would not make sense to punish children born to foreign service families or Ambassadors stationed overseas or children born overseas to American missionaries. They are all American citizens at the time of their birth. Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the ``natural born Citizen'' requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has discovered any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to Americans abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. It is interesting to note that another previous Presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona. Certainly those who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a ``natural born Citizen''. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe also analyzed the issue and came to the same conclusion--that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen eligible to serve as President. Our bipartisan resolution would make it clear that Senator McCain, born in 1936 on an American Naval base to U.S. citizens, is a ``natural born Citizen. We should act today on a bipartisan basis to erase any doubt that Senator McCain is eligible to run for President because of his citizenship status. I ask unanimous consent that the legal analysis of Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to submit today a bipartisan resolution to designate May 15, 2008, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Joining me in the submission of this resolution are Senators Specter, Kennedy, Durbin, and Kohl. We join in recognizing the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make each day for the American people. This is now the twelfth year that I have been involved in offering this resolution to honor the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who lost their lives serving their communities. For many years I submitted this resolution with my old friend and our former colleague Senator Campbell, a former deputy sheriff. Both Senator Campbell, and I, as a former prosecutor, know well the risks faced by law enforcement officers every day while they serve and protect the American people. We do not thank our Nation's law enforcement officers enough for the sacrifices they make in order to protect all of us. State and local police officers and all of our first responders deserve our support and respect. Their role is crucial in upholding the rule of law and keeping our Nation's citizens safe and secure. They help make our democracy possible. They are our here-at-home, day-in-and-day-out, real-life heroes. Currently, more than 900,000 men and women who guard our communities do so at great risk. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 18,200 law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. There is lots of talk about the war on crime. Our law enforcement officers are all too often the casualties in that effort. We are fortunate in Vermont that we rank as the State with the fewest officer deaths in history, with 19 recorded. But of course that is still 19 deaths too many. The pain and the suffering and the loss associated with every one of those is difficult for anyone to even imagine. Last year, in 2007, 181 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty. That is a regrettable and significant increase from 2006. Tragically, it is the most line-of-duty deaths since 2001 and the losses from September 11 of that year. With crime having risen during the last few years after a decade of decline, and with law enforcement officers' deaths increasing, Congress must do more to strongly support State and local law enforcement officers and agencies. Federal programs can bolster police departments and their support for line officers. We should help provide greater access to bulletproof vests, state-of-the-art technology, improved training and advanced emergency medical care. I believe that there is strength in numbers when it comes to fighting violent crime, and Congress owes it to all Americans to support the men and women who are on the front lines keeping America safe. I am proud of the work I have been involved in to help make it safer on the beat for our officers. Back in 1998, Senator Campbell and I authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout on the Vermont-New Hampshire border. Two Sate troopers who lacked bulletproof vests were killed. Since then, we have successfully reauthorized this program three more times: in the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, in the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2004, and most recently as part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. It is now authorized at $50 million per year through fiscal year 2009 to help State, tribal and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. I hope all Senators will join me to ensure that the program is fully funded for fiscal year 2009, and will also join with me to reauthorize this important program again this year. Bulletproof vests have saved the lives of thousands of officers and are a fundamental line of defense that no officer should be without. Hundreds of thousands of police officers are counting on us. National Peace Officers Memorial Day will provide the people of the U.S., in their communities, in their State Capitals, and in the Nation's Capital, with the opportunity to honor and reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by our police forces. During the week of May 15, more than 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington to join with the families of their fallen comrades. I hope all Senators will join me in honoring their service by approving this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the bipartisan group of Senators on this bill who all recognize our obligation to help those Iraqis who have assisted the United States in Iraq. This legislation will remove obstacles encountered by the Departments of State and Homeland Security in issuing the 5,000 special visas that Congress authorized in January for those Iraqi citizens. As part of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress provided 5,000 special immigrant visas for Iraqis who had aided the United States as interpreters in the country. