Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``the Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act of 2003.'' This bill would reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act as well as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act enables public and private entities to establish and operate centers for runaway and homeless youth. These centers--which provide, among other things, shelter, counseling, drug and sexual abuse education and treatment for youth-- serve as alternatives for youths who are in the child welfare or juvenile justice systems. These alternatives have proven successful in keeping children off of our streets and from returning to our juvenile justice system.

The Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act amends the original Act in the following ways: 1. It includes testing youth for sexually transmitted diseases; 2. It allows an exception to the 20 person maximum capacity to comply with States laws which may allow higher capacities; 3. It allows youths to go to maternity group homes, adds the homes to the list of eligible groups; 4. It increases the maximum amount of time a youth may spend in a home; 5. It requires the centers/groups to inform school districts of the status of youths, and it requires the centers/groups to inform youths of post-secondary education and training opportunities; and 6. It authorizes the Act through fiscal year 2008.

In addition, the Act reauthorizes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children through Fiscal Year 2008. The Center is a critical component of our Nation's battle against child pornography and child exploitation. It is absolutely dedicated to eradicating these evils, and its members work tirelessly towards this end. The Center deserves more than just kind words for these heroic efforts; federal funding is necessary for it to continue this good work. Indeed, Congress has tasked the Center with many missions, including maintaining the cyber- tipline that receives reports of online child pornography, which the Center forwards to appropriate law enforcement officials and the new pilot program to study the feasibility of instituting a national background check for volunteers who work with children. In these, as well as many other areas, the Center forms a valuable partnership with both Federal and State law enforcement officials and prosecutors in redressing a host of crimes against children.

I urge my colleagues to support this Act and these important programs.

Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 50th anniversary of the American Political Science Association's congressional fellowship program. It is the oldest program on Capitol Hill designed to place professionals from a variety of backgrounds in Congress for 1 year. Since its modest beginning in 1953, APSA's congressional fellowship program has grown into the established and respected program that it is today.

The intent of the program is to immerse professionals in the legislative process of the U.S. Congress. These midcareer professionals are chosen by way of a careful selection process, go through a congressional orientation program, and participate in biweekly education seminars throughout their fellowships. These individuals come from academia, journalism, foreign countries, the health care field, and Federal Government. Each year, the selected fellows serve on congressional staffs and acquire ``hands on'' experience while gaining insight into the legislative process, politics, and public service. This unique opportunity enhances APSA fellows' knowledge of, and scholarship on, Congress and policy-making, which can only help improve public understanding of our Government. In turn, our constituents benefit by the expertise the fellows bring to Congress. More than 1,800 individuals have participated in the program since its inception; today the average annual class consists of 40 to 45 fellows.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that the Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellowship program became affiliated with APSA in 1974. This prestigious fellowship program, which is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is administered by the Institute of Medicine, enables midcareer health care professionals to experience the intersection of policy and politics first hand. It is an invaluable interaction from which we all benefit; my office benefits from the expertise these professionals bring to Congress, while the fellows return to their professions and their communities with a better understanding of the policy process.

Over the years, I have been pleased to host a number of APSA and RWJ fellows who have provided unique insights and capabilities and have helped me in making important differences in the lives of Utahns in areas such as health care, tax, economic, and natural resource policy. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to share in this program, and I commend APSA for initiating the program 50 years ago. I hope it will continue for many years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an important measure that Senators Graham, Schumer, Cornyn, and I have introduced entitled The Military Family Hoax Prevention Act. As our country concludes major combat activities in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we all stand tall with pride over the dedication, courage, and valor displayed by the men and women of our Armed Forces.

We all are grateful to the men and women of the U.S. military who selflessly serve our country. They have answered the call of our Commander in Chief to go abroad and defend the freedoms and values we cherish here at home. While carrying out their mission, they have acted admirably during the liberation of an enslaved nation, and continue to serve our country honorably. These men and women deserve our profound gratitude.

