Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have heard a lot of speeches on the Senate floor about Osama bin Laden, about Iran, Iraq, and the Middle East. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can only talk briefly about this matter, but I think it is important to note I was probably the first Member of Congress--at least to my knowledge and I believe anybody's knowledge--to mention the Clinton administration had better get on top of Osama bin Laden, or he is going to kill Americans. At one particular point in that period of time between that statement and when President Clinton left office, there was one time they could have captured Osama bin Laden, and he would have been turned over to them. They blew it, not realizing how important this matter was.

As a matter of fact, we now know he is behind terrorist activities all over the world, especially in our country and especially in the Middle East. We have had more than ample unclassified information, and person after person, group after group has tried to infiltrate our country to cause terrorist activities within this country, in each case tied back to Osama bin Laden.

We also know he has escaped Afghanistan and with the help of certain friends probably is residing somewhere in northeastern Pakistan but no one really knows. To make a long story short, we do not just have the right to go into northeastern Pakistan and conduct a major warfare search for Osama bin Laden without the permission of the Pakistanis. Everyone knows that. That relationship is a very important relationship.

We also know Osama bin Laden is not just dedicated against the United States of America but against anyone that stands for freedom. Particularly, he is against his own fellow Arabs in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Middle East. It is apparent that many claims are made that some of the terrorism that happens in the Middle East is caused by al-Qaida, inspired by none other than Osama bin Laden. There is also no question that there have been ties to Saddam Hussein.

But be that as it may, anyone who tries to make out the case that we should not be in Iraq is ignoring decades of facts. Anyone who tries to pin the Iraqi matter strictly on whether or not Osama bin Laden had weapons of mass destruction is ignoring an awful lot of matters that indicate that if the United States did not act, it would be only a matter of time until it would be too late to act and there would be many thousands of others killed, networks set up, deterioration throughout the Middle East, which is, as a whole, strictly important to the United States of America, as well as other countries in the world.

I get a little tired of hearing people in the Senate criticizing President Bush for stopping these people for letting it be known throughout the world that we will not put up with acts of terrorism, that we will hit them where it hurts for doing what has been done in Iraq. Anyone with any brains has to realize there are so many facts there you do not even need weapons of mass destruction today to show what we have done there has placed a huge dent in terrorism around the globe and has rocked Osama bin Laden back on his heels. Yes, he is still capable of making an occasional television announcement. He is still capable of acting like he is more important than he is. But the fact is, we have put a big dent in his terrorist operations around the world.

That is not to say we should not stay vigilant, that we should not do everything in our power to make sure that terrorism is fought not just in our land but all around the world. One has to look pretty far to look beyond the terrorist incidents of Saddam Hussein, his sons, and the Baathists in Iraq. All that is important in the Middle East as well as in other parts of the world. I will not take time to go through the fact that 10 years ago, the U.N. even verified he has the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction, was making weapons of mass destruction, used them against his own people, et cetera, et cetera.

It seems strange to me we have to go through this every day, with people lambasting the President, who literally has stood up the way he should stand up, ignoring the fact that many in the country of Iraq are thrilled we are there, bringing peace and stability, decency, honor, freedom, education, health care, infrastructure, and other matters to benefit that nation. Naturally, those who love terrorism, those who love hatred, are not going to like him. Instead of condemning the President for crass political reasons at that, we ought to be thanking him for having the guts to stand up and to take these actions that have long been overdue.

I have a lot more to say, but I let it go at that today. It is demoralizing to me to see a lack of support by some on the other side for what has been necessary for foreign affairs action. It used to be that offshore we supported whoever was President. I guess that was because most of the time the President was a Democrat. I guess it is different when there is a Republican President. All we have had are attempts to undermine everything President Bush is trying to do with probably the best foreign policy team I have seen in my 27 years in the Senate, composed of people who complement each other, who have cross- currents of belief, who basically come behind the President and support what is being done in ways that I don't think any other group of people could have done, certainly not as well as they have done.

Mr. President, I note that Senator Cornyn is here. I ask unanimous consent he be permitted to

speak, and then I be granted the floor thereafter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Breaux be recognized and then I be recognized immediately following his remarks.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. We will certainly look at whatever he has to offer in this matter. We will keep an open mind and see if we can get together.

I rise in strong support of S. 1751, Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. It used to be S. 274, but now it is renumbered to S. 1751. This bill represents a carefully balanced legislative solution in response to the widespread abuse of the class action lawsuits in our State courts. Over the past decade, it has become painfully obvious that class action abuses have reached epidemic proportions. What began as occasional outrageous class action settlements, drawing light humor, has now become a routine occurrence that is just not funny anymore. It has become equally clear that the true victims of this epidemic have been every-day consumers who represent the silent majority of unnamed class members throughout the country.

It has become too common where plaintiff class members are not adequately informed of their rights or the terms and practical implications of a proposed class action settlement. Making matters worse, judges too often approve settlements that primarily benefit class counsel, the attorneys, rather than the class members or the victims. That is turning the law on its head.

In the coming days, we will hear numerous examples of egregious State court settlements, where class members habitually receive little or nothing of value, while their attorneys receive millions of dollars in fees. The cases are numerous, but just too extensive to list.

To put these settlements in perspective, allow me to share a recent class action settlement that one of my own staff members recently actually received in the mail. This settlement notice comes from a State court in Jefferson County, TX. It involves the settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Bridgestone and Firestone tires. This technical legal document informs my staffer--an apparent class member by virtue of owning a set of Firestone tires--of a proposed class action lawsuit settlement that will award the lawyers $19 million in fees and costs. That is not a bad payday for lawyers when compared to what the clients get: a promise from defendants that they will make safer tires and initiate a safety program.

It strikes me these class members are getting a so-called benefit they should be getting, anyway. It seems to me they should try to have safer tires and the benefit of a safety program.

But the laughable settlement terms don't end there. Unlike the unnamed class members who do not stand to gain a single penny, those lucky enough to be named plaintiffs get to walk away with a $2,500 cash bounty. This proposed settlement, which will likely be approved by the State court, represents everything wrong with the class action system today and underscores the importance of reform--$19 million, where no one really gets any benefits except a few they choose to be named plaintiffs, who get $2,500. The attorneys walk off wealthy, happy, fat, and laughing.

The need to reform our class action system is not a new issue to the Senate. The Judiciary Committee conducted hearings in the 105th, 106th, and 107th Congresses, reporting a similar bill out of committee in the 106th Congress on a bipartisan basis. We have received mountains of evidence demonstrating the drastically increasing injustices caused by class action abuses.

After working extensively with numerous legislative proposals throughout the various Congresses, the committee reported a bill--again with bipartisan support--which I believe provides a measured response to the underlying class action problem.

This being said, I would not be surprised to hear somebody deny the existence of any problem at all. Others will try to confuse the issue with dubious claims that proposed reforms would somehow disadvantage victims with legitimate claims or further worsen class action abuses. Others may even contend past legislative reforms have contributed to recent financial debacles and that the proposed reforms will encourage more. Rest assured, Mr. President, such claims are nothing more than red herrings intended to divert the debate from the real issues.