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have supported these efforts. The Departments of State and Homeland Security seem stymied and unable to implement what Congress has provided. In our efforts to remove any impediment to fast implementation and address any excuse for further delays, we seek passage of this bill as well, to cut through bureaucratic stalling and technical requirements. This administration has been woefully slow in recognizing its responsibilities not only to those Iraqis who have helped us, but to all Iraqis who have been displaced or have fled the violence still plaguing that country. The relative inaction by the administration with respect to those Iraqis whose lives are in grave danger due to their assistance of the United States is especially troubling. Action is needed now. The Judiciary Committee held its first hearing on this humanitarian problem more than 15 months ago. That hearing on the plight of Iraqi refugees was among our first, in January 2007. In the interim, the administration has continued to make promises it cannot, or will not keep with respect to the resettlement of Iraqi refugees in the United States. The administration's failure to acknowledge the Iraqi refugee crisis is emblematic of its inability to address other serious human rights issues that are much of its own making. The injustice resulting from the administration's interpretation of the material support and terrorism related bars that were enacted following September 11, 2001, continues to deprive legitimate asylum seekers of our protection. The consequences of these laws continue to go unaddressed, despite the fact that Congress has now twice given the Department of Homeland Security the authority to alleviate the situation. While Secretary Chertoff is unwilling to use this authority to provide asylum to those who need our protection, he has repeatedly used the vast authority ceded to him by proponents of the REAL ID Act to waive landmark environmental laws in the course of constructing a border wall between the United States and Mexico. This month, during the Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing on the Department of Homeland Security, I followed up by asking Secretary Chertoff about his Department's lack of progress on implementing the authority Congress has given to him to remedy the material support and terrorism bars. At that time, I challenged him to fulfill the goal of legislation I authored and Congress enacted to provide relief to individuals such as Saman Kareem Ahmad, who received a commendation from General Petreaus for his work on behalf of the United States in Iraq and instructs U.S military personnel in preparation for service in Iraq. Although Mr. Ahmad was granted asylum, his application for a green card was denied because the organization with which he had once served, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, was deemed a ``terrorist organization'' by DHS. I urged Secretary Chertoff to use the authority he has been given to ensure that individuals like Mr. Ahmad were not denied a place in the United States because of inflexible and expansive readings of the so-called ``material support'' bar. I hope the administration takes the opportunity Congress has given it to correct this wrongheaded policy and practice. It is long past the time for this administration to take action and acknowledge the severe humanitarian consequences of its policies, whether in Iraq, or at our shores where the persecuted are seeking refuge. Providing for the safety of our Iraqi allies is only one aspect of an increasingly severe humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Refugees International recently reported that in the vacuum left by the failure of the Iraqi government to address the plight of millions of its internally displaced citizens, various non-state militias are providing assistance to those who are suffering. By the report's account, these militias are finding fertile ground for recruiting among this population, with the Shiite Sadrist movement now being the ``main service provider'' to displaced Iraqis. We have been pressing the administration for some time to acknowledge this crisis and to make increased efforts to assist those Iraqis who have been internally displaced or who have left the country. Now we learn that the dangers associated with the administration's failure to recognize the magnitude of this crisis go beyond the terrible human cost that has resulted and threaten to undermine any efforts to bring positive change to Iraq. The bill the Senate approves today will be another effort to encourage this administration to fulfill its obligations to those who have sacrificed significantly to assist the United States. It is my hope that this will end the unacceptable delays and provide long overdue relief.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join once again with Senator Hatch to introduce a bill that will have a significant and positive impact on our cultural heritage. Hundreds of thousands of so-called ``orphan works''--works that may be protected by copyright, but whose owners cannot be identified or located--are collecting dust. Despite tremendous interest in using these orphan works in new collections and new creations, they often languish unseen, because those who would like to bring them to light, and to the attention of the world, fear the prospect of prohibitively expensive statutory damages. In other instances, the copyright in an orphan work may have expired, but potential users lack the information to be certain of the propriety of going forward with its use. The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 will remedy this situation. It will help potential users