Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tonight we voted unanimously to confirm four district court nominees: William Hayes and John Houston to be U.S. District Judges for the Southern District of California, Robert Clive Jones to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada, and Phillip Figa to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado. I commend the Republican leadership for finally bringing the nominations of William Hayes and John Houston of California to the floor. These two nominees will be filling vacancies on the busiest district court in the nation. The two seats which these men will fill have been created to address the growing crisis to the border court in San Diego--the federal court with the highest caseload per judge in the nation. It is too bad that the Republican leadership chose to move nominees from Oklahoma and Texas ahead of these California nominees who are desperately needed by the people of the Southern District of California due to the high caseload of that court. I would also note that the way in which these nominees have come forth should be used as a model for the White House to emulate in other States and circuits. Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer worked hard to establish a bipartisan commission in California which has recommended these individuals for the Southern District of California. I am happy to be able to join the two California Senators in confirming these two new judges. At the conclusion of the confirmation votes tonight, a total of 64 judicial nominees of President Bush will be confirmed this year. Adding that to the 100 confirmations during 17 months of the Democratic majority in the Senate, 164 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed thus far. This number of confirmations, 164, is significantly higher than Republicans allowed by the third year of President Clinton's second term, the most recent presidential term, when they allowed 135 judicial nominees of that president to be appointed from 1997 through the end of 1999. It also should be noted that when I became chair of the Judiciary Committee on July 10, 2001, the Democrats inherited 110 vacant seats in the Federal judiciary. In the 17 months of Democratic control, we significantly reduced the vacancy rate by confirming 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Today, there are only 41 vacancies on the Federal courts. This is the lowest level reached in 13 years. Had we not created 15 new seats this year, that number would be even lower-- down to 26. In just the past week, Senate Democrats have worked with the Republicans to confirm 10 district court judges and 1 circuit court judge. There are a lot of accusations of delay being thrown around but the truth is in these plain numbers. With more full-time Federal judges on the bench today than any other time in U.S. history, the confirmation process is moving forward and judges are being confirmed expeditiously with support from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when I hear this glowing description, I wonder why the administration is asking for another $20 billion. I wish most of the States in the United States were doing as well as what the Senator from Virginia has described. If they are doing that well, maybe we should give the $20 billion to States in the United States that are not doing nearly as well and could probably use the money. I am glad to hear the hospitals are all operating again. Obviously, from a humanitarian point of view that is important progress. I hope the Iraqis realize they can go to any hospital they want now and they will receive the help they need. If that is true, why do we need to spend another $150 million for another hospital? Rural hospitals throughout the 50 States of the United States cannot say that. I know a lot of places in the 50 States in the United States about which we cannot give the kind of glowing report the Senator from Virginia has given about Iraq. Keep in mind, I am not asking for somebody to walk in there tomorrow and take over. But I would hope that within the next two months, with the 800 people in the palace over there, we might find more than 17 who can speak Arabic. That, I think, would be the kind of expertise the State Department could bring. I hope we will have more than one expert on Iraq, and I hope we will tell the Iraqi people that we are as interested in them building their country following their vision and not, in almost a condescending way, saying we want them to have the opportunity to build a country that fits the vision our President has for them. After all, we are talking about a civilization that goes back long before this country was even discovered.

Mr. LEAHY. I have the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. That is true.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I respond to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, we have had a good colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, which is not unexpected because the distinguished Senator from Virginia is one of the most knowledgeable Members of the Senate, as well as being a dear and close friend. I think we have probably proved, for those who are watching, the edification of having both sides here. The Senator from Virginia, though I control the floor--I have yielded to him whenever he wanted.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask the Senator from Alaska, could I yield to the Senator from Nevada for that purpose? Whatever is agreeable, I am perfectly willing to do.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. That is why I didn't follow the usual procedure where amendments are simply deemed read. This was a short enough one that I wanted it read. It does what many of us feel we should have done 5 months ago when we appropriated the first $2.5 billion in foreign aid for Iraq. At the time we gave that very substantial amount of foreign aid to Iraq, many of us urged the Secretary of State--not the Secretary of Defense-- should have authority over the reconstruction program. No matter who is Secretary of State, no matter who is Secretary of Defense, when you are going to give enormous amounts of foreign aid for reconstruction, the aid should be under the Department of State. After all, foreign aid is the responsibility of the State Department. Also, it is the responsibility of USAID. That is what they know how to do. That is what their people are trained to do. It is not what the Pentagon does, nor, for that matter, is it what the Pentagon should be doing. The Pentagon is trained in military combat. In fact, our forces, the men and women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, are the best trained, the best equipped, best motivated of any military in the world. Obviously, they showed they can easily defeat other military forces as they did in Iraq. While they are trained for war, the State Department is trained to work to rebuild. In this case, as superb as the military role was, their leadership disregarded the preparatory work the State Department and USAID had done in planning for after the war. The problems they now face reflect that. I am concerned we are putting our men and women in the military in an impossible situation. They are being asked not only to provide security, but to also oversee the reconstruction. I have a lot of respect for Ambassador Bremer. I have known him and worked with him on terrorism and other matters over the years. He did a good job last week when he testified before the Appropriations Committee. Like a lawyer arguing the brief for his client, he argued well. But Ambassador Bremer's office, which is located in the Pentagon, until very recently was not capable of responding to our questions. The questions we were asking were not how many divisions might move here or how many tanks, airplanes, helicopters, men and women under arms can move, but, rather, how can we do a better job of getting water, and electricity, and other aid to the Iraqi people? We saw the reconstruction plan, apparently a Pentagon plan, an 8-page document. When it came out a couple months ago, none of us on this side of aisle received it. Now that we have seen it, I understand why they didn't want everyone to have it. It is embarrassingly illustrative of the administration's postwar strategy. There was no postwar strategy. All the strategy led up to winning in Iraq. Everyone knew how that would come out. Of course we would defeat the broken Iraqi army. Everyone knew we were going to win. This was not World War II. But, amazingly enough, there was no strategy for what happened after we won. I am not among those who believe everything we have done in Iraq has been a failure. There has been progress. For one thing, I am glad Saddam Hussein is not here. He was a murderous tyrant. Members of the administration now talk about the murderous conduct of Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons against the Kurds--something many Members were outraged about at the time--and they seem to forget the administration they served at that time turned a blind eye to that and continued to give aid to Saddam Hussein. Having said that, now I think everyone, whether those in the Congress or the administration who supported Saddam Hussein over the years, we all agree--all Republicans, all Democrats agree--he was a tyrant and it is good he is gone. That is progress. We have begun to train a new army and police force and so on. That is progress. But we were told this spring that the amount of money for the aid program would be very small. Now we are asked to increase our aid program ten fold, with virtually no controls on how the money will be spent. So, we got into the war, we had no plan for what we would do afterwards, we have real problems now, and now they want a blank check to take care of it. We will pay $33,000 each for pickup trucks that sell for $14,000 here, and we will pay $6,000 for telephones you can buy in the neighboring country of Jordan for $500 or $600. We will pay $50,000 a bed for a prison although that is far more than we would in the United States. We will repair their power infrastructure although we do not have money to do the same in the United States. We will build a whole lot of new schoolhouses although we do not have the money to fix our dilapidated schools. We will build state-of-the-art hospitals even though we do not have the money for new health clinics in parts of the United States. And we are told: Just give us the money and trust us; we know what to do. In my State, we do not sign blank checks. I am sure we will give money for foreign aid even though we do not have the money to do the same things in the United States. Simply spending more money does not get us back on track. We need a real plan, and we need the right agency in charge. That is why this amendment is so short. It is one sentence. It simply puts the Coalition Provisional Authority--and I assume that will be Ambassador Bremer although I am not doing this on an ad hominem basis--simply put the coalition provisional authority, Ambassador Bremer, who has been working around the clock to carry out our interests there, under the foreign policy guidance and direction of the Secretary of State. It would provide 60 days after enactment to give the State Department time to put in place the people it needs. Does that mean the Department of Defense no longer has any role in reconstruction? Of course not. They obviously will be consulted on a continuous basis. Everyone knows nothing can be built unless there is security to prevent attacks on contractors and aid workers and to prevent sabotage to the projects themselves. We are fortunate to have a superb military there to provide that kind of security. But that is what the Defense Department should be doing, providing the security but not trying to oversee foreign aid projects. That is not what they are trained to do. It is unfair to our men and women in the military to ask them to do that. It was a mistake in the first place when we asked them to do it. We should not repeat that. Let us not ask the Department of Defense to suddenly become the State Department, AID, and the general dispenser of foreign aid. They are so well trained to do the things they do. Let those who are trained to handle foreign aid and the projects of reconstruction be there. It is also worth noting, when you look at the civil affairs units in the Defense Department, almost all of them are composed of National Guard and Reserve units. Ironically, to the extent you are going to use the military for the nation building we are doing in Iraq--we are doing nation building in Afghanistan, and Lord knows where else--these are the men and women in uniform who are best equipped for the nation building we are doing in Iraq. So we either have to keep these National Guard and Reserve forces in Iraq indefinitely--and I think the majority of the Members of both parties here do not want to see that happen--or we have to get the State Department and USAID more involved in doing nation building. I favor the latter approach. That is what my amendment would do. I do not think we should continue to rely on these National Guard and Reserve units to do the long-term development work that should be done by others. Let that be done by the Department of State and AID, and let the Department of Defense provide the security for those who are doing the reconstruction in Iraq. Some might ask if the Secretary of State wants that authority, given what a thankless job it is becoming in Iraq. I do not know. If he gets the authority, I will offer him not congratulations but condolences. I see my dear friend.