In this regard, let me emphasize a few points regarding this bill. First, this bill doesn't eliminate all State court class action litigation. Class action suits brought in State courts have proven in many contexts to be an effective and desirable tool for protecting consumer interests and rights. Nor do the reforms we will discuss today in any way diminish the rights or practical ability of victims to band together to pursue claims against large corporations. In fact, we have included several consumer protection provisions in our legislation that I believe will substantially improve plaintiffs' chances of achieving a fair result in any settlement proposal.

There are three key components to our legislation. First, the bill implements consumer protections against abusive settlements by:

No. 1, requiring simplified notices that explain to class members the terms of proposed class action settlements and their rights with respect to the proposed settlement in ``plain English.''

No. 2, enhancing judicial scrutiny of the abhorrent coupon settlements.

No. 3, providing a standard for judicial approval of settlements that would result in a net monetary loss to plaintiffs.

No. 4, prohibiting bounties to class representatives.

No. 5, prohibiting settlements that favor class members based upon geographic proximity to the courthouse.

And No. 6, requiring notice of class action settlements be sent to appropriate State and Federal authorities to provide them with sufficient information to determine whether the settlement is in the best interest of the citizens they represent.

Second, the bill corrects a flaw in the current diversity jurisdiction statute that now prevents most interstate class actions from being adjudicated in Federal courts. Specifically, the Class Action Fairness Act amends the diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction statute to allow larger interstate class actions to be adjudicated in Federal court by granting original jurisdiction in class actions where there is ``minimal diversity'' and the aggregate amount in controversy among all class members exceeds $5 million.

The bill balances the State's interest in local disputes by providing that class actions filed in the home State of the primary defendants would remain in State court subject to a triple-tiered formula that looks at the composition of the plaintiffs' class membership. This formula has become known as the Feinstein Compromise.

To enforce the jurisdictional changes, the bill modifies the Federal removal statutes to ensure that qualifying interstate class actions initially brought in State courts may be heard by Federal courts if any of the real parties in interest so desire.

Although some critics have argued this amendment to diversity jurisdiction somehow violates the principles of federalism or is inconsistent with the Constitution, I think their concerns miss wide of their mark. I fully agree with Mr. Walter Dellinger, former Solicitor General, who previously testified at one of our Judiciary Committee hearings that it is ``difficult to understand any objection to the goal of bringing to the Federal court cases of genuine national importance that fall clearly within the jurisdiction conferred on those courts by article III of the Constitution.''

Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to the many individuals who have shared with me the details of their experiences of class action litigation. In particular, I am grateful to those victims of various abuses of the current system who have come forward and told their stories in the hope that something positive might come out of their terrible experiences.

Among those who have come forward is Irene Taylor of Tyler, TX, who was bilked out of approximately $20,000 in a telemarketing scam that defrauded senior citizens out of more than $200 million. In a class action brought in Madison County, IL, a notorious county for these cases, a forum shop county where attorneys forum shop to get these big verdicts and these favorable court rulings, the attorneys purportedly representing Mrs. Taylor negotiated a proposed settlement which will exclude her from any recovery whatsoever.

Martha Preston of Baraboo, WI, provides another excellent example. Ms. Preston was involved in the famous BancBoston case brought in Alabama State court which involved the bank's alleged failure to post interest to mortgage escrow accounts in a prompt manner.

Although Ms. Preston received a settlement of about $4, approximately $95 was deducted from her account to help pay the class action counsel's legal fees of $8.5 million. Notably, Ms. Preston testified before my committee 5 years ago asking us to stop these abusive class action lawsuits, but it appears that at least thus far her plea has not been heard. So I urge my colleagues to support this modest effort to reform the abuses in the current system, abuses that are actually hurting those the system is supposed to help.

Mr. President, I wish to take a minute or two with some charts to show how bad the system is. Under current law, in many State class action lawsuits, all of the money--every stinkin' dime--goes to the attorneys. I am not against attorneys. I am one myself. I think they deserve to be paid reasonable fees, but in these class action suits every bit of the money goes to attorneys.

In the BancBoston case, lawyers got $8.5 million. In the case I just mentioned, some of the plaintiffs had to pay the attorneys additional moneys, getting nothing out of it, but the attorneys got $8.5 million.

I don't know, but that just smells to me a little bit. Maybe I am just too critical, but when the attorneys who represent the clients get $8.5 million and the clients have to again pay the attorneys even more, there is something wrong with that.

Take the second one, the Blockbuster case. The lawyers got $9.25 million. What did the plaintiffs get? One dollar off their next movie. Come on. Doesn't that seem a little disproportionate to you, $9.25 million for attorneys and $1 for the client? Now, true, there are many clients, but it doesn't seem too right to me.

Take the frequent flier case. The lawyers got $25 million. The plaintiffs got a coupon worth $25 to $75. Again, now I understand in that particular case--I may have it mixed up with another case--after getting a huge settlement, they then turned around and sued the plaintiffs for more money.

Take the Coca Cola sweetener case. The lawyers got $1.5 million and the plaintiffs get a 50-cent, a 50-penny coupon. I don't know about you, but that also smells to me. Again, I am not against attorneys getting reasonable fees, but it seems to me these are scams more than anything else. They will say they are correcting societal wrongs, but why then do they get all the money and the plaintiffs who have to put their names on the line get relatively nothing? Talk about class action abuse.

Let's go to that Blockbuster Video case. After being named in 23 class action lawsuits, Blockbuster agreed to provide class members with only $1-off coupons, ``buy one get one free'' coupons, and free Blockbuster favorites video rentals . . . while attorneys are reported to receive around $9.2 million in fees. That is according to the RockyMountainNews.com. It just does not seem right. But that is the way it is.

The class action abuse I mentioned in the BancBoston settlement over disputed accounting practices produced $8.5 million in attorneys fees and actually cost class members around $80 each. Later plaintiffs' attorneys in this case also sued the class members--the individuals who they brought the suit for--they sued them for an additional $25 million. There is something wrong with that. I don't care what anybody says.

Take this one. This is a class action abuse, something this bill would correct. There was a settlement with Cheerios over food additives that produced $2 million in attorneys fees while class members only received coupons for more Cheerios, something they complained about to begin with. I happen to like Cheerios. I have nothing against Cheerios. I eat them. But why would attorneys get $2 million while class members get a coupon for another box of Cheerios? It does not seem right to me.

As my colleagues can see, this is a policy that is being abused, and we are only mentioning a few of the abuses. I have no problems with legitimate, honest class action suits where attorneys are acting in the best interests of their clients. But I do have problems with some of these phony approaches that it seems to me are blatantly wrong on their face, where the attorneys get huge fees and the class members get virtually nothing. That is what is happening in these particular cases.

This bill will correct some of those ills without taking away the right to pursue class actions, and in certain cases they will have to be pursued in Federal court. I remember when I practiced law--that was a long time ago, before I became a Senator--we would die to get into Federal court because everybody knew it was a more important case, that the Federal courts handle more important cases, people thought, and still do think that.

