Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
September 4, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
April 2, 2003
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4704)
April 2, 2003
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4704-4705)
April 2, 2003
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
July 10, 2003
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch without amendment. Without written report.
July 10, 2003
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 193.
July 10, 2003
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S9431; text as passed Senate: CR S9431)
July 15, 2003
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
July 16, 2003
Received in the House.
July 16, 2003 • 10:04 AM
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
July 16, 2003
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
September 4, 2003
Floor Debate
14 membersWhat members said about S. 764 on the floor
CL
JRB
RGL
RDFBNC+9
Floor Debate
14 membersWhat members said about S. 764 on the floor
Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, McConnell and Schumer in introducing the Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2003, a bill that would provide…
Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, McConnell and Schumer in introducing the Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2003, a bill that would provide private security firms an opportunity to have national criminal history information searches undertaken to determine whether or not employees or applicants for employment pose a threat to the facilities and persons they are supposed to protect. There would be no expense to the government and the searches would require the consent of the employee or applicant for employment.
Large numbers of critical non-governmental facilities from power plants to schools to hospitals are protected by private security firms and their civilian security officers. Keeping these facilities secure from terrorism or other forms of violent attack is critical to our national security. Yet currently most private security employers cannot request timely national criminal background check information on the very people they need to hire to protect these key facilities. This legislation seeks to correct that. This bill would authorize private security firms to request Federal background checks on current or prospective employees through the appropriate state agencies, thereby permitting relevant criminal history information to be considered in the licensing and employment of private security officers.
The Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI maintains complete criminal history records for both Federal and State crimes on individuals with criminal records in the United States. Searches are most effectively conducted using fingerprints to ensure efficiency and accuracy. We have already passed legislation specifically permitting other industries--for instance, the banking, nursing home, and child care industries--to check their prospective employees against the FBI's comprehensive records. Many of the reasons that supported passage of those laws, particularly the desire to ensure that those who provide certain important services have a background commensurate with their responsibilities, support passage of this bill as well.
This legislation will enhance our Nation's security. As an adjunct to our Nation's law enforcement officers, private security guards are responsible for the protection of numerous critical components of our Nation's infrastructure, including power generation facilities, hazardous materials manufacturing facilities, water supply and delivery facilities, oil and gas refineries, and food processing plants. The approximately 13,000 private security companies in the United States employ about 1.5 million persons nationwide. Given the critical nature of the facilities private security officers are hired to protect, it is imperative that we provide sufficient access to information that might disclose who is unsuitable for protecting these resources.
Currently we do not. Relying upon a Federal bill passed in the early 1970's, 37 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation authorizing State agencies to request both State and Federal criminal history record searches. Despite this authorization, security firms report that searches of both State and Federal databases for private security officers are the exception rather than the rule. That is because only 20 States plus the District of Columbia regularly access the Federal database for private security officers, and only two-- California and Illinois--do so in a way that ensures a timely response. In many jurisdictions with authorizing statutes, reviews of the Federal database are conducted sporadically, if at all. Indeed, in approximately 17 of the 37 States with authorizing statutes, typically only State databases are searched for private security officers. An additional 13 States have not even passed legislation authorizing any form of Federal criminal background check. What that means is that in approximately 30 States neither the State agencies nor the private security employers typically have any access to any Federal criminal database information. In these 30 States, an employment applicant in one State could have a serious criminal conviction in another State and still be permitted to perform sensitive security work. The state reviewing the applicant would have no idea a conviction in another State existed without access to the Federal database.
Further, even in those few States that actually conduct Federal records searches, the Federal searches conducted on new employees often take 90 to 120 days, if not longer. While checks are pending, security guards frequently are provided temporary licenses. This 90 to 120 day period is more than enough time for a guard with a temporary license to perpetrate dangerous acts. In light of our urgent need to strengthen the security of our homeland, this lack of timely access to criminal history information is unacceptable. An article that appeared earlier this year in USA Today entitled ``Private Security Guards Are Homeland's Weak Link'' got it right when it said, ``more often than not, private security guards who protect millions of lives and billions of dollars in real estate offer a false sense of security.'' We need to act in order to make it easier for States and employers to gain timely access to this crucial criminal history information.
This bill strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of all parties involved.
First, the bill permits private security employers to request a prompt search of the FBI criminal history database for prospective or existing employees. Requests must be made by the employers through their state's identification bureau or similar state agency designated by the Attorney General. Employers will not be granted direct access to the FBI records. Instead, states will serve as intermediaries between employers and the FBI to: 1. ensure that employment suitability determinations are made pursuant to applicable State law; 2. prevent disclosure of the raw FBI criminal history information to the employers and the public; and 3. minimize the FBI's administrative burden of having to respond to background check requests from countless different sources. The program will not cost the Federal Government anything. The legislation allows the FBI, and states if they so choose, to charge reasonable fees to security firms to recover their costs of carrying out this act.
Second, the bill protects employee and prospective employee privacy. Before an FBI background check can be conducted, the employee or applicant for employment must grant an employer written consent to request the FBI database search. In addition, the criminal history reports received by the States will not be disseminated to employers. Instead, in States that have standards regulating private security guard employment, designated State agencies will simply be required to use the information provided by the FBI in applying their State standards. For those States that have no standards, the States will be instructed to inform requesting employers whether or not employees or applicants have been convicted of either: 1. a felony; 2. a violent misdemeanor within the past ten years; or 3. a crime of dishonesty within the past ten years. Thus, in these situations, only the fact that a particular conviction exists or not will be provided by States to employers, and the privacy of the records themselves will be maintained. All information provided to employers pursuant to this act must be provided to the employees or prospective employees. Furthermore, the bill establishes strong criminal penalties for those who might falsely certify they are authorized security firms or otherwise use information obtained pursuant to this act beyond the act's intended purposes.
Third, the bill protects States' interests. The bill does not impose an unfunded mandate on the states. It reserves the right of States to charge reasonable fees to employers for their costs in administering this act. Moreover, if a State wishes to opt out of this statutory regime, it may do so at any time.
This legislation is long overdue. It strikes the right balance between the need for States and employers to gain access to this critical information and the privacy rights of current and prospective security guards. We have
worked with the FBI to expedite the administrative process, and it will cost the Federal Government nothing. There is no undue burden being placed on our States. Most importantly, passage of this act will plug a hole in our homeland defense. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I believe will bring renewed focus to the battle against child abuse and the services we provide child victims of crimes. Today, I am introducing…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I believe will bring renewed focus to the battle against child abuse and the services we provide child victims of crimes. Today, I am introducing the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 2003, which reauthorizes the Children's Advocacy Centers. These centers bring together law enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services and medical and mental health professionals to provide comprehensive, child-focused services to child victims of crimes. Operating in all 50 States, Children's Advocacy Centers served over 116,000 child victims last year. Of these victims, 26,934 received onsite medical exams, 27,684 received counseling and 69,443 went through a forensic interview process specially designed for children. Seventy-six percent of the children they serviced were under the age of 12.
In 1994, this body passed a piece of legislation that I authored and had been advocating for a number of years, the Violence Against Women Act. When we passed this landmark legislation, what we said as a Congress, and were saying as a Nation as a whole, was that domestic violence is not a family problem to be dealt with quietly behind the scenes, but a national crisis in need of a coordinated response from law enforcement, courts and the medical community. Backed by a nearly $1\1/2\ billion commitment of Federal funds, the Violence Against Women Act spurred a sea change on the Federal, State and local levels in how police, prosecutors, judges, medical personnel and others, process and handle cases of domestic abuse. The Violence Against Women Act made it clear that victims of domestic violence were, in fact, victims: Victims in need of the full extent of this nation's medical and legal resources. The bill I am introducing today is designed to bring this same type of concentrated focus, general awareness, and coordinated response to victims of child abuse, the most heinous and incomprehensible form of violence against the most vulnerable and innocent people in our lives.