of orphan works find the owners of those works, and it will help the owners to receive compensation. The works will no longer be orphans; their owners will reap the financial benefits of their use, while the public reaps the creative benefits. More creative works will be used, contributing to our cultural and artistic heritage, and more creators will receive compensation for use of their work. Our legislation permits the use of an orphan work only if the potential user performs and documents a good faith search for the copyright owner. If users cannot locate and contact copyright owners, they may use the orphan work. But if copyright owners later make themselves known, and if users have performed a search that qualifies under this legislation, owners are entitled to reasonable compensation. The user will not be liable for full statutory damages in those circumstances, but if a user does not perform that good faith search, the user will face up to $150,000 in statutory damages. In practical terms, then, what does this mean? It means that a woman in Vermont can restore a wedding photograph of her grandparents, even if she cannot locate the photographer to get permission to do so. It means that a library can display letters of American soldiers wrote during World War II, even if the library cannot contact the soldiers or their descendents. It means that museums can exhibit Depression-era photographs, even if they cannot determine the name of the photographer. What this bill does not do is create a ``license to infringe.'' In any of the above instances, if the users do not conduct a good faith search for the copyright owner, those users are in the same boat they are in now when it comes to infringement. This bill does not change the basic premise of copyright law: If you use the copyrighted works of others, you must compensate them for it. As an avid photographer, I understand what it means to devote oneself to creative expression, and I applaud anyone with the talent and commitment to make a living doing so. Orphan works are too important to our families, our communities, and our culture to go left unseen and unused. I thank Senator Hatch for his help in developing this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that this bill becomes law. I am especially pleased to name this bill for Shawn Bentley. Several years ago, Shawn died, tragically young, but he left behind a legacy of affection and regard for all of us who knew him. He served Senator Hatch as a counsel for intellectual property, and it was he who first inspired this effort on orphan works. Naming this bill for him is a testament to his dedication to the issue, and his value to the Judiciary Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the full bill text be included in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was concerned to learn from the newspapers last week that the Federal Government is getting ready to publish a rule sanctioning the collection of DNA samples from all citizens arrested for Federal crimes and from many people detained as illegal immigrants. These samples may even be kept permanently as part of the Government's DNA database even if a person is ultimately exonerated. I have long supported the analysis of DNA evidence to catch the guilty and exonerate the innocent. In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which included the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program for defendants. This program, where appropriate, gave defendants access to the postconviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong. As a former prosecutor, I was acutely aware that DNA testing could help prevent both the conviction of innocent defendants, and the criminal justice nightmare of the real wrongdoer remaining undiscovered and possibly at large. In 2004, Congress passed the Innocence Protection Act as an important part of the Justice for All Act. Congress recognized the need for important changes in criminal justice forensics despite resistance from the current administration. The Justice for All Act authorized several other important programs to encourage the use of DNA evidence, which I strongly supported, notably including the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program to eliminate the nationwide backlog of rape kits and other evidence awaiting DNA testing in crime labs around the country. That important program has helped law enforcement to find the perpetrators of terrible crimes throughout the country and to ease the ordeal that crime victims go through. But DNA testing, like any powerful tool--and particularly any powerful tool in the hands of the government must be used carefully. If abused, it can infringe on the privacy and civil liberties of Americans while doing little to prevent crime. I am concerned that the policy just announced may do exactly that. When Senator Kyl proposed the legislation that formed the basis for this policy, I said that it raised serious privacy concerns. Right now, a person's DNA can be collected immediately upon arrest, and it can be used immediately to search the DNA indexes for a possible ``hit.'' But it cannot be added to the Federal index unless and until the person has been formally charged with a crime. This new policy allows DNA to be entered for those who have been arrested but not charged. This change adds little or no value for law enforcement, while intruding on the privacy rights of people who are, in our system, presumed innocent. It creates an incentive for pretextual arrests and will likely have a disproportionate impact on minorities and the poor. This policy may also make it harder for innocent people to have their DNA expunged from government databases. Since I first spoke out against this provision in 2005, we have only seen more examples of abuses of power by this administration, including the Justice Department's improper firing of prosecutors for political reasons and the FBI's abuse of national security letter power given in the PATRIOT Act. In this light, the added power to collect and keep DNA information from potentially innocent people gives even more cause for concern. I will study the proposed rules and policy carefully, and the Judiciary Committee will perform careful oversight of its implementation. We must ensure that DNA evidence is used aggressively and efficiently to make us safer, but also that it is used in a careful and appropriate way that secures our rights and increases our confidence in our justice system.