Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of Marcia Crone, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Judge Crone received a bachelor of arts degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Texas at Austin, graduating with a 4.0 grade point average and as valedictorian in 1973. She then graduated first in her class from the University of Houston Law Center in 1978, receiving a juris doctor degree, summa cum laude. After graduating from law school, she entered private practice, first as an associate and later as a partner at the law firm of Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P. During her years in private practice Judge Crone represented both individuals and corporations, litigating primarily in the areas of labor law, employment law, products liability, and commercial litigation.

Judge Crone was appointed in 1992 as a Federal magistrate judge in the Southern District of Texas. She has presided over numerous trials in civil cases involving a wide range of issues, including securities fraud, employment discrimination, intellectual property rights, personal injury claims, contract disputes, admiralty, civil rights, insurance matters, social security appeals, and prisoner litigation. In her more than 10 years on the Federal bench, Judge Crone has authored approximately 700 opinions.

Judge Crone devotes substantial amounts of time to programs mentoring students from the three local law schools, giving them the opportunity to serve as interns in her chambers, judging mock trial and moot court competitions, and participating annually in the American Bar Association's Minority Judicial Externship Program. She previously served on the board of directors of the southeast Texas Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and has performed volunteer work for a local adoption agency.

I have no doubt that Judge Crone's elevation to the district court will greatly benefit the Eastern District of Texas. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my unqualified support for the nomination of Ronald White to the Eastern District of Oklahoma and to urge my colleagues to confirm this fine nominee.

Mr. White is a distinguished litigator. After graduating from the University of Oklahoma law school in 1986, Mr. White joined the law firm of Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson in Tulsa. His practice has focused on litigation in the areas of tort and insurance defense, medical malpractice, corporate litigation, ERISA, and telecommunications. Mr. White is a well respected legal practitioner in his home State and he will make a fine addition to the Federal bench.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be considered as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to respond to some of the comments that I have heard concerning the CIA's request that the Department of Justice look into the leak of the name of one of its employees. My friends on the other side claim that a special counsel should be appointed and that the Department should recuse itself from the investigation.

Quite simply, the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency to look into this matter. The CIA notifies the Department approximately 50 times per year to investigate complaints about the leak of classified information. The Department has career professionals that address matters like these. This professionalism and experience is needed in instances like these to ensure that the investigation is done in a competent and complete manner.

Some of my colleagues believe that a special counsel is needed because there has been a ``clear violation of the law.'' I respectfully disagree. While I agree that this matter is a significant one and needs to be promptly examined, it is premature to conclude that the Protection of Identities of Certain United States Undercover Intelligence Officers, Agents, Informants, and Sources statute has been violated based merely upon media reports. In fact, there is reason to believe that no violation of this statute has occurred. The intelligence statute prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a convert agent whose identity and relationship to the United States the Government has affirmatively sought to conceal or that the defendant disclosed the name of a covert agent with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States. Robert Novak, the reporter who wrote the story, has since stated: ``Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this.'' He also stated that, ``According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson is an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives.'' If that is true, there is no violation of this statute.

I would further urge those whose knee-jerk reaction is to call for a special counsel to step back for a moment. Political opponents of the President have charge that Karl Rove leaked this information. When pressed for specific evidence about Mr. Rove's involvement, they are at a complete loss. In fact, it is my understanding that former Ambassador Wilson, who has also charged that Karl Rove leaked this information, recanted when pressed for evidence on Karl Rove's involvement. This kind of speculation is unfounded. Unsubstantiated statements like these should simply not take place on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Since the Independent Counsel Statute expired in 1999, the Justice Department, under former Attorney General Reno, promulgated new regulations when the Attorney General may appoint a special counsel. The regulation allows the appointment of a special counsel when there is a need to investigate a unique case involving high-ranking executive branch officials and/or there is a conflict of interest for the Department.

