A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for women and men.

Mr. President, Republican partisans are acting as if Senate Democrats were treating President Bush's judicial nominees the way Republicans treated President Clinton's. That is not the case. We have worked hard to repair much of the damage of Republican mistreatment of President Clinton's nominees. When we led the Senate we moved forward at twice the rate that Republicans had and during our leadership 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed. This year we have proceeded to consider and confirm another 25 lifetime judicial appointments. I would understand the partisanship if Democrats had held up consideration of 125 judicial nominees and the Senate had only confirmed two, but just the opposite is true.

I understand the frustration that Senator Frist feels regarding the continuing impasse over the nominations of Mr. Estrada and Judge Owen. I am sorry that the White House has chosen confrontation over cooperation with the Senate on these matters. It is too bad that this White House will not work with us, as Senator Bennett and others have indicated was reasonable, in order to provide access to the materials we requested from Mr. Estrada and the Justice Department one year ago today. With respect to the renomination of Judge Owen, I have said that unprecedented renomination of a judicial nominee rejected after a hearing and a fair debate and vote before the Judiciary Committee was ill advised. It remains so.

Along with the other members of the Judiciary Committee, I have voted on the Estrada and Owen nominations. We have not taken the course of prior Republican leadership in which any Senator was allowed to block President Clinton's judicial nominees by use of a secret, anonymous hold. Instead, Democrats acted over the last few years to reform the confirmation process. We have added openness and accountability. What we have not been able to do is obtain a fair level of consultation and cooperation from this White House. We made home State Senators' ``blue slips'' matters of public record. When Republican Senators stymied Judiciary Committee consideration of President Clinton's judicial nominations, they were permitted to do so under the cloak of confidentiality. I changed that in 2001.

The Republican myth of a ``crisis'' in the Senate is punctured by the facts, which show the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years--lower than the national jobless rate of 6 percent.

Court-packing by Presidents of either party is harmful, and I have spoken out often about the need to preserve the independence of our Federal judiciary. The world's emerging democracies envy the judicial independence in the American system, and we should make every effort to defend it, not to undermine it, as the escalating tactics of this administration would do. Just last month the administration and congressional Republicans turned a deaf ear when Chief Justice Rehnquist warned against the assault on the independence of the judiciary when so-called sentencing ``reforms'' were tacked on to a popular bill without hearings or careful consideration.

The White House says it opposes judicial activism, but the President sends the Senate activist nominees. The White House itself pushes results-oriented changes in the rules of the Senate, which is a separate branch of Government. This White House is not satisfied with its subjugation of the House and Senate to its will and removing Congress as a check on the Executive. They also want to pack the independent Federal courts. Republicans are not satisfied with means undermining the independence of the Senate, they are embarked on a course to undermine the independence of the Federal judiciary, as well. They already have convinced Senate Republicans to bend and even break the Judiciary Committee's rules in the handling of judicial nominees. Now they want to change the rules of the Senate itself in a raw bid for unitary government, directed by the White House. The American people and their representatives in the Senate should not let the Senate or the Federal judiciary become mere arms of any political party or any President.

The President's charges about obstruction would be easier to understand if the numbers themselves did not disprove them. The President and some Republicans in the Senate seem to be suffering from confirmation amnesia. The Democratic-led Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees, acting far faster than Republicans did with President Clinton's nominees. We have confirmed another 24 this year for a total so far of 125 and achieved the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years. The vacancy rate on the Federal bench today is 5.3 percent, which is lower than the national jobless rate of 6 percent. Unemployment has soared, the deficit has soared, crime is on the rise for the first time in a decade--about the only thing that has gone down significantly over the last 2 years is Federal judicial vacancies. Yet the White House complains that it has not been able to bully the Senate into rubber-stamping every one of the White House's ideological choices. Democratic Senators have cooperated to improve the process so that it has worked much more smoothly for President Bush's nominees than Republicans allowed for President Clinton's nominees.

The fact is that 125 have been confirmed, and two have been held back. You would not know that by listening to the President's remarks last Friday or to Republican talking points or various attack ads now being broadcast around the country in a partisan effort to intimidate Senators.

Democrats held hearings on more nominees faster than Republicans had and proceeded on controversial nominations. We have cooperated this year in bringing many controversial nominations to the floor for votes. When Republicans controlled the Senate during the last Democratic administration, they blocked more than 60 judicial nominees. And they were blocked not with cloture votes in the light of day, but sometimes by a single, anonymous Republican objection. And yes, there were also Republican filibusters of President Clinton's nominees.

The answer for handling the remaining controversial nominees is not reckless rhetoric or undermining the Senate's independence by changing its rules so that the independence of the Federal judiciary can become a victim to partisan court-packing. The answer has to start with the President, where the process begins. Despite his earlier promises, the President has been a divider and not a uniter in choosing many of his nominees, who would roll back the hard-won rights of workers, women, minorities and consumers, and who would side with the big polluters over communities when it comes to clean air and water. Several of his choices have divided the American people, and they have divided the Senate. We have drawn a line with a few of his most extreme choices. Drawing that line has been the responsible response to this President's divisive nominations for lifetime positions on the Federal courts.

This President campaigned saying he wanted to change the tone in Washington. He has--for the worse. The White House has adopted the rabid partisanship of House Republicans. The President of the United States has sunk to name-calling, extreme rhetoric and partisan campaigning against the Senate and individual Senators, which is not helpful to the process or to the institutions of our government.