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on March 20 of this year, the Senate passed S. Res. 95, a resolution commending the President and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and the civilian personnel supporting them, for their efforts in the war in Iraq. I cosponsored that resolution. While there was some language in that resolution I would have changed or deleted, I felt it was appropriate and drafted in a relatively non-political, balanced way such that even those of us who had opposed the resolution authorizing the use of unilateral, pre- emptive force could support. Today, the Republican leadership has put forward another resolution, which again commends the President and the men and women of the Armed Forces, as well as the civilian personnel who have supported them. I will also vote for this resolution. Of course we commend the troops, their families, and the Defense Department's civilian personnel, for their courage and sacrifice for their country. I have commended the extraordinary efforts of our troops in virtually every statement I have made about Iraq. But this resolution goes further than S. Res. 95, in ways that I disagree with. It commends the contribution of defense contractors, for example. I have nothing against defense contractors. Many deserve recognition for their indispensable, innovative contributions to the success of our Armed Forces, including defense contractors in my own State of Vermont. It is, for example, these companies that developed the precision-guided weapons that helped to reduce the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. But other contractors have engaged in practices that have bilked American taxpayers out of many millions of dollars, overcharging for their services or manipulating the bidding process. I do not commend those contractors. I also disagree with some of the wording of this resolution, because it may leave the wrong impression. For example, at one point it states ``Whereas the United States pursued sustained diplomatic, political, and economic efforts to remove those threats peacefully.'' It is true that the administration went to the United Nations, belatedly, under pressure from Congress and the rest of the world, to seek support for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. But it went to the United Nations with an attitude of ``you're either with us or against us,'' and when they did not get everything they wanted as quickly as they wanted it, they prematurely abandoned the diplomatic process and launched a unilateral military attack for the purported purpose of upholding U.N. resolutions without the support of the U.N. Security Council. The administration's diplomatic and political efforts were grudging, half hearted, and ineffective. In addition, I am concerned, and disappointed, that this resolution makes no mention whatsoever of our diplomats and aid workers who are working tirelessly in Iraq under extremely dangerous and difficult conditions. Their bravery and sacrifice should also be recognized. Mr. President, we want Iraq to become a democratic, prosperous nation. But let's be honest. We know why the Republican leadership hastily drafted this resolution last night. It is increasingly obvious to the American people that the war in Iraq, where United States soldiers are being killed and wounded every day 4 months after the President declared the ``mission accomplished,'' is going to drag on for years and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill we are considering is fraught with problems, and even Republicans are realizing that it is unpopular with a majority of their constituents. Compounding that, the White House is facing an internal probe of the leak of the identity of a covert CIA employee. So what do they do, they trot out another ``feel good'' resolution praising the President, in an effort to divert attention from the real issues. We have seen this too many times before. Again, I will vote for this resolution because I am concerned about our troops and want them to know that each and every one of us supports them as they risk their lives to bring peace and security to Iraq. But I would hope that in the future we do better than these simplistic, politically motivated resolutions.

Mr. LEAHY. Full vigor everywhere except for my tonsils, I would say to my friend from Virginia. The Senator from Virginia has the right to move to table, but this is an important issue, and I would hope that he would show his usual courtesy and withhold until people have had a chance to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to commend both Senators from Minnesota for sponsoring this amendment. If they have no objection, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the two leaders, I appreciate very much what the Democratic leader has said. He and I, and the distinguished majority leader, and Senator Hatch, and others, want to move judges whenever we have consensus. And I think we have shown we have. In the 17 months we were in charge of the Senate, when we were the majority, we confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominees to the Federal judiciary. In the 16 months the Republicans have been in control, this will make another 64 we have confirmed. So it is around 164 between the 2 parties. It is a record that has not been matched for years and years and years. But I am happy to accommodate the two leaders. I know the problems the two leaders have. I would not wish them on anybody else. The two leaders have been trying to schedule things, so I am happy to try to accommodate them and all Members.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, three years ago, Senator Smith, Senator Collins and I joined together to introduce the Innocence Protection Act, a modest and practical package of reforms aimed at reducing the risk of error in capital cases. The reforms we proposed were designed to create a fairer system of justice, where the problems that have sent innocent people to death row would not occur, and where victims and their families could be more certain of the accuracy, and finality, of the results. During the last Congress, the Innocence Protection Act gained enormous momentum, with 32 Senators and 250 Representatives--well over half the House--signed on in support. Hearings were held in each House, and a version of the bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 7. Now is the time to finish the job and enact this important legislation. I am pleased, today, to introduce the Innocence Protection Act of 2003. This legislation is a piece of a larger bill called the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which provides an infusion of Federal funds to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs and to improve the capacity of Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses. The Innocence Protection Act of 2003 proposes two critical reforms. First, it provides greater access to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases, where it can help expose wrongful convictions, and authorizes $25 million in grants over 5 years to help defray the costs of such testing. Second, the bill addresses what all the statistics and evidence show is the single most frequent cause of wrongful convictions--inadequate defense representation at trial. By far the most important reform we can undertake is to help States establish minimum standards of competency and funding for capital defense. Other provisions of the Innocence Protection Act establish standards for preserving biological evidence in criminal cases, and substantially increase the maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded in Federal cases of wrongful conviction. Today's Innocence Protection Act is a modified version of the bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last year. These modifications follow many months of negotiation and deliberation, and were made to build further on the groundswell of support for the bill, both here on Capitol Hill and across America. More than ever, the bill is a collaborative product of which we all can be proud--an exercise of bipartisanship that is in the best tradition of the United States Congress. I want to thank and commend the Senators and Representatives who worked so hard this summer and fall to come to agreement on a bill that we can all strongly support. First and foremost, I want to thank my partner in this endeavor, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this goal. I also want to thank our lead Republican sponsors in both houses, Senators Gordon Smith and Susan Collins, and Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, all of whom have been steadfast in their commitment to this effort. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, deserves high praise for his leadership in our recent negotiations, as does the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, and I thank them both. Senator Hatch and I have debated these issues for years. I have always appreciated his thoughtful approach and serious commitment to improving the criminal justice system. Representative Sensenbrenner played an instrumental role in this process and I do not believe we could have come so far without his dedication. In addition, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Senator Feinstein, who has devoted countless hours over the years to reconciling the policy differences that prevented this legislation from moving forward. I am sorry that Senator DeWine could not be with us earlier today to announce the introduction of the bill, and appreciate his willingness to allow us to proceed. I have long worked with Senator DeWine on funding important forensic science tools for law enforcement, and we are currently working on a proposal with regard to how the mentally retarded are treated by the criminal justice system. His leadership on these issues is important and greatly appreciated. Thanks, too, to the many members on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate and in the House, who have supported this legislation over the years. Working together, we can finally begin to address the many problems facing our capital punishment system. Capital Representation Improvement Grants: I would like to take a moment now to elaborate on the capital defense representation provisions of the bill, both because they are the more important provisions and because they have been the principal subject of the recent revisions to the bill. The new version of the Innocence Protection Act establishes a grant program for States to improve the systems by which they appoint and compensate lawyers in death cases. States that authorize capital punishment may apply for these grants or not, as they wish. However, if a State chooses to accept the money, it must open itself up to a set of requirements designed to ensure that its system truly meets basic standards. After all, the point of the bill is not to throw money at the problem of inadequate representation; the point is to fix it. Earlier versions of the Innocence Protection Act took more of a ``carrot and stick'' approach to the counsel issue. The ``carrot'' was the same as in the current version: millions of dollars in Federal grants to help achieve adequate representation in capital cases. The ``stick''--which is no longer in the bill--has evolved over the years. At one time, we proposed that States that failed to meet basic competent counsel standards would have their death sentences given less deference and subjected to more rigorous Federal court review. In some versions of the bill, non-complying States would also have forfeited some Federal prison grant funding over time. In the version that the Judiciary Committee approved last year, if a State chose not to participate in the new Federal grant program, the Attorney General would award the money to one or more defender organizations within the State, to be used for capital defense work. Each of these various mechanisms would have helped ensure cooperation on the part of the States, and I am disappointed that I was unable to prevail upon my colleagues to include any one of them. Still, I believe that the current formulation is a good first step and will make a difference, provided that the grant program is fully funded and that the States which are most in need of reform elect to participate. As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the bill aimed to ensure full funding of the counsel program by providing that, if Congress failed to appropriate sufficient funding for the program, up to 10 percent of the Byrne block grant would be used for this purpose. I regret that this provision has been dropped from the bill; it seemed to me a good way to express our commitment to ensuring that the program is funded. However, given the tremendous support for this legislation in both houses, and on both sides of the aisle, I am confident that Congress will speak with one voice in ensuring that our years of effort are not undermined by a failure to appropriate the money needed to make this legislation effective. Getting States to participate in the program may be more difficult. Indeed, the States that are in most need of reform may be the least inclined to participate, given that they will have the most to do to bring their indigent defense systems into compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant. While I am hopeful that States will want to improve their systems, and will welcome the infusion of Federal funds for this purpose, Congress will need to monitor this program carefully to ensure that it is meeting its stated objective of improving the quality of legal representation provided to indigent defendants in State capital cases and, if it is not, to take additional remedial action. Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program: We have also established a $25 million grant program to help defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing. This program is named in honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing. I first met Kirk in February 2000, when he came to me as a man who had been exonerated after almost nine years of wrongful imprisonment. I am proud to say that we have become close friends and partners in the fight to reform capital punishment in America. I am also delighted that Kirk can finally feel truly free. Just a few weeks ago, the State of Maryland charged another man with the crime for which Kirk was convicted and sentenced to death, after prosecutors finally ran the DNA evidence in the case through the DNA database. The prosecutor who sent Kirk to death row, and who had previously refused to acknowledge his innocence, went to his home to apologize to him. Kirk Bloodsworth's battle to prove his own innocence has been won. But his nightmare of wrongful conviction has been repeated again and again across the country. Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the 1970s, more than 110 individuals who were convicted and sentenced to death have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. In addition, since the introduction of forensic DNA typing into the legal system in the early 1990s, many more individuals who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing. The Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program will help assist others who have experienced wrongful conviction. Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program: As I noted earlier, this version of the Innocence Protection Act is being introduced as part of a larger package of criminal justice reforms, titled the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which will substantially increase Federal resources available to State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA technology. Among other things, this legislation creates the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes $755 million over the next five years to reduce the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs. I have worked with the proponents of this program to revise the allocation formula, so that each State is guaranteed a minimum allocation of .50 percent of the total amount appropriated in a fiscal year. This will make the program fair for all States, including smaller States like Vermont. As DNA testing has moved to the front lines of the war on crime, forensic laboratories nationwide have experienced a significant increase in their caseloads, both in number and complexity. Funding has simply not kept pace with this increasing demand, and forensic labs nationwide are now seriously bottlenecked. Backlogs have seriously impeded the use of DNA testing in solving cases without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong claims of innocence--as labs are required to give priority status to those cases in which a suspect is known. Solely for lack of funding, critical evidence remains untested while rapists and killers remain at large. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program will give States the help they desperately need to carry out DNA analyses of backlogged evidence, and I strongly support its passage and full funding. Expansion of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program: The bill also expands and extends for another three years an existing grant program, named after our late colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. Congress passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act three years ago, with the goal of improving the quality and timeliness of State and local forensic science services. I was proud to cosponsor that legislation, and have worked since its passage to secure full funding for the grant program it establishes. Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of other Members, and notwithstanding the urgent pleas of lab directors nationwide, the President has never requested funding for Paul Coverdell grants, and Congress has never appropriated sufficient funds to make the program effective. The legislation we introduce today renews our commitment to this important initiative. Our bill also expands the purposes for which Paul Coverdell grants may be used, to include the elimination of a non-DNA forensic evidence backlog. The need for this measure was highlighted earlier this year at a subcommittee hearing on funding forensic sciences. Witness after witness testified that DNA evidence is not the only evidence that is going untested for lack of resources. Crime labs are also facing substantial backlogs with respect to other types of forensic science evidence, including firearms, latent prints, controlled substances, toxicology, trace evidence, questionable documents, and forensic pathology. We need to ensure that our labs are equipped to address the full range of issues that they are called upon to handle. We have had a constructive debate. We have shown that the death penalty system is broken, and we have built a bipartisan coalition supporting reforms. It is now time to act. Our bill reflects a principled consensus on the most basic and essential reforms; it raises no serious constitutional or law enforcement concerns; it will improve criminal justice in America considerably; and it may well save innocent lives. I am therefore proud to sponsor it, and I urge its speedy passage into law.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senators Craig, Sununu, Durbin, and Reid, my distinguished colleagues from Idaho, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Nevada, the Patriot Oversight Restoration Act of 2003, a short bill whose singular but important purpose is to provide Congress the opportunity to take a hard look at the USA PATRIOT Act, which we passed in the anxious weeks following the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. This bipartisan bill is moderate in scope; it would simply expand the sunset provision already enacted in the PATRIOT Act, to cover a number of additional provisions. The ensuing debate, however, should be considerable. My hope is that, before the sunset expires in December 2005, Congress will methodically revisit PATRIOT, with an eye toward achieving a suitable balance between the need to address the threat of terrorism and the need to protect our constitutional freedoms--and with the lessons of the past few years to guide us. We recently marked the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. As we reflect on that terrible day, and honor those who were lost, I strongly believe we should take stock of where we stand in our fight against terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress and the administration did forge a constructive partnership to write the USA PATRIOT Act, which was meant to help our law enforcement and intelligence communities prevent future attacks from occurring. The PATRIOT Act represented our best efforts, under difficult circumstances, to balance the rights and liberties of the American people with the very urgent need to confront a threat to our Nation. Even in balancing this tension, we granted the executive branch an unprecedented, vast new array of powers. We did so because we believed the administration's claim that it needed these powers to protect us, and because we trusted the administration's promise that it would use these powers appropriately. I noted at the time that PATRIOT was not the bill that I, or any of the sponsors, would have written if compromise were unnecessary. But I believed in the bill's purpose, and I gave it my vote and support. I worked hard to add checks and balances to many of its provisions, and did so. Unfortunately, like many Members who supported the act--and like many Americans nationwide--I have come to feel disappointed. Since we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, it has grown increasingly apparent that the trust and cooperation Congress provided to the executive branch has proved to be a one-way street. In the quarter-century that I have served in the Senate, no administration has been more secretive, more resistant to congressional oversight, and more disposed to acting unilaterally, without the approval of the American people or their democratically elected representatives. Despite the administration's unprecedented public relations campaign to promote the PATRIOT Act-- including a 16-State, 18-city tour by the Attorney General himself--the administration has yet to show that it is using its PATRIOT powers wisely. Instead, it has been secretly drafting a sequel to PATRIOT that would grant it even more far-reaching powers. I would never oppose an open discussion of any legislative tool that would help in the fight against terrorism. But for such a debate to be fruitful, we need to know more about the tools that are already available, including those created by the PATRIOT Act. Which are working, and how well? Which are not working, and why? Which, if any, struck the wrong balance, threatening the civil liberties of our citizens while doing little or nothing to keep our Nation secure? Immediately after the PATRIOT Act passed, the administration draped a cloak of secrecy around its use. When lawmakers and citizens have attempted to start a dialogue on PATRIOT-related issues, the response has been to ignore, insult or derisively dismiss them. Attorney General Ashcroft has repeatedly declined to appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions, and his Department is painfully slow to respond to written requests for information. To quote my friend Senator Grassley, ``getting information from the Justice Department under Ashcroft is like pulling teeth.'' By ignoring oversight requests until answers are moot or outdated, and responding in only vague and conclusory fashion, if at all, the Justice Department frustrates our constitutional system of checks and balances, and sows the sort of public distrust that now accompanies the PATRIOT Act. Just recently, in July, the Department dumped on committee members literally hundreds of pages of answers to questions that had been submitted to Attorney General Ashcroft and other senior Department officials following their testimony before the committee more than a year earlier. To give just one example of what a travesty it is when oversight questions remain unanswered for a year or more, the Department's responses dated July 17, 2003, devoted fully 15 pages to answering questions about Operation TIPS--an ill-conceived program that Congress had already terminated more than 8 months earlier. Is the Department incapable of responding to congressional inquiries in a timely fashion? Is it deliberately stonewalling? Or does it simply believe that oversight is a game that it need not play? Even more troubling, high-level administration officials have rashly suggested that anyone who dares to voice their concerns as unpatriotic, anti-American and pro-terrorist. In one of his rare appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft charged that ``fear mongers''--those who were raising concern about the loss of civil liberties--were only aiding the terrorists. More recently, a Justice Department official dismissed the many local government resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act by saying ``half are either in cities in Vermont, very small population, or in college towns in California. It's in a lot of the usual enclaves where you might see nuclear free zones, or they probably passed resolutions against the war in Iraq.'' It is unfortunate that the Justice Department felt it appropriate to ridicule these grass-roots efforts to participate in an important national dialogue. The opportunity to engage in public discourse is one of the hallmark benefits of being an American, and I am proud that Vermont towns are among those dedicated to thinking about and acting on these important issues. But more