The regulations allow the attorney general to appoint a special counsel

when he or she determines that a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and (a) that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by the Department would present a conflict of interest, or other extraordinary circumstances exist, and (b) that under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

I have every confidence in Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller's integrity and ability to investigate this matter. The FBI and the Department have career employees with the skill, experience, and honesty to look into this matter. For those who doubt this, I would point out that similar skepticism was raised in the Department's ability to investigate the complaints made against it by those detained following September 11th. My colleagues on the Judiciary Committee know, because I held a hearing on the report, that the Department's Inspector General issued an exacting report on the 9/11 abuses. The report shows that the Department's Inspector General, and career employees within the Department, pulled no punches regarding the treatment of the 9/11 detainees.

This is the nature of career employees within the FBI and the Department of Justice. The continuity of service within our law enforcement community is what makes our criminal justice system the best in the world.

So I recommend to those who are recklessly casting aspersions about the ability of the Department and the FBI to professionally conduct this investigation to take a careful look at the facts.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased that we are considering the nomination of Judge Carlos Bea to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He has had an exemplary legal career in California as a successful attorney and an impartial

jurist, and will serve with honor and distinction on the ninth circuit.

After a distinguished 32-year career in private practice, Judge Bea was appointed and subsequently elected to his current position as a judge on the San Francisco Superior Court in 1990. He was re-elected, without opposition, to the Superior Court bench in 1996 and 2002. In this capacity, he has handled literally thousands of cases and presided over hundreds of trials. In fact, his colleagues and attorneys who practice before him have commented publicly that Judge Bea is at his best when handling complex trials and difficult legal issues.

As with other nominees to the ninth circuit that this committee has considered this year, Judge Bea's colleagues overwhelmingly support his confirmation to the Federal appellate bench. Thirty-seven judges of the San Francisco Superior Court, who serve with Judge Bea and work with him every day, sent a letter to the committee praising his skills as a jurist, and recognizing his service on many of the Superior Court's management committees. He also serves, at the State level, on the California Judicial Council's Advisory Committee on Access and Fairness.

In addition to his Superior Court colleagues, California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and representatives of the San Francisco Bay Area's Hispanic community all wrote to the Judiciary Committee, expressing enthusiastic support for Judge Bea's confirmation to the ninth circuit.

I join them in strong support for Judge Bea's confirmation and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to a wonderful public servant, Rod L. Betit, who is retiring after a long and distinguished career in public health policy and administration for the State of Utah. His leadership and integrity leave the Utah Department of Health with a long legacy of initiative and excellence.

In 1992, Utah Gov. Norman Bangerter appointed Rod as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health making him the longest serving Health Director in the country. This appointment put him in charge of more than 1,300 employees with an annual budget in excess of $1 billion. While serving in this position, Rod established himself early on as an innovator, and someone who was not afraid to try new things. He developed a priority management approach for the Department which significantly improved the Department's ability to make progress in areas such as childhood immunization rates, tobacco control, American Indian health care system issues, youth suicide prevention, and health information systems development.

In addition, Rod has designed and launched a number of innovative health access programs by obtaining special federally-approved waivers. Some of his greatest achievements have included the nation's only comprehensive public mental health system, a managed care program that focuses on moving nursing home residents back into the community; and more recently an initiative that uses a unique 1115 waiver under Medicaid that establishes a Primary Care Program that brings basic health coverage to 25,000 working Utahns whose employers do not offer health care coverage. More than 11,000 adults had enrolled in the first six months of this program. United States Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson had this to say about the new program: ``I am approving this waiver over the objections of my staff because I see great potential for this approach to help reduce the number of working uninsured throughout the country once its success has been demonstrated by Utah.''

Rod's leadership abilities and vision prompted Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt to call on him for additional service in 1995 when he asked him to assume the role of the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services while retaining his position with the Department of Health. This is the only time in Utah history that one person has been appointed to oversee two key agencies in state government. The Department of Human Services was facing some very difficult challenges at that time, and Rod, in true capable and courageous fashion, was able to step in

and make a difference. He solved some key problems and was able to return to running only the Department of Health 2 years later.

Prior to assuming the role of Executive Director in 1992, Rod served as the Utah Director of the Division of Health Care Financing. In this position he was responsible for all facets of the state Medicaid program and the Utah Medical Assistance Program. Rod's experience directing the Alaska Medical Assistance Program for 12 years before coming to Utah had served him well, and established him as a capable leader.

