A bill to ensure the evacuation of individuals with special needs in times of emergency.

Mr. President, it has been nearly 4 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the days, weeks, and months since that day, the American people have braced themselves for the possibility of another terrorist attack on our homeland. After all, we know all too well that al Qaeda is a stealthy, sophisticated, and patient enemy, and that its leadership is extremely motivated to launch another devastating attack on American citizens and American soil.

In fact, outside the United States, al Qaeda and affiliates of al Qaeda have continued to be remarkably active, responsible for numerous terrorist attacks over the last few years, spanning the globe from Pakistan to Bali to Spain to London.

It is precisely because al Qaeda is so aggressive, so motivated, and so demonstrably hostile to America that I am so grateful that, to date, al Qaeda still has not successfully launched another terrorist attack on our soil. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this. First and foremost, I am profoundly thankful to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, who fight the terrorists abroad so that we do not have to face them at home. I also firmly believe that our efforts to strengthen anti-terrorism and law enforcement tools right here at home have much to do with this record of success and peace in our homeland to date.

The war on terrorism must be fought aggressively--but consistent with the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. Whenever real civil liberties problems do arise, we must learn about them right away, so that we can fix them swiftly.

Last year, Federal judge struck down a portion of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. This law balanced the national interest in protecting electronic communications privacy against the legitimate needs of national security, by establishing a procedure for obtaining electronic communications records in certain national security investigations through the use of so-called ``national security letters.'' The USA PATRIOT Act amended the law to make clear that such letters could be issued in terrorism investigations as well.

This provision was passed by the Senate on a voice vote, and shortly thereafter it passed the House by unanimous consent.

The primary reason the court struck down this provision was that the right to judicial review was not expressly written into the text of the law. It is important to note that the ability to scrutinize the issuance of national security letters was not actually disputed by the government. To the contrary, the Justice Department agreed that there should be judicial review. The court simply concluded that the 1986 law was not drafted with sufficient clarity to authorize such review.

I have previously introduced legislation to remedy the defects noted by the District Judge. That legislation amended the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to make explicit the

availability of judicial review to examine national security letters. However, national security letters are also available outside the Title 18 context. For instance, Title 15 allows the government to obtain consumer information maintained by consumer reporting agencies; Title 12 allows the government to obtain the financial records maintained by financial institutions; and Title 50 allows the government to obtain records about persons with access to classified information who may have disclosed classified information to a foreign power.

It is important to make sure that the right to judicial review is statutorily available in all national security letter contexts. The bill I am introducing today expressly authorizes a recipient to challenge any national security letter in court. It also: details the procedure the government must follow to substantiate its use of a national security letter; allows the government to present classified information to the court so that it can properly evaluate the challenge; and specifies that a recipient of a national security letter may consult with legal counsel about its obligations.

I hope that this legislation will be enacted in the same bipartisan spirit that put both the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act on the books.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, which would impact the lives of many at-risk children living in foster care. This bill is called WE CARE Kids: Working to Enhance Courts for At-risk and Endangered Kids Act of 2005.

How well a child welfare system functions is often related to how well the accompanying court system functions. The important role of the courts was noted last year when the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care released their recommendations to overhaul the Nation's foster care system. As observed by the Pew Commission, it is the courts that decide whether a child has been abused or neglected and whether that child should be placed in the foster care system. It is the courts that oversee whether the parents are making progress on their case plan and enforce the timelines for permanency. It is the courts that decide whether a parent's rights should be terminated or whether a family should be reunified. These judges are making tough, life-changing decisions for all parties involved.

To strengthen the courts making these life-altering decisions, the Pew Commission recommended: 1. The adoption of court performance measures by every dependency court; 2. incentives and requirements for effect collaboration between courts and child welfare agencies; 3. a strong voice in court for parents and children, as well as effective and well-trained representation by attorneys and volunteer advocates; and 4. leadership from chief justices and other State court leaders to organize their systems to better serve the needs of children, train judges, and promote effective standards for courts, judges and attorneys.

The legislation that Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today incorporates many of the recommendations of the Pew Commission. Among other provisions, the legislation provides $10 million for grants for training of judges and court personnel, of which a significant portion must be used for joint training between courts and child welfare agencies. It also provides $10 million for grants to the highest State court for the development and implementation of outcome measures related to safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness of court proceedings. The bill requires States to

develop standards of practice for attorneys appearing in child abuse and neglect proceedings, as well as provides loan forgiveness for attorneys who practice in family, domestic, and juvenile courts and for social workers who work within the child welfare system. The bill increases funding for the expansion of the Court Appointed Special Advocate program, and it includes a provision that would ease the placement of children in foster care from one State to another, for the purposes of speeding adoptions out of the foster care system.

Let me conclude by saying that when Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, I believed it was a good start. Congress, however, would have to do more to make sure that every child has the opportunity to live in a safe, stable, loving and permanent home. One of the essential ingredients is an efficiently operating court system--a system that puts the principles embodied in the law into practice. Our bill would help the court system do just that.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Senator Mike DeWine in introducing new legislation to promote better cooperation and collaboration between the courts and State agencies serving abused and neglected children. Our bill also seeks to improve the process for children to be adopted between two States, and gain a safe, permanent home that is one of the priorities established in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Our bill is named Working to Enhance Courts for At-Risk and Endangered Kids Act of 2005, WE CARE, Kids.