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join once again with Senator Hatch to introduce a bill that will have a significant and positive impact on our cultural heritage. Hundreds of thousands of so-called ``orphan works''--works that may be protected by copyright, but whose owners cannot be identified or located--are collecting dust. Despite tremendous interest in using these orphan works in new collections and new creations, they often languish unseen, because those who would like to bring them to light, and to the attention of the world, fear the prospect of prohibitively expensive statutory damages. In other instances, the copyright in an orphan work may have expired, but potential users lack the information to be certain of the propriety of going forward with its use. The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 will remedy this situation. It will help potential users of orphan works find the owners of those works, and it will help the owners to receive compensation. The works will no longer be orphans; their owners will reap the financial benefits of their use, while the public reaps the creative benefits. More creative works will be used, contributing to our cultural and artistic heritage, and more creators will receive compensation for use of their work. Our legislation permits the use of an orphan work only if the potential user performs and documents a good faith search for the copyright owner. If users cannot locate and contact copyright owners, they may use the orphan work. But if copyright owners later make themselves known, and if users have performed a search that qualifies under this legislation, owners are entitled to reasonable compensation. The user will not be liable for full statutory damages in those circumstances, but if a user does not perform that good faith search, the user will face up to $150,000 in statutory damages. In practical terms, then, what does this mean? It means that a woman in Vermont can restore a wedding photograph of her grandparents, even if she cannot locate the photographer to get permission to do so. It means that a library can display letters of American soldiers wrote during World War II, even if the library cannot contact the soldiers or their descendents. It means that museums can exhibit Depression-era photographs, even if they cannot determine the name of the photographer. What this bill does not do is create a ``license to infringe.'' In any of the above instances, if the users do not conduct a good faith search for the copyright owner, those users are in the same boat they are in now when it comes to infringement. This bill does not change the basic premise of copyright law: If you use the copyrighted works of others, you must compensate them for it. As an avid photographer, I understand what it means to devote oneself to creative expression, and I applaud anyone with the talent and commitment to make a living doing so. Orphan works are too important to our families, our communities, and our culture to go left unseen and unused. I thank Senator Hatch for his help in developing this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that this bill becomes law. I am especially pleased to name this bill for Shawn Bentley. Several years ago, Shawn died, tragically young, but he left behind a legacy of affection and regard for all of us who knew him. He served Senator Hatch as a counsel for intellectual property, and it was he who first inspired this effort on orphan works. Naming this bill for him is a testament to his dedication to the issue, and his value to the Judiciary Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the full bill text be included in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire struck a severe blow to the rights of working women in our country. More than 40 years ago, Congress acted to prevent discrimination in the workplace based on an employee's sex, race, color, national origin or religion. The Ledbetter decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court misinterpreting congressional intent and denying justice to a victim of discrimination. For nearly two decades, Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire, was paid significantly less than her male counterparts. Nonetheless, a thin majority of Justices on the Supreme Court found that she was ineligible for title VII protection against discriminatory pay because she did not file her claim within 180 days of Goodyear's repeatedly discriminatory pay decisions. The Supreme Court's ruling sent the message to employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed. Ms. Ledbetter only found out that she was earning as much as $15,000 less per year than a male coworker with the same job and seniority when an anonymous letter appeared on her desk weeks before her retirement. By the time she retired in 1997, Ms. Ledbetter's monthly salary, despite receiving several performance based awards, was almost $600 less than the lowest paid male manager and $1,500 less than the highest paid male manager. Congress passed title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees like Lilly Ledbetter from discrimination because of their sex, race, color, national origin or religion--however the Supreme Court's cramped interpretation guts the purpose and intent of the bipartisan and historic effort to root out discrimination. Ms. Ledbetter argued that her claim fell within the 180 day window provided