Rod has not only made a name for himself in Utah he is widely respected throughout the Nation. He is frequently called upon to represent the States' perspectives before Federal officials. He is a recognized expert on Medicaid and health care financing, and is widely viewed as an expert on health care reform.

Rod is returning to his native Alaska to become the President and CEO of the Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association. He will also be able to pursue his love of King salmon fishing, and to be near his family. He will be deeply missed throughout Utah for his expertise, commitment and leadership. I want to commend Rod for the exemplary service he has given to the Utah Department of Health, Utah State Government, and to our nation. He is not only a truly great public servant, he is a loving husband and father to his wife, Ellen, and their three children. I wish Rod the very best life has to offer and pray for his continued good health, success, and happiness.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my unqualified support for the nomination of Michael Mosman for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and to urge my colleagues to confirm this fine nominee.

Mr. Mosman has excellent academic and professional qualifications for the federal bench. After graduating magna cum laude from the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University, he clerked first for D.C. Circuit Judge Malcolm Wilkey and then for Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell.

Mr. Mosman also has impressive courtroom experience. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, Mr. Mosman has worked on cases in all four prosecuting units in his office: narcotics, violent crimes, organized crime, and fraud. He has tried about 50 cases, including large multidefendant drug conspiracies, international money laundering, multimillion dollar counterfeiting cases, and multidistrict immigration fraud.

Mr. Mosman also displayed stellar leadership and integrity in the wake of the September 11 tragedy. He deftly guided his office in the apprehension and prosecution of several would-be terrorists, all the while taking steps to ensure that those individuals' civil liberties were not violated.

Mr. Mosman is an exceptional nominee. He merited an ABA rating of unanimously well-qualified, and I fully expect him to serve with distinction on the federal bench in Oregon.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Glen Conrad, who has been confirmed for the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Judge Conrad is no stranger to the Western District or its Federal court: He has served there as a magistrate judge for 27 years. Following his graduation from the Marshall Wythe School of Law at the College of William and Mary in 1974, he clerked for district judge Ted Dalton of the Western District of Virginia--the same court to which Judge Conrad has been nominated. During the time of his clerkship, Judge Conrad also served as Federal probation officer.

Since the end of his clerkship in 1976, to the present day, Judge Conrad has served as Federal magistrate judge in various districts throughout Virginia. During his lengthy tenure on the bench, Judge Conrad has been recommended for reappointment by three separate Merit Selection Committees.

Judge Conrad has illustrated exemplary care and concern for the state of the law in his home district. He has contributed to continuing legal education efforts over the course of his career, helping to produce course materials for young lawyers starting their practice in the Western District of Virginia. He has also served as a member of the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Committee, where he has helped recommend measures to improve the efficiency of the Virginia court system and reduce the costs of civil litigation.

In addition to being a model citizen, Judge Conrad is an extremely qualified

judge. I thank my colleagues for supporting his confirmation.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Henry Floyd, who has been confirmed for the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Judge Floyd has had a stellar legal career on both sides of the bench. He served as a private practice litigator for 19 years before being elevated to the 13th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina in 1992, where he currently sits. He has also served as a 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army and as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives.

During his tenure in private practice, Judge Floyd specialized in civil, criminal, and domestic relations litigation, with a general practice of deeds, wills, and estates, and real estate closings. He represented regulated utilities, including an electric cooperative, municipalities, and the County of Pickens.

Judge Floyd served on the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, which was empowered to deal with complaints against members of the bar in the State and to make certain recommendations for disciplinary conduct.

Since his elevation to the bench, Judge Floyd has also been designated to sit as an Acting Justice on the South Carolina Supreme Court from time to time.

Judge Floyd is an extremely well-qualified nominee. He brings more than 30 years of legal experience to the Federal bench. I am confident that he will be a fine addition to the bench and thank my colleagues for supporting his confirmation.