In 1987 Congressman Bud Cramer, then District Attorney of Madison, County, AL, founded the Nation's first Children's Advocacy Center. As stated earlier, these centers bring together law enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services and medical and mental health professionals to provide comprehensive, coordinated services to child victims of crimes. Congress responded several years later. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I
sponsored, along with Senator Thurmond, the Crime Control Act of 1990, P.L. 101-647, which created the Court Appointed Special Advocates, (CASA), program, to provide for the appointment of advocates on behalf of abused and neglected children. Two years later, Congress created the Children's Advocacy Centers as part of the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, P.L. 102-586. The 1992 legislation amended the Victims of Child Abuse Act to include Child Advocacy Centers with a fiscal year 1993 total authorization level of $20 million and such sums as necessary for fiscal years 1994 through 1996. In particular, Senator Nickles and Representative Cramer were instrumental in championing the Children's Advocacy Centers. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1996, P.L. 104-235, reauthorized the Children's Advocacy Centers through fiscal year 2000 but made no substantive changes to the program, nor did it provide specific authorization levels.
The Children's Advocacy Centers were a logical complement to the CASA program I authored in 1990, by bringing together law enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services and medical and mental health professionals to provide comprehensive, child-focused services to child victims of crimes. The centers provide immediate attention to the young victims of sexual and physical abuse, so that they are not ``twice abused,'' first by the perpetrator and second by a system which used to shuttle them from a medical clinic to a counseling center to the police station to the D.A.'s office.
Communities with Children's Advocacy Centers report increased successful prosecution of perpetrators, more consistent follow-up to child abuse reports, increased medical and mental health referrals for victims, and more compassionate support for child victims and their families. Widely cited as an efficient, cost-effective mechanism of handling child abuse cases, these centers are widely supported by police, prosecutors and the courts. In a May 1998 publication titled, New Directions from the Field, the Department of Justice included Children's Advocacy Centers as their number one recommendation for improving services to children who directly experience or witness violence in their homes, neighborhoods and schools--number one.
Today in my state of Delaware, there are two operational Children's Advocacy Centers. One is located in Wilmington and one is located in Milford. A third center is scheduled to open in Dover. These centers provide a safe, comfortable setting in which cross-trained professionals interview alleged victims and begin initial investigation and evidence collection. Like other centers they offer on-site physical exams by specially trained pediatricians, prosecutors on hand to make immediate contact with victims and families, referrals to mental health services and most importantly, one-time minimally intrusive taped interviews of child victims. This last service, one-time minimally intrusive taped interviews, is particularly important. Let me read to you from a letter I received from John Humphrey, a retired police officer who now acts as executive director of the Delaware Children's Advocacy Centers, to demonstrate why:
I am a retired New Castle County Police Lieutenant that for
12 of my 21 years investigated child abuse and child death
cases. One of the most important pieces of the entire case is
the interview of the child victim. . . . Often times I saw
children subjected to at least 3-4 interviews by 3 or 4
different interviewers, all with varying levels of
interviewing expertise. The end result is three or four
versions of events . . . answers vary because of the manner
in which questions are asked and the skills of the
interviewer. . . . Defense attorneys use that alone to poke
holes in a child's story. . . . Children's Advocacy Centers
bring all of the involved parties to the table at the same
time to work as a team. . . . We use forensic interviewers
specially trained in interviewing children. . . . This
results in video taped interviews of such quality that most
defense attorneys are asking for pleas to escape trial. We
are getting good pleas with good sentences. Most importantly,
this process minimizes the trauma a child victim and witness
must endure by doing one interview of such quality that the
child may be spared from walking into a courtroom full of
strangers to tell what happened. I would have given anything
as a police detective to have a children's advocacy center.
It expedites the process, minimizes the problems associated
with duplicative and unnecessary interviews, opens the lines
of combination between agencies, and provides the best
professional assessment of a case.
Last year Children's Advocacy Centers in Delaware handled 1,000 cases where child victims as young as 3 alleged physical or sexual abuse. Mr. Humphrey estimates that the centers eliminated 2,500 unnecessary interviews by using the multidisciplinary approach.
The child abuse and crime statistics in this country are outrageous. Nationally, 3.9 million of the nation's 22.3 million children between the ages of 12 and 17 have been seriously physically assaulted and one in three girls and one in five boys are sexually abused before the age of 18. We have to do more to protect our children, by reauthorizing Children's Advocacy Centers we can.
I want to believe that we are doing everything we can to prevent crimes against children and, if God forbid they do occur, that we are doing everything we can to treat the victims. This piece of legislation would do just that.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in open session to…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of Thomas W. O'Connell to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for special operations and low intensity conflict; and Paul M. Longsworth to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Accuracy of Credit Report Information and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m.
The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the reasons behind the high price of natural gas, its affect on the economy and to consider potential solutions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 2 p.m., to review and make recommendations on proposed legislation implementing the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judicary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in SDG 226.
I. Continuation of S. 1125, Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003 (``The FAIR Act'') markup.
II. Nominations: William H. Pryor, Jr., to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit; Allyson K. Duncan to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Robert C. Brack to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico; Samuel Der- Yeghiayan to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois; Louise W. Flanagan to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina; Lonny R. Suko to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington; Earl Leroy Yeakel III to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas; Karen P. Tandy to be Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice; Christopher A. Wray to be Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice; Michael J. Garcia to be Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; and Jack Landman Goldsmith III to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice.
III. Bills: S.J. Res. 1, A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims [Kyl, Chambliss, Cornyn, Craig, DeWine, Feinstein, Graham, Grassley]; S. 1280, A bill to amend the Protect Act to clarify the liability of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [Hatch, Biden]; S. Res. 140, A resolution designating the week of August 10, 2003, as ``National Health Center Week'' [Campbell, Biden, Durbin, Grassley]; S. 764, The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003; Proposed Free Trade Agreement with Chile; Proposed Free Trade Agreements with Singapore.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a Markup of the SBA Reauthorization Bill on Thursday, July 10, 2003, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, for a hearing to consider pending legislation regarding VA-provided benefits programs. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.
Bills Relating to Veterans' Disability Compensation Benefits: S. 257, the proposed ``Veterans Benefits and Pensions
Protection Act of 2003''; S. 517, the proposed ``Francis W. Agnes Prisoner of War Benefits Act of 2003''; S. 1131, the proposed ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2003''. S. 1133, the proposed ``Veterans Programs Improvement Act of 2003''; S. 1188, the proposed ``Veterans' Survivor Benefits Act of 2003''; S. 1213, the proposed ``Filipino Veterans' Benefits Act of 2003''; S. 1239, the proposed ``Former Prisoners of War Special Compensation Act of 2003''; and S. 1281, the proposed ``Veterans Information and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2003''.
Bills Relating to Veterans' Benefits: S. 249, to provide that remarriage of the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran after age 55 shall not result in termination of dependency and indemnity compensation otherwise payable to that surviving spouse; S. 938, to provide for the payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who died on or before September 30, 1999, under the same eligibility conditions as apply to payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who die after that date; and S. 1132, the proposed ``Veterans' Survivors Benefits Enhancements Act of 2003''.
Bill Proposing to Amend The Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act; S. 792, the proposed ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act''; S. 806, the proposed ``Deployed Service Members Financial Security and Education Act of 2003''; and S. 1136, the proposed ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act''.
Bills Relating to Other Matters: S. 978, the proposed ``Veterans Housing Fairness Act of 2003''; S. 1124, the proposed ``Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act of 2003''; S. 1199, the proposed ``Veterans Outreach Improvement Act of 2003''; S. 1282, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish national cemeteries for geographically underserved populations of veterans; and S. 1630, to amend section 7105 of title 38, United States Code, to clarify the requirements for notices of disagreement for appellate review of Department of Veterans Affairs activities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families be authorized to meet for a hearing on CSBG Reauthorization during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 3 p.m.