For some reason, these class action lawyers do not want to go to Federal courts. Now, why is that? Because they can forum shop into Madison County, IL, where they get judges and jurors to hammer the defendants with outrageous verdicts that benefit basically only the attorneys. Now, that is wrong.

There are at least five States in this Nation where they forum shop class action cases. Grisham wrote a book about this. He is a great storyteller, but I can almost name every fictionalized attorney in that book.

Some of them are great lawyers. Some of them are leaders in bringing litigation to correct societal wrongs. Some of them deserve credit for doing that. But this is a system that is out of control. This bill will help to straighten it out, and I think resuscitate the respect for my profession because attorneys who bring these actions will have to do so pursuant to fairness and rules that make sense rather than forum shop to areas where they can get big verdicts and big legal fees but do injustice.

Now I will speak about ``Let's Play Class Action Monopoly.'' Go. Come up with an idea for a lawsuit, it states on the top of the board. Find a plaintiff to pay off, or a set of plaintiffs. Make allegations. You do not need any proof to make allegations. Get out of rule 23 free. So you get out of the rule. Convince your magnet State court judge to certify the class, which is also another scam in some of these jurisdictions where the judges do not seem to appreciate the law or abide by the law.

File copycat lawsuits in State courts all over the country. Sue as many companies in as many States as possible even if they have no connection to the State.

It states in the bottom right: Who gets the money? Go left on the bottom. Columbia House case, $5 million for lawyers, discount coupons for plaintiffs; Blockbuster case, $9.25 million for lawyers, free movie coupons for plaintiffs, and not too many of them; BancBoston case, $8.5 million for lawyers. Some plaintiffs pay more fees rather than get anything out of it.

So in the bottom left, what happens to me? Your employer takes a hit, maybe lays you off. Next one, your health and car insurance premiums go up. The lawyers win. You lose.

I have tried cases on both sides of the table. I started out as a defense lawyer, and I defended these types of cases. Then in the latter years of my practice, I became primarily a plaintiff's lawyer where I brought cases for and on behalf of individuals who were injured. I brought cases for injured people and got them big verdicts they deserved. They walked away with the bulk of the money, which is only right. Yes, they were happy to pay my fees because they always came out well.

In some of these cases, this is a scam. Now, there are legitimate class action cases, but there are many of them out there today that are not. It is a disgrace to our profession. This bill will clarify and straighten out some of the wrongs that are going on. It is high time we do this. The only reason we might not do it is because there is a filibuster on the motion to proceed. Normally, we never have a filibuster on a motion to proceed. Normally, we just go to the bill, and then if somebody wants to filibuster, they filibuster the bill, especially if they have the votes. Why not?

But a filibuster is happening even on the motion to proceed. Why is that? Why a filibuster to begin with, on something that really makes sense? Because there are trial lawyers in this country who pay big premiums. That is why they make a lot of this money, so they can pay big premium dollars to politicians who will vote for them no matter what the rules are.

I want to make it clear, not all class action lawyers are bad. Some of them do what is right, and they are not afraid to go to Federal court. They know they can get their big verdicts in Federal courts as well because they have cases where they should get verdicts. When we have these forum shop cases, something is wrong.

Why is it that we have to have a filibuster on the motion to proceed, or require a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to a bill? Why do they not just let us bring the bill up, and then if they want to filibuster, filibuster the bill? Because we are at the end of a session where every minute counts, every second counts, every hour counts, every day counts. By delaying, those who do not want this bill can help their trial lawyer friends who are very involved in the political process because they have millions of dollars that, in many cases, they do not deserve; that they can give for political purposes to keep these types of injustices going. That is why this bill is important. That is why there is a huge bipartisan vote for this bill.

The question is: Can we get 60 votes? I personally believe we can. I believe it would be a disgrace for this body to not overwhelmingly vote for this bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It has been well thought out. We have worked hard to accommodate various members on both sides of the aisle. I think it will redeem our profession from those fly-by-nights who are just in it for the money, without regard to helping their real clients.

I would like to see that happen because the law profession is a great profession, but in recent years it has been steadily eroded by people who are not doing what is right in the profession. These are just some egregious cases that are all too often happening because some lawyers do not do what is right.

I am for the good lawyers. But I am against those who are just in it for the money and not really helping their clients. This bill will not stop them from bringing litigation, but it will even up the situation so at least there will not be the same amount of forum shopping, and better, more honest judges will be deciding these cases along with better and more honest juries.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Margaret Catharine Rodgers, who has been confirmed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Judge Rodgers has had an impressive legal career. After graduating magna cum laude from California Western School of Law, she clerked for Judge Lacey Collier on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. She then entered private practice with the Pensacola law firm of Clark, Partington & Hart as an associate. After 4 years, she went to work for the West Florida Medical Center Clinic as its general counsel and director of human resources. She then returned to private practice, where her areas of expertise focused on medical liability and employment law. Last year she was appointed as a Federal magistrate judge in the Northern District of Florida, which reflects the high regard in which the judges of that court hold her.

I am confident that Judge Rodgers will continue to serve with compassion, integrity, and fairness as a Federal district court judge.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Monday, October 20, 2003, from 1:30 p.m.-4 p.m., in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following staffers be granted privilege of the floor during the pendency of the class action fairness debate: Rebecca Seidel, Harold Kim, Ryan Triplette, Jay Greissing from Senator Hatch's staff; and Rita Lari and Matt Reed from Senator Grassley's staff.

Mr. President, I have been carefully listening to this debate for weeks, and I have tried to keep an open mind to the opposition's arguments--insofar as those arguments have been substantive.

I have been dismayed by the deliberate manipulation of statements and arguments that have been made by members of the other party, such as:

Denunciations of the President over the fact that weapons of mass destruction have not been discovered to date, despite the fact that reports issued as late as last week indicate the fact that reports issued as late as last week indicate that Saddam had clandestine plans and activities for systems proscribed by the international community under international law. False assertions that the President claimed an imminent threat on the eve of this decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, when in fact the President stated in his State of the Union:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is

imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced

their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they

strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly

emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would

come to late.

Some of this rhetoric, we must, regrettably, accept as the level of debate that now occurs. But nothing offends me more than suggestions that members of this administration, particularly my dear friend, the Vice President, have venal motivations attached to the policy decisions they support.

Dick Cheney is an older friend of mine. He has sacrificed for his country most of his life. He does so today. When the chairman of the Appropriations Committee responds to the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey by calling it a slur, I have to agree. Dick Cheney has not benefitted from this war, and I find it a profound calumniation that anyone would imply that.

I ask my colleagues that we return to a dignified level of debate, where we try to advance, improve on the grave issues of war and peace before us.

I beg my colleagues that we desist from the politics of imputing venality on those who are serving the public trust.

Mr. President, I stand today in support of the President's supplemental appropriations request. This request primarily funds ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it also provides reconstruction assistance to both of those countries, so that fundamental economic and civic infrastructure can be rebuilt. We must all recognize that providing for the initial reconstruction of the infrastructure is a practical requirement for us to succeed in the establishing the stability necessary--in both of those countries-- before we can begin to withdraw our military forces.