The answer is for the administration to work with the Senate, as earlier Presidents have done. The process starts with the President, and the buck stops with the President.

Here on the Senate floor, when Senators have opposed the most divisive of the President's nominees with whom he is seeking to pack the courts and ideologically tilt them, we have done so on the record. We have debated and put forth the considerations and reasons. That, too, was something all too often missing from the years in which Republicans defeated judicial nominees through stealth tactics. We have voted on the record in vote after vote required by Republican cloture petitions.

Unfortunately, in the case of Mr. Estrada, the administration has made no effort to work with us and resolve the impasse. Instead, there has been a series of votes on cloture petitions in which the opposition has grown and from time to time the support has waned. Recently, there have been press reports indicating that Mr. Estrada had asked the White House months ago to withdraw his nomination. I understand his frustration. If this administration is not going to follow the practice of every other administration and share with the Senate the government work papers of the nominee--the very practice this administration followed with an EPA nominee in 2001--then I can understand him not wanting to be used as a political pawn by the administration to score partisan, political points. That the administration has not acceded to his reported request but has plowed ahead to force a succession of unsuccessful cloture votes and to foment division in our Hispanic community for partisan gain is another example of how far this administration is willing to go to politicize the process at the expense of its own nominees.

The frustration with these two difficult nominations should not obscure the work that the Senate leadership has done to correct some of the abuses of power earlier this year and pave the way for votes on the nominations of Jeffrey Sutton and Judge Cook to the Sixth Circuit and John Roberts to the DC Circuit. There were more votes against the Sutton nomination than the number required for a filibuster, but there was no filibuster of that nomination. Just as there was no filibuster of the controversial nomination of Mr. Tymkovich to the Tenth Circuit or of the controversial nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit. All three of these circuit court nominations were controversial and opposed by many Americans and many Senators.

The President's recent comments took the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to task for, among other things, not holding a hearing on the nomination of Judge Terry Boyle. I understand that Chairman Hatch is following a longstanding tradition of the Senate in not proceeding with a nomination that is opposed by a home State Senator. After all, it was Senator Helms' opposition to Judge Beaty and Judge Wynn, as well as to Roger Gregory and a number of others, that has led to there being numerous vacancies on the Fourth Circuit. Having honored Senator Helms' objections, Chairman Hatch would be seen as hypocritical and partisan if he were to ignore the concerns of Democratic home State Senators. Among the difficulties the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has faced since 2001 are the high number of judicial nominees of this White House that do not have home State Senator support. So when the President attacks the Senate for not having acted on nominations that the White House knows does not have the support of home State Senators, he is not being fair to the Senate, to the chairman or to the nominees. The White House knows that judicial nominations do not proceed without the support of home State Senators. Yet this administration continues to belittle the role of home State Senators in the advice and consent process and ignore the important role they have long played in Senate consideration of judicial nominees.

Another example is the nomination of Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit. This is a nomination that is opposed by both home State Senators. Proceeding on such a nomination is unprecedented. Yet Senate Republicans have forced the nomination out of the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote after knowing that Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer both oppose confirmation.

The last time the Senate voted on a nomination opposed by both home State Senators was only because the Republican caucus ambushed the nomination of Judge Ronnie White of Missouri on the Senate floor in 1999 after one of the Missouri Senators switched from supporting the nomination to opposing it the day of the vote. They proceeded without telling the administration, Senate Democrats or the nominee of the change of position and a number of Republican Senators who had previously voted in favor of the nomination changed their positions, as well, and the nomination was defeated on the only party-line vote to defeat a judicial nominee in Senate history of which I am aware.

With respect to Senator Frist's resolution, S. Res. 138, I look forward to the work of the Rules Committee on this proposal. Initially, I would observe that voting on judicial nominations is unlike Senate consideration of legislation in the way that imposing capital punishment is unlike any other criminal sentence. It is final and irrevocable. A bad statute once enacted can be amended or repealed. A bad judge is on the bench for life and will continue to affect American's rights, our freedoms and our environment in case after case for decades to come, long after the President who appointed that judge is gone. Given that dimension, I believe Senator Frist got his proposal upside down by seeking to exempt judicial nominations from Senate debate rules. It is more important that there be a higher level of confidence and certainty that a judicial nomination being considered for a lifetime appointment be the right person for the job, be a person of fairness, impartiality, judgment and someone committed to our constitutional values. The rights of women, minorities, consumers, workers and those concerned about the environment should not be sacrificed to political expediency and the independence of our federal courts should not be lost to ideological court packing by this administration.

Others will no doubt point out that Senator Frist voted against a proposal in 1995 to revise the Senate filibuster rules. I have pointed out in other statements how many Republicans supported the filibusters against President Clinton's executive calendar nominees, including the judicial nominations of Judge Marsha Berzon and Judge Richard Paez, the last most recent double filibuster in 2000, and the nominations of Judge Rosemary Barkett and Judge H. Lee Sarokin. In addition, recent Republican filibusters succeeded in defeating the nominations of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General and Sam Brown to be an ambassador. Republicans have not been shy about using filibusters to defeat the nominees of the most recent Democratic President or stall legislation some of them oppose. Just last year, in their tributes to Senator Thurmond, Republicans extolled his use of the filibuster and his setting a record for the longest individual filibuster in Senate history. What they left out of their tributes was the fact that Senator Thurmond had filibustered civil rights legislation.