Mr. President, later this year, the Senate will consider the first reauthorization of the 1996 Personal Opportunity and Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act. This law ended the Aid to Families with…
Mr. President, later this year, the Senate will consider the first reauthorization of the 1996 Personal Opportunity and Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act. This law ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and created our current federal welfare program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, program.
I supported the legislation that created TANF because I believed that the
welfare system was failing recipients and their families and that we needed to do better. Now, seven years later, the welfare rolls are again on the rise and it is clear that improvements need to be made to the TANF program in order to achieve the goal of breaking the cycle of poverty and moving recipients into well-paying, sustainable jobs.
As we all know, each State's welfare program is different, and the implementation of these programs often varies from provider to provider and from county to county. While we encouraged state-level innovation with the 1996 law and should continue to encourage it with our reauthorization legislation, we should also ensure that all State plans conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections for all applicants and clients.
I am deeply concerned that a client who applies for or receives benefits in one part of Wisconsin may not be getting the same treatment as another applicant or client in a different part of my State.
The bill that I introduce today, the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act, would improve Federal fair treatment and due process protections for applicants to and clients of State TANF programs by addressing gaps in current law in three areas: access to translation services and English as a Second Language education programs, sanction notification and due process protections, and data collection and analysis.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.
In order for low-income parents whose primary language is not English to understand their rights with respect to availability of benefits, to comply with Federal and State TANF program rules, and to move from welfare to work, we should ensure that translation services and English as a Second Language classes are available.
My bill would require states to provide interpretation and translation services to low-income parents who do not speak English, and provides that the standards currently used in the food stamp program would be used to determine when the requirement to provide such services would be triggered for TANF-funded programs.
States would also be required to advise adults who lack English proficiency of available programs in the community to help them learn English, and to allow individuals who elect to enroll in such programs to participate in them. Individuals who participate in such activities on a satisfactory basis would be considered to be engaged in work activities and these activities would be counted towards the work participation rates.
If we are not only to reduce the welfare rolls but to reduce poverty and to ensure that low-income parents find sustainable jobs, we must ensure that these parents have access to education and training, including ESL classes, and that this training counts toward the work requirement. I support efforts to expand the number of activities that TANF clients are permitted to count as work, and my bill would add ESL classes to that list.
In addition, I am concerned about reports of unfair sanctioning and case closures across the country. We should make every effort to minimize discrimination in the application of sanctions and the termination of benefits. My bill would require that, prior to imposing a sanction, States inform individuals of the reasons for the sanction and what individuals may do to come into compliance with program rules to avoid the sanction. It also would stipulate that sanctions may not continue after individuals have come into compliance with program rules, and that individuals be informed of all other services and benefits for which they may be eligible during the period of the sanction, and of their rights under applicable State and Federal laws.
Finally, this bill would require States to perform enhanced data collection and analysis so that we can get a better picture of the people who apply for and receive TANF benefits and those who leave the welfare rolls.
I share the concern that has been expressed by a number of my constituents regarding the lack of comprehensive, uniform data about State welfare programs, including information on those who apply for benefits and those who have left the welfare rolls. My bill would require States to collect and manage data in a uniform way; to disaggregate the data based on a larger number of subgroups, including race, ethnicity/national origin, gender, primary language, and educational level of recipient; to include information on work participation and about applicants who are diverted to other programs; and to track clients whose cases are closed.
In addition, the federal Department of Health and Human Services would be required to include a comprehensive analysis broken down by these same data groups in its annual report on the TANF program. The Department would also be required to perform a longitudinal study of program outcomes that includes data on applicants for assistance, families that receive assistance, and families that leave assistance during the period of the study. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be required to protect the privacy of individuals and families applying for or receiving assistance under state TANF programs when data on such individuals and families is publicly disclosed by the Secretary.
These enhanced requirements are not meant to impose an additional burden on the states. Rather, they are intended to measure the success of the program in a more comprehensive and transparent manner.
This legislation is supported by a broad array of more than 40 organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the American Association of University Women, the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Community Change, Hmong National Development, Inc., the National Association of Social Workers, the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, the National Council of Churches, the National Council of La Raza, the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Urban League, Nine to Five, and the Welfare Law Center.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, this week, May 11 through 17, is ``National Police Week 2003.'' This is the week when thousands of law enforcement officers from all over the United States gather here in our Nation's…
Mr. President, this week, May 11 through 17, is ``National Police Week 2003.''
This is the week when thousands of law enforcement officers from all over the United States gather here in our Nation's Capital. Representing a full spectrum of our Nation's law enforcement personnel including local, State, and Federal officers, they gather here to honor their fallen comrades, as well as to celebrate all who serve this country and its citizens. Some of this year's highlights include the May 11 ``Law Ride,'' the May 13 ``Candlelight Vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial'' and the May 15 ``National Peace Officers' Memorial Day Service'' which will be held on the Capitol grounds. These events are being held to specifically pay tribute to the more than 145 peace officers who were killed in the line of duty across the U.S. during 2002.
In honor of ``National Police Week,'' today I am introducing two bills that will help improve our Nation's justice system and protect the law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line for us all on a daily basis.
The first bill I am introducing is the ``Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 2003'' which would increase the maximum prison sentences for violating existing stolen gun laws.
A growing number of crimes in our country are being committed with stolen guns. The extent of this problem is reflected in a number of recent studies and news reports which indicate that almost half a million guns are stolen each year.
This problem is increasing, and is therefore especially alarming among young people. A Justice Department study of juvenile inmates in four States showed that over 50 percent of the inmates in those prison systems had stolen a gun. In the same study, gang members and drug sellers were also more likely to have stolen a gun.
Specifically, this bill would increase the maximum penalty for violating four provisions of the firearms laws. Under title 18 of the U.S. Code, it is illegal to knowingly transport or ship a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. It is also illegal to knowingly receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or otherwise dispose of a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. The penalty for violating either of these provisions is a fine, a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, or both.
My bill increases the maximum prison sentence to 15 years.
I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However, I firmly believe we need tougher penalties for the illegal use of firearms.
The ``Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 2003'' will send a strong signal to criminals who are even thinking about stealing a firearm. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, the second bill I am introducing today is the ``Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 2003''.
This bill is named in honor of Officer Dale Claxton of Cortez, CO, a fine law enforcement officer and family man, who was fatally shot through the windshield of his patrol car on May 29, 1998, after stopping a stolen truck. His assailants turned out to be dangerous fugitives and as a result, a large-scale man hunt was launched. The assailants were brought to justice, but Officer Claxton was tragically and prematurely taken away from his wife and four children.
``The Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act'' would aid law enforcement agencies in acquiring bullet resistant equipment for their forces, including bullet
resistant glass for law enforcement vehicles, hand-held shields and any other equipment that officers may need when they serve on the front lines of law enforcement. Specifically, this legislation would help our Nation's State and local law enforcement officers acquire the bullet resistant equipment they need in order to protect themselves from would-be killers. This legislation would authorize the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to administer a $40 million matching grant program to assist these agencies purchase bullet resistant equipment.
This legislation is a worthy companion, and similar in many ways, to S.764, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, which I recently introduced for reauthorization. Like S. 764, today's bill would help State and local law enforcement agencies acquire bullet resistant equipment--however this bill would simply provide for a wider array of bullet resistant equipment to supplement bullet proof vests.
As a former deputy sheriff, I am personally aware of the dangers which law enforcement officers face on the front lines every day. One way in which the Federal Government can improve their safety is to help them acquire bullet resistant glass and other equipment for patrol cars. These partnership grants are especially crucial for officers who serve in small, local jurisdictions that often lack the funds to provide their officers with the life saving equipment they may need.