importantly, the concerns expressed in my home State are being echoed by Americans nationwide. To date, anti- PATRIOT resolutions have been passed by 178 communities in 32 States including Idaho, New Hampshire, and Illinois. These communities represent millions upon millions of Americans, not just a few free- spirited Vermonters, as the Justice Department has insinuated. Concerns about the administration's antiterror tactics are also shared by Members on both sides of aisle, many of whom supported the PATRIOT Act as well as the war in Iraq, but who now know that the administration has been less than forthright about what it has been doing in the name of the American people. In July, the House voted to nullify section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement to ask a court to delay notice of a search warrant where it could have certain adverse results. And several bills have been introduced in both Houses to roll back another PATRIOT Act provision, section 215, which gives federal agents new power to obtain records from libraries and bookstores. Remarkably, in response, the Justice Department then declassified information summarily reflecting that it has never used the Section 215 powers--despite expressing urgent ``need'' during pre- PATRIOT Act debate. And almost simultaneous to this announcement, the President urged support for an alternative record gathering power when Section 215 is still on the books. One has to question the inconsistencies in these two positions and whether Congress should blindly confer data gathering powers on an administration that does not provide a hint of factual support for such requests. There is overall a growing sense in the nation that Congress moved too fast in enacting the PATRIOT Act, and that the Justice Department moved too slowly in explaining its use of this sweeping legislation. When we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, I noted that Congress needed to exercise careful oversight of how the Justice Department, the FBI and other executive branch agencies used the newly expanded powers that the act provided. The need for oversight and accountability is the reason that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted on a sunset provision for several key provisions in PATRIOT--provisions that blurred the lines between criminal investigation and intelligence gathering. We succeeded, but only in part; several PATRIOT provisions that should have been subject to the sunset--including a few that were sunset or even cut in the version of the bill reported by the House Judiciary Committee--were omitted from the sunset. As enacted, the sunset applies only to certain enhanced surveillance authorities in title II of the act. The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would extend PATRIOT's sunset provision to other enhanced surveillance provisions in title II of the act. These include subsections (a) and (c) of section 203, which authorize the disclosure of grand jury information to foreign enforcement, intelligence and immigration officials; sections 210 and 211, which broaden the types of information that law enforcement may obtain, upon request, from electronic communication service providers and cable service operators; section 213, which authorizes so-called ``sneak and peak''--delayed notification--search warrants; sections 216 and 222, which significantly expand when, where, and how law enforcement can obtain a pen register or trap and trace order; and section 219, which authorizes judges to sign search warrants for properties located outside their districts. In addition to these title II provisions, the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would also extend the sunset to a handful of provisions in titles IV, V, VIII and X of the PATRIOT Act. These provisions include sections 411 and 1006, which expand the Government's authority to declare certain persons inadmissible to the United States; section 412, which grants the Attorney General authority to ``certify'' that an alien is engaged in activity that endangers the national security, and to take such an alien into custody; section 505, which gives law enforcement greater authority to access telephone, bank, and credit records through the issuance of so-called ``National Security Letters,'' even if no criminal investigation is pending and without court review; sections 507 and 508, which remove certain privacy protections for educational records and surveys--called ``obstacles'' to investigating terrorism in the PATRIOT Act; section 802, which defines ``domestic terrorism'' in a way that could be read to include political protesters engaged in civil disobedience; section 806, which uses the aforementioned definition of ``domestic terrorism'' to expand the government's civil forfeiture authority; and section 1003, which references another section of PATRIOT that is already covered by the sunset. With the PATRIOT Act, Congress provided government investigators with a virtual smorgasbord of new powers from which to choose. Is the Government gorging itself on the secretive powers allowed for ``foreign intelligence'' gathering, with their less onerous procedural requirements, rather than relying on bedrock criminal investigatory techniques that are subject to more rigorous review by the Federal courts? Have we provided too many choices and too much power to a limited few? These are questions that require answers before the more far-reaching provisions of PATRIOT are etched into stone. The events of September 11, 2001, resound in our hearts and in our memories. We owe it to the American people to be circumspect in the powers and authorities we grant, even in the name of national security. Our country was attacked on September 11 because of the democratic principles that this country stands for and that we love. It would be a cruel twist of irony to abandon those principles in the guise of a law named ``PATRIOT'' that might prove to be anything but a defender or protector of those cherished rights and freedoms. The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act offers a cautious and sensible solution to evolving fears about the PATRIOT Act. It will allow Congress to re-examine some of the important legal issues that abruptly confronted us in the weeks following September 11, and to re-assess our efforts with the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for a provision included by Senator Gregg in the Commerce-Justice-State portion of the emergency supplemental which provides $2 million for rewards to anyone who brings Charles Taylor before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. I commend the senior Senator from New Hampshire for his strong leadership on this issue. Just a few months ago, when the Special Prosecutor for Special Court unsealed his indictment against Charles Taylor, he and I came to the Senate floor together to commend this strong and decisive action. In that colloquy and in other floor statements, I described why it is so important for West Africa, as well as the cause of international justice, to bring Charles Taylor before the Special Court, I will not repeat all of that here today, but I just want to make a couple of additional points. Since his exile to Nigeria, press reports have revealed that Charles Taylor continues to try to foment chaos and instability in Liberia. There is no doubt that he wants to return, and will do so if given the opportunity. Charles Taylor needs to come before the Special Court. This needs to happen immediately. Allowing him to remain in Nigeria is wrong. It is impeding peace and prosperity in a region that has endured tremendous suffering over the past decade. The provision included in the supplemental can help get him before the Special Court. I look forward to working with Senators Gregg and Hollings to keep this provision in the final version of the supplemental conference report. I also want to point out that a humanitarian disaster continues to exist in Liberia, where thousands are without food, shelter, or basic medical care. Even after emergency needs are addressed, Liberia will require substantial amounts of additional assistance, as three-fourths of its citizens are impoverished, the unemployment rate is 85 percent, and seven out of ten of combatants involved in recent fighting in Liberia are child soldiers. I am worried that the world's attention is focused elsewhere and we will simply forget about the plight of Liberia's people. In the coming weeks, I hope that we can find some money in this supplemental to address these critical needs. Even a tiny percentage of the more than $87 billion in this bill would save many lives.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, three years ago, Senator Smith, Senator Collins and I joined together to introduce the Innocence Protection Act, a modest and practical package of reforms aimed at reducing the risk of error in capital cases. The reforms we proposed were designed to create a fairer system of justice, where the problems that have sent innocent people to death row would not occur, and where victims and their families could be more certain of the accuracy, and finality, of the results. During the last Congress, the Innocence Protection Act gained enormous momentum, with 32 Senators and 250 Representatives--well over half the House--signed on in support. Hearings were held in each House, and a version of the bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 7. Now is the time to finish the job and enact this important legislation. I am pleased, today, to introduce the Innocence Protection Act of 2003. This legislation is a piece of a larger bill called the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which provides an infusion of Federal funds to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs and to improve the capacity of Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses. The Innocence Protection Act of 2003 proposes two critical reforms. First, it provides greater access to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases, where it can help expose wrongful convictions, and authorizes $25 million in grants over 5 years to help defray the costs of such testing. Second, the bill addresses what all the statistics and evidence show is the single most frequent cause of wrongful convictions--inadequate defense representation at trial. By far the most important reform we can undertake is to help States establish minimum standards of competency and funding for capital defense. Other provisions of the Innocence Protection Act establish standards for preserving biological evidence in criminal cases, and substantially increase the maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded in Federal cases of wrongful conviction. Today's Innocence Protection Act is a modified version of the bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last year. These modifications follow many months of negotiation and deliberation, and were made to build further on the groundswell of support for the bill, both here on Capitol Hill and across America. More than ever, the bill is a collaborative product of which we all can be proud--an exercise of bipartisanship that is in the best tradition of the United States Congress. I want to thank and commend the Senators and Representatives who worked so hard this summer and fall to come to agreement on a bill that we can all strongly support. First and foremost, I want to thank my partner in this endeavor, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this goal. I also want to thank our lead Republican sponsors in both houses, Senators Gordon Smith and Susan Collins, and Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, all of whom have been steadfast in their commitment to this effort. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, deserves high praise for his leadership in our recent negotiations, as does the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, and I thank them both. Senator Hatch and I have debated these issues for years. I have always appreciated his thoughtful approach and serious commitment to improving the criminal justice system. Representative Sensenbrenner played an instrumental role in this process and I do not believe we could have come so far without his dedication. In addition, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Senator Feinstein, who has devoted countless hours over the years to reconciling the policy differences that prevented this legislation from moving forward. I am sorry that Senator DeWine could not be with us earlier today to announce the introduction of the bill, and appreciate his willingness to allow us to proceed. I have long worked with Senator DeWine on funding important forensic science tools for law enforcement, and we are currently working on a proposal with regard to how the mentally retarded are treated by the criminal justice system. His leadership on these issues is important and greatly appreciated. Thanks, too, to the many members on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate and in the House, who have supported this legislation over the years. Working together, we can finally begin to address the many problems facing our capital punishment system. Capital Representation Improvement Grants: I would like to take a moment now to elaborate on the capital defense representation provisions of the bill, both because they are the more important provisions and because they have been the principal subject of the recent revisions to the bill. The new version of the Innocence Protection Act establishes a grant program for States to improve the systems by which they appoint and compensate lawyers in death cases. States that authorize capital punishment may apply for these grants or not, as they wish. However, if a State chooses to accept the money, it must open itself up to a set of requirements designed to ensure that its system truly meets basic standards. After all, the point of the bill is not to throw money at the problem of inadequate representation; the point is to fix it. Earlier versions of the Innocence Protection Act took more of a ``carrot and stick'' approach to the counsel issue. The ``carrot'' was the same as in the current version: millions of dollars in Federal grants to help achieve adequate representation in capital cases. The ``stick''--which is no longer in the bill--has evolved over the years. At one time, we proposed that States that failed to meet basic competent counsel standards would have their death sentences given less deference and subjected to more rigorous Federal court review. In some versions of the bill, non-complying States would also have forfeited some Federal prison grant funding over time. In the version that the Judiciary Committee approved last year, if a State chose not to participate in the new Federal grant program, the Attorney General would award the money to one or more defender organizations within the State, to be used for capital defense work. Each of these various mechanisms would have helped ensure cooperation on the part of the States, and I am disappointed that I was unable to prevail upon my colleagues to include any one of them. Still, I believe that the current formulation is a good first step and will make a difference, provided that the grant program is fully funded and that the States which are most in need of reform elect to participate. As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the bill aimed to ensure full funding of the counsel program by providing that, if Congress failed to appropriate sufficient funding for the program, up to 10 percent of the Byrne block grant would be used for this purpose. I regret that this provision has been dropped from the bill; it seemed to me a good way to express our commitment to ensuring that the program is funded. However, given the tremendous support for this legislation in both houses, and on both sides of the aisle, I am confident that Congress will speak with one voice in ensuring that our years of effort are not undermined by a failure to appropriate the money needed to make this legislation effective. Getting States to participate in the program may be more difficult. Indeed, the States that are in most need of reform may be the least inclined to participate, given that they will have the most to do to bring their indigent defense systems into compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant. While I am hopeful that States will want to improve their systems, and will welcome the infusion of Federal funds for this purpose, Congress will need to monitor this program carefully to ensure that it is meeting its stated objective of improving the quality of legal representation provided to indigent defendants in State capital cases and, if it is not, to take additional remedial action. Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program: We have also established a $25 million grant program to help defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing. This program is named in honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing. I first met Kirk in February 2000, when he came to me as a man who had been exonerated after almost nine years of wrongful imprisonment. I am proud to say that we have become close friends and partners in the fight to reform capital punishment in America. I am also delighted that Kirk can finally feel truly free. Just a few weeks ago, the State of Maryland charged another man with the crime for which Kirk was convicted and sentenced to death, after prosecutors finally ran the DNA evidence in the case through the DNA database. The prosecutor who sent Kirk to death row, and who had previously refused to acknowledge his innocence, went to his home to apologize to him. Kirk Bloodsworth's battle to prove his own innocence has been won. But his nightmare of wrongful conviction has been repeated again and again across the country. Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the 1970s, more than 110 individuals who were convicted and sentenced to death have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. In addition, since the introduction of forensic DNA typing into the legal system in the early 1990s, many more individuals who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing. The Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program will help assist others who have experienced wrongful conviction. Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program: As I noted earlier, this version of the Innocence Protection Act is being introduced as part of a larger package of criminal justice reforms, titled the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which will substantially increase Federal resources available to State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA technology. Among other things, this legislation creates the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes $755 million over the next five years to reduce the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs. I have worked with the proponents of this program to revise the allocation formula, so that each State is guaranteed a minimum allocation of .50 percent of the total amount appropriated in a fiscal year. This will make the program fair for all States, including smaller States like Vermont. As DNA testing has moved to the front lines of the war on crime, forensic laboratories nationwide have experienced a significant increase in their caseloads, both in number and complexity. Funding has simply not kept pace with this increasing demand, and forensic labs nationwide are now seriously bottlenecked. Backlogs have seriously impeded the use of DNA testing in solving cases without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong claims of innocence--as labs are required to give priority status to those cases in which a suspect is known. Solely for lack of funding, critical evidence remains untested while rapists and killers remain at large. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program will give States the help they desperately need to carry out DNA analyses of backlogged evidence, and I strongly support its passage and full funding. Expansion of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program: The bill also expands and extends for another three years an existing grant program, named after our late colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. Congress passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act three years ago, with the goal of improving the quality and timeliness of State and local forensic science services. I was proud to cosponsor that legislation, and have worked since its passage to secure full funding for the grant program it establishes. Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of other Members, and notwithstanding the urgent pleas of lab directors nationwide, the President has never requested funding for Paul Coverdell grants, and Congress has never appropriated sufficient funds to make the program effective. The legislation we introduce today renews our commitment to this important initiative. Our bill also expands the purposes for which Paul Coverdell grants may be used, to include the elimination of a non-DNA forensic evidence backlog. The need for this measure was highlighted earlier this year at a subcommittee hearing on funding forensic sciences. Witness after witness testified that DNA evidence is not the only evidence that is going untested for lack of resources. Crime labs are also facing substantial backlogs with respect to other types of forensic science evidence, including firearms, latent prints, controlled substances, toxicology, trace evidence, questionable documents, and forensic pathology. We need to ensure that our labs are equipped to address the full range of issues that they are called upon to handle. We have had a constructive debate. We have shown that the death penalty system is broken, and we have built a bipartisan coalition supporting reforms. It is now time to act. Our bill reflects a principled consensus on the most basic and essential reforms; it raises no serious constitutional or law enforcement concerns; it will improve criminal justice in America considerably; and it may well save innocent lives. I am therefore proud to sponsor it, and I urge its speedy passage into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senators Craig, Sununu, Durbin, and Reid, my distinguished colleagues from Idaho, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Nevada, the Patriot Oversight Restoration Act of 2003, a short bill whose singular but important purpose is to provide Congress the opportunity to take a hard look at the USA PATRIOT Act, which we passed in the anxious weeks following the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. This bipartisan bill is moderate in scope; it would simply expand the sunset provision already enacted in the PATRIOT Act, to cover a number of additional provisions. The ensuing debate, however, should be considerable. My hope is that, before the sunset expires in December 2005, Congress will methodically revisit PATRIOT, with an eye toward achieving a suitable balance between the need to address the threat of terrorism and the need to protect our constitutional freedoms--and with the lessons of the past few years to guide us. We recently marked the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. As we reflect on that terrible day, and honor those who were lost, I strongly believe we should take stock of where we stand in our fight against terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress and the administration did forge a constructive partnership to write the USA PATRIOT Act, which was meant to help our law enforcement and intelligence communities prevent future attacks from occurring. The PATRIOT Act represented our best efforts, under difficult circumstances, to balance the rights and liberties of the American people with the very urgent need to confront a threat to our Nation. Even in balancing this tension, we granted the executive branch an unprecedented, vast new array of powers. We did so because we believed the administration's claim that it needed these powers to protect us, and because we trusted the administration's promise that it would use these powers appropriately. I noted at the time that PATRIOT was not the bill that I, or any of the sponsors, would have written if compromise were unnecessary. But I believed in the bill's purpose, and I gave it my vote and support. I worked hard to add checks and balances to many of its provisions, and did so. Unfortunately, like many Members who supported the act--and like many Americans nationwide--I have come to feel disappointed. Since we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, it has grown increasingly apparent that the trust and cooperation Congress provided to the executive branch has proved to be a one-way street. In the quarter-century that I have served in the Senate, no administration has been more secretive, more resistant to congressional oversight, and more disposed to acting unilaterally, without the approval of the American people or their democratically elected representatives. Despite the administration's unprecedented public relations campaign to promote the PATRIOT Act-- including a 16-State, 18-city tour by the Attorney General himself--the administration has yet to show that it is using its PATRIOT powers wisely. Instead, it has been secretly drafting a sequel to PATRIOT that would grant it even more far-reaching powers. I would never oppose an open discussion of any legislative tool that would help in the fight against terrorism. But for such a debate to be fruitful, we need to know more about the tools that are already available, including those created by the PATRIOT Act. Which are working, and how well? Which are not working, and why? Which, if any, struck the wrong balance, threatening the civil liberties of our citizens while doing little or nothing to keep our Nation secure? Immediately after the PATRIOT Act passed, the administration draped a cloak of secrecy around its use. When lawmakers and citizens have attempted to start a dialogue on PATRIOT-related issues, the response has been to ignore, insult or derisively dismiss them. Attorney General