Others may also point out how many Republicans have proposed supermajority requirements. Not only have Republicans abandoned their commitment to fiscal responsibility and their call for a balanced budget, they have forgotten that they insisted in recent years on three-fifths requirements to raise the debt ceiling or have taxes apply retroactively. Senator Craig and Senator Miller currently support a proposal, S.J. Res. 2, to require a balanced Federal budget that includes a three-fifths rollcall vote of each chamber to increase the debt limit. Last year Senator Sessions introduced a measure, S.J. Res. 11, cosponsored by Senators Crapo, Kyl, Fitzgerald, Hagel, Inhofe and Shelby to require a two-thirds vote of each House in order to increase any tax. Of course, in the 105th Congress, along with former Senators Ashcroft and Abraham, who are now Cabinet secretaries in this administration, Senators Allard, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Burns, Campbell, Cochran, Collins, Craig, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Nickles, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas and Warner all cosponsored S.J. Res. 1 which would have required a three-fifths majority requirement to raise the debt ceiling.

The Senate was not designed by the founders or the Constitution to be a strictly majoritarian institution. To the contrary, the genius of the Framers at the Constitutional Convention was to construct a House of Representatives, structured on majoritarian principles with representatives voting on behalf of relatively equal numbers of constituents, and the Senate using different principles. The Senate has always had two Senators for each State regardless of size. Thus, small States like Vermont and Rhode Island and less populous States like Wyoming, Idaho and Alaska each have equal representation with California, Texas and New York. The Senate and the House are not the same and were not intended to be the same. They were designed to be complimentary institutions of government to form a balanced legislature. I understand why proposals like S. Res. 138 might appeal to newer Republican Senators and to former House Members who are now Republican in the Senate but I fear it would represent another ill- advised step to change the Senate into a second House of Representatives. The Constitution did not assign the advice and consent role to the House but to our distinctive body, the Senate. The Senate has many distinctive traditions including, to me, one of the most significant--that smaller States have a larger role to play in the Senate than in the House.

It is a bit ironic, to say the least, that an administration that was selected with less popular vote than the Democratic Presidential candidate because of a court decision and the workings of the electoral college is now pressing so vociferously to change the Senate rules and allow judicial and executive branch confirmations approved by the barest of ``majorities''--of only those Senators present and voting at the time the Republican Senate majority chooses to call the vote.

In addition, given the Senate's structure, the administration's pretense that somehow the votes of a majority of Senators shows that a majority of Americans favor a nomination may not be factually accurate. For example, Senate Republicans have complained bitterly and resentfully about the Senate's failure to end debate on the nomination of Judge Owen. But the Senators who have voted to end debate represent less than 50 percent of the population of the United States and the Senators who have voted not to end

that debate represent the majority of the American population. Now, put that way, the decision of the Senate on this controversial nominee hardly seem anti-democratic.

I respect the role of the Senate and the ways in which it has traditionally functioned on behalf of the American people. Any rule or practice can be used for ill, of course. For instance, the Senate grants significant authority to committees and to chairs of committees to determine the Senate's agenda and business. Traditionally, when a committee votes down a nominee, that nomination does not go forward. We have made one recent exception for the nomination of Judge Bork to the Supreme Court. That led to a heated battle on the Senate floor that resulted in that nomination ultimately being rejected by the Senate. Never in our history has the Senate or an administration simply overridden the judgment of the Judiciary Committee. That is what this administration chose to do when it renominated Judge Owen after her nomination had been thoroughly and fairly considered last year.

Finally, I am troubled that the administration and Senate Republicans are so intent on changing the rules and procedures and practices of the Senate in so many ways to gerryrig the process in favor of the administration's most extreme, divisive and controversial nominees. That was not the motivation behind the amendment of rule 22 in 1975 that I supported. It used to be rare that judicial nominees would receive so many negative votes and engender so much opposition. In accordance with the consultation and cooperation that prevailed between administrations before this one and Senators from both parties, it was a rarity to have a contested nomination or to have close votes. That this administration is so fixated on forcing through the Senate nominees that do not have the support of more Senators is alarming in itself.

Consensus, mainstream, qualified nominees will get the support of not just a bare majority of Senators voting but the overwhelming majority of Senators. Thus, Judge Prado, and Judge Gregory, and Judge Raggi were confirmed with overwhelming bipartisan support. So, too, I am confident that Judge Consuelo Callahan will be the second Hispanic nominee of this administration to a circuit court to receive the strong support of Democratic Senators, when the leadership decides to schedule a vote on her confirmation. The 125 judicial confirmations to date are by and large conservative nominees but many enjoyed the strong bipartisan vote of Senators from both parties.

Yet Senate Republicans at the behest of the administration want to grant even more power to the administration by encouraging the President to nominate more controversial nominees. I respectfully suggest that the better way to proceed would be for the White House to work more closely with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to identify consensus nominees who will not generate a close vote and do not need special rules in order to be considered.

I thank the majority leader for working with the Democratic leader and assistant leader to make what he himself recognized as progress over the last weeks. With some cooperation and consideration from the administration we could accomplish so much more.

Mr. President, we have all been devastated by the repeated news flashes of violent crimes being committed against children across the Nation. In June 2002, Elizabeth Smart, a 14 year old from my home State of Utah was kidnapped at gun point from her home in Salt Lake City. Just this past week, the entire Nation rejoiced with the Smart family after Elizabeth was found alive and reunited with her loved ones.