The second component of this legislation would launch expedited and targeted research and development by authorizing $3 million over 3 years for the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice, NIJ, to conduct research and development of new bullet resistant technologies, such as bonded acrylic, polymers, polycarbons, aluminized material, and transparent ceramics.
Promising new bullet resistant materials now being developed could be as revolutionary in coming years as the development of Kevlar was in the 1970s for the manufacture of body armor. These exciting new technologies promise to be lighter, more versatile and hopefully less expensive than traditional heavy bulletproof glass.
Our Nation's police officers, sheriffs and deputies regularly put their lives in harm's way as they protect the people and preserve the peace. They deserve to have access to the bullet resistant equipment they need. The Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act will both accelerate the development of new lifesaving bullet resistant technologies and then help get them deployed into the field where they are needed. Officers lives will be saved.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.
Show 8 more
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2003,'' which will double funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC,…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2003,'' which will double funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, reauthorize the Center through fiscal year 2007, and increase Federal support to help NCMEC programs to find missing children across the Nation.
I am pleased that Senators Hatch, Kennedy, DeWine, Biden, Shelby and Lincoln join me as the original cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation. Today, Senators DeWine, Lincoln and Shelby launched the new Senate Caucus on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. I am honored to join the Caucus co-chairs as a founding member of the Caucus, and thank them for their leadership in this area.
It pains us all to see on TV, in the newspapers or milk cartons photo after photo of missing children from every corner of the Nation. As a father and grandfather, I know that an abducted child is the worst nightmare. Unfortunately, it is a nightmare that happens all too often. Indeed, the Justice Department estimates that 2,200 children are reported missing each day. There are approximately 114,600 attempted stranger abductions every year, with 3,000 to 5,000 of those attempts succeeding. Experts estimate that children and youth comprise between 85 and 90 percent of missing person reports. These families deserve the assistance of the American people and helping hand of the Congress.
As the Nation's top resource center for child protection, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children spearheads national efforts to locate and recover missing children and raises public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, molestation, and sexual exploitation.
NCMEC works to make our children safer by being a national voice and advocate for those too young to vote or speak up for their own rights. The Center operates under a Congressional mandate and works in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement officers, social service agencies, elected officials, judges, prosecutors, educators, and the public and private sectors to break the cycle of violence that historically has perpetuated these needless crimes against children.
The Center's professionals have disturbingly busy jobs--they have worked on more than 90,000 cases of missing and exploited children since its 1984 founding, helping to recover more than 70,000 children, and raised its recovery rate from 60 percent in the 1980s to 94 percent today. The Center has set up a nationwide, toll free, 24-hour telephone hotline to take reports about missing children and clues that might lead to their recovery, a National Child Pornography Tipline to handle calls from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children through the production and distribution of pornography, and a CyberTipline to process online leads from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children. It has taken the lead in circulating millions of photographs of missing children, and serves as a vital resource for the 17,000 law enforcement agencies located throughout the U.S. in the search for missing children and the quest for child protection.
NCMEC is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia and operates branch offices in five other locations throughout the country to provide hands-on assistance to families of missing children, advocating legislative changes to better protect children, conducting an array of prevention and awareness programs, and motivating individuals to become personally involved in child-protection issues. It has also grown into an international organization, establishing the International Division of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which has been working to fulfill the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International child Abduction. The International Division provides assistance to parents, law enforcement, attorneys, nonprofit organizations, and other concerned individuals who are seeking assistance in preventing or resolving international child abductions.
NCMEC manages to do all of this good work with a $10 million annual DOJ grant, which expires after fiscal year 2003. We must act now both to extend its authorization and increase the Center's funding to $20 million each year through fiscal year 2007 so that it can continue to help keep children safe and families intact around the Nation. There is so much more to be done to ensure the safety of our children, and the bipartisan legislation we introduce today will help the Center in its efforts to prevent crimes that are committed against them.
The Protecting Our children Comes First Act also increases Federal support for NCMEC programs to find missing children by allowing the U.S. Secret Service to provide forensic and investigating assistance to the NCMEC, as well as any State or local law enforcement agency, in any investigation involving missing or exploited children.
The bill also amends of the Missing Children's assistance Act to coordinate the operation of the Center's CyberTipline to provide all online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation, including the distribution of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. Since its creation in 1998, the CyberTipline has fielded almost 100,000 reports, which has allowed Internet users to quickly and easily report suspicious activities linked to the Internet.
We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be moved easily through the Senate and House. Efforts to protect our children do not deserve to be used as pawns by groups who play politics by attaching it to more controversial measures. I applaud the ongoing work of the Center and hope both the Senate and the House will promptly pass this bill to provide more Federal supply for the NCMEC to continue to find missing children and protect exploited children across the country.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.
Madam President, I proudly rise today to join my colleagues Senators Campbell, Hatch and Allard to introduce a resolution to designate May 15, 2004, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. We submit…
Madam President, I proudly rise today to join my colleagues Senators Campbell, Hatch and Allard to introduce a resolution to designate May 15, 2004, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. We submit this resolution to keep alive in the memory of all Americans the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who lost their lives serving their communities.
I commend Senator Campbell for his leadership in this issue. This marks the eighth year running, I believe, that he and I have joined forces to introduce the resolution to commemorate National Peace Officers Memorial Day. As a former deputy sheriff, Senator Campbell has experienced first-hand the risks faced by law enforcement officers every day while they protect our communities. His knowledge in this area is a true asset to the U.S. people.
I also want to thank each of our Nation's brave law enforcement officers for their unwavering commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens. They are real-life heroes, too many of whom too often give the ultimate sacrifice, and they remind us of how important it is to support and respect our State and local police.
Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who guard our communities do so at great risk. Each year, 1 in 15 officers is assaulted, 1 in 46 officers is injured,and 1 in 5,255 officers is killed in the line of duty in the United States every other day. After the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, 72 peace officers died while trying to ensure that their fellow citizens in those buildings got to safety. That act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of this country.
In 2003, 146 enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 237 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction including better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved training, longer prison terms for violent offenders, and advanced emergency medical care. And, in total, more than 17,100 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice.
During the 108th Congress, we have improved the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits (PSOB) program by making law the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act (Public Law 108-182), which allows survivors of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes while participating in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activities to qualify for Federal survivor benefits. The Senate also passed the Campbell-Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act (S. 764), which will extend through FY 2007 the authorization of appropriations for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program that helps State, tribal and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. The House has yet to act on this important measure that will continue our efforts to ensure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. This week, the Senate added to the gun liability bill by a vote of 91-8 the Campbell- Leahy Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (S. 253). This measure would establish national measures of uniformity and consistency to permit trained and certified on-duty, off-duty or retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in most situations so that they may respond immediately to crimes across State and other jurisdictional lines, as well as to protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals. The support for such bills that will keep our law enforcement officers is there, but we need to do more.
We Vermonters this National Peace Officers Memorial Day will remember our brave State Police Officer, SGT Michael Johnson, who was killed last Father's Day while trying to stop a suspect leading two other State troopers on a high-speed chase. Sergeant Johnson was not even on duty, but he went out nonetheless to help his fellow troopers that Sunday afternoon after hearing their trouble on his radio. He had just deployed a set of tire spikes across the interstate when the suspect swerved to avoid the spikes and struck him. Johnson left behind a beloved wife and three children, as well as hundreds of police officers who called him ``brother.'' Words seem insufficient to acclaim the brave sacrifice of the man
who was so admired by his family, community and the Vermont State Police force.