I have not heard anyone here speak of a military failure in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but I have heard a great deal of speculation that we are failing to win the peace. It is not accurate to make this assertion. But I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the chances of winning a sustainable peace are directly related to the support we give this request before us.

We cannot support our troops, our mission, and our goal of a peaceful and stable Iraq without providing the funding necessary to achieve these goals, and providing that funding now.

For this reason, I would think--I would hope--that this request would receive unanimous support from my colleagues. I regret to see that this will not be the case. As best as I can understand, this is because many of my colleagues in the other party have declared the President's policy a failure. We have won the war, we seem to agree, but the peace is being lost.

As I review the many reports I receive on the situation in Iraq, I do not think we can declare that the peace is being lost. Yet I do not think we can rest assured that security has been achieved.

The President has a plan, and every Member in this body has had a chance to review the plan. I have heard the declarations of failure, but I have heard no alternatives to the detailed plan that the President has provided us. What do our opponents propose to do instead? The President's critics are silent here.

It is both unfair and unrealistic to take the reports of bombings and deaths coming out of Iraq and declare that our plan has failed. The President never said that it would be easy. Nobody in this body had reason to believe that it would be.

The President and our military had a brilliant battle plan. And we had the best post-conflict plans available, considering the dearth of analysis we had from inside this Arab Stalinist state. Would I have been pleased to have had more political intelligence on what was going on inside Iraq? Would I have been pleased to have a better assessment of the level of decay of Iraq's economic infrastructure? Of course. There is not a military planner in the history of mankind that has not, in retrospect, wished for better intelligence prior to a conflict. We always wish we had better intelligence.

But those questions should not be the basis for criticizing an ongoing policy. We are in Iraq. We must, as our critics agree, win the peace. And we do not have time to waste.

Some of the opponents of the President have criticized him for altering his policy during this occupation, as if altering a policy based on changing circumstances--or simply as a result of a better understanding of a fluid environment--should be seen as an admission of failure. I ask anyone here: What great undertaking occurs without changes in plan? Is it a sign of failure to shape your plans according to new discoveries, changes in the situation, and a shifting context? Of course, the answer is no.

Today, fewer than 6 months after the conclusion of major military operations in Iraq, the security situation is still dangerous. We are losing precious American lives every week, and we are suffering injuries every day. I see no good reason to downplay this grim reality, in this debate or anywhere else.

But the situation is far from dire: Iraqis, by almost all measure, are thankful for their liberation from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Few, very few, declare their wish to return to his dungeon state.

Instead, as we have heard from administration sources in the past weeks, more than 70,000 Iraqis are presently serving in police, border patrol, facilities protection and civil defense positions. Fewer than 6 months after the conclusion of the Coalition's major military operations, Iraqis are serving side by side with coalition forces, and they have already conducted thousands of joint patrols with our forces.

Their enemies are our enemies: The criminal Saddamite resistance and the international jihadists, the terrorist brethren of Osama bin Laden.

No one can argue that Iraq has currently become calling ground for terrorists. That presents us with a great

challenge, and an immediate security threat. We knew this was a possibility before we invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein had long associated with almost all of the known terror organizations through the last decades, including, beginning in the 1990s, with Osama bin Laden and his associates.

I, for one, was not surprised when bin Laden called his followers to Iraq prior to our invasion. I was not surprised for a number of reasons, beginning with the reports we read through the years about bin Laden's associations with Saddam's Iraq.

But another reason I have not been surprised to see al-Qaida join the Saddamite resistance is that I have never believed al-Qaida is about ideology, religious or otherwise. I believe bin Laden seeks power, and he has hijacked his religion for his attempts to gain power. Bin Laden's use of religion as ideological appeal is as sincere as Saddam's use of Arab socialism, in the guise of Ba'athism. Both are about gaining and holding dictatorial power--for personal ends. And the joining of forces of bin Laden's terrorists and Saddam's thugs proves this point.

The tools of the Saddamite resistance are the tools of gangsters: car bombs and assassinations. Some of these recent horrific bombings have been committed by suicide terrorists, which, we know, is not a common gangster tactic. But in my years of studying international crime and terrorism, I have concluded this: You cannot remain an ideologue-- religious or secular--while behaving like and coordinating with criminals.

Saddam's reign was a criminal dictatorship. There was no ideology but the one that made Saddam more powerful, that enriched his clan and cronies, that crushed all of his real or perceived opponents. When his sons, Uday and Qusay, were cornered and killed, they were not part of a well-organized resistance, protected by a dedicated network of ideologically motivated supporters. They were alone, and they were cornered and killed, like common gangsters, because an Iraqi dropped a dime on them.

By joining with the Saddamites, bin Laden and his fellow jihadists have exposed themselves to be gangsters. They are demonstrating this to all who wish to see: To the masses in the Middle East who bin Laden has tried to convert, they can now see him hand-in-hand with the corrupt butchers and jailors of Saddam's Tikriti clique, who the Iraqi people have roundly rejected and now publicly detest. Bin Laden and his supporters can now be seen allying with those who deny the Iraqis freedom.

Yes, the situation in Iraq is dangerous now, for the short term. But the defeat of the Saddamite-led resistance--which we will accomplish, and which we will accomplish with the active support of the Iraqi people--will provide a great victory in the war on terrorism, will bring peace to Iraq, will advance peace and stability in the region and will enhance the national security of this country.

Some of the Iraqi voices calling for our departure are not anti- American. Some Iraqis fear that we will overstay, that we will not move fast enough in transferring power and political legitimacy to the Iraqi people. I believe Ambassador Bremer's seven-point plan to move toward full sovereignty is sound and sensible. I am watching with great interest as the Iraqis begin to draft the constitution that will delineate their system of government, with all the protections of the freedoms they have been granted by coalition action and sacrifice.

I wish I could predict the future and declare here how long it will take for us to succeed. We can't give a finite number on costs, nor give a definite date of conclusion. To do so is to fall into one of the most partisan traps in Washington: If we can not say how much it will ultimately cost and we can not say when we will have achieved our goals, we are accused of having no plans; if we do, we will inevitably be wrong and the opposition naysayers will scream ``gotcha.''

Many state that the cost is high. I agree. America's ventures abroad have always been costly, never more so than when we pay in the lives of our men and women. The dollar figures pale in comparison.

I am not happy that we are faced with such a financial requirement today. Certainly many of our constituents are concerned about such a commitment when they worry about the national economy and the economies of their families.

But the budget proposed is not arbitrarily chosen. It is based on providing necessary resources that must be allocated to achieve the goals that the President outlined: to deny terrorists a new sanctuary by creating a secure and stable Iraq, by providing a minimal level of essential services and civic infrastructure which will enhance the stability we need to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

Over the past weeks, since the President first announced his request, the Senate Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Joint Economic Committees have held numerous hearings. We have had reports from the Office of Management and Budget, from the White House, Pentagon, State Department, and Coalition Provisional Authority. Numerous witnesses from the administration have briefed both bodies of Congress.

The President's plan is broken into four parts, or core foundations: security; essential services; economy; and governance. As Ambassador Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, stated, ``These are intertwined: none can be pursued in isolation. Political and economic progress depends, in part, on security, but should itself help to create a safer environment.''