As we watch the soldiers returning home from deployment, some from extended tours of duty, I am reminded of the personal sacrifice these men and women make while they are gone. These men and women leave behind family and friends who undoubtedly worry constantly about their loved ones on deployment. In many instances, family members are not able to know of the day-to-day safety of their loved ones during deployment. This feeling of helplessness was aptly described by the brother of Jessica Lynch upon her return to West Virginia when he discussed her family's desire to learn any bit of information following her capture.

It has come to my attention that during Operation Iraqi Freedom some military families received cruel hoaxes concerning their deployed family members in Iraq. On three separate occasions that I am aware of, families of service men and women here in the United States received telephone calls from sick pranksters telling them that their family members serving in Iraq had either been killed in battle or taken prisoner of war.

You can imagine the devastation and agony of the families who received these malicious telephone calls. These families were forced into a desperate scramble to learn information about the fate of their loved ones. These hoaxes require the military to dedicate resources to provide information to military family members.

Let me talk briefly about one specific hoax and the potentially devastating consequences that can flow from it. A family in Arizona received a telephone call that a family member had been killed in Iraq. After contacting the military, the family was told that only the military notifies families in these instances, and that they do so in person, not over the telephone. The military told the family that they had no information that their family member, the soldier, was killed and that they would try to learn more.

The military discovered that this telephone call was a cruel hoax and arranged for the soldier to call home from a satellite telephone to reassure his family. Unfortunately, the soldier later wrote to his family and told them that another soldier who was transporting a satellite telephone to him so that he could call home had been killed while trying to deliver the telephone.

This type of action cannot go unpunished. The current false impersonation statute does not punish someone who falsely impersonates a military employee engaging in this type of conduct. This legislation the Military Family Hoax Prevention Act, would remedy this loophole in the current law. It would prohibit those who derive some perverted pleasure terrorizing family members who intensely wait for word from abroad from their military family members.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an important measure that Senators Graham, Schumer, Cornyn, and I have introduced entitled The Military Family Hoax Prevention Act. As our country concludes major combat activities in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we all stand tall with pride over the dedication, courage, and valor displayed by the men and women of our Armed Forces.

We all are grateful to the men and women of the U.S. military who selflessly serve our country. They have answered the call of our Commander in Chief to go abroad and defend the freedoms and values we cherish here at home. While carrying out their mission, they have acted admirably during the liberation of an enslaved nation, and continue to serve our country honorably. These men and women deserve our profound gratitude.

As we watch the soldiers returning home from deployment, some from extended tours of duty, I am reminded of the personal sacrifice these men and women make while they are gone. These men and women leave behind family and friends who undoubtedly worry constantly about their loved ones on deployment. In many instances, family members are not able to know of the day-to-day safety of their loved ones during deployment. This feeling of helplessness was aptly described by the brother of Jessica Lynch upon her return to West Virginia when he discussed her family's desire to learn any bit of information following her capture.

It has come to my attention that during Operation Iraqi Freedom some military families received cruel hoaxes concerning their deployed family members in Iraq. On three separate occasions that I am aware of, families of service men and women here in the United States received telephone calls from sick pranksters telling them that their family members serving in Iraq had either been killed in battle or taken prisoner of war.

You can imagine the devastation and agony of the families who received these malicious telephone calls. These families were forced into a desperate scramble to learn information about the fate of their loved ones. These hoaxes require the military to dedicate resources to provide information to military family members.

Let me talk briefly about one specific hoax and the potentially devastating consequences that can flow from it. A family in Arizona received a telephone call that a family member had been killed in Iraq. After contacting the military, the family was told that only the military notifies families in these instances, and that they do so in person, not over the telephone. The military told the family that they had no information that their family member, the soldier, was killed and that they would try to learn more.

The military discovered that this telephone call was a cruel hoax and arranged for the soldier to call home from a satellite telephone to reassure his family. Unfortunately, the soldier later wrote to his family and told them that another soldier who was transporting a satellite telephone to him so that he could call home had been killed while trying to deliver the telephone.

This type of action cannot go unpunished. The current false impersonation statute does not punish someone who falsely impersonates a military employee engaging in this type of conduct. This legislation the Military Family Hoax Prevention Act, would remedy this loophole in the current law. It would prohibit those who derive some perverted pleasure terrorizing family members who intensely wait for word from abroad from their military family members.

Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues in the House of Representatives for passing S. 1280, the PROTECT Act of 2003 Technical Amendment. This bill is directed to that portion of the PROTECT Act authorizing a pilot program to study the feasibility of instituting a national background check for volunteers who work with children. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will provide their expertise by evaluating criminal records of volunteers provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine if the volunteers are fit to interact and work with children.

When authorizing the pilot program, Congress immunized the National Center for its operation of the child abuse cyber-tip line but neglected to extend it to their activities connected to their operation of the background check pilot program. In order for the Center to fully implement the pilot program, this bill immunizes the Center for decisions it makes based on the criminal records provided to them in any one of the following instances: 1. a decision that the records indicate that a volunteer is not fit to work with children; 2. a decision that an individual is fit to serve as a volunteer based on the government providing incomplete or inaccurate criminal history records; or, 3. a decision that an individual is fit to serve as a volunteer where the Center is provided no criminal history records.

Chairman Sensenbrenner, Senator Biden, and I have been the principal authors of this bill. We all agree that this is the proper interpretation of this technical amendment. I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner in the House of Representatives for moving this time- sensitive bill through the House of Representatives so quickly.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Allyson K. Duncan, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Ms. Duncan is truly an impressive woman and has the enthusiastic support of both North Carolina senators, along with a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' ABA rating.

She graduated first in her class at Hampton University, a historically black college. She then attended Duke University Law School and was appointed an Earl Warren Legal Scholar, a scholarship awarded to black law students demonstrating leadership and an interest in the public interest.

Upon graduation, our nominee clerked for the Honorable Julia Cooper Mack on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, before beginning her

tenure at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1978. Ms. Duncan held several positions at the EEOC, starting as an appellate attorney, serving as the assistant to the Chairman, and ultimately becoming acting legal counsel.

Ms. Duncan left the EEOC for a teaching post at North Carolina Central University School of Law, another historically black college, where she taught property, employment discrimination, labor law, and appellate advocacy.

Our outstanding nominee is also a pioneer. After leaving her teaching post in 1990, she became the first black woman to be appointed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals as an associate judge. She served in that capacity for one year, after which she hit another milestone.

Ms. Duncan was then appointed commissioner of the North Carolina Utilities Commission--another first for a black woman. As commissioner, she was responsible for telecommunications, natural gas and water regulations. She served as commissioner until she entered private practice with the law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton, where she is currently a partner. Her area of concentration is energy-related issues, but she also handles regulatory matters involving rate making, and mergers and acquisitions.

I am proud to add that if confirmed, Ms. Duncan will hit a third milestone: that of being the first black woman to sit on the Fourth Circuit Court Appeals. A circuit, I would like to note, that has a 24 percent black population--the highest black population for all of the circuit courts.

Allyson Duncan has a fine background, which will serve her well as a circuit court judge. She will be a terrific addition to the Court, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Louise Wood Flanagan to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Judge Flanagan currently serves as a Federal magistrate judge.

After earning her law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1988, she served as law clerk for Judge Malcolm Howard on the very court to which she has been nominated. In 1990, she joined the North Carolina law firm of Ward and Smith, where she handled complex commercial litigation and litigated approximately 300 cases in state, federal, and bankruptcy court. Throughout her career, Judge Flanagan, has consistently demonstrated the strong legal intellect, integrity, and judicial temperament required of a U.S. District Court Judge.

In 1995, Judge Flanagan was appointed to be a Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. In this position she handles both criminal and civil matters and has earned a reputation of fairness, honesty, and keen intellect. She will make an excellent addition to the Federal bench.

I commend President Bush for nominating her and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.

Mr. President, the amendment I offer today, entitled the Resolution of Claims of American POWs of the Japanese Act of 2003, is important because it recognizes the struggle to compensate American POWs once held and forced into slave labor for private Japanese companies during World War II.

For those of my colleagues who aren't aware of what our valiant soldiers endured, please let me enlighten you.

On April 9, 1942, Allied forces in the Philippines were forced to surrender Bataan to the Japanese. Ten thousand to 12,000 American soldiers were forced to march some 60 miles in broiling heat. We have all heard of this deadly trek, known as the Bataan Death March.