National Peace Officers Memorial Day will provide the people of the United States with the opportunity to honor the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by our police forces. More than 15,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington to join with the families of their fallen comrades who, by their last full measure of devotion to their responsibilities and the right and security of their fellow citizens, have rendered a dedicated service to our Nation. I look forward to passage of this important resolution, a fitting tribute for this special and solemn occasion.
Mr. President, I proudly note passage of S. Res. 310, a resolution to designate May 15, 2004, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. I again cosponsored this resolution with Senator Campbell, as we…
Mr. President, I proudly note passage of S. Res. 310, a resolution to designate May 15, 2004, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. I again cosponsored this resolution with Senator Campbell, as we do every year. We are right to remember and commemorate the sacrifice and commitment of our law enforcement officers serving our communities, States and country. We annually honor the officers and their families who made the ultimate sacrifice for public safety.
I commend Senator Campbell for his leadership in this issue. This marks the 8th year running that he and I have teamed up to submit the resolution to commemorate National Peace Officers Memorial Day. As a former deputy sheriff, Senator Campbell has experienced first-hand the risks faced by law enforcement officers every day while they protect our communities.
I also want to thank each of our Nation's brave law enforcement officers for their unwavering commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens. They are real-life heroes.
Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who guard our communities do so at great risk. Each year, 1 in 15 offices is assaulted, 1 in 46 officers is injured, and 1 in 5,255 officers is killed in the line of duty in the United States every other day. After the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, 72 peace officers died while trying to ensure that their fellow citizens in those buildings got to safety. That act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of this country.
In 2003, 146 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 237 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction including better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved training, and advanced emergency medical care. And, in total, more than 17,100 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice--of that number 43 are police officers who have already been killed in 2004 while serving in the line of duty.
During the 108th Congress, we have improved the Justice Department's Public Safety Officers Benefits program by making law the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act (Public Law 108-182), which allows survivors of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes while participating in non-routine stressful or strenuous physical activities to qualify for federal survivor benefits.
The Senate also passed the Campbell-Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, S. 764, which will extend through FY 2007 the authorization of appropriations for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program that helps State, tribal and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. The House has yet to act on this important measure. We want to be sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.
Last month, the Senate added to the gun liability bill by a vote of 91-8 the Campbell-Leahy Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, S. 253. This measure would establish national measures of uniformity and consistency to permit trained and certified on-duty, off-duty or retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in most situations so that they may respond immediately to crimes across State and other jurisdictional lines, as well as to protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals.
This National Peace Officers Memorial Day, Vermonters will remember our brave State Police Trooper, Sergeant Michael Johnson, who was killed last Father's Day while trying to stop a suspect leading two other State troopers on a high-speed chase. Sergeant Johnson was not even on duty, but he went to help his fellow troopers that Sunday afternoon after hearing their trouble on his radio. He had just deployed a set of tire spikes across the interstate when the suspect swerved to avoid the spikes and struck him. Sergeant Johnson left behind his wife and three children. Words are insufficient for the brave sacrifice of the man who was so admired by his family, community and the Vermont State Police force. In memory of this bravery and service to his family, community, State and country, Sergeant Johnson will be one of the names added this year to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.
National Peace Officers Memorial Day will provide the people of the United States with the opportunity to honor the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by our police forces. More than 15,000 peace offices are expected to gather in Washington to join with the families of their fallen comrades. I thank the Senate for acting on this important resolution.
Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local…
Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. This bill represents another in a series of law enforcement initiatives on which I have had the privilege to work with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. The Senator brings to the table invaluable experience in this area, from his distinguished service as a State's attorney in Vermont, a nationally recognized prosecutor, and as the ranking member of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch.
Two years ago, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-517), and before that in 1998, P.L. 105-181, which we were privileged to introduce. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful Department of Justice grant program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions with nearly 500,000 vests.
There are far too many law enforcement officers who patrol our streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against violent criminals. Each year, on average, more than 60 law enforcement officers are killed by gunfire in the line of duty. The felonious use of guns and the increased use of larger caliber handguns and assault rifles has created an even greater risk for law enforcement officers and an increasing need for higher threat level, better quality, and more comfortable vests that can be worn in a variety of circumstances. The use of body armor to provide protection against the use of deadly force and assaults as well as its demonstrated value in protecting officers involved in vehicle accidents, provides compelling reasons for officers to be equipped with and to wear body armor.
In 2002, 149 Federal, State and local law enforcement officers gave their lives in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 230 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction including the availability of better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests.
As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks which law enforcement officers face every day on the front lines, protecting our communities. Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who serve this nation as our guardians of law and order do so at a great personal risk. Every year, about 1 in 15 officers is assaulted, 1 in 46 officers is injured, and 1 in 5,255 officers is killed in the line of duty somewhere in America every other day. There are few communities in this country that have not been impacted by the words ``officer down.''
The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can have. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives of more than 2,700 officers have been saved by bulletproof vests. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that officers who do not wear bulletproof vests are 14 times more likely to be killed by a firearm than those officers who do wear vests. Simply put, bulletproof vests save lives.
Unfortunately, many police departments do not have the resources to purchase vests on their own, especially in America's smaller communities. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 would continue the partnership with State and local law enforcement agencies to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. It would do so by continuing to authorize up to $50 million per year for the grant program within the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition, the program provides 50-50 matching grants to State and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes with under 100,000 residents to assist in purchasing bulletproof vests and body armor.
While we know that there is no way to end the risks inherent to a career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an officer can have and often means the difference between life and death. The United States Senate can help, and I urge our colleagues to support prompt passage of this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local…
Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. This bill represents another in a series of law enforcement initiatives on which I have had the privilege to work with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. The Senator brings to the table invaluable experience in this area, from his distinguished service as a State's attorney in Vermont, a nationally recognized prosecutor, and as the ranking member of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch.
Two years ago, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-517), and before that in 1998, P.L. 105-181, which we were privileged to introduce. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful Department of Justice grant program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions with nearly 500,000 vests.
There are far too many law enforcement officers who patrol our streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against violent criminals. Each year, on average, more than 60 law enforcement officers are killed by gunfire in the line of duty. The felonious use of guns and the increased use of larger caliber handguns and assault rifles has created an even greater risk for law enforcement officers and an increasing need for higher threat level, better quality, and more comfortable vests that can be worn in a variety of circumstances. The use of body armor to provide protection against the use of deadly force and assaults as well as its demonstrated value in protecting officers involved in vehicle accidents, provides compelling reasons for officers to be equipped with and to wear body armor.
In 2002, 149 Federal, State and local law enforcement officers gave their lives in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 230 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction including the availability of better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests.
As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks which law enforcement officers face every day on the front lines, protecting our communities. Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who serve this nation as our guardians of law and order do so at a great personal risk. Every year, about 1 in 15 officers is assaulted, 1 in 46 officers is injured, and 1 in 5,255 officers is killed in the line of duty somewhere in America every other day. There are few communities in this country that have not been impacted by the words ``officer down.''
The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can have. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives of more than 2,700 officers have been saved by bulletproof vests. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that officers who do not wear bulletproof vests are 14 times more likely to be killed by a firearm than those officers who do wear vests. Simply put, bulletproof vests save lives.
Unfortunately, many police departments do not have the resources to purchase vests on their own, especially in America's smaller communities. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 would continue the partnership with State and local law enforcement agencies to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. It would do so by continuing to authorize up to $50 million per year for the grant program within the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition, the program provides 50-50 matching grants to State and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes with under 100,000 residents to assist in purchasing bulletproof vests and body armor.
While we know that there is no way to end the risks inherent to a career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an officer can have and often means the difference between life and death. The United States Senate can help, and I urge our colleagues to support prompt passage of this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up and passing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, S. 764, a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help…
Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up
and passing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, S. 764,
a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State,
tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law
enforcement officers.