That is how I view the President's request. If we wish to protect our troops, the Iraq people must believe that our forces are there to improve their lives and that cooperation instead of confrontation is the road to a better future. The Iraqis are responding: More and more are working, and thousands are working with us.

To gain intelligence on the location of terrorists in Iraq, the local population must believe that we have their true interests at heart and not the terrorists. These goals cannot be achieved by funding just our military operations. We must assist the Iraqi people in developing an infrastructure that was allowed to fall into disrepair by a greedy tyrant.

During this debate, some have made a valid point in suggesting that Iraq's vast oil resources might be used for reconstruction costs. I have opposed all the amendments that have attempted to convert our grants to loans, however, and I have done so for the following reasons I will now outline.

First, Iraqi oil output while still low, is already being used by the Iraqi people to fund the resumption of their government costs.

Second, Iraq is weighed down by a staggering debt for a small country whose economy has been ravaged by years of Saddam's thievery and neglect. Paying this debt is something that the future Iraqi sovereign will have to negotiate. Certainly no U.S. funds should be used for such repayment. And it is my opinion that the future Iraqi sovereign should not be beholden to the debts incurred by its former torturer, nor the nation states who cynically loaned to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. For the moment, however, incurring further debt while attempting to reconstruct a country without a basic economic foundation could seriously stifle necessary economic recovery. Any delay in rebuilding the economy only improves the chances of terrorists of taking root among the local population.

But I have a more basic reason for opposing all attempts to turn our grants into loans. This would be a radical departure in the conduct of American foreign policy. For the first time in our history, we would be occupying a country and forcing them to incur loans. Far more than a meager attempt to preserve financial capital with such misguided proposals, we would be seriously risking our moral capital.

I note to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that, despite the recriminations and accusations, this administration has done its best to work within the context of international law. I believe that we have been successful in respecting international law, while preserving our sovereign right to defend our national interests. I commend the administration for its successes here, from debates about preemption which has been hotly disputed but not discredited, under terms of international law to the herculean efforts going on to

this day, as our State Department works to craft resolutions that will build international support for our policies in the Security Council.

I believe that if the United States sets the precedent of occupying a country and then foisting debt upon them, we will have done our standing before the rest of the world long-term harm.

Soon enough, because of their oil resources, because of their human capital, and because of the assistance they will get from us and the rest of the international community, the Iraqi people will begin the process of paying for portions of the reconstruction themselves. This will become increasingly true as their oil infrastructure is repaired.

I believe that President Bush's proposal supports the long-term interests of the United States by addressing the short-term interests of the Iraqi people. By assisting the Iraqi people in developing these four core foundations identified in the President's plan, I believe we are undermining the Saddamite resistance, denying terrorists a sanctuary, and advancing our long-term security.

We have faced this challenge of winning a peace before. We won the First World War, and returned to isolationism while a fragile peace failed to take root in Europe. We won the Second World War, and stayed in Europe, making massive commitments which laid the foundation for winning the peace and the cold war that continued for nearly 50 years.

We must follow through on what we have begun, and we cannot delay. While the sums we are appropriating here are large, the costs of failing to succeed are larger. While the bill may seem big, we have already paid in measure far greater. Today I am thinking of: SSG James W. Cawley, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve; SSG Nino D. Livaudais of the Army's Ranger Regiment; SFC Randall S. Rehn, of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division; SGT Mason Whetstone, of the U.S. Army; and Brett Thorpe--a former Army special forces operator working with the State Department.

I understand if these names may be unfamiliar to others. They are not to me. These are the names of the sons of Utah that died defending us during this these operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They followed through on their commitments. There job is done now. It is our turn to follow through.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, a comprehensive bipartisan bill to increase gang prosecution and prevention efforts.

This legislation, the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003, authorizes approximately $650 million over the next 5 years to support law enforcement and prevention efforts. Of the $650 million, $450 million would be used to support Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts against violent gangs, and $200 million would be used for intervention and prevention programs for at-risk youth. The bill also increases funding for the Federal prosecutors and FBI agents needed to conduct coordinated enforcement efforts against violent gangs.

Additionally, this bill will create new criminal gang prosecution offenses, enhance existing gang and violent crime penalties to deter and punish illegal street gangs, enact violent crime reforms needed to prosecute effectively gang members, and implement a limited reform of the juvenile justice system to facilitate Federal prosecution of 16 and 17-year-old gang members who commit serious violent felonies.

I want to take a moment here and commend my dear friend Senator Feinstein for her long-time commitment to this issue. She has been a leader in California and in the Senate in the war against gangs and gang violence. She and I have worked together for many years on this important issue, and I look forward to our joint effort to enact meaningful legislation.

The problem of gang violence in America is not a new one, nor is it a problem that is limited to major urban areas. Once thought to be only a problem in our Nation's largest cities, gangs have invaded smaller communities.

The problem of gang violence is of great concern to the citizens of my State. According to the Salt Lake Area Gang Project, a multi- jurisdictional task force created in 1989 to fight gang crime in the Salt Lake area, there are at least 250 identified gangs in our region with over 3,500 members. What is perhaps most troubling, the juvenile gang members in Utah account for over one-third of the total gang membership.

Gangs now resemble organized crime syndicates who readily engage in gun violence, illegal gun trafficking, illegal drug trafficking and other serious crimes. All too often we read in the headlines about gruesome and tragic stories of rival gang members gunned down, innocent bystanders--adults, teenagers and children--caught in the crossfire of gangland shootings, and family members crying out in grief as they lose loved ones to the gang wars plaguing our communities.

Recent studies confirmed that gang violence is an increasing problem in all of our communities. Based on the latest available National Youth Gang Survey, it is now estimated that there are more than 25,000 gangs, and over 750,000 gang members who are active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions across the United States. The most current reports indicate that in 2002 alone, after five years of decline, gang membership has spiked nationwide.

While we are all committed to fighting the global war on terrorism, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we devote sufficient resources to combating this important national problem--the rise in gangs and gang violence in America. I have been--and remain--committed to supporting Federal, State and local task forces as a model for effective gang enforcement strategies. Working together, these task forces have demonstrated that they can make a difference in our communities.

In Salt Lake City, the Metro Gang Multi-Jurisdiction Task Force has for years demonstrated its critical role in fighting gang violence in Salt Lake City. We must act in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that adequate resources are available to all of our communities to expand and fund these critical task force operations to fight gang violence.

I also am mindful of the fact that to be successful in reducing gang violence, we must address not only effective law enforcement strategies, but we must also take steps to protect our youth--so that the next generation does not all into the abyss of gang life, which so often includes gun violence, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes. The young people of our cities need to be steered away from gang involvement. We need to ensure that there are sufficient tools to intervene in the lives of these troubled youth. Federal involvement is crucial to control gang violence and to prevent new gang members from replacing old gang members.