Five year old Samantha Runnion was not so lucky. Just one month after Elizabeth Smart's abduction, Samantha was kidnapped while playing with a neighborhood friend down the street from her home in Stanton, CA. The following day, her body was found along a highway, nearly 50 miles from her home. California authorities have charged Alejandro Avila with Runnion's abduction, sexual assault and murder. Reportedly, Avila was acquitted two years ago of molesting two young girls under the age of 14.

Elizabeth Smart and Samantha Runnion are just two, among many, recent child victims. The list of tragic cases involving minor victims goes on and on.

These horrific incidents illustrate the need for comprehensive legislation--at both the State and national level--to protect our children. We need to ensure that federal and state law enforcement officers have all the tools and resources they need to find, prosecute, and punish those who commit crimes against our youth.

Today, I rise to reintroduce the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' which enhances existing laws, investigative tools, criminal penalties and child crime resources in a variety of ways. I introduced this important bill with Senator Feinstein last year, but it failed to go anywhere. My unwavering commitment to this issue compels me to introduce it again this year. Let me elaborate on the Act's specific provisions.

By broadening existing laws, the Act enhances the ability of child victims to pursue and prevail in criminal proceedings against their predators.

First, the Act extends the statute of limitations period that applies to offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse of children under 18 years of age. Current law permits such cases to be brought until the victim reaches the age of 25 years. This amendment will allow meritorious cases of child sexual and physical abuse to be brought up until the date the minor reaches the age of 35 years.

It is well-documented that child abuse victims often do not come forward until years after the abuse occurred. Victims fail to come forward because they fear their disclosures will lead to further humiliation, shame, and even ostracism. Abusers should not benefit from the lasting psychological harms they have inflicted on innocent children.

I believe that there should rarely, if ever, be a time when we say to a victim who has suffered as a child at the hands of an abuser: you have identified your abuser; you have proven the crime; yet the abuser will remain free because you, the victim, waited to long to come forward. Our criminal justice system should be ready to adjudicate all meritorious claims of child abuse. This amendment is meant to recognize that the arm of the law should be long in the prosecution of crimes of this heinous nature.

Second, the Act amends an existing Federal evidentiary rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 414, to permit the admission into evidence of prior offenses involving child molestation, or the possession of sexually explicit materials containing actual or apparent minors. The current evidentiary rule permits such evidence to be admitted only where the victim was under 14 years of age. This amendment extends the rule to apply to any minor--any victim who was under 18 years of age at the time the offense was committed.

In addition, the amendment makes clear that even where an individual possesses what may be virtual, as opposed to actual, child pornography, and therefore, may have a valid defense against prosecution in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002), such evidence is nonetheless admissible under Rule 414. Like the possession of actual child pornography, the possession of virtual child pornography is highly probative evidence that should be admissible in a case involving child molestation or exploitation.

Third, the Act also limits the scope of the common law marital privileges by making them inapplicable in a criminal child abuse case in which the abuser or his or her spouse invokes a privilege to avoid testifying. Where a child abuser is charged with a crime against the child of either spouse, or a child under the custody or control of either spouse, neither the abuser nor his or her spouse should be permitted a marital privilege to avoid providing critical evidence.

The marital privileges exist because we in society believe that forcing a person to testify against his or her spouse, or permitting a spouse to testify about confidential marital communications, may jeopardize a marriage. While we value trusting, harmonious marriages, our societal interest in the proper administration of justice far exceeds our interest in preserving marital harmony where a spouse has chosen a vulnerable, defenseless child in the home as his or her victim. In my view, it is more important to prosecute and punish child abusers than it is to minimize the potential risk to the life of a marriage in which child abuse is occurring.

The Act increases the investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies in several significant ways.

First, the Act amends the DNA Analysis and Backlog Elimination Act by increasing the categories of offenses that are included in the database of convicted offender DNA profiles, the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS. Without question, DNA--which is unique to each individual and maintains its evidentiary integrity for long periods of time--is a valuable investigatory tool. Time and again DNA evidence has aided in solving difficult criminal cases by linking suspects to crimes and by eliminating others.

This Act expands the class of offenses that are included in CODIS by adding all federal felony offenses to the database. Currently, the DNA Analysis and Backlog Elimination Act includes only select Federal offenses. The successful experiences of approximately 19 States, including Utah, which currently authorize the collection of DNA samples for all felony offenses illustrate the need for this extension. These States have solved numerous crimes where DNA has been found--frequently based on an offender's conviction for a nonviolent offense--such as burglary, theft or a narcotics offense.

Remarkably, not all States currently authorize the collection of DNA samples from all types of child offenders. Thus, the Act also expands the definition of qualifying offense to include all state offenses against children, such as those involving child kidnapping or abuse. This expansion will increase law enforcement's ability to solve such crimes where DNA evidence is found.

Second, the Act extends the Federal wiretap statute by adding sex trafficking, sexual abuse, exploitation, and other sex-related offenses as predicate offenses to the statute. As we all know, the Internet is becoming an increasingly popular means by which sexual predators make contact with child victims. Although predators typically initiate a relationship online, they ultimately seek to make personal contact with the child--both over the telephone and through face to face meetings. But as the law exists today, investigators are restricted in their ability to investigate such predators. This provision will enable investigators, who meet the statutory requirements of the Federal wiretap statute, to obtain court authorization to monitor such communications. This amendment will not only aid investigators in obtaining evidence of these crimes, it will also help

stop these crimes before a sexual predator makes contact with a child.