This bill marks the third time that I have had the privilege of
teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on this
legislation. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of
1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the
Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not
have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded
to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with lifesaving body
armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked
protective vests because of the cost.
Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and I hope we will go three-for-three
this time around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable
experience in this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a
leader in the area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff, he
knows the dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. I
am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by Judiciary
Chairman Hatch, Judiciary Committee Senators Biden, Schumer, Kohl and
Feingold, as well as five other Senate cosponsors.
Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement
officers across the country by providing more help to State and local
law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in
1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided
law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly
350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, 148 municipalities have been
fortunate to receive funding for the purchase of almost 1200 vests.
Without the federal funding given by this program, I daresay that there
would be close to that number of police officers without vests in
Vermont today.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the
success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by re-
authorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation would
continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50 million
per year for matching grants to State and local law enforcement
agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body
armor.
Not only should we reauthorize this program, but also we should work
to see that it is fully funded. While the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Program funding has been consistently authorized at $50 million per
year, that amount gets whacked in half during the appropriations
process. Law enforcement agencies, however, clearly need our help to
purchase vests--for the current fiscal year, the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership office received funding requests from small jurisdictions,
with populations under 100,000, totaling $59 million--more than double
the funds appropriated. The authorizing legislation requires that
smaller jurisdictions receive priority funding through this program.
Those requests consumed the entire amount of funds available and for
the first time ever awards could only be made to small jurisdictions.
We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests
out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program
makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few
things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and
they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible
because of this program. This is the least we should do for the
officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every
day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a
bulletproof vest gets one.
I look forward to Senate passage today of the bipartisan Bulletproof
Vest Partnership Grant Act, and I hope the House and the President will
promptly act on this lifesaving legislation to help better to protect
our law enforcement officers.
Mr. President, an historian and poet once penned that the history of Colorado would be written in water. In the midst of Colorado's worst drought in 300 years, this prediction has proven an accurate…
Mr. President, an historian and poet once penned that the history of Colorado would be written in water. In the midst of Colorado's worst drought in 300 years, this prediction has proven an accurate account of life in the headwater State and has proven a strong reminder that water is indeed our most precious natural resource. Yet in Southeastern Colorado, home of the Arkansas River, finding clean, inexpensive water, can be difficult. That is why today I am introducing legislation that will ensure the expedited construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit--a pipeline that will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By creating a Federal/Local cost share formula to help offset the costs of constructing the Conduit, this legislation will protect the future of Southeastern Colorado.
By way of background, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally authorized by Congress forty years ago as a part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project. Due to the authorizing statute's lack of a cost share provision and Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status, the Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has degraded to a point where it is no longer economical to use as a means of transport. At the same time, the Federal government has continued to strengthen its unfunded water quality standards.
In order to comply with these standards, the region's municipalities have begun exploring options for water treatment, some of which are estimated to cost between $20 million and $40 million. Taken together, the municipalities alone are facing potential expenditures of up to $640 million simply to comply with federally mandated water quality standards. Construction of over a half a billion dollars worth of water treatment facilities is simply not a feasible alternative for the financially strapped farming communities along the Arkansas River. With the Conduit, the communities will not need to build new water treatment facilities.
In an effort to resurrect the Conduit, last year, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I, worked to secure $200,000 for a Bureau of Reclamation Re-evaluation Statement on the project. Thanks to this effort, the people of the valley are beginning to realize that the Conduit is much more than just a pipedream, and that Congress is serious about fulfilling the promise of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
According to the draft feasibility study, the Conduit is estimated to cost $200 million. My legislation calls for a 75/25 Federal/Local cost share, meaning that the local communities will be required to come up with at least $50 million to pay for their share. This is a sizeable sum, but is a far cry from the $640 million it would cost to build the new treatment facilities that would be required if the Conduit is not built. This will leave $150 million for the Federal government's share. However, I would like to point out that this $150 million undoubtedly would be exceeded if the communities were forced to seek Federal grants to help build new treatment plants.
The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to dozens of valley communities and thousands of people along the river. The local sponsors of the project have initiated and are nearing the completion of an independently funded feasibility study of the Conduit, and have developed a coalition of support from water users in Southeastern Colorado. They continue to explore options for financing their share of the costs, and are working hard to develop the organization that will oversee the Conduit project.
With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a reality.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. At 1:30, the Senate will begin consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. As I mentioned--I…
Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. At 1:30, the Senate will begin consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. As I mentioned--I think it was Thursday night of last week--this appropriations bill will for the first time be considered on this floor. So this is a new initiative for us. I look forward to handling that expeditiously this week in a thoughtful and deliberate way. These are very important issues before this body.
I announced previously we will not have rollcall votes today. Having said that, I encourage Members to come to the floor and proceed with their opening statements on the Homeland Security bill. Any amendment that is offered today can be debated throughout the day with a vote to occur during Tuesday's session at a time determined later.
Once again, I encourage Members who desire to offer amendments to the Homeland Security bill to contact Senator Cochran or the ranking member. I hope we can pass this legislation early this week and then continue with the other appropriations bills. With only 2 weeks remaining prior to the scheduled recess, we need to address as many of the appropriations bills as possible this week. As previously stated, during the last week, which is next week, we will be addressing and completing action on the Energy bill.
Last week, I discussed with the other side of the aisle the possibility of having a filing deadline for amendments to the Energy bill. I continue to hope that the objection on the Democratic side will be lifted and that we can allow Chairman Domenici and the ranking member to look at the legislative language of these amendments.
We first brought Energy to the floor now several months ago. It was May 6. We have had 12 days on the floor. We have a list of amendments by title. Now is the time to narrow that list, to look at the legislative language.
One of the purposes of setting aside this week at the end of this month so far in advance was that those actions and deliberations could be taken by our colleagues so we could best use the time on the floor of the Senate in a focused way and in a way that respects people's time broadly but allows adequate discussion, debate, amendment, and completion of this bill.
I do want to take a moment to congratulate the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Last week, he made significant progress on the appropriations process, but obviously there is a lot of work to be done. I am confident that Senator Stevens will continue along this road. He is clearly up to the task and will complete these bills in a timely fashion.
In addition to the three appropriations bills that the Senate passed last week, we were also able to continue to
work on a number of other important issues. Senator McConnell helped in ensuring that the Senate passed H.R. 2330, the Burma sanctions bill. That bill has now been cleared for the President's signature.
The Senate also passed S. 764, Senator Campbell's bill to extend the authority for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.
The Senate was also able to act on a number of Energy Committee bills, including S. 470, which extended the authority for the construction of a memorial for Martin Luther King, Jr.
I look forward to a productive couple of weeks before our recess as we address the appropriations bills, energy bills, and other legislative and executive items that can be cleared.
Show 11 more
Mr. President, I am pleased that late last night the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2714 with the Leahy-Hatch amendment to reauthorize the highly successful Department of Justice Bulletproof…
Mr. President, I am pleased that late last night the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2714 with the Leahy-Hatch amendment to reauthorize the highly successful Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. I thank the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for joining me on this amendment. This bipartisan legislation now goes to the president for his signature into law.
Our amendment contains the same legislative language as the Campbell- Leahy-Hatch Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, S. 764. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 15, 2003, and has been awaiting consideration by the House of Representatives since then.
This measure marks the third time that I have had the privilege of teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998, which responded to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the state and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost.
Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and now we will go 3-for-3 this time around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable experience in this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a leader in the area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff, he knows the dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. I am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by 12 other Senate cosponsors, including Senator Hatch.
Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by providing more help to state and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, 60 municipalities have been fortunate to receive funding for the purchase of 1,905 vests.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by re- authorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation would continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50 million per year for matching grants to state and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body armor.
We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.
Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Feingold and Senator Landrieu in introducing the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2003, which will benefit low-income families across…
Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Feingold and Senator Landrieu in introducing the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2003, which will benefit low-income families across the Nation by providing inportant civil rights protections to welfare recipients.
Many families who apply for welfare benefits do not speak English or have limited English proficiency. Yet when they arrive at the welfare office, there is no interpreter or translator to assist them. Too often, eligible families leave the welfare office not enrolled in the program and without access to needed benefits and services. Even those who succeed in enrolling often leave the welfare office without understanding the rules for participation, and are later penalized and lose benefits.
In virtually all of these cases, families want to play by the rules, but barriers such as limited English language skills prevent them from doing so. By helping to eliminate the language barriers, we can help them to play by the rules.
Under the Food Stamp program, States are already required to evaluate applicants' English language skills and provide translation and interpreter services when necessary. Our bill will extend this same requirement to the welfare program to ensure that families who need benefits actually get them and can understand how to comply with the program.
States would also be required to advise adults on the programs available in their community to help them learn English. For individuals who elect to participate in an English language program, states would be able to count these activities toward the federal work requirements.
Clearly, families must be able to play by the rules, but the rules must be fair, especially when children are at risk. Today, however, when States impose penalties, they often penalize the entire family. Even money to support the childern in these families is suspended. Our bill provides important protections against unnecessary penalties.
States would be required to inform families of the specific reasons for imposing a penalty and what the families can do to avoid it. States would also be prohibited from continuing a penalty after the family has come into compliance. It is unfair to penalize families for noncompliance because they did not understand the rules. The children in these families deserve to be cared for.
An additional provision in this bill encourages States to collect data on welfare outcomes, including why families leave welfare and how they fare over the long term. It also encourages States to collect data by race, ethnic background, and primary language, so that disparities in access, use, or well-being become known and can be addressed by changes in policy and programs. The knowledge obtained from these data will help to ensure that welfare policies help more people in better ways.
Protecting families from discrimination because of their native language, safeguarding them from unnecessary and harmful penalties, and understanding how policies affect families are important parts of genuine and fair welfare reform. The Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2003 will help many more families to obtain the support they so desperately need, and I urge my colleagues to approve these important protections.
Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will take up the Leahy-Hatch amendment to reauthorize the highly successful Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. I thank the…
Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will take up the Leahy-Hatch amendment to reauthorize the highly successful Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. I thank the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for joining me on this amendment.
This amendment contains the same legislative language as the Campbell-Leahy-Hatch Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, S. 764. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 15, 2003, and has been awaiting consideration by the House of Representatives since then.
This measure marks the third time that I have had the privilege of teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998, which responded to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two state troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the state and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost.
Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and I hope we will go 3-for-3 this time around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable experience in this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a leader in the area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff, he knows the dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. I am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by 12 other Senate cosponsors, including Senator Hatch.
Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by providing more help to State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions Nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, 60 municipalities have been fortunate to receive to receive funding for the purchase of 1,905 vests.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by re- authorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation would continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50 million per year for matching grants to State and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body armor.
We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.
Madam President, today I am joined by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch and Leahy and Senator Allard in introducing this resolution to keep alive in…
Madam President, today I am joined by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch and Leahy and Senator Allard in introducing this resolution to keep alive in the memory of all Americans the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who lost their lives serving their communities. Specifically, this resolution would designate May 15, 2004, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day.
As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks which law enforcement officers face every day on the frontlines protecting our communities. Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who serve this Nation as our guardians of law and order do so at a great risk. Every year, about 1 in 9 officers is assaulted, 1 in 25 officers is injured, and 1 in 6,000 officers is killed in the line of duty somewhere in America every other day. There are few communities in this country that have not been impacted by the words ``officer down.''
On September 11, 2001, 72 peace officers died as a result of a cowardly act of terrorism. This single act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of this country. Before this event, the greatest loss of law enforcement in a single incident occurred in 1917, when nine Milwaukee police officers were killed in a bomb blast at their police station.
In 2003, nearly 150 Federal, State, tribal and local law enforcement officers gave their lives in the line of duty, well below the decade- long average of 166 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 230 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction including better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved training, longer prison terms for violent offenders, and advanced emergency medical care. And, in total, more than 16,000 men and women have made the supreme sacrifice.
The chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Craig W. Floyd, reminds us that
a police officer is killed in the line of duty somewhere in
America nearly every other day. More than 850,000 officers
put their lives at risk each and every day for our safety and
protection. National Police Week and Peace Officers Memorial
Day provide our Nation with an important opportunity to
recognize and honor that extraordinary service and sacrifice.
On May 15, 2004, more than 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in our Nation's Capital to join with the families of their fallen comrades who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities. In doing so, these heroes have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. This resolution is a fitting tribute for this special and solemn occasion.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting passage of this important resolution.
Mr. President, it is a central element of our national character to pay solemn tribute to the service of those who have worn the uniform of our Armed Forces and placed themselves in harm's way to…
Mr. President, it is a central element of our national character to pay solemn tribute to the service of those who have worn the uniform of our Armed Forces and placed themselves in harm's way to defend our freedom and way of life. We raise monuments to the deeds of our great wartime leaders as well as the countless, often nameless heroes of those battles fought throughout our history. We also set aside special days to remember the sacrifice of generations of Americans who have stepped forward in America's defense.
This Nation also sets aside special places, hallowed ground, where we lay to rest those who have served us in our hour of greatest need. Our National Cemetery system is not only hallowed ground, National Cemeteries are monuments to military service, the places where we go on those special days to pay tribute to the sacrifice of so many in our history. National Cemeteries remind us of where we have been as a Nation, and inspires future generations to uphold the legacy of our veterans' devotion and sacrifice.
Today I offer legislation to establish a National Cemetery near Jacksonville, Florida to meet the needs of thousands of veterans who have chosen to live out their lives in Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia. Florida's veteran population is the second largest in the Nation. Right now in Northern Florida and Southern Georgia, there are nearly half-a-million veterans. Florida has the Nation's oldest veteran population and one of the largest remaining populations of World War II veterans. We are all aware that this greatest of generations is passing away at higher and higher rates.
Unfortunately for these hundreds of thousands of veterans in Florida and Georgia, the nearest National Cemetery is located in Bushnell, FL, which is a three-hour drive from Jacksonville. The National Cemetery in St. Augustine is full and closed. The nearest National Cemetery in Georgia is in Marietta just north of Atlanta.
Our veterans have defended our country in her days of peril, and certainly deserve to rest in honored respect in a National Cemetery. To meet our obligations to the veterans of Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia, we must act now, in order to have this facility established by 2006 when our World War II veterans' deaths are expected to reach their peak.
I am proud to sponsor this important bill, and look forward to the support of my colleagues as we provide for our veterans who have given so much for our country.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of legislation to provide more bankruptcy judges for several States, including four additional bankruptcy judgeships for my own State of Maryland. This…
Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of legislation to provide more bankruptcy judges for several States, including four additional bankruptcy judgeships for my own State of Maryland. This legislation is being introduced today by Senator Biden, and is being cosponsored by myself and Senators Carper, Nelson of Florida, Clinton, Edwards, Graham of South Carolina, Hollings, Levin, Pryor, Reid, Chambliss, Miller, Alexander and Graham of Florida.
This bill is another significant step forward in our efforts to strengthen Maryland's Federal bankruptcy court. We have been working for several years to get these additional judgeships approved, yet no legislation has been passed that would authorize them. With such inaction, the burden facing Maryland's sitting bankruptcy judges has grown, and Maryland has remained without the additional judgeships it so desperately needs to make our bankruptcy system work.
Maryland's four sitting bankruptcy judges continue to show remarkable dedication given the extraordinary burdens placed upon them. However, additional judgeships remain essential to the fair and timely administration of the Bankruptcy Code for all of the businesses and individuals that come before the Maryland District.