We must take a proactive approach and meet this problem head on if we wish to defeat it. If we really want to reduce gang violence, we must ensure that law enforcement has adequate resources and legal tools and that our communities have the ability to implement proven intervention and prevention strategies, so that gang members who are removed from the community are not simply replaced by the next generation of new gang members.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me and Senator Feinstein in promptly passing this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, a comprehensive bipartisan bill to increase gang prosecution and prevention efforts.

This legislation, the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003, authorizes approximately $650 million over the next 5 years to support law enforcement and prevention efforts. Of the $650 million, $450 million would be used to support Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts against violent gangs, and $200 million would be used for intervention and prevention programs for at-risk youth. The bill also increases funding for the Federal prosecutors and FBI agents needed to conduct coordinated enforcement efforts against violent gangs.

Additionally, this bill will create new criminal gang prosecution offenses, enhance existing gang and violent crime penalties to deter and punish illegal street gangs, enact violent crime reforms needed to prosecute effectively gang members, and implement a limited reform of the juvenile justice system to facilitate Federal prosecution of 16 and 17-year-old gang members who commit serious violent felonies.

I want to take a moment here and commend my dear friend Senator Feinstein for her long-time commitment to this issue. She has been a leader in California and in the Senate in the war against gangs and gang violence. She and I have worked together for many years on this important issue, and I look forward to our joint effort to enact meaningful legislation.

The problem of gang violence in America is not a new one, nor is it a problem that is limited to major urban areas. Once thought to be only a problem in our Nation's largest cities, gangs have invaded smaller communities.

The problem of gang violence is of great concern to the citizens of my State. According to the Salt Lake Area Gang Project, a multi- jurisdictional task force created in 1989 to fight gang crime in the Salt Lake area, there are at least 250 identified gangs in our region with over 3,500 members. What is perhaps most troubling, the juvenile gang members in Utah account for over one-third of the total gang membership.

Gangs now resemble organized crime syndicates who readily engage in gun violence, illegal gun trafficking, illegal drug trafficking and other serious crimes. All too often we read in the headlines about gruesome and tragic stories of rival gang members gunned down, innocent bystanders--adults, teenagers and children--caught in the crossfire of gangland shootings, and family members crying out in grief as they lose loved ones to the gang wars plaguing our communities.

Recent studies confirmed that gang violence is an increasing problem in all of our communities. Based on the latest available National Youth Gang Survey, it is now estimated that there are more than 25,000 gangs, and over 750,000 gang members who are active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions across the United States. The most current reports indicate that in 2002 alone, after five years of decline, gang membership has spiked nationwide.

While we are all committed to fighting the global war on terrorism, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we devote sufficient resources to combating this important national problem--the rise in gangs and gang violence in America. I have been--and remain--committed to supporting Federal, State and local task forces as a model for effective gang enforcement strategies. Working together, these task forces have demonstrated that they can make a difference in our communities.

In Salt Lake City, the Metro Gang Multi-Jurisdiction Task Force has for years demonstrated its critical role in fighting gang violence in Salt Lake City. We must act in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that adequate resources are available to all of our communities to expand and fund these critical task force operations to fight gang violence.

I also am mindful of the fact that to be successful in reducing gang violence, we must address not only effective law enforcement strategies, but we must also take steps to protect our youth--so that the next generation does not all into the abyss of gang life, which so often includes gun violence, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes. The young people of our cities need to be steered away from gang involvement. We need to ensure that there are sufficient tools to intervene in the lives of these troubled youth. Federal involvement is crucial to control gang violence and to prevent new gang members from replacing old gang members.

We must take a proactive approach and meet this problem head on if we wish to defeat it. If we really want to reduce gang violence, we must ensure that law enforcement has adequate resources and legal tools and that our communities have the ability to implement proven intervention and prevention strategies, so that gang members who are removed from the community are not simply replaced by the next generation of new gang members.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me and Senator Feinstein in promptly passing this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the ``Cord Blood Stem Cell Act'' of 2003. I am particularly gratified that Senators Brownback, Specter, and Dodd have joined me as cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. The purpose of the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act is to create a network of qualified cord blood banking centers to prepare, store, and distribute human umbilical cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and to support research using such cells.

As my colleagues are aware, thousands of Americans receive and are saved by bone marrow transplants each year. But, thousands more die for lack of an appropriate donor. The good news is that for several years, experts from a few centers have collected and preserved the blood and stem cells from human placenta and umbilical cords. These cells can provide an alternative to bone marrow transplantation. For some patients, particularly those for whom a bone marrow match cannot be found, transplantation of these cells can be a life-saving therapy.

In some cases cord blood stem cell transplants provide an advantage relative to bone marrow transplants because they reduce risk to the donor, they are readily available, and they lower the risk of transplant complications. Cord blood stem cells also increase the success of transplantation from donors to recipients who are not fully matched, thus decreasing the difficulty of finding a fully matched donor.

Cord blood transplantation has been used successfully to treat leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and several metabolic diseases. However, despite initial successes, not enough cord blood exists currently to meet the need. Currently, the number of cord blood stem cell units in the United States is insufficient to meet the need.

The bipartisan Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2003 proposes to establish an inventory of 150,000 cord blood stem cell units that reflects the diversity of the United States and will enable at least 90 percent of Americans to receive an appropriately matched cord blood stem cell transplant. The inventory would provide a critical resource for those in need of transplants and allocate a certain proportion of units to sustain further research on cord blood stem cells.

The National Cord Blood Stem Cell Network, administered by the Secretary of Health and Human services and a Board of Directors appointed by the Secretary, would be a system of qualified donor banks which will acquire, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells, educate and recruit donors, and make such cells available to transplant centers for stem cell transplantation. The Network would establish a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Registry, which would acquire and distribute donated units of cord blood, provide health care professionals with the ability to search the entire registry for a suitable donor match for patients and maintain a database to document the activities of the Network.

I ask unanimous consent that a brief section-by-section analysis of the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the ``Cord Blood Stem Cell Act'' of 2003. I am particularly gratified that Senators Brownback, Specter, and Dodd have joined me as cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. The purpose of the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act is to create a network of qualified cord blood banking centers to prepare, store, and distribute human umbilical cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and to support research using such cells.

As my colleagues are aware, thousands of Americans receive and are saved by bone marrow transplants each year. But, thousands more die for lack of an appropriate donor. The good news is that for several years, experts from a few centers have collected and preserved the blood and stem cells from human placenta and umbilical cords. These cells can provide an alternative to bone marrow transplantation. For some patients, particularly those for whom a bone marrow match cannot be found, transplantation of these cells can be a life-saving therapy.

In some cases cord blood stem cell transplants provide an advantage relative to bone marrow transplants because they reduce risk to the donor, they are readily available, and they lower the risk of transplant complications. Cord blood stem cells also increase the success of transplantation from donors to recipients who are not fully matched, thus decreasing the difficulty of finding a fully matched donor.

Cord blood transplantation has been used successfully to treat leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and several metabolic diseases. However, despite initial successes, not enough cord blood exists currently to meet the need. Currently, the number of cord blood stem cell units in the United States is insufficient to meet the need.

