A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery for veterans in the Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area.

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 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, 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, 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.

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.