To obtain a wiretap, law enforcement authorities will still need to meet the strict statutory guidelines of the wiretap statute and obtain authorization from a court. Thus, the legislation will not undermine the legitimate expectations of privacy of law-abiding Americans. This expanded tool will be particularly useful to investigators who track sexual predators and child pornographers.

The Act also strengthens criminal penalties by extending the supervised release period that applies to certain offenders, increasing the maximum penalties that apply to offenses involving transportation for illegal sexual activity, and directing the United States Sentencing Commission to review the guidelines that apply to criminal offenses with which child predators are frequently charged to determine whether they are sufficiently severe.

The Act grants Federal judges the discretion to impose up to lifetime periods of supervised release for individuals who are convicted of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, transportation for illegal sexual activity, or sex trafficking offenses. Under current Federal law, a judge can impose no more than 5 years of supervised release for a serious felony, and no more than 3 years for a lesser categorized offense. This amendment to the general supervised release statute will not require judges to impose a period of supervised release longer than 5 years; it will simply authorize them to do so where a judge sees fit based on the nature and circumstances of the case.

In my view, if there is any class of offenders on which our criminal justice system should keep a close eye, it is sexual predators. It is well documented that sex offenders are more likely than other violent criminals to commit future crimes. And if there is any class of victims we should seek to protect from repeat offenders, it is those who have been sexually assaulted. They suffer tremendous physical, emotional and psychological injuries. By ensuring that egregious sexual offenders are supervised for longer periods of time, we will increase the chance that they will be deterred from and punished for future criminal acts.

The Act increases the maximum penalties that apply to certain offenses, including sexual offenses that involve the trafficking of children and transportation. Stiffer penalties are needed to punish and deter individuals who commit such offenses.

The Act also directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review the sentencing guidelines that apply to various offenses that apply to kidnappers, sexual abusers and exploiters, to ensure that Federal sentences are sufficiently severe where aggravating circumstances exist, such as where the victim was abducted, injured, killed, or abused by more than one person.

In a number of significant ways, the Act enhances the resources that are available to investigate and prosecute crimes against children.

First, the Act directs the Attorney General to appoint a Deputy Assistant Attorney General to oversee a new section at the Department of Justice designated to focus solely on crimes against children. Among other things, the new section will be tasked with prosecuting crimes against children, providing guidance and assistance to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and personnel who handle such cases, coordinating efforts with international law enforcement agencies to combat crimes against children, and acting as a liaison with the legislative and judicial branches of government to ensure that adequate attention and resources are focused on protecting our children from predators of all types.

In addition, the Act tasks the new Crimes Against Children section to create an Internet site that consolidates sex offender information which States currently disclose under the Federal reporting act. The Act also direct States that have not developed Internet sites to do so. The creation of a national Internet site will enable concerned citizens to find in one, easily accessible place, critical information about sexual predators.

Currently, all 50 States have registration statutes that require sex offenders to register and to share information with the United States Attorney General through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and over 30 States make offender information available to the public on the Internet. A national Internet site will enhance the public's ability to find and access information that is already available in the public record, and will protect citizens in States where sex offenders move to try to avoid detection of their past criminal acts. In short, the national Internet site will provide parents and other concerned citizens with essential information about the whereabouts and backgrounds of child abusers, so they can take all necessary steps to protect our Nation's children from harm's way.

The Act also increases resources and funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The recent series of tragic events involving child victims has convinced me that we need to take a more proactive approach to prevent, deter and prosecute child predators of all types--abusers, molesters, pornographers and traffickers. And at the same time, we need to provide our children, the vulnerable victims of such predators, with the support systems they need to recover fully from such horrendous crimes and to assist law enforcement in effectively investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

To this end, the Act directs the FBI to establish a National Crimes Against Children Response Center whose primary mission will be to develop a comprehensive and rapid response plan to reported crimes involving the victimization of children. While the National Response Center is to be established by the FBI, in consultation with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Crimes Against Children Office, it will integrate the resources and expertise of other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as other child serving professionals. By creating and training rapid response teams comprised of federal, state and local prosecutors, investigators, victim witness specialists, mental health and other child serving professionals, the Center will greatly enhance our national response and prevention efforts. The combination of valuable expertise and resources provided by such multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary partnerships will increase the likelihood that law enforcement authorities will successfully identify, prosecute and punish child predators, and that child serving professionals will provide child victims with much needed support.

The ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' will enhance our ability to combat crimes against children, but it is by no means an end. Congress needs to continue to explore additional ways in which we can improve our ability on a national level to protect our children. Our children fall victim to many of the same crimes we face as adults, and they are also subject to crimes that are specific to childhood, like child abuse and neglect. The effects of such heinous crimes are devastating and often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse.

I want to do all I can to ensure that we devote the same intensity of purpose to crimes committed against children, as we do to other serious criminal offenses, such as those involving terrorism. We have no greater resource than our children. I invite the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other non governmental entities and professionals who are charged with protecting our children to work with me to improve our Federal laws and to assist States in doing the same.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to reintroduce the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003''--a bill to help protect our Nation's children from child molestation and other forms of abuse. Senator Hatch and I introduced this bill for the first time on September 10, 2002.