What most people do not realize is, after a lengthy internment under horrific conditions, thousands of these POWs were shipped to Japan in the holds of freighters known as ``Hell Ships.'' Once in Japan, many of these POWs were forced into slave labor for private Japanese steel mills and other private companies until the end of the war. During the war, over 27,465 Americans were captured and interned by the Japanese; tragically, only 16,000 made it home.

Let me tell you about some of these brave men.

At our Judiciary Committee hearing a few years ago, we heard from some of these remarkable veterans who put a human face on this tragic part of history. They are all heroes.

I remember so well Mr. Bigelow, who, during his internment lost his leg from a mining accident and the lack of proper medical treatment. At a height of 6 feet, 4 inches, Mr. Bigelow weighed less than 100 pounds at the time of his release. Tragically, he died last week--- without ever receiving the recognition that he deserved, recognition that we as a body can give him.

Mr. President, how many more have to die before we finally pay them the tribute they deserve?

At our hearing, we heard how the POWs stuck together and helped each other make it through each day and endured frequent beatings for doing so.

We heard how Mr. Tenney and others kept their spirits up by entertaining their buddies and trading with Japanese guards for a few meager supplies.

We heard how brave men like Terrence Kirk built a makeshift camera out of a stolen x-ray plate to document the condition of dying POWs so they would not be forgotten.

Let me say to the veterans who have shared their stories with me--and I know some of these men personally thank you. All of them are heroes for their bravery on the battlefields and in the prison camps.

They are heroes for the innumerable displays of compassion and love for their fellow man.

They are heroes for their perseverance through circumstances most of us can barely imagine.

They are living testaments to the indomitable human spirit that is the fabric of this great nation, the United States of America. Everyone here living in freedom owes them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Unfortunately, global political and security needs of the time often overshadowed their legitimate claims for justice and they were once again asked to sacrifice for their country.

Following the end of the war, for example, our government allegedly instructed many of the POWs not to discuss their experiences and treatment. Some were even asked to sign non-disclosure agreements. Consequently, many Americans remain unaware of the atrocities that took place and the suffering our POWs endured.

Just ask the school children of today. Most know little about the Bataan Death March and nothing about the fact that our soldiers were shipped to Japan and sold as slave labor.

That is inexcusable. We must recognize their sacrifice, and the amendment I offer today supports that effort.

Through the years, various efforts have been made to offer some compensation for the POWs held in Japan.

Under the War Claims Act, our government has made meager payments of a dollar a day for missed meals and $1.50 per day for lost wages. Clearly this is inadequate.

Following the passage of a California statute extending the statute of limitations for World War II claims until 2010 and the recent litigation involving victims of Holocaust, the former POWs in Japan have attempted through the courts to seek compensation from the private companies which profited from their labor.

What role has our government played in this quest?

In the Holocaust litigation, the U.S. played a facilitating role in discussions between the German companies and the victims. The Justice Department also declined to file a statement of interest in the litigation--even when requested by the court. The efforts of the administration were entirely appropriate and the settlement was an invaluable step toward moving forward from the past.

Here, in contrast, there has been little effort by our government, through the State Department or otherwise, to help these POWs with their claims. In fact, quite the opposite has been true.

In response to a request from the court, the Justice Department actually filed a statement of interest which was very damaging to the claims of the POWs--stating in essence that their claims were barred by the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan and the War Claims Act. Personally, I don't think the government had the authority to waive these claims. Unbelievably, the Justice Department continues to argue in these court cases on behalf of the Japanese companies and against our POWs.

This contrasting treatment raises the legitimate questions of whether this administration has a consistent policy governing whether and how to weigh in during these World War II-era cases? From a moral perspective, the claims of those forced into labor by private German companies and private Japanese companies appear to be of similar merit, yet they have spurred different responses from the administration.

Why?

I have asked this question to the State Department, and have not received a satisfactory response.

What can the United States of America--the country these men sacrificed for--do to resolve this matter in a fair and appropriate manner?