Ashcroft has repeatedly declined to appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions, and his Department is painfully slow to respond to written requests for information. To quote my friend Senator Grassley, ``getting information from the Justice Department under Ashcroft is like pulling teeth.'' By ignoring oversight requests until answers are moot or outdated, and responding in only vague and conclusory fashion, if at all, the Justice Department frustrates our constitutional system of checks and balances, and sows the sort of public distrust that now accompanies the PATRIOT Act. Just recently, in July, the Department dumped on committee members literally hundreds of pages of answers to questions that had been submitted to Attorney General Ashcroft and other senior Department officials following their testimony before the committee more than a year earlier. To give just one example of what a travesty it is when oversight questions remain unanswered for a year or more, the Department's responses dated July 17, 2003, devoted fully 15 pages to answering questions about Operation TIPS--an ill-conceived program that Congress had already terminated more than 8 months earlier. Is the Department incapable of responding to congressional inquiries in a timely fashion? Is it deliberately stonewalling? Or does it simply believe that oversight is a game that it need not play? Even more troubling, high-level administration officials have rashly suggested that anyone who dares to voice their concerns as unpatriotic, anti-American and pro-terrorist. In one of his rare appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft charged that ``fear mongers''--those who were raising concern about the loss of civil liberties--were only aiding the terrorists. More recently, a Justice Department official dismissed the many local government resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act by saying ``half are either in cities in Vermont, very small population, or in college towns in California. It's in a lot of the usual enclaves where you might see nuclear free zones, or they probably passed resolutions against the war in Iraq.'' It is unfortunate that the Justice Department felt it appropriate to ridicule these grass-roots efforts to participate in an important national dialogue. The opportunity to engage in public discourse is one of the hallmark benefits of being an American, and I am proud that Vermont towns are among those dedicated to thinking about and acting on these important issues. But more importantly, the concerns expressed in my home State are being echoed by Americans nationwide. To date, anti- PATRIOT resolutions have been passed by 178 communities in 32 States including Idaho, New Hampshire, and Illinois. These communities represent millions upon millions of Americans, not just a few free- spirited Vermonters, as the Justice Department has insinuated. Concerns about the administration's antiterror tactics are also shared by Members on both sides of aisle, many of whom supported the PATRIOT Act as well as the war in Iraq, but who now know that the administration has been less than forthright about what it has been doing in the name of the American people. In July, the House voted to nullify section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement to ask a court to delay notice of a search warrant where it could have certain adverse results. And several bills have been introduced in both Houses to roll back another PATRIOT Act provision, section 215, which gives federal agents new power to obtain records from libraries and bookstores. Remarkably, in response, the Justice Department then declassified information summarily reflecting that it has never used the Section 215 powers--despite expressing urgent ``need'' during pre- PATRIOT Act debate. And almost simultaneous to this announcement, the President urged support for an alternative record gathering power when Section 215 is still on the books. One has to question the inconsistencies in these two positions and whether Congress should blindly confer data gathering powers on an administration that does not provide a hint of factual support for such requests. There is overall a growing sense in the nation that Congress moved too fast in enacting the PATRIOT Act, and that the Justice Department moved too slowly in explaining its use of this sweeping legislation. When we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, I noted that Congress needed to exercise careful oversight of how the Justice Department, the FBI and other executive branch agencies used the newly expanded powers that the act provided. The need for oversight and accountability is the reason that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted on a sunset provision for several key provisions in PATRIOT--provisions that blurred the lines between criminal investigation and intelligence gathering. We succeeded, but only in part; several PATRIOT provisions that should have been subject to the sunset--including a few that were sunset or even cut in the version of the bill reported by the House Judiciary Committee--were omitted from the sunset. As enacted, the sunset applies only to certain enhanced surveillance authorities in title II of the act. The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would extend PATRIOT's sunset provision to other enhanced surveillance provisions in title II of the act. These include subsections (a) and (c) of section 203, which authorize the disclosure of grand jury information to foreign enforcement, intelligence and immigration officials; sections 210 and 211, which broaden the types of information that law enforcement may obtain, upon request, from electronic communication service providers and cable service operators; section 213, which authorizes so-called ``sneak and peak''--delayed notification--search warrants; sections 216 and 222, which significantly expand when, where, and how law enforcement can obtain a pen register or trap and trace order; and section 219, which authorizes judges to sign search warrants for properties located outside their districts. In addition to these title II provisions, the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would also extend the sunset to a handful of provisions in titles IV, V, VIII and X of the PATRIOT Act. These provisions include sections 411 and 1006, which expand the Government's authority to declare certain persons inadmissible to the United States; section 412, which grants the Attorney General authority to ``certify'' that an alien is engaged in activity that endangers the national security, and to take such an alien into custody; section 505, which gives law enforcement greater authority to access telephone, bank, and credit records through the issuance of so-called ``National Security Letters,'' even if no criminal investigation is pending and without court review; sections 507 and 508, which remove certain privacy protections for educational records and surveys--called ``obstacles'' to investigating terrorism in the PATRIOT Act; section 802, which defines ``domestic terrorism'' in a way that could be read to include political protesters engaged in civil disobedience; section 806, which uses the aforementioned definition of ``domestic terrorism'' to expand the government's civil forfeiture authority; and section 1003, which references another section of PATRIOT that is already covered by the sunset. With the PATRIOT Act, Congress provided government investigators with a virtual smorgasbord of new powers from which to choose. Is the Government gorging itself on the secretive powers allowed for ``foreign intelligence'' gathering, with their less onerous procedural requirements, rather than relying on bedrock criminal investigatory techniques that are subject to more rigorous review by the Federal courts? Have we provided too many choices and too much power to a limited few? These are questions that require answers before the more far-reaching provisions of PATRIOT are etched into stone. The events of September 11, 2001, resound in our hearts and in our memories. We owe it to the American people to be circumspect in the powers and authorities we grant, even in the name of national security. Our country was attacked on September 11 because of the democratic principles that this country stands for and that we love. It would be a cruel twist of irony to abandon those principles in the guise of a law named ``PATRIOT'' that might prove to be anything but a defender or protector of those cherished rights and freedoms. The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act offers a cautious and sensible solution to evolving fears about the PATRIOT Act. It will allow Congress to re-examine some of the important legal issues that abruptly confronted us in the weeks following September 11, and to re-assess our efforts with the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I urge the Senate to take up and pass H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act. The Senate version of this bill--which was identical--passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee last Thursday, and this bill deserves the support of every Senator. I joined with Senator Hatch in introducing the Senate legislation to reauthorize and improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and to extend the authorization of the Missing Children's Assistance Act. This bill follows in the footsteps of the recently enacted PROTECT Act legislation and presents another milestone in our efforts to safeguard all of our children. In the 29 years since it became law, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act has helped some of the most vulnerable children in our country. I have worked in the past to extend the program, most recently in the 106th Congress, when I cosponsored S. 249, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act, which extended the Act through this year. I am pleased to help extend it once again. A Justice Department report released last year estimated that 1.7 million young people either ran away from or were thrown out of their homes in 1999 alone. Other studies have suggested an even higher number. This law and the programs it funds provide a safety net that helps give these young people a chance to build lives for themselves. It is slated to expire at the end of this fiscal year, and we should not allow that to happen. In my State, both the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth and Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington receive grants under this law, and they have provided excellent services both to young people trying to build lives on their own and to those who are struggling on the streets. Reauthorizing this law will allow them to continue their enormously important work. This bill would improve the law by extending the period during which older homeless youth can receive services under the Transitional Living Program, to ensure that all homeless youth can take advantage of services at least until they turn 18. The bill would also make permanent the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to make grants explicitly to help rural areas met the unique stresses of providing services to runaway and homeless youth. Programs serving runaway and homeless youth have found that those in rural areas are particularly difficult to reach and serve effectively, and this bill recognizes that fact. The improvements proposed in this bill to the Missing Children's Assistance Act build on provisions included in the PROTECT Act legislation that we enacted earlier this year. In that bill, we authorized National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, activities through 2005 and authorized the center to strengthen its CyberTipline to provide online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in distribution of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. This bill would extend NCMEC through 2008. Now more than ever, it is critical for Congress to give the Center the resources it needs in order to pursue its important work. A missing or abducted child is the worst nightmare of any parent or grandparent, and NCMEC has proved to be an invaluable resource in Federal, state, and local efforts to recover children who have disappeared. Although this is a good bill on the whole, I am disappointed that it includes a provision that prohibits grantees from using any funds provided under this program for needle distribution programs. This is a superfluous provision that simply repeats what is already law. In addition, it is unnecessary because no grantee under this program operates needle exchange programs or has expressed interest in doing so. I ask Senator Hatch to leave it out of the Senate version of this bill, and was disappointed when he refused. The inclusion of this needless provision, however, does not change the fact that this is still a very good bill. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs have received tremendous bipartisan support over the years. The House passed this bill by a vote of 404-14, and the Senate bill passed by unanimous consent last Friday. I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 1925 and send it to the President today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with our votes on two more judicial nominees today, the Senate will have confirmed 60 judges in the 15 months that Republicans have controlled the Senate majority. In 17 months, when the Democrats were in the majority, we confirmed 100 judges. So that means between those confirmed under Republican leadership--60--and the 100 under Democratic leadership, we now have confirmed 160 in less than 3 years. Incidentally, it approaches the 4-year total of President Reagan's first term. I have expedited confirmation of another Oklahoma nominee, as I accommodated Senator Nickles with four nominees when I was chairman, and I am happy to accommodate him now. I hope the leadership will look to the two much needed nominees for the Southern District of California. That is the most overworked district in the entire Nation. For some reason, the leadership has not brought them up. I wish they would. They should be considered on an expedited basis. Last night, the Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Carlos Bea of California to a lifetime position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is the 29th circuit court nominee of President George W. Bush to be confirmed. With this number of confirmations, we have reduced the number of vacancies we inherited in the summer of 2001 in 8 of the 13 circuit courts and the number of vacancies in the other 5 courts has not increased, despite more than a dozen additional vacancies that have arisen since then. In contrast, during the Clinton administration, Republicans allowed the number of circuit court vacancies to more than double, increasing the number of vacancies on 9 of the 13 circuit courts. As I mentioned last night, the Senate has confirmed 12 circuit court nominees of President Bush in this year alone, which is more circuit court confirmations than Republicans allowed in 5 of the 6 full years they controlled the Senate during the Clinton administration. Last night, the Senate confirmed the 58th judicial nominee of President Bush this year, which is the same number as Republicans allowed in all of 1995. With the two confirmations we expect this morning, we will have confirmed more judicial nominees of this President this year than in 5 of the 6 years of Republican control of the Senate. At the conclusion of the confirmation votes today, a total of 60 judicial nominees of President Bush will be confirmed this year, in addition to the 100 confirmations during 17 months of the Democratic majority in the Senate. This number of confirmations, 160, is significantly higher than Republicans allowed by the third year of President Clinton's second term, the most recent Presidential term, when they allowed 135 judicial nominees of that President to be appointed from 1997 through the end of 1999. That year, because the Republican chairman insisted that President Clinton nominate Utahan Ted Stewart to the district court, no nomination hearings were even held until the summer. In all, during the prior 6 years of Republican control of the Senate, 248 of President Clinton's district and circuit court nominees were confirmed but more than 60 were blocked form getting confirmation votes. Despite this recent history, Democrats have supported the confirmation of 160 of President Bush's judicial nominees. As Senator Frist observed on the floor of the Senate last week when six additional judicial nominees were confirmed: ``Again, steady progress has been made with respect to these judicial nominations.'' The number of confirmations in the two home States of the nominees being voted on today supports that observation of the majority leader. We have already confirmed 13 district court judges to the State of Texas and today we vote on the 14th judge appointed to the Federal trial courts in Texas, Magistrate Judge Marcia Crone. Despite her 11 years of service in the Southern District of Texas, Magistrate Judge Crone earned a partial ``Not qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, ABA. In all, 23 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees have received minority or majority ratings of ``Not qualified'' from the ABA, which is cause for concern. Sometimes we are able to deduce the basis of those ratings, but sometimes we cannot. It is too bad that the ABA will not provide us with the facts and factors behind such ratings. Without that information and based on the record we have before us, Magistrate Judge Crone garnered the bipartisan support of the Judiciary Committee. Magistrate Judge Crone is nominated to 1 of the 15 new seats Democrats created to address increased caseloads around the country, and once she is sworn in there will be no vacancies in the district courts in Texas, a situation that Republicans would not allow when a Democrat was in the White House. In fact, had Democrats not created 15 new seats on the Federal courts when we were in the majority last year, there would be fewer than 30 vacancies in the Federal courts today. As it stands, with the confirmations today, there will be 44 vacancies on the Federal bench, the lowest level reached for this President and indeed the lowest number of vacancies since 1990. Similarly, with the confirmation of Ronald White to the district court in Oklahoma, Democrats will have supported the confirmation of a judge to a vacancy that arose last Thursday. Senator Nickles has been eager to fill this vacancy, which occurred just four business days ago and we are accommodating him. When I chaired the committee we similarly worked hard to confirm four judicial nominees to vacancies in Oklahoma. I must express concern, however, that the Republican leadership has chosen to move Mr. White's nomination to such a short-lived vacancy ahead of the nominees to the Southern District of California, seats that have been greatly needed for years. During the last period of Republican control of the Senate, they refused to create seats in California to address the growing crisis to that border court. As a consequence, this Federal court in San Diego has the highest caseload per judge in the Nation, by a significant margin; senior judges have been called into continued service handling a large number of cases; and one retired judge even passed away in the midst of the stressful and pressing caseload of that court. Republican neglect was part of their efforts to deny a Democratic President and any opportunity to fill those much-needed judgeships. I hope that the Republican leadership will turn to the southern California nominees it has now skipped without more delay. Finally, I note that Mr. White is receiving far more favorable bipartisan consideration than the last Ronald White to be nominated to the U.S. District Court. Mr. White of Oklahoma is being confirmed within 4 months of his nomination, while Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White waited 28 months for a confirmation vote. Justice White, who now serves with distinction as the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, was nominated by President Clinton to the Federal district court in June of 1997. The White House consulted at length with the home-state Senators and other officials in Missouri to find a consensus nominee and chose Justice White who was the first African American to serve on the highest court in Missouri. Senator Bond supported Justice White's confirmation and then-Senator Ashcroft advised that he would not hold his nomination. However, the Republican chairman did not schedule a hearing for this district court nominee for almost a year. Then, after Justice White's nomination was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, which occurred almost a year after his nomination, the Republican leader refused to schedule a vote on the nomination. Justice White's nomination languished on the floor from May 1998 until the end of that year. He was renominated by President Clinton in January 1999, and the Republican chairman refused to place his name on the calendar for a vote for 6 months. Once his nomination was reported out favorably a second time the Republican leader again delayed a vote on his nomination for about 3 months. Then, in a surprise move following a Republican caucus meeting in October 1999, Justice White nomination was defeated with every Republican voting in lock-step against his confirmation, without warning and even though some of these Senators had previously voted to report his nomination favorably to the Senate. Senator Ashcroft maligned Justice White as ``pro-criminal,'' even though Justice White's record in criminal and death penalty cases on the Missouri Supreme Court was better than some of Senator Ashcroft's appointees to that court when he was governor. When President Bush nominated John Ashcroft to be Attorney General the outrageousness of the attack on Justice White was one of the issues we explored. Senator Specter apologized to Justice White for the way he was treated by the Senate. Of course, more than 60 of President Clinton's other judicial nominees were never allowed a confirmation vote of any kind. Those 63 other nominations were scuttled by Republicans in the dark of night, through secret or anonymous objections. This was their preferred modus operandi. Republicans perfected the art of delay by defeat for President Clinton's circuit and district court nominees, blocked 63 while confirming 248 in the 6\1/2\ years of Senate control. I think if is time that fair-minded Republicans acknowledge those Clinton nominees who were blocked from getting votes, nominations that constituted 20 percent of all judicial nominees in those 6 years. That record stands in stark contrast to ours, with 160 of President Bush's judicial nominees confirmed in less than 3 years, with only three blocked so far. The Senate's record on President Bush's judicial nominations is now 160 to 3. The Republican record on President Clinton's judicial nominees is 248 to 63. The facts demonstrate how effectively Republicans prevented confirmation votes on judicial nominees, behind closed doors and in secret. Democrats have voted and continue to vote on President Bush's judicial nominees in the light of day, with full discussion of the serious concerns that surround the extreme nominees of this President. With a Republican making nominations, the Senate votes today to confirm Mr. White of Oklahoma to a seat that has been vacant for less than a week. With the delay and attack on President Clinton's nominee Justice White, Republicans were content to allow the Missouri District Court to remain vacant for 5\1/2\ years, like many other judicial vacancies that arose when a Democrat was in the White House and Republicans last controlled the confirmation process. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tonight the Senate votes on the nomination of Judge Carlos Bea of California to the ninth circuit. In just 9 months this year, the Senate has confirmed 58 of President Bush's judicial nominees, which is more than Republicans allowed to be confirmed for President Clinton in 4 of the 6 years of Republican control. In fact, in just 9 months this year, the Republican led Senate has confirmed the same number of judicial nominees as they allowed for President Clinton in all 12 months of 1995. I recall well that the following annual session, 1996, Republicans allowed only 17 judicial nominees to be confirmed all year and not a single circuit court nominee was allowed a confirmation vote by the Senate. I am glad that, in moving the nomination of Judge Bea to the ninth circuit, the Republican leadership has chosen not to follow the delaying approach they took on the nominations of two other Latino circuit court nominees of President Bush, Judge Edward Prado to the fifth circuit and Judge Consuelo Callahan to the ninth circuit. The two Democratic home State Senators support the nomination of Judge Bea and have worked to expedite his consideration. I expect most if not all Democratic Senators will vote to confirm him, just as they did Judge Prado and Judge Callahan and the scores of Hispanic nominees we have worked so hard to confirm over the last 11 years. For 2 full years this White House refused to nominate any Latino for the circuit courts other than the highly divisive and controversial nomination of Miguel Estrada. Then the White House refused to work with the Senate to provide the information needed to consider that nomination. Ultimately Mr. Estrada asked that his nomination be withdrawn so that he could devote his attention to his law practice at a prestigious law firm. The Republican leadership delayed Senate consideration of Judge Edward Prado's nomination for a month, then delayed consideration of the nomination of Judge Consuelo Callahan. Their false claim of anti-Hispanic bias among Democrats has been rebutted by the facts. Democrats have voted to confirm 13 Latinos nominated by President Bush to the Federal courts. Last Congress, Senate Democrats swiftly confirmed six Latino judicial nominees chosen by President Bush-- Christina Armijo of New Mexico, Judge Phillip Martinez of Texas, Randy