Sexual abuse of children is a pervasive and extremely troubling problem in the United States. I learned that over 25 years ago when I was serving as the County Prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio. I saw what this kind of abuse does to innocent, helpless children and how pervasive the crimes are in our communities. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, one of every three girls and one of every seven boys will be sexually abused before they reach the age of 18.

Our local police and prosecutors are on the front line in the fight against these criminals, and they deserve credit and our thanks for their hard work. For example, in Greene County recently, a number of child pornographers were identified and prosecuted when local law enforcement carried out a successful Internet sting operation.

Despite successes like this, however, the data suggest that law enforcement is fighting an uphill battle. In 2001 alone, there were over 5,400 registered sex offenders living in my home State of Ohio--an increase of 319 percent over 1998. Equally troubling, many child molesters prey upon dozens of victims before they are reported to law enforcement. Some evade detection for so long because many children never report the abuse. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 60 percent and 80 percent of child molestations and 69 percent of sexual assaults are never reported to the police. And, according to the Congressional Research Service, of reported sexual assaults, 71 percent of the victims are children.

For these reasons, it is vitally important that Congress do everything in its power to support law enforcement in its efforts to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Enacting the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' would be a step in the right direction. By enacting this measure, we would help protect our children from sexual predators, pornographers, and others who abuse children. Among its major provisions, this legislation would: 1. Direct the FBI to establish a new center that creates and trains ``rapid response teams'' (composed of prosecutors, investigators, and others) to respond promptly to reported crimes against children; 2. Establish a national Internet site that would make sex offender information available to the public in one, easily accessible place. Currently, about 30 states make offender information available to the public online; 3. Authorize the collection of DNA samples from registered sex offenders and the inclusion of these DNA samples in the Combined DNA Index System, or ``CODIS;'' 4. Permit the prosecution of child abuse offenses until a victim reaches the age of 35 (as opposed to the age of 25 under current law). This provision recognizes that victims of such crimes often do not come forward until years after the abuse, out of shame or a fear of further humiliation; 5. Make it easier for investigators to track sexual predators and child pornographers and make it easier to prosecute criminal child abuse/molestation cases; 6. Create a new section at the Department of Justice to focus solely on crimes against children; and 7. Stiffen penalties for sex-related offenses involving children.

This is a good bill--a bill that would help ensure that our children are protected from some of the most heinous of criminals. It is a bill that would increase the punishment for those criminals. And, it is a bill that, quite simply, is the right thing to do. I encourage my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important measure.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very important subject--one that affects parents, doctors, hospitals, nurses and our children each and every day. The subject that I am talking about is the safety and efficacy of the medicines that doctors give our children when they are sick.

Nearly six years ago, I was astonished to learn that close to 80 percent of drugs on the market were not tested for use in children-- yet, doctors were prescribing these drugs to our children. Doctors had no choice but to prescribe these drugs for children if they thought the medicines would be helpful. And, sometimes the medicines did help-- sometimes a child's pain was relieved, or a child would be able to breathe easier or digest food better because of the medicines the doctors prescribed them. But, even when the drugs do work, an anxious feeling remains among doctors and parents about whether these medicines are safe for children. How are doctors and parents to know for certain which medicines will work if they haven't been tested for safety and efficacy in children?

There are many examples, of situations where drugs have been misprescribed for children because doctors simply weren't aware of the effects these drugs would have on kids. For example, the drug, Neurontin, which is used to treat chronic pain, was given to children without being properly tested, and doctors eventually learned they were under-dosing children by 50 percent. That means children were suffering from pain because they were being under-dosed. They weren't being given the proper dose of medication to relieve their pain.

Another drug, Lithium, which has been prescribed to treat bipolar disorder since 1940 was never tested for long-term use in children until just a few months ago. This is an example of a drug that doctors have been prescribing ``off-label'' for years, and only now we are finally getting some evidence of its effect in children. According to doctors, the testing of Lithium revealed important information because children who suffer from bipolar disorder cycle between mania and depression quicker than adults, and they can even have signs of both at the same time. Unlike adults, they don't have periods of normalcy. Doctors now know that Lithium can be used to treat bipolar disorder in children.

Doctors have taken a chance in prescribing medicines for children. Doctors tell parents to cut a pill in half or in quarters so it can be given to a child. Doctors use the best information they have to determine how much or what kind of medicines to give a child. That is all they can do when the medicines children need have not been tested for their use.

Doctors and pediatricians should not be left to guess how much medicine our children should receive. And, parents shouldn't have to feel anxious or question whether the half a pill that's been ground up and put in applesauce will still be effective in treating their child-- or whether it's even safe for their child to take.

It's been over a year now since the Senate passed and the President signed into law the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children's Act. As many of my colleagues know, that law has been part of a solution--but just a part of a solution--to address the problem I just mentioned. The law provides a six-month patent extension to pharmaceutical companies in exchange for the testing of medicines in children. And, for as long as the bill has been law, the Food and Drug Administration is reporting its success in ensuring that more medicines are tested for use in children. With the incentive provided by Best Pharmaceuticals, companies are seeing the value of studying their drugs in children and are applying for the patent extension.

But, the Best Pharmaceuticals incentive cannot work alone to ensure that medicines in children do not go untested. The incentive in the Best Act was never intended to work alone. When the Best Act became law, there was already a rule on the books that helped ensure that no medicine used to treat children, including vaccines or other biologics, would go untested. Back in 1997, the Food and Drug Administration proposed what is known today as the Pediatric Rule. The Pediatric Rule allowed FDA to require that the drugs the agency felt are important for children are safe, effective, and properly labeled for children.