With the help of Senator Feinstein, in 2000, we moved through the Judiciary Committee S. 1902, the Japanese Records Disclosure Act. This bill set up a commission to declassify thousands of Japanese Imperial Army records held by the U.S. government after appropriate screening for sensitive information such as that pertaining to national security.

That bill, however, was not enough. We need to do more.

The Senate attempted to fulfill our government's responsibility to these men by including a provision in S. 2549, the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense authorization bill. This legislation would have allowed payments of a $20,000 gratuity to POWs from Bataan and Corregidor who were forced into labor. But unfortunately, the provision was stripped in conference, due in large part, I believe, to pressure from the previous Administration.

We also passed S. Con. Res. 158, a resolution at the end of the 106th Congress

which stated the moral force of the claims of the POWs and expressed the sense of the Congress that the United States government should use its best efforts to ``facilitate a dialogue'' to discuss a resolution to the claims. But this has received a less than satisfactory response from the administration.

We must ask ourselves--can Congress do more?

Can the executive branch do more?

I think so.

We must.

And it is for that reason that I am offering the Resolution of Claims of American POWs of the Japanese Act of 2003.

This legislation would show these POWs that we have not forgotten them and that we will not let them be victimized by the Japanese companies a second time.

My amendment would authorize the payment of compensation to former prisoners of war for forced labor for Japanese companies during World War II. Those surviving POWs who are still living--and there are not many--would receive $10,000. This is a mere fraction of what they truly deserve, and I intend to seek additional amounts next year to fulfill our obligation to our heroes.

Mr. President, this legislation is essential.

Congress is the last recourse for these POWs.

Instead of helping, our government has let them down. And so, if we do not stand up for them, who will?

I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to do what we can to show these brave POWs that their country has not forgotten them; it is the least we can do.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations bill.

First, I would like to congratulate Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye on an appropriations bill that has widespread, bipartisan support. It is never an easy job to bring this bill to the floor and, as usual, they have done an excellent job.

One of the most important aspects of this bill is the commitment that the Senate is making to improve the lives of the service men and women who protect us every day.

The bill provides a well-earned, average military pay raise of 4.15 percent and funds an increase in the basic allowance for housing to reduce our service members' average out-of-pocket expenses from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent.

That being said, one of the most important aspects of this bill is its commitment to transformation.

Now, we have heard this word being used during the last few years in conversations relating to defense matters. So what does it mean?

Simply put, ``transformation'' is about changing the way our Nation's military operates, through the utilization and development of innovative tactics based upon new technologies and, of course, our most important resource--the hard work and training of our service members.

Transformation could be seen in the recent conflict in Iraq. Here, instead of

a long, sustained air campaign, our forces were able to achieve a tactical surprise using precision weapons that destroyed our adversaries' ability to react to our initiatives.

As I have mentioned before, transformation could also be seen during war when information was gathered from a variety of sensors, whether on the ground or in the air, and that information was transmitted very quickly to commanders who could then exploit the weakness of our enemy. It was a remarkable operation and it reflects the high level of competence and expertise of our Nation's service men and women.

The appropriations bill continues this revolution by funding such programs as the development and procurement of such new systems as the DD(X) destroyer, the littoral combat ship, C-17 air transport, V-22 tilt-rotor and the Army's future combat system.

I am particularly pleased that the Appropriations Committee has recommended funding for the procurement of 22 F/A-22 Raptors.

This program lies at the heart of transformation. The F/A-22's supercruise engines allow for extended supersonic flight. This is a magnitude longer than its afterburning predecessors such as the F-15. The aircraft's stealth characteristics will allow it to penetrate even the most advanced air defense systems while internally carrying GPS- guided munitions. This will allow the F/A-22 to clear the skies of enemy aircraft while nearly simultaneously attacking both fixed and mobile targets, such as surface-to-air missile sites. I hope that the authorizing committee will join the Appropriations Committee in recommending the procurement of 22 of these vital aircraft.

I would also like to highlight a program that I support, the Full Spectrum Active Close-in Layered Shield, or ``FCLAS'', which is a revolutionary new technology promising to enhance dramatically the survivability of existing and future mechanized and wheeled combat vehicles without the normally accompanying weight gain. FCLAS has the potential to save many American lives and it is an important step for the committee to fund this system.