Since 1992, we have been requesting additional judgeships for the District of Maryland; thus far none have been approved. In 1992, there were approximately 15,000 bankruptcy filings in the District of Maryland. From 1998 to 2002, there were over 30,000 bankruptcy filings per year in Maryland. In the past few years the number of new filings per year has been closer to 35,000, and in 2002 there were 35,900 new cases. The caseload has more than doubled in the past ten years, and the Court still does its work with only four bankruptcy judges. This dire need for additional judgeships in Maryland has yet to be remedied by the Congress.
This legislation provides four additional judgeships for Maryland, in accordance with a September 2002 recommendation from the United States Judicial Conference. These four additional judgeships would help reduce the overwhelming workload of the four sitting bankruptcy judges. As of June 30, 2002, the national weighted filing average for bankruptcy judges was 1,641. The weighted filing per judge for Maryland's four bankruptcy judges was 3,030--almost twice the national average.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which would provide much needed help on the bankruptcy courts in Maryland and across the Nation.
Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the World War II POW Pay Equity Act of 2003. In 2000, we passed legislation intended to correct an injustice of not paying Navy and Marine Corps POWs for…
Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the World War II POW Pay Equity Act of 2003. In 2000, we passed legislation intended to correct an injustice of not paying Navy and Marine Corps POWs for promotions while they were interned during World War II. Unfortunately, this legislation omitted an adjustment for inflation. The result was that these heroes were paying in 1942 dollars, roughly equating to ten cents on the current dollar. It is well past time to properly compensate them for their dedicated service. This bill ensures these former WWII POW, or their surviving spouses, would receive the appropriate back pay adjusted for inflation for their military service.
Many of these WWII veterans need our help, not only to fix a discriminatory act upon Navy and Marine Corps POWs, but financially as well, since many suffer from extreme financial distress. The total number of surviving WWII POWs is now less than 1,000 and approximately 400 spouses. We can not abandon the ``greatest generation'' who are responsible for the successes and riches we currently enjoy in this great country. It would be shameful for Congress and our Nation not to compensate these veterans appropriately, as this is a debt that our country incurred during their internment of POWs.
Make no mistake,this is a readiness issue, as well. Today's service members are acutely aware of retirees' disenfranchisement from delinquent policies enacted over the years, and exit surveys cite this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' decisions to leave service. In fact, a recent GAO study found that ``inadequate military retirement benefits'' was a significant source of dissatisfaction among active duty officers in retention-critical specialties.
I would like to emphasize that this year's defense authorization bill contains over $1 billion in pork--unrequested add-ons to the defense budget that deprive our military of vital funding for priority issues. With the amount of unrequested spending attached to the defense authorization bill, we could certainly find the funding for this legislation. We must fulfill our commitment to a group who we collectively owe our full support, admiration, and gratitude.
I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, with Senators Christopher J. Dodd, Edward M. Kennedy, and John F. Kerry, to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, with Senators Christopher J. Dodd, Edward M. Kennedy, and John F. Kerry, to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
This new heritage area would encompass the part of the Housatonic River watershed that extends 60 miles from Lanesboro, MA to Kent, CT, and includes 29 towns in Connecticut and Massachusetts, five National Historic Landmarks, and four National Natural Landmarks. The upper Housatonic Valley is a unique cultural and geographical region. The region has made significant national contributions through literary, artistic, musical, and architectural achievements; post-Industrial Age environmental conservation and beautification efforts; and service as the backdrop for important Revolutionary War era events and the cradle of the iron, paper, and electrical industries and the Civil Rights Movement. National heritage area designation will encourage preservation and interpretation of important historical and cultural themes and sites.
The designation will enhance and foster public-private partnerships to educate residents and visitors about the region; improve the area's economy through business investment, job expansion, and tourism; and protect the area's natural and cultural heritage. In introducing this bill, we recognize the widespread support for the national heritage area designation within Connecticut and Massachusetts, and, in particular, the large membership and extensive activities of the non- profit organization Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area, Inc.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is a critical component of our Nation's battle against child pornography and child exploitation. It is absolutely dedicated to…
Mr. President, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is a critical component of our Nation's battle against child pornography and child exploitation. It is absolutely dedicated to eradicating these evils, and its members work tirelessly towards this end. The Center deserves more than just kind words for these heroic efforts; Federal funding is necessary for it to continue this good work. Indeed, Congress has tasked the Center with many missions, including maintaining the cyber-tipline that receives reports of on-line child pornography, which the Center forwards to appropriate law enforcement officials. In this, as well as many other areas, the Center forms a valuable partnership with both Federal and State law enforcement officials and prosecutors in redressing a host of crimes against children.
The Center's cause is just and its history of performance is excellent. I am pleased to be the lead cosponsor of legislation that will continue to authorize funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for the next four years. Senator Leahy and I introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress, and our bipartisan effort continues in this new Congress. Our bill again authorizes funding at $20 million per year--twice the previous authorization--in recognition of the severity of the problem and the increased duties the Center has taken on.
As the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am confident that this bill will become law very soon. I hope all of my colleagues will join Senator Leahy and me in supporting this bill.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2003, along with over a dozen Senators of both parties who are joining me on this legislation. This bill creates new temporary…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2003, along with over a dozen Senators of both parties who are joining me on this legislation. This bill creates new temporary and permanent bankruptcy judgeships in districts that need them, and extends and converts other temporary judgeships.
The substantial increase in bankruptcy case filings in recent years has created a dire need for additional bankruptcy judgeships. My bill would create 23 new permanent bankruptcy judgeships, 5 temporary judgeships, convert 2 temporary judgeships to permanent status and extend 2 other temporary judgeships. 17 States would receive new judgeships, as recommended by the Administrative Office for United States Courts.
Among other things, the bill authorizes four new bankruptcy judgeships, and converts one from temporary to permanent status, for the District of Delaware, the Nation's most overloaded bankruptcy district. The most recent data show weighted filings for the district of Delaware surpassing 13,500 per judge, while the next busiest district faces only about 3,000.
The bankruptcy bar in Delaware is among the most respected and accomplished in the country, as are our bankruptcy judges. But our judges are not superhuman. They must receive the assistance that this bill would grant them, and I intend to see that they get it.
The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2003 is long overdue and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 46 East Ohio Street in Indianapolis, IN, as the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building…
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 46 East Ohio Street in Indianapolis, IN, as the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse.''
I am pleased to introduce this measure today to honor my colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh. I am joined by my colleagues Mr. Byrd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Stevens, who served in the Senate with Senator Bayh during his tenure 1963-1981.
Birch Evan Bayh was born in Terre Haute in 1928. He attended the public schools; served in the United States Army 1946-1948; graduated Purdue University School of Agriculture at Lafayette in 1951; and attended Indiana State University, 1952-1953. Bayh graduated from the Indiana University School of Law in 1960; and was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1961.
He worked as a lawyer and farmer in Terre Haute, and served as a representative to the Indiana General Assembly from 1954 to 1962. In the Assembly, he rose to become minority leader in 1957 and 1961 and Speaker of the House in 1959. Senator Bayh was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1962; reelected in 1968 and 1974; and served from January 3, 1963, to January 3, 1981.
I am pleased to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate at the request of Representative Carson who introduced a bill in the House of Representatives. I hope this measure will be approved by the Congress.
Bill Text
4 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 764 Referred in House (RFH)]
1st Session
S. 764
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 16, 2003
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
AN ACT
To extend the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Program.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 1001(a)(23) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(23)) is amended by striking
``2004'' and inserting ``2007''.
Passed the Senate July 15, 2003.
Attest:
EMILY J. REYNOLDS,
Secretary.