The bipartisan Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2003 proposes to establish an inventory of 150,000 cord blood stem cell units that reflects the diversity of the United States and will enable at least 90 percent of Americans to receive an appropriately matched cord blood stem cell transplant. The inventory would provide a critical resource for those in need of transplants and allocate a certain proportion of units to sustain further research on cord blood stem cells.

The National Cord Blood Stem Cell Network, administered by the Secretary of Health and Human services and a Board of Directors appointed by the Secretary, would be a system of qualified donor banks which will acquire, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells, educate and recruit donors, and make such cells available to transplant centers for stem cell transplantation. The Network would establish a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Registry, which would acquire and distribute donated units of cord blood, provide health care professionals with the ability to search the entire registry for a suitable donor match for patients and maintain a database to document the activities of the Network.

I ask unanimous consent that a brief section-by-section analysis of the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, William Q. Hayes is certainly qualified to be a Federal district court judge for the Southern District of California. I recommend to all our colleagues they support him. I believe everybody will be pleased with the service he will give.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of William Q. Hayes, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Mr. Hayes received both his J.D. and M.B.A. from Syracuse University in 1983. Following his graduation, he spent a year in private practice until 1987, at which time he went to work for the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California. He was eventually elevated to chief of the criminal division of that office in recognition of his exceptional legal abilities. Despite the demands of his career in public service, he has nevertheless found the time to teach at both the undergraduate and law school levels.

Mr. Hayes is an exceptional nominee who will be a fine addition to the Federal bench, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of John Houston, who has been confirmed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Judge Houston, a graduate of the University of Miami School of Law, has used his outstanding legal skills in public service. He first served in the United States Army Judge Advocate General Corps and then in various positions at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California before his appointment in 1998 as a Federal magistrate judge, the position in which he currently serves.

Judge Houston has won many accolades for his legal skills, including awards from the National Association of Black Customs Enforcement Officers and from the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force for Outstanding Contributions. He was also presented with the Director's Award for Superior Performance in Asset Forfeiture by then-Attorney General Janet Reno.

In addition to his judicial responsibilities, Judge Houston finds time to participate in community programs that assist children in meeting educational and economic challenges. He has, for example, opened his courtroom to public school students to give them hands-on lessons in the judicial process. And he has served as a mentor to young African-American men who have excelled in high school to prepare them for college and beyond.

I applaud President Bush for his nomination of Judge Houston and am confident that he will serve on the bench with compassion, integrity and fairness.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Robert Clive Jones, who has been confirmed to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before I go any further, I must tell you that Judge Jones is a fellow Cougar--a graduate of my alma mater, Brigham Young University. He then attended UCLA School of Law, where he graduated in the top 10 percent of his

class--a member of the Order of the Coif--and where he had been an associate editor of the UCLA Law Review.

Following his graduation from law school, Judge Jones clerked for the Ninth Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace. He then entered into private practice with the Las Vegas law firm of Albright and McGimsy, as an associate, specializing in tax law, real property, bankruptcy, and commercial law. He then worked at the law firm of Jones & Holt, where he was a partner.

In 1983, Judge Jones was appointed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, where he currently serves. He simultaneously served as a member of a three-judge panel for the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit from 1986 until 1999.

In addition to his judicial responsibilities, Judge Jones participates in the promotion of State bar pro bono bankruptcy services, which include educating the public on bankruptcy law. He also finds time to volunteer his services to such charitable organizations as the American Cancer Society and Opportunity Village, a group that assists the mentally disabled.

I applaud President Bush for his nomination of Judge Jones and am confident he will continue to be an asset on the Federal bench.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Phillip Figa, who has been confirmed to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Mr. Figa graduated from Cornell Law School in 1976. He then entered private practice with Sherman & Howard, where he primarily worked on commercial litigation, general business matters and municipal bond work.

In 1980, Mr. Figa became a partner at Burns & Figa, P.C. The firm maintained a boutique litigation practice emphasizing complex commercial litigation, especially antitrust, contract, real estate and other business-related disputes. Mr. Figa's practice also included representing lawyers and law firms in a variety of malpractice, ethics, attorney fee and disciplinary contexts. Since 1991, Mr. Figa has broadened his practice areas to include environmental litigation, trademark, oil and gas, health care and employment litigation. Mr. Figa has also served as an expert witness in the areas of legal ethics, standard of care of lawyers, conflicts of interest, malpractice and attorneys fees.

Mr. Figa enjoys the strong support of his home state senators, and I am pleased to join them in support of his nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive bipartisan bill which will ensure the full use and availability of DNA technology in our criminal justice system. This bill, which enacts the President's DNA technology initiative, announced by Attorney General Ashcroft on March 11, 2003, will provide over $1 billion in funding and assistance over the next 5 years to the criminal justice system in order to realize the full potential of DNA technology to solve crimes, protect the public and exonerate the innocent.

The legislation I am introducing today represents a bipartisan compromise which was reached through extensive negotiations among Senators on the Judiciary Committee and members from the House Committee on the Judiciary. I want to first commend my counterpart, Chairman Sensenbrenner, for his steady leadership on this issue and his commitment to reaching an agreement, and note the commitment and dedication of Representatives Conyers, Coble, LaHood, and Delahunt to this important initiative.

I also want to commend my colleagues here in the Senate: Senators Biden, Specter, Leahy, DeWine, and Feinstein--who each have a long- standing commitment to issues included in this comprehensive DNA bill. We have worked together on DNA issues for many years, and thanks to each of their efforts we now are in the position to enact bipartisan legislation that enhances the use of DNA technology in our criminal justice system. I want to express my personal thanks to all of them for their leadership and contributions to this important piece of legislation.

Also, I want to highlight specifically the accomplishment today of the ranking member of our Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. For several years, Senator Leahy has dedicated himself to the issue of DNA technology and ensuring that such technology is used to protect the integrity of our criminal justice system by exonerating the innocent while punishing the guilty. He has worked tirelessly in this area as the sponsor of the Innocence Protection Act. While we both shared a common goal of protecting the integrity of our criminal justice system, we differed on the means to accomplish that end.

Today, I am proud to support the compromise proposal we have negotiated, and join together with my friend, Senator Leahy, to introduce the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 as part of this legislative package. I want to specifically congratulate Senator Leahy for his accomplishment and for his dedication to this important issue.

It is perhaps fitting that 50 years after the discovery of DNA by Dr. James Watson in 1953, we are now proposing to enact the most far- reaching and comprehensive expansion of DNA technology to promote public safety, to bring to justice violent criminals who can be identified through DNA technology, and to ensure the accuracy of our criminal justice system.

Let me take a moment to highlight the important provisions of this bill.

The bill enacts the President's comprehensive DNA initiative, ``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology,'' and will authorize funding of $755 million for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program in order to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in our Nation's crime labs. It is critical that such funding be appropriated to ensure that unanalyzed evidence from violent crime scenes, such as rape and murder, are compared against known DNA samples to solve these terrible crimes and apprehend the perpetrators.

As many of you know, Debbie Smith is the courageous survivor of a horrific sexual assault, and has become a leading spokesperson for women and crime victims across the country. Debbie Smith waited 6 years before Norman Jimmerson, a current inmate in a Virginia prison, was identified as her attacker through DNA. Debbie testified against Jimmerson, who is now serving two life sentences plus 25 years with no chance of parole.