Crane of Texas, Judge Jose Martinez of Florida, Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum of Texas, and Jose Linares of New Jersey. This Congress, Democrats have unanimously supported the confirmation of seven other Latino judicial nominees--Edward Prado of Texas to the fifth circuit, Consuelo Callahan of California to the ninth circuit, S. James Otero of California, Cecilia Altonaga of Florida, Xavier Rodriguez of Texas, and Frank Rodriguez Montalvo of Texas. And today we vote on the nomination of Judge Bea. Democrats supported the appointment of 11 Latinos nominated by President Clinton to the appellate courts, but Republicans blocked 3 of them. Of the 12 Latino appellate judges currently seated in the Federal courts, 8 were appointed by President Clinton and 2 by President Bush. Republicans blocked six Latino nominees of President Clinton from ever receiving a vote--three for the circuit courts and three for the district courts. Republicans blocked Enrique Moreno, who President Clinton nominated to the fifth circuit; Jorge Rangel, who President Clinton nominated to the fifth circuit; and Christine Arguello, who President Clinton nominated to the tenth circuit. In addition, Republicans refused to allow votes on district court nominees, Ricardo Morado, R. Samuel Paz, and Anabelle Rodriguez. Although Republicans denied confirmation votes for six Latinos nominated by President Clinton, among the more than 60 other judicial nominees, Democrats have opposed only a handful of President Bush's judicial nominees. Many Hispanic nominees of President Clinton were also delayed by Republicans including immigrants Judge Rosemary Barkett and Judge Sonia Sotomayor, as well as Mexican-Americans Judge Richard Paez and Judge Hilda Tagle. Republicans filibustered Judge Paez's nomination for more than 4 full years before finally allowing him a confirmation vote. Like many of President Clinton's Hispanic nominees, Judge Bea's nomination is supported by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and others in the local community. After today's vote, the Senate's tally is 158 to 3 with 158 lifetime judicial nominations confirmed and three of the most extreme having been blocked. This stands in stark contrast to the Republican record during their prior 6 years of control of the Senate, when Republicans allowed the confirmation of 248 of President Clinton's judicial nominees and blocked confirmation votes on 63 of his judicial nominees, 20 percent. The historical record shows that in 6 years of control, Republicans blocked votes on almost two dozen of President Clinton's circuit court nominees, including five nominees for the fourth Circuit, three for the fifth Circuit, three for the sixth Circuit, three for the ninth Circuit, two for the tenth Circuit and two for the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, in the third and fourth year's of President Clinton's second term, when they controlled the Senate majority and timetable, less than half of President Clinton's circuit nominees were confirmed. Despite this history, Democrats held the first hearings and votes in years for President Bush's nominees to the fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth and D.C. Circuits. Only a handful of the most extreme or controversial nominees of President Bush have been blocked from receiving votes. Despite the recent past when Republicans blocked so many more circuit court nominees of President Clinton, they seem determined to use judicial nominations for their 2004 election strategy. As the Los Angeles Daily Journal reported last week: Despite the fact that judicial nominations barely register on the public's radar screen, Republicans say the issue is a good one for them. They plan to continue to push hard for Bush's nominees, even in the face of firm Democratic opposition. And, they believe, the more nominees that Democrats block, the more the Republican charge of Democratic ``obstructionism'' will resonate with voters, ultimately paying dividends in the 2004 elections, especially in the South. ``Our strategy has been: We don't want to see these people go down, but if they're going to go down, the Democrats have to hurt for it,'' said the [Republican] aide. Bush himself has said he intends to make his judicial nominees an issue in 2004. ``I'm reminding people of the issue of judges,'' Bush said in a round-table meeting with Texas reporters last week. ``I will elevate this issue as the course of the campaign goes on.'' For 5 of the 6 full years that Republicans controlled the Senate during the Clinton administration they did not allow 12 circuit court nominees to be confirmed all year. With Judge Bea's confirmation, Democrats will have joined in the confirmation of far more circuit court nominees of this President than Republicans allowed on average for President Clinton. In the years 1995 through 2000 just seven circuit court nominees were allowed to be confirmed per year on average. This is the twelfth circuit judge confirmed in the last 9 months. This is in addition to the 17 circuit judges confirmed while I chaired the Judiciary Committee and Democrats made up the Senate majority in 2001 and 2002. That totals 29 circuit judges confirmed in the last 26 months. Republicans do not want to discuss these facts and seem to hope that the American public is not closely watching the actual work of the Senate since 1995. Far from being obstructionist, Senate Democrats have been accommodating in confirming the vast majority of President Bush's judicial nominees, 150 so far. Despite the very real Republican obstruction of dozens and dozens of President Clinton's judicial nominees, we have turned the other cheek in voting for President Bush's very conservative nominees to seats kept open by Republican obstruction of President Clinton's nominees. As a consequence, there are now fewer vacancies on the Federal courts today and earlier this year than at any time in the past 13 years. Had we not created new seats for this President to fill, we would be at the all-time low vacancies of the Reagan administration. There are more lifetime appointed Federal judges serving on the bench today than at any time in American history. This is hardly the portrait of obstructionism that Republicans will try to sell to the American people. We have been fair but we will not be rubberstamps for this or any administration. The stakes are too high and the Constitution is too important to do otherwise.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to take up and pass S. 1451, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act. It passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee earlier today, and it deserves the support of every Senator. I joined with Senator Hatch in introducing this legislation to reauthorize and improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and to extend the authorization of the Missing Children's Assistance Act. This bill follows in the footsteps of the recently enacted PROTECT Act legislation, and presents another milestone in our efforts to safeguard all of our children. In the 29 years since it became law, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act has helped some of the most vulnerable children in our country. I have worked in the past to extend the program, most recently in the 106th Congress, when I cosponsored S. 249, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act, which extended the act through this year. I am pleased to help extend it once again. A Justice Department report released last year estimated that 1.7 million young people either ran away from or were thrown out of their homes in 1999 alone. Other studies have suggested an even higher number. This law and the programs it funds provide a safety net that helps give these young people a chance to build lives for themselves. It is slated to expire at the end of this fiscal year, and we should not allow that to happen. In my State, both the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth and Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington receive grants under this law, and they have provided excellent services both to young people trying to build lives on their own and to those who are struggling on the streets. Reauthorizing this law will allow them to continue their enormously important work. This bill would improve the law by extending the period during which older homeless youth can receive services under the Transitional Living Program, to ensure that all homeless youth can take advantage of services at least until they turn 18. The bill would also make permanent the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to make grants explicitly to help rural areas meet the unique stresses of providing services to runaway and homeless youth. Programs serving runaway and homeless youth have found that those in rural areas are particularly difficult to reach and serve effectively, and this bill recognizes that fact. The improvements proposed in this bill to the Missing Children's Assistance Act build on provisions included in the PROTECT Act legislation that we enacted earlier this year. In that bill, we authorized National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, activities through 2005 and authorized the Center to strengthen its CyberTipline to provide online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in distribution of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. This bill would extend NCMEC through 2008. Now more than ever, it is critical for Congress to give the center the resources it needs in order to pursue its important work. A missing or abducted child is the worst nightmare of any parent or grandparent, and NCMEC has proved to be an invaluable resource in Federal, State, and local efforts to recover children who have disappeared. Although this is a good bill on the whole, I am disappointed that Senator Hatch did not agree to remove a provision that was included in the House-passed bill that prohibits grantees from using any funds provided under this program for needle distribution programs. This is a superfluous provision that simply repeats what is already law. In addition, it is unnecessary because no grantee under this program operates needle exchange programs or has expressed interest in doing so. The inclusion of this needless provision, however, does not change the fact that this is still a very good bill. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs have received tremendous bipartisan support over the years, and the House has already passed its version of this bill by a vote of 404 to 14. I urge the Senate to follow suit today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing S. 1301, the DeWine-Schumer-Leahy Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003. This bill targets the pernicious practice of invading a person's privacy through the surreptitious use of hidden surveillance equipment. Specifically, the bill makes it a crime to capture an improper, naked or near-naked image of a person without his or her consent, and in such a way as to violate his or her privacy. Any person found guilty of video voyeurism as outlined in the bill may be fined or imprisoned for up to one year, or both. In recent years, the explosion of micro-camera technology has fed the growing phenomenon of video voyeurism. Hidden cameras have been discovered in bedrooms, bathrooms, public showers, changing rooms, locker rooms, and tanning salons, all aimed at filming unsuspecting victims in various states of undress. Often, the invasion of privacy is exacerbated when captured images are posted on the Internet for all the world to see. I commend Senators DeWine and Schumer for bringing this invasive practice to the attention of the Judiciary Committee, and for crafting a bill that addresses it in a thoughtful and measured manner. In addition, I thank them for addressing a concern I raised during the Committee's consideration of the bill. As introduced, the bill did not expressly prohibit ``cyber-peeping''--a particularly offensive form of video voyeurism involving the contemporaneous transmission of improper images of a non-consenting person over the Internet through Web cameras and other means. As reported by the Judiciary Committee, the ``cyber- peeping'' loophole has been closed: The bill we pass today covers the simultaneous Web casting of images or any other transmissions that may not be recorded, so that defendants who use this means of violating people's privacy cannot escape punishment. The National Center for Victims of Crime has dubbed video voyeurism ``the new frontier of stalking.'' The States are already responding to this ``new frontier'' in many different ways. Some have passed video voyeurism laws; others have addressed the conduct within the context of their laws against stalking. The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act brings the Federal criminal laws to bear on those who commit this offense within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It should be enacted without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

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