Madam President, I am pleased today to speak in support of R. David Proctor, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Mr. Proctor graduated with honors from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1986. Following his graduation, he clerked for the Honorable Emory Widener Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Mr. Proctor next entered private practice with the law firm of Sirote & Permutt, first as an associate and then as a partner. He left Sirote in 1993 to become a partner at Lehr, Middlebrooks, Price & Proctor, where he currently practices law. He specializes in labor, employment and civil rights law, representing employers and public sector entities ranging from Fortune 500 companies to small businesses. Furthermore, he has authored numerous articles on employment law. In recent years, Mr. Proctor has augmented his litigation practice with mediation.

I would like to share with my colleagues a letter sent to the committee in support of Mr. Proctor's nomination by Alex Newton, a partner in the Birmingham law firm of Hare, Wynn, Newell and Newton. Mr. Newton is a self-described ``lifelong active Democrat.'' He has known Mr. Proctor since the beginning of his legal career and highly recommends him to the bench. He writes that Mr. Proctor has ``broad experience . . . as an attorney. He is energetic, personable and blessed with absolute integrity. As a judge, I have no doubt he would rule without being influenced by race, creed, wealth or poverty of the litigant before him. He would serve . . . with distinction.''

As this letter attests, Mr. Proctor is an experienced attorney who will be an

asset to the Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Madam President, I rise today to express my unqualified support for the nomination of Sandra Feuerstein to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and to urge my colleagues to confirm this fine nominee.

Justice Feuerstein has excellent academic and professional qualifications for the Federal bench. After her graduation from Cardozo Law School, she joined the clerk pool of the New York Supreme Court Law Department. In 1985, she was chosen to clerk for Justice Leo H. McGinity, an administrative judge in the New York State Supreme Court. In 1987, she joined the bench of the Nassau County District Court. In 1994, Justice Feuerstein became a Justice of the New York State Superior Court, where she would remain for the next five years. Since 1999, she has been a Justice on the New York State Appellate Division-- New York's highest State court.

In addition to her proven bench experience, Justice Feuerstein is a highly recognized public figure. She has lent her extensive talents to the Nassau County Bar, various pro bono programs that she has founded or chaired, and many charitable organizations like the American Cancer Society. In the last decade, Justice Feuerstein has been the recipient of such awards as: Judge of the Year twice, Woman of the Year, Pro Bono Recognition Award, and Outstanding Committee Chairperson of the Year Award, to name a few. Earlier in her career, Justice Feuerstein was both an associated editor and editor of the Nassau Lawyer. In addition to her professional, charitable and publishing duties, she has been an adjunct professor at Hofstra University Law School since 1998.

Justice Feuerstein possesses the qualifications, the capacity, and the temperament a judge needs to serve on the federal bench. I am pleased to support this stellar nominee.

Madam President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Richard J. Holwell, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Holwell is a 1970 cum laude graduate of Columbia Law School. The following year he earned his diploma in criminology from the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology. He then entered private practice with the New York law firm White & Case, first as an associate, then as a partner. Currently, he heads the firm's global litigation practice.

Mr. Holwell has spent most of his professional career litigating complex securities, antitrust, bankruptcy, and other financial market cases before both trial and appellate courts. He has extensive experience in both civil and criminal investigations conducted by the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other Federal agencies.

Mr. Holwell has also been a zealous advocate for the underserved. In 1987, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund awarded him its Pro Bono Award for his successful litigation of Capers v. Long Island Rail Road, a 10-year protracted title VII case in which he fought to protect the rights of black employees. In addition to title VII suits, he has represented indigent clients in landlord-tenant and custody disputes.

Mr. Holwell is an extremely well-qualified nominee. He brings compassion as well as more than 30 years of legal experience to the Federal bench. I am confident that he will be a fine addition to the bench and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his confirmation.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Stephen Robinson to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Robinson has had a diverse and distinguished legal career. After graduating from the prestigious Cornell Law School, he worked for two corporate law firms, concentrating almost exclusively on civil matters. In 1987, he shifted gears and joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he represented the United States primarily in criminal trials.

In 1991, Mr. Robinson joined Kroll Associates, an international risk consulting company, serving as an advisor to the company on legal matters and conducting investigations for governments, corporations and law firms.

From 1993 to 1995, Mr. Robinson worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, providing advice and counsel to the FBI regarding various policy issues in both civil and criminal matters. Then in 1995, Mr. Robinson became counsel for Aetna U.S. Healthcare, where he provided advice to the internal audit, compliance and investigative services departments and was ultimately promoted to chief compliance officer.