Debbie Smith has dedicated herself to the elimination of the backlog in the processing of DNA evidence and samples. By eliminating the substantial backlog of DNA samples for the most serious violent offenses, we can solve more crimes, protect the public and apprehend more violent criminals. The National Institute of Justice estimates that the current backlog of rape and homicide cases is at least 350,000 cases. NIJ also estimates that there are between 300,000 and 500,000 collected, but untested convicted offender samples. In addition, the Justice Department estimates that there are between 500,000 and 1,000,000 convicted offender samples which have not yet been collected as required by law.

The President has directed the Justice Department to eliminate these backlogs completely within 5 years, and I am committed to doing everything in my power to make that a reality to ensure that the evidence is analyzed, the crimes solved and the criminals punished to the fullest extent of the law.

The proposed legislation also will solve more crimes by expanding State and local crime lab capacity to test DNA. Crime laboratories face increasing workloads and increased DNA analysis demands. Only 10 percent of public crime labs have automated facilities needed to process DNA testing, and help is needed in this area. We must expand the capacity of these laboratories to meet current demand and build for future needs. That is what the bill will do.

The bill also will increase research and development of new technologies to test DNA; provides training of criminal justice professionals to enhance collection and understanding of DNA evidence; and expands existing programs to train medical personnel who typically are the first to have contact with sexual assault victims so that they can collect and preserve critical biological evidence for DNA testing and comparison purposes.

Some have suggested that focusing exclusively on DNA technology ignores the significant need for funding and assistance to State and local crime labs for non-DNA forensic analyses. The proposed bill expands the Paul Coverdell Grant Program to provide assistance to the States to eliminate non-DNA forensic evidence backlogs. I recognize that forensic examination of ballistics evidence, fingerprints, suspected illegal drugs, and other evidence is critical to our criminal justice system. I am committed to addressing these needs as well in order to protect the public.

The legislation will not only speed the apprehension and prosecution of the guilty, but will protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution. DNA technology allows us to exclude innocent people as suspects early in an investigation, and allows law enforcement to focus on finding the true perpetrator.

The Innocence Protection Act of 2003, developed under the leadership of Senator Leahy, which is included as Title III of this bill, creates a federal post-conviction DNA testing scheme which authorizes DNA testing and relief for a convicted defendant, where the defendant claims he is ``actually innocent'' of the crime, and demonstrates that such testing shows that they did not commit the crime. DNA testing will not be permitted where such a test would only muddy the waters and be used by the defendant to fuel a new and frivolous series of appeals. Under the Act, DNA testing in capital cases will be prioritized and conducted on a ``fast track,'' so that these important cases are handled quickly.

In order to discourage a flood of baseless claims, the act authorizes the prosecution of defendants who make false claims of innocence in support of a DNA testing request. Each defendant will be required to assert under penalty of perjury that they are, in fact, innocent of the crime. When DNA testing reveals that the defendant's claim of innocence was actually false, the defendant can then be prosecuted and, if convicted, will be subject to a consecutive term of imprisonment of 3 years. Further, the act allows DNA test results to be entered into the CODIS database and compared against unsolved crimes. If the test result shows that the defendant committed another crime, the defendant may then be prosecuted for the other crime.

With respect to the States, the act encourages States to create similar DNA testing procedures, and provides funding assistance to those States that have existing DNA testing programs or that implement such DNA testing programs after enactment of this act. In honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, a death row inmate, who was eventually freed through post- conviction DNA testing, the bill creates and names a grant program after Mr. Bloodsworth to help the States conduct appropriate post- conviction DNA testing. With the new source of funding, more States will enact DNA testing programs, and will provide such testing on an expedited basis.

While DNA testing is now standard in pretrial criminal investigations today, the integrity of our criminal justice system and in particular, our death penalty system, can be enhanced with the appropriate use of DNA testing. No one disagrees with the fact that post-conviction DNA testing should be made available to defendants when it serves the ends of justice. I am convinced that the proposed legislation does so fairly and effectively with proper regard for the rights of the defendant and the interests of victims and their families.

Finally, Title III of the bill creates a new grant program to improve the performance of counsel--prosecutors and defense counsel--handling State capital cases. The issue of the death penalty in our country continues to spark significant debate. The recent Supreme Court decisions addressing capital punishment underscore the importance of this issue to the American people. It is an issue that engenders great passion, both among its supporters and among its opponents. A large majority of the American people believe in the death penalty, especially for terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans. And all of us agree that the death penalty must be imposed fairly and accurately.

I have stated on numerous occasions my views on the death penalty. It is the ultimate punishment and it should be reserved only for those defendants who commit the most heinous of crimes. I am firmly convinced that we must be vigilant in ensuring that capital punishment is meted out fairly against those truly guilty criminals. We cannot and should not tolerate defects in the capital punishment system. No one can disagree with this ultimate and solemn responsibility.

I have disagreed with others on the committee as to the state of our Nation's capital punishment system, the quality of representation in State capital cases, and whether such sentences are meted out fairly. I am proud, however, to support this proposal where we can all agree--we can improve the performance of counsel on both sides by awarding grants to States. These funds will be equally divided between prosecutors and defense counsel, and are designed to reduce to the maximum extent possible the occurrence of error in the conduct of capital trials in our States. We all agree that reducing trial error is a laudable goal. By doing so, we enhance the fairness of our capital punishment system.

Every defendant in our criminal justice system is afforded the guarantee by the sixth amendment of our Constitution of competent and effective counsel. The Supreme Court has enforced this right in numerous decisions in order to ensure that all defendants are afforded the constitutional protections guaranteed to them.

At the same time, the public is entitled to quality representation by prosecutors who handle capital cases. Training and monitoring the performance of prosecutors who handle these important cases will ensure that States and the public are fully and effectively served in the trial of capital cases.

Contrary to the view of some, I do not believe that our capital punishment is broken. However, I do believe that our justice system can always be improved. The grants proposed under the act will enable states to improve the performance of prosecutors and defense counsel to ensure that capital cases are handled more efficiently and effectively, and that every capital defendant will receive a fair trial under our justice system.

DNA technology has the power to convict the guilty and protect the innocent and will move our criminal justice system into a new era that is both fair and efficient. The President's DNA initiative is a forward-looking measure, which will improve significant aspects of federal, state and local criminal justice systems. We are poised to enter that new era. With this comprehensive proposal, we will ensure the use of DNA technology and protect the public safety.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me in promptly passing this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section-by-section analysis.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield for a question?

Mr. President, it is my understanding that this legislation makes certain of its grants contingent on States providing a process for post-conviction testing available. For those States that already have enacted a statute providing such testing, that statute must ensure a meaningful process for resolving a claim of actual innocence. As I understand it, almost all of the State statutes already in existence, including those of Ohio, Utah, Delaware and Pennsylvania, would pass

muster and would qualify for the grants at issue. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Delaware?

Would the Senator yield?

I would just like to make clear that the understanding of the Senator from Delaware comports completely with mine.

And mine as well.