under title VII for filing claims because she suffered continuing effects from her employer's discrimination. After filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found that she was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, five Justices of the Supreme Court overturned the jury's decision, holding that Ms. Ledbetter was not protected under the law because she filed suit more than 180 days after her employer's discriminatory act. This Supreme Court decision contradicts both the spirit and clear intent of title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which was created to protect workers from discriminatory pay. The Court's 5-to-4 decision undercuts enforcement against discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. In Justice Ginsburg's dissent, she wrote that the Court's decision ``is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure.'' This October, my wife Marcelle and I will host Vermont's 12th annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference, a chance for women to come together to learn new career skills. Thousands of women in my State have used these skills to advance their careers. It is a shame that despite such initiatives and years of hard work, women continue to suffer pay discrimination. I commend the Vermont Legislature for passing laws requiring equal pay for equal work and barring employers from retaliating against employees for disclosing the amount of their wages. Unfortunately, not all States offer these protections. For all of the gains that women have made in the past century, there remains a troubling constant--women continue to earn less than men--on average, only 77 cents on the dollar. Discriminatory pay not only affects women it affects their children, their families, and all of us who believe in the words inscribed on the Vermont marble of the Supreme Court building ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would correct the unfortunate and cramped ruling of the Supreme Court which denied Ms. Ledbetter equal justice. It would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to clarify that an unlawful employment practice occurs not only when that discriminatory decision first goes into effect but each time an individual is affected by it, such as each time compensation is paid. The House of Representatives passed this bill in a bipartisan vote last summer. It also has bipartisan support here in the Senate, but unfortunately some Republicans have objected to even considering the bill. I hope their filibuster can be broken so that we can clarify that discrimination against hard-working men and women in their own workplaces is not the American way. The law and our justice system should protect working people when it happens. Our bill underscores this vital American principle against efforts to devalue it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this country recently marked the 5-year anniversary of the war in Iraq--a war that the Bush administration refuses to end. The losses in this war have been staggering. More than 4,000 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 30,000 wounded. Hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars has been spent to fight this war, money which could have been--and should have been--used to help American needs here at home. Estimates for the cost of the President's adventure in Iraq are now into the trillions. Through it all, the Bush administration has chosen essentially to ignore one of its primary obligations during wartime--to protect American taxpayers from losses due to fraud, waste, and abuse of military contracts. Sadly, these problems are all too common in times of war, and have been particularly pervasive in Iraq. Over the past year, I have chaired hearings in the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees focused on the billions that have been lost to contracting fraud, waste, and abuse during this war. The testimony at those hearings has exposed the Bush administration's failure to take aggressive action to enforce and punish wartime fraud. It has also shown how difficult it can be for investigators to uncover and prosecute fraud amidst the chaotic environment of war. These problems have been exacerbated time and time again by the Bush administration, as tens of billions of dollars in ``no-bid'' and ``cost-plus'' contracts have been awarded with little, if any, oversight or accountability. Billions in cash--physical, paper money-- have been flown to Iraq and handed out in paper bags, often without records of who received what, and when. Billion dollar contracts for training services cannot be audited because the records are incomplete, lost, or in disarray. The Government has been billed for defective products, like faulty ammunition, unsafe bulletproof vests, and even unsanitary drinking water for the troops. Too often we do not learn about serious fraud until years after the fact. What we do know is that tens of billions of dollars are unaccounted for, and potentially lost to fraud, and little has been done to hold anyone accountable and recover the lost money. This problem is not entirely new. Our nation has faced challenges in past wars. During World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke out against ``war millionaires'' who made excessive profits exploiting the calamity of war. President Harry Truman, when he served in the Senate, held historic public hearings to expose gross fraud and waste by military contractors during the war. Unlike the current President, however, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman took action to ensure that wartime fraud could be successfully investigated and prosecuted despite the difficulties presented by an ongoing war. In 1942, President Roosevelt signed the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, which made it possible for criminal fraud offenses against the United States to be prosecuted after the war was over. President Truman