In 1998, Mr. Robinson returned to public service as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut. He supervised over 50 lawyers in three offices and set policy and prosecution guidelines for all civil and criminal matters. Additionally, he coordinated the investigative strategy for Federal law enforcement agencies, while managing all aspects of the office's operations, including budget, personnel and press issues. For the past 2 years, he has worked with Empower New Haven, Inc., a nonprofit corporation.

Mr. Robinson's extensive experience in both the public and private sectors makes him amply qualified for judicial service. He possesses the qualifications, the capacity, and the temperament a judge needs to serve on the Federal bench.

Madam President, I am pleased today to speak in support of P. Kevin Castel, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Castel is a highly regarded litigator. Upon graduating from St. John's University School of Law in 1975, he clerked for Judge Kevin Duffy on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following his clerkship, he worked as an associate for Cahill Gordon & Reindel until 1983, when he was elevated to partner and where he remains today.

Mr. Castel has focused much of his professional career on complex commercial litigation, including securities, antitrust, intellectual property, employment and products liability cases. Furthermore, as president of the Federal Bar Council, he has written extensively on corporate litigation issues.

In addition to the Federal Bar Council, Mr. Castel holds leadership positions in other notable organizations, including the New York State Bar Association and the Legal Aid Society.

Mr. Castel will bring 20 years of legal experience and sharp acumen to the Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. President. I rise to outline my concerns about Senator Dorgan's resolution to disapprove the Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003 decision to relax the broadcast media ownership rules.

The FCC's decision to increase the proportion of market share broadcasters may own in any given market from 35 percent to 45 percent and to give newspaper owners the ability to own radio stations and vice versa has raised significant questions relating to the proper scope of regulation and protection of our fundamental First Amendment values.

As a procedural matter, I am concerned about the Senate acting on the Dorgan resolution given the pending court proceedings reviewing the FCC's rule modifications. On September 3, 2003, in Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the effective date of the FCC's new rules, pending resolution of the appeal on the merits. No. 03-3388, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18390. Given the procedural status of the FCC's rules, it is premature for the Senate to act on the Dorgan resolution. A more prudent course for the Senate is to await the Court of Appeals decision, review it carefully, and then determine what action, if any, is warranted.

With respect to the substance of the FCC's rule modifications, I want to reiterate my strong support of the bedrock principles underlying the FCC's regulation of our Nation's media: diversity of viewpoints; localism; and competition. I have been--and remain--committed to these principles, particularly with respect to examining critical regulatory and enforcement issues surrounding increased concentration of our Nation's media outlets. We must preserve our fundamental First Amendment values by protecting our marketplace of ideas--that is, freedom of expression and diversity of viewpoints.

When it comes to ensuring competition and diversity in our media markets, I have not--and will not--analyze the issue by blindly condemning all merger consolidations. To me, ``big'' is not necessarily bad. Rather, the issue of media consolidation requires a careful weighing of our Nation's interest in promoting competition and diversity.

In my view, such an analysis requires careful examination of the potential

for anti-competitive conduct, rather than adherence to inflexible regulatory restrictions or hard and fast enforcement rules. Market forces--not Federal across-the-board regulations--will ensure that consumers benefit from a merger or consolidation in the media industry.

Like many of my Senate colleagues, I am concerned about the health and well-being of the small and mid-sized media companies in our nation. In the State of Utah, we have many excellent small and mid- sized media companies who provide a great service to all Utahns. To this end, traditional antitrust enforcement can more effectively and efficiently protect competition and enhance diversity than regulatory one-size-fits-all approaches. I believe appropriate enforcement of our nation's antitrust laws will provide greater protection to small and mid-sized media owners than any arbitrary FCC rules.

In light of all of these considerations, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Dorgan resolution. Given the significant interest in the issue here in the Senate, we should monitor the court proceedings reviewing the FCC rule. Once the Court has acted, we should then determine what appropriate steps, if any, are needed to preserve and protect our bedrock First Amendment principles of media ownership: diversity, local programming and competition.