Unfortunately, the Pediatric Rule has come under legal challenge, with a District Court ruling just a few months ago stating that FDA lacked the statutory authority to require pediatric studies. This was a troubling step backward for children's health--a troubling step at a time when 75 percent of the medicines on the market still aren't tested and labeled for pediatric use. We've made some improvements from the 80 percent of medicines on the market, but 75 percent is still too much. Without the Pediatric Rule, new medicines and biologics coming onto the market are not required to be tested for use in children. Congress needs to make sure that the FDA continues to have every tool--that includes the market incentives and the pediatric rule--available to them to ensure that drugs for children are tested for safety and efficacy and that they are labeled properly.

Everyday that a drug manufacturer chooses not to participate in the incentive program, the number of medicines

that go untested for use in children increases. Everyday that we don't have the Pediatric Rule, we sacrifice our children's safety. Medicines that are used by children should be tested for safety and efficacy. That is why Senators Clinton, Gregg, Dodd, and Kennedy and I are introducing a bill today--the Pediatric Research Equity Act--that would ensure that the Pediatric Rule continues to work alongside the Best Act, so that children will remain on safe footing when it comes to the testing of the medications they use.

Congress needs to make sure the Pediatric Rule stays in place, because right now, the Pediatric Rule and the Best Act incentive work together to ensure that drugs are tested for use in children. As I said already, the Best Act was never intended to substitute the rule, but rather to reinforce and work with the rule. For example, the Pediatric Rule may be invoked in instances where pediatric information is essential, but the patent exclusivity is no longer available.

The Pediatric Rule also applies to biologics, whereas the Best Pharmaceuticals does not. A significant portion of therapeutics used in children, including many cancer treatments, are biological products (products that include a live agent). Because Best Pharmaceuticals does not apply to biologics, the Pediatric Rule is the only way to ensure pediatric labeling.

Finally, the Best Pharmaceuticals is voluntary. For any number of reasons, including insufficient sales, a manufacturer may choose not to conduct the testing necessary to receive additional exclusivity under the Best Act. But, just because a drug manufacturer chooses not to study the drug in children does not mean that drug is not critical to the proper treatment of our children. Without the Pediatric Rule, there is no way to guarantee that a drug that is used in the pediatric population is tested for children's use.

With the establishment of the Pediatric Rule and the financial incentives of the Best Pharmaceuticals law, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of studies that have been undertaken. Let me quote from the Government's Response to Plaintiff's Notice of Reauthorization of FDA Modernization Act. This is the document that the government filed to defend the lawsuit against the Rule: ``These two options [the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Rule] have resulted in a number of drugs being labeled for use in pediatric populations. As of March 31, 2002, 94 applications containing complete or partial pediatric use information had been submitted to the agency. Of these 94 applications, 45 are attributable to the statutory exclusivity provisions. FDA attributes 48 of the 94 applications to the authority of the pediatric rule alone.''

The bill that my colleagues and I are introducing today would help maintain that progress--not erode it. Our bill would provide the FDA with the authority it needs to ensure that the medicines children take are studied for safety and efficacy. And, our bill would give FDA this authority in a way so that it does not conflict with the incentives provided in the Best Pharmaceuticals Act.

Our bill would preserve the waiver and deferral process, so that drug companies can get waivers or deferrals for a range of legitimate reasons. Drug companies could get a waiver or deferral of studies for safety or ethical concerns. A drug company could get a waiver or deferral if the pediatric testing would interfere with the drug's availability for adults.

Ultimately, though, our bill would help make certain that children are no longer a therapeutic afterthought by ensuring that all new drugs are studied for pediatric use at the time a drug comes to market. This would put children on a level playing field with adults for the first time. Our children deserve no less, and I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with my good friends Senator Hatch, Senator Mikulski and Senator Durbin, the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2003. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than other nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would increase the retirement benefits given to Assistant United States Attorneys by including them as ``law enforcement officers'', LEOs, under the Federal Employees' Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System. The bill would also allow the Attorney General to designate other attorneys employed by the Department of Justice who act primarily as criminal prosecutors as LEO's for purposes of receiving these retirement benefits.

The primary reason for granting enhanced retirement benefits to LEOs is the often dangerous work of law enforcement. Currently, Assistant United States Attorneys, AUSAs, and other Federal prosecutors are not eligible for these enhanced benefits, which are enjoyed by the vast majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. This exclusion is unjustified. The relevant provisions of the United States Code dealing with retirement benefits define an LEO as an employee whose duties are, ``primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating federal law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331(20) & 8401(17). AUSAs and other federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations, interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting, debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements and representing the government at trials and sentencings, all of which fall within the definition of the duties performed by law enforcement officers. Indeed, once a defendant is brought to into the criminal justice system, the person with whom they have the most face-to-face contact, and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal prosecutor.

Although prosecutors do not personally execute arrests, searches and other physically dangerous activities, LEO status is accorded to many criminal justice employees who do not perform such tasks, such as pretrial services officers and probation officers and accountants, cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, because they are often the most conspicuous representatives of the government in the criminal justice system, Federal prosecutors are natural targets for threats of reprisals by vengeful criminals. Indeed, there are numerous incidents in which assaults and serious death threats have been made against federal prosecutors, sometimes resulting in significant disruption of their personal and family lives.