Senator DeWine and I have worked for years in bipartisan coalition to improve services and policies for our most vulnerable children, nearly 500,000 children who are in the foster care system. These children deserve our attention and our compassion. Through no fault of their own, such children are placed in foster care for their safety. They need to be safe, but they also need prompt and good decisions made for their long-term future and stability. Whenever possible, we should invest to help restore the family and reunite the children with their families if we know that they will be safe. In some cases, legal guardianship or adoption are the best options for the child. It is essential to make good decisions in a timely manner for such children. The social services agencies and the courts truly must work together on such cases.

Recently the bipartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care issued a thoughtful report with recommendations on how to strengthen the courts serving children in foster care. The Commission was led by former Congressman Bill Frenzel and co-chaired by former Congressman Bill Gray. It includes a wide range of leaders and experts. The commission did a careful review of the role of the courts in serving children in foster care, and it issued a series of recommendations. We are grateful for this report and relied on many of their recommendations in crafting this legislation. As always, we hope to forge bipartisan consensus on ways to move this bill forward.

The legislation also includes a provision to promote inter-state adoptions. With modern technology, caring families from one State may learn of a child in a foster care system in another State who is seeking adoption. When this happens, we need to be careful and thorough in accessing information to ensure the right placement. But we also must be sure that bureaucratic paperwork does not unnecessarily delay an adoption.

In West Virginia, there are about 80 children in our State foster care system ready for adoption; nationwide 118,000 children are in foster care and waiting for a safe permanent home. The wake of Hurricane Katrina and the Meth Epidemic in regions of our country, tragically could make these numbers increase. We must improve our system to do the best we can for these vulnerable children. Passing the WE CARE, Kids Act could be an important step forward.

Mr. President, one of the most striking things about the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina is that the majority of stranded victims were our society's most vulnerable members--low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled. Many did not own cars. Many believed themselves unable to flee the city, unable to forego the income from missed work, unable to incur the expenses of travel, food and lodging. Some may have misunderstood the severity of the warnings, if they heard the warnings at all. Some may have needed help that was unavailable. Whatever the reason, they were not evacuated and we have seen the horrific results.

This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens of the Gulf Coast leads me to introduce today a bill to require states and the nation to consider the needs of our neediest citizens in times of emergency.

It appears that certain assumptions were made in planning and preparing for the worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast. After all, most of those who could afford to evacuate managed to do so. They drove out of town and checked into hotels or stayed with friends and family. But what about the thousands of people left behind because they had special needs?

How many of us will forget the tragedy that occurred at St. Rita's Nursing Home in St. Bernard Parish, LA, where an estimated 32 of the 60 residents perished in the rising floodwaters in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Our charge as public servants is to worry about all of the people. I am troubled that our emergency response and disaster plans were inadequate for large segments of the Gulf Coast population. I wonder whether the plans in other regions are adequate. Perfect evacuation planning is obviously impractical, but greater advance preparation can ensure that the most vulnerable are not simply forgotten or ignored.

That's why the bill I am introducing today, along with co-sponsors Senators Bayh, Murray, Harkin, Levin, Corzine, Feingold, Bingaman and Kennedy, requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to mandate each State to include plans for the evacuation of individuals with special needs during times of emergency. Such plans should not only include an explanation of how these people--low income individuals and families, the elderly, the disabled, those who cannot speak English--will be evacuated out of the emergency area and how the states will provide shelter, food, and water, to these people once evacuated.

Communities with special needs may be more challenging to accommodate, but they are every bit as important to protect and serve in the event of an emergency.

What we saw in the Gulf Coast cannot be repeated. We may not be able to control the wrath of Mother Nature, but we can control how we prepare for natural disasters.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, one of the most striking things about the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina is that the majority of stranded victims were our society's most vulnerable members--low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled. Many did not own cars. Many believed themselves unable to flee the city, unable to forego the income from missed work, unable to incur the expenses of travel, food and lodging. Some may have misunderstood the severity of the warnings, if they heard the warnings at all. Some may have needed help that was unavailable. Whatever the reason, they were not evacuated and we have seen the horrific results.

This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens of the Gulf Coast leads me to introduce today a bill to require states and the nation to consider the needs of our neediest citizens in times of emergency.

It appears that certain assumptions were made in planning and preparing for the worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast. After all, most of those who could afford to evacuate managed to do so. They drove out of town and checked into hotels or stayed with friends and family. But what about the thousands of people left behind because they had special needs?

How many of us will forget the tragedy that occurred at St. Rita's Nursing Home in St. Bernard Parish, LA, where an estimated 32 of the 60 residents perished in the rising floodwaters in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Our charge as public servants is to worry about all of the people. I am troubled that our emergency response and disaster plans were inadequate for large segments of the Gulf Coast population. I wonder whether the plans in other regions are adequate. Perfect evacuation planning is obviously impractical, but greater advance preparation can ensure that the most vulnerable are not simply forgotten or ignored.

That's why the bill I am introducing today, along with co-sponsors Senators Bayh, Murray, Harkin, Levin, Corzine, Feingold, Bingaman and Kennedy, requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to mandate each State to include plans for the evacuation of individuals with special needs during times of emergency. Such plans should not only include an explanation of how these people--low income individuals and families, the elderly, the disabled, those who cannot speak English--will be evacuated out of the emergency area and how the states will provide shelter, food, and water, to these people once evacuated.

Communities with special needs may be more challenging to accommodate, but they are every bit as important to protect and serve in the event of an emergency.

What we saw in the Gulf Coast cannot be repeated. We may not be able to control the wrath of Mother Nature, but we can control how we prepare for natural disasters.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.