signed a bill making that law permanent in 1948. Everyone understood then that it was unrealistic to believe that all contracting fraud could be tracked down immediately in the midst of a war. The law provided for the suspension of the statute of limitations until the war was over. Congress supported this law overwhelmingly, as they had with a similar provision during World War I. President Roosevelt wrote: ``The crisis of war should not be used as a means of avoiding just penalties for wrongdoing.'' While the provision for post-war enforcement against fraud is still the law today, the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are exempt from its requirements. This Roosevelt-era law only applies ``when the United States is at war.'' The military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were undertaken without Congressional declarations of war. In recent decades, Congress has considered authorizations for the use of the Armed Forces, rather than formal declarations of war. I voted for the authorization to strike back at Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. I voted against the ill- conceived authorization to go into Iraq. Today we introduce the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008, which updates President Roosevelt's law for our times. This will allow us better to protect American taxpayers from contracting fraud today, just as we did during World War II. I thank Senator Grassley for his co-sponsorship of this important legislation. He has been a leader in Congress on efforts to investigate and combat fraud against the United States. This bill would make current law suspending the statute of limitations during wartime applicable to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, we would allow investigators and auditors to continue their efforts to uncover criminal fraud and for those who commit fraud to be brought to justice after the conflicts end. If left unchanged, under the current statute of limitations, each passing day of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan could amount to immunizing fraudulent conduct by war contractors that has gone undiscovered during the Bush Administration or during the conflicts. This legislation would make three simple changes to current law. First, it would suspend the statute of limitations not only to when the United States is technically engaged in a declared war, but also when Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces consistent with the War Powers Resolution. In doing so, this language would apply the existing World War II-era law to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to similar actions in the future. It would not apply, however, to international peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the United Nations or to military actions not specifically authorized by Congress. Second, the legislation would extend the statute of limitations for five years after the end of the conflict. The statute of limitations today for criminal fraud offense is five years from the time of the offense, and this bill would just toll the running of the statute during the conflict itself and not a day longer. Three, the bill would make clear that a Presidential proclamation ending hostilities, and thus ending the tolling of the statute of limitations period, must be a formal proclamation with notice to Congress. Secret proclamation by the President or a self-serving ``mission accomplished'' speech will not do the trick. The statute of limitations is an important check on the proper use of government power, and we should not act to suspend it except in extraordinary circumstances. Wars provide exactly such circumstances, and current law recognizes this common sense reality by suspending the statute of limitation for fraud offenses during wartime. It would be wrong to exempt the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from this law and to allow war profiteers immunity for their illegal and unpatriotic conduct during wartime. President Roosevelt called upon Congress to act on this important matter during World War II. Today, I echo his concerns and call upon the Senate to pass this legislation to protect the American taxpayers from war contracting fraud. This Congress should pass--and the President should sign--the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008 without delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this country recently marked the 5-year anniversary of the war in Iraq--a war that the Bush administration refuses to end. The losses in this war have been staggering. More than 4,000 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 30,000 wounded. Hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars has been spent to fight this war, money which could have been--and should have been--used to help American needs here at home. Estimates for the cost of the President's adventure in Iraq are now into the trillions. Through it all, the Bush administration has chosen essentially to ignore one of its primary obligations during wartime--to protect American taxpayers from losses due to fraud, waste, and abuse of military contracts. Sadly, these problems are all too common in times of war, and have been particularly pervasive in Iraq. Over the past year, I have chaired hearings in the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees focused on the billions that have been lost to contracting fraud, waste, and abuse during this war. The testimony at those hearings has exposed the Bush administration's failure to take aggressive action to enforce and punish wartime fraud. It has also shown how difficult it can be for investigators to uncover and prosecute fraud amidst the chaotic environment of war. These problems have been exacerbated time and time again by the Bush administration, as tens of billions of dollars in ``no-bid'' and ``cost-plus'' contracts have been awarded with little, if any, oversight or accountability. Billions