Only recently a veteran Federal prosecutor in the Western District of Washington was murdered in his home, and, although the crime remains unsolved, based upon the facts of the case the authorities have referred to the crime as a hit. In addition, I have received many other accounts from Federal prosecutors regarding specific threats to which they and their families have been subjected because of the performance of their duties. Federal prosecutors have written to me that they have been forced to relocate themselves and their families due to death threats; that they have been assaulted; that they and their families have been followed by members of criminal organizations; that have been forced to install security systems at their homes and to change their routes to and from the office to protect their safety and the safety of their families.

As our fight against terrorism continues, Federal prosecutors arel on the front lines once again as the symbols of our criminal justice system, and unfortunately therefore the targets of those who seek its downfall. Among other tasks, the Attorney General has designated AUSA's to play a major role working with police and Federal agents in each judicial district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force. One Federal prosecutor wrote to me stating that shortly after his name was in the local news as heading his district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force and he had spoken to his family about taking suitable precautions, that his young son came into his bedroom one night holding a hockey stick for protection asking about their safety. Thus, Federal prosecutors and their families will deal more than ever with a level of stress and danger that justifies their being treated as LEOs.

Another example of the danger facing Federal prosecutors appeared in the USA Today earlier this month. That article, which I ask unanimous consent to make part of the Congressional Record, reports that United States Attorney's will also be asked to play an advisory role in potential hostilities with Iraq. If there was ever an illustration of the importance of granting Federal prosecutors equal retirement status as their other law enforcement partners, this is it.

Enhanced retirement benefits are also justified by the Federal Government's need for experienced prosecutors to bring ever more sophisticated cases under increasingly complex Federal criminal laws. In recent years, we have seen the growth of complex Federal prosecutions to combat the threats posed by organized crime, drug cartels, terrorist groups and other sophisticated criminals. The prosecution of such difficult cases is best handled by experienced prosecutors. It is therefore in the public interest to provide reasonable financial incentives for talented, experienced prosecutors to remain in government service.

This bill would make Assistant United States Attorneys and other Federal prosecutors designated by the Attorney General eligible for immediate, unreduced retirement benefits at age 50 with 20 years of service. For example, prosecutors who are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System would receive 50 percent of the average of their three highest years' salary. At

the same time, it would exempt prosecutors from the mandatory retirement provisions that require other law enforcement officers to retire at age 57. Because the loss of physical strength and agility does not adversely affect a person's ability to function as a prosecutor, there is no reason to mandate early retirement.

Two important features of this bill will contain its costs. First, the bill provides that incumbent Federal prosecutors are themselves responsible for making up the difference in individual contributions owed to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund for their prior service. An incumbent has the choice of making up this difference either by making a payment up front or by accepting a reduction in retirement benefits. Second, government contributions for the prior service of incumbents are made ratably over a ten-year period under this bill. Thus, payments for prior government contributions are spread out to lessen the financial impact. These two provisions will insure that the cost of the bill is kept well within reason.

This bill enjoys broad, grass roots support. When Senator Hatch and I introduced this same bill in the last Congress, I received literally hundreds of letters supporting this bill, sent from over 40 states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The bill also enjoys support in the law enforcement community. The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the Federal Criminal Investigators Association, and the Southern States Police Benevolent Association have all wrote me to voice support for the inclusion of AUSAs in the definition of an LEO. I tried, with Senator Hatch, to include this measure in our Department of Justice Authorization legislation in the last Congress, but the House would not agree to its inclusion in the conference report. I hope that we can work together in both houses to enact the bill in this Congress.

In addition, I know that other Senators, including Senator Mikulski, are considering additional measures to expand these same retirement benefits to other Federal employees who perform law enforcement functions, including IRS employees whose primary duty is to collect delinquent taxes. I cosponsored such a measure in the last Congress, and I continue to support and commend her leadership in bringing these matters to the forefront.

For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senators Hatch, Mikulski and Durbin, and I urge its swift enactment into law.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with the sectional analysis and the newspaper article to which I referred.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.''

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. Identical in its designations to legislation sponsored in the other body by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, it is the culmination of more than 17 years and five Congresses of effort in the other body beginning with the legislative work of our recent deceased colleague, the former Congressman from Utah, Mr. Owens.

The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters.

Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti- environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.''

Wisconsinites are watching this test cane closely. I believe, that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. For example, some in my home state believe that among federal lands that comprise the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests there are lands that are deserving of wilderness protection. These federal properties are incredibly important, and they mean a great deal to the people of Wisconsin. Wisconsinites want to know that, should additional lands in Wisconsin be brought forward for wilderness designation, the type of protection they expect from federal law is still available to be extended because it had been properly extended to other places of national significance.

What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness insures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Third, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the federal government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans.

Finally, I support this bill because I believe that there will likely be action during this Congress to develop consensus legislation to protect the lands contained in this proposal. We all need to be involved in helping to forge that consensus in order to ensure the best stewardship of that land. As many in this body know, the BLM has completed a review of the lands designated in the bill sponsored in the 106th Congress by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and adjacent areas. BLM has found that 5.8 million acres of lands, slightly more than the acreage of the old bill, meet the criteria for wilderness protection under the Wilderness Act. While the re-inventory is not a formal recommendation to Congress for wilderness designation, it suggests that there are and should be more lands in play as the debate over wilderness protection in Utah moves forward.

I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.