FCLAS works by using radar to detect an incoming kinetic energy weapon, antitank missile or rocket-propelled grenade. Once the incoming object is identified, FCLAS fires an explosive projectile to destroy the threat at a safe distance from the vehicle.

Such a system is currently under development in Russia, Canada and France. However, those systems, unlike FCLAS, have a fatal flaw. Their radar systems are placed in a prominent position and can be easily disabled with a single rifle shot.

In contrast, each FCLAS defensive explosive projectile has an individual radar system. FCLAS is placed around the protected vehicle in a device similar to a smoke grenade launcher. That means if the radar is damaged in one projectile the rest of the vehicle's active protection is unaffected. It also provides the same level of protection from every side and angle of the vehicle. The system is remarkably light and has drawn considerable interest by those designing the Army's Objective Force.

Currently, officials at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Research Center are testing FCLAS and by all accounts they are very pleased with the system's initial results. The Marine Corps and Special Operations Command have also expressed strong interest in adapting this system for use in both land vehicles, such as the advanced amphibious assault vehicle and even aircraft.

In closing, again, let me express my commendations to the chairman, the ranking Democratic member, all of the members of the committee, and their capable staffs, for their work on this bill. It will be of great service in the support of our Nation's service men and women.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Magistrate Judge Lonny R. Suko to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Washington.

Judge Suko has been part of the Washington legal community for over three decades. After graduating from law school in 1968, Judge Suko clerked for the Honorable Charles L. Powell in the Eastern District of Washington. In 1969, he joined the Lyon Law Offices, where he served as associate, partner, and shareholder. As an attorney, Judge Suko litigated primarily civil matters.

In 1971, Judge Suko was appointed part-time United States magistrate judge, a position he held while practicing law full time until 1991 when the position was discontinued. In 1995, Judge Suko ascended to the bench once again when he was appointed as a full-time Federal Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court Eastern District of Washington. As a magistrate judge, Judge Suko presides over both criminal and civil matters.

Judge Suko has been rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association, and enjoys bipartisan support. I am confident Judge Suko will make an excellent Federal judge. I commend President Bush for nominating him and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of

Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is an extremely important piece

of legislation. Most importantly, this bill goes a long way toward

restoring the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans who reside

in the District of Columbia to possess firearms.

It is no secret that the District of Columbia, our great Nation's

Capital, suffers from the most startling violent crime rates in the

country. It has the highest, the absolute highest, murder rate per

capita in the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

and despite the most stringent gun control laws in the country, in 8

out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002, Washington DC had the highest

murder rate in the country. In fact, the results are in for 2002, and

unfortunately they continue to paint a grim picture. The District of

Columbia has again reclaimed its rather unenviable title as the

``Murder Capital of the United States''.

It is time, to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect

themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators.

All to often, we read in the paper about yet another vicious murder

carried out against an innocent District of Columbia resident. Try to

imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting

criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself.

We must act now to stop the carnage and put law-abiding citizens in a

position to exercise their right to self defense. It is time to tell

the citizens of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment of

the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their fellow

Americans in the rest of the country. The District of Columbia Personal

Protection Act would do exactly that.

Let me take a moment to highlight what this legislation would do.

This bill would: 1. permit law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and

rifles in their homes and businesses; 2. repeal the registration

requirements for firearms and ammunition; 3. eliminate criminal

penalties for possession and carrying of firearms in their homes and

businesses; and 4. correct an erroneous provision which wrongly treats

some firearms as if they were machineguns.

Over the years, I have heard over and over again from some of my

friends on the other side of the aisle that the way you reduce violent,

gun-related crime is by prohibiting the possession of firearms. Even if

law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, my

liberal friends argue, it is a small price to pay for safety and

security.