in cash--physical, paper money-- have been flown to Iraq and handed out in paper bags, often without records of who received what, and when. Billion dollar contracts for training services cannot be audited because the records are incomplete, lost, or in disarray. The Government has been billed for defective products, like faulty ammunition, unsafe bulletproof vests, and even unsanitary drinking water for the troops. Too often we do not learn about serious fraud until years after the fact. What we do know is that tens of billions of dollars are unaccounted for, and potentially lost to fraud, and little has been done to hold anyone accountable and recover the lost money. This problem is not entirely new. Our nation has faced challenges in past wars. During World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke out against ``war millionaires'' who made excessive profits exploiting the calamity of war. President Harry Truman, when he served in the Senate, held historic public hearings to expose gross fraud and waste by military contractors during the war. Unlike the current President, however, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman took action to ensure that wartime fraud could be successfully investigated and prosecuted despite the difficulties presented by an ongoing war. In 1942, President Roosevelt signed the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, which made it possible for criminal fraud offenses against the United States to be prosecuted after the war was over. President Truman signed a bill making that law permanent in 1948. Everyone understood then that it was unrealistic to believe that all contracting fraud could be tracked down immediately in the midst of a war. The law provided for the suspension of the statute of limitations until the war was over. Congress supported this law overwhelmingly, as they had with a similar provision during World War I. President Roosevelt wrote: ``The crisis of war should not be used as a means of avoiding just penalties for wrongdoing.'' While the provision for post-war enforcement against fraud is still the law today, the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are exempt from its requirements. This Roosevelt-era law only applies ``when the United States is at war.'' The military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were undertaken without Congressional declarations of war. In recent decades, Congress has considered authorizations for the use of the Armed Forces, rather than formal declarations of war. I voted for the authorization to strike back at Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. I voted against the ill- conceived authorization to go into Iraq. Today we introduce the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008, which updates President Roosevelt's law for our times. This will allow us better to protect American taxpayers from contracting fraud today, just as we did during World War II. I thank Senator Grassley for his co-sponsorship of this important legislation. He has been a leader in Congress on efforts to investigate and combat fraud against the United States. This bill would make current law suspending the statute of limitations during wartime applicable to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, we would allow investigators and auditors to continue their efforts to uncover criminal fraud and for those who commit fraud to be brought to justice after the conflicts end. If left unchanged, under the current statute of limitations, each passing day of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan could amount to immunizing fraudulent conduct by war contractors that has gone undiscovered during the Bush Administration or during the conflicts. This legislation would make three simple changes to current law. First, it would suspend the statute of limitations not only to when the United States is technically engaged in a declared war, but also when Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces consistent with the War Powers Resolution. In doing so, this language would apply the existing World War II-era law to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to similar actions in the future. It would not apply, however, to international peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the United Nations or to military actions not specifically authorized by Congress. Second, the legislation would extend the statute of limitations for five years after the end of the conflict. The statute of limitations today for criminal fraud offense is five years from the time of the offense, and this bill would just toll the running of the statute during the conflict itself and not a day longer. Three, the bill would make clear that a Presidential proclamation ending hostilities, and thus ending the tolling of the statute of limitations period, must be a formal proclamation with notice to Congress. Secret proclamation by the President or a self-serving ``mission accomplished'' speech will not do the trick. The statute of limitations is an important check on the proper use of government power, and we should not act to suspend it except in extraordinary circumstances. Wars provide exactly such circumstances, and current law recognizes this common sense reality by suspending the statute of limitation for fraud offenses during wartime. It would be wrong to exempt the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from this law and to allow war profiteers immunity for their illegal and unpatriotic conduct during wartime. President Roosevelt called upon Congress to act on this important matter during World War II. Today, I echo his concerns and call upon the Senate to pass this legislation to protect the American taxpayers from war contracting fraud. This Congress should pass--and the President should sign--the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008 without delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.