Well, I want to take this opportunity to dispel these unfounded

myths. These myths, I might add, are exposed as such by situations like

we have today in the District of Columbia. I have said it before, but I

will say it again, excessive regulation and the systematic erosion of

the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment do not deter violent,

gun-toting criminals. Enacting and vigorously enforcing stiff penalties

for those that commit crimes with guns deters violent crime. Not only

is this the proven and effective approach to reducing gun violence, it

also preserves the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding

men and women to own and possess firearms.

In fact, I recently held a hearing that examined the Administration's

gun crime reduction initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. This

initiative has been incredibly successful. It takes the precise

approach that I have advocated--strict and vigorous enforcement of

crimes committed with guns. It says to criminals, ``If you use a gun

during the commission of a crime, you will do very serious and very

hard time.'' And it does so, without trampling on the

rights of law-abiding American men and women.

Today, unfortunately but not surprisingly, the state of affairs in

the District of Columbia has highlighted exactly what those of us who

care deeply about the Second Amendment of the Constitution have always

feared: murderous criminals possess firearms and are free to prey upon

law-abiding citizens; and law-abiding citizens--precisely because they

are law-abiding citizens--may not possess a firearm in their homes to

protect themselves and their families.

The prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia is as

ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional; it is high-time

we rectify this wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of

Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is an extremely important piece

of legislation. Most importantly, this bill goes a long way toward

restoring the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans who reside

in the District of Columbia to possess firearms.

It is no secret that the District of Columbia, our great Nation's

Capital, suffers from the most startling violent crime rates in the

country. It has the highest, the absolute highest, murder rate per

capita in the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

and despite the most stringent gun control laws in the country, in 8

out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002, Washington DC had the highest

murder rate in the country. In fact, the results are in for 2002, and

unfortunately they continue to paint a grim picture. The District of

Columbia has again reclaimed its rather unenviable title as the

``Murder Capital of the United States''.

It is time, to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect

themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators.

All to often, we read in the paper about yet another vicious murder

carried out against an innocent District of Columbia resident. Try to

imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting

criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself.

We must act now to stop the carnage and put law-abiding citizens in a

position to exercise their right to self defense. It is time to tell

the citizens of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment of

the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their fellow

Americans in the rest of the country. The District of Columbia Personal

Protection Act would do exactly that.

Let me take a moment to highlight what this legislation would do.

This bill would: 1. permit law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and

rifles in their homes and businesses; 2. repeal the registration

requirements for firearms and ammunition; 3. eliminate criminal

penalties for possession and carrying of firearms in their homes and

businesses; and 4. correct an erroneous provision which wrongly treats

some firearms as if they were machineguns.

Over the years, I have heard over and over again from some of my

friends on the other side of the aisle that the way you reduce violent,

gun-related crime is by prohibiting the possession of firearms. Even if

law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, my

liberal friends argue, it is a small price to pay for safety and

security.

Well, I want to take this opportunity to dispel these unfounded

myths. These myths, I might add, are exposed as such by situations like

we have today in the District of Columbia. I have said it before, but I

will say it again, excessive regulation and the systematic erosion of

the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment do not deter violent,

gun-toting criminals. Enacting and vigorously enforcing stiff penalties

for those that commit crimes with guns deters violent crime. Not only

is this the proven and effective approach to reducing gun violence, it

also preserves the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding

men and women to own and possess firearms.

In fact, I recently held a hearing that examined the Administration's

gun crime reduction initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. This

initiative has been incredibly successful. It takes the precise

approach that I have advocated--strict and vigorous enforcement of

crimes committed with guns. It says to criminals, ``If you use a gun

during the commission of a crime, you will do very serious and very

hard time.'' And it does so, without trampling on the

rights of law-abiding American men and women.

Today, unfortunately but not surprisingly, the state of affairs in

the District of Columbia has highlighted exactly what those of us who

care deeply about the Second Amendment of the Constitution have always

feared: murderous criminals possess firearms and are free to prey upon

law-abiding citizens; and law-abiding citizens--precisely because they

are law-abiding citizens--may not possess a firearm in their homes to

protect themselves and their families.

The prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia is as

ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional; it is high-time

we rectify this wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Samuel Der-Yeghiayan to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

Judge Der-Yeghiayan has contributed much to the legal community over his 25 year career, particularly in the area of immigration law. Upon graduation from Franklin Pierce Law Center, Judge Der-Yeghiayan joined the U.S. Department of Justice as a trial attorney with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. After spending several years as a trial attorney, he was appointed District Counsel for the INS in Chicago, IL. In 2000, he became an immigration judge with the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review, the position in which he currently serves.

Over the course of his career, Judge Der-Yeghiayan has represented the Government in deportation, exclusion, and other immigration-related hearings. He has handled issues relating to constitutional, labor, criminal, and administrative law arising from the enforcement of immigration laws. As a judge, he has presided over court proceedings and trials related to removal, deportation, exclusion, and asylum cases. He has also done a substantial amount of pro bono work educating congressional staff, State attorneys, bar associations, and law enforcement agents on immigration issues. In addition, as a judge, he provides training to pro bono immigration attorneys.

I have every confidence that he will make an excellent Federal judge. I commend President Bush for nominating him, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Equal Opportunity to Govern'' Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to permit any person who has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years to be eligible for the Office of President. The Constitution, in its current form, prohibits a person who is not a native born citizen of the United States from becoming President.

The purpose of the native born citizen requirement has long passed, and it is time for us--the elected representatives of this Nation or immigrants--to remove this impediment. While there was scant debate on this provision during the Constitutional Convention, it is apparent that the decision to include the natural born citizen requirement in our Constitution was driven largely by the concern that a European monarch, such as King George III's second son, the Duke of York, might be imported to rule the United States.

This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un- American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars other critical members of government, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, or the President's most trusted cabinet officials.

Ours is a Nation of immigrants. The history of the United States is replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born outside of Her borders. These include former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; current Cabinet members Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez; as well as Jennifer Granholm, the Governor of Michigan and bring young star

of the Democratic party. As our Constitution reads today, none of these well-qualified, patriotic United States citizens could be a lawful candidate for President.

Perhaps most disturbing is that the scores of foreign-born men and women who have risked their lives defending the freedoms and liberties of this great nation who remain ineligible for the Office of President. More than 700 recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor--our Nation's highest decoration for valor--have been immigrants. But no matter how great their sacrifice, leadership, or love for this country, they remain ineligible to be a candidate for President. This amendment would remove this unfounded inequity.

Today I ask the members of this body if we desire to continue to invite these brave men and women to defend this Nation's liberty, to protect Her flag, to be willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice, and yet deny them the opportunity to strive for the ultimate American dream--to become our President? I respectfully submit that we should not.

My proposal to amend the Constitution is not one I take lightly. As our founding fathers envisioned, our Constitution has stood the test of time. It has remained largely intact for more than 200 years due to the careful, deliberative, and principled approach of the framers. This is truly an extraordinary achievement. On a few appropriate occasions, however, we have generated the will to surmount the cumbersome, but no doubt necessary, hurdles to amend the Constitution. I believe the time has now come to address the antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires our President to be a natural born citizen. It has long outlived its original purpose.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Equal Opportunity to Govern'' Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to permit any person who has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years to be eligible for the Office of President. The Constitution, in its current form, prohibits a person who is not a native born citizen of the United States from becoming President.

The purpose of the native born citizen requirement has long passed, and it is time for us--the elected representatives of this Nation or immigrants--to remove this impediment. While there was scant debate on this provision during the Constitutional Convention, it is apparent that the decision to include the natural born citizen requirement in our Constitution was driven largely by the concern that a European monarch, such as King George III's second son, the Duke of York, might be imported to rule the United States.

This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un- American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars other critical members of government, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, or the President's most trusted cabinet officials.

Ours is a Nation of immigrants. The history of the United States is replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born outside of Her borders. These include former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; current Cabinet members Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez; as well as Jennifer Granholm, the Governor of Michigan and bring young star

of the Democratic party. As our Constitution reads today, none of these well-qualified, patriotic United States citizens could be a lawful candidate for President.

Perhaps most disturbing is that the scores of foreign-born men and women who have risked their lives defending the freedoms and liberties of this great nation who remain ineligible for the Office of President. More than 700 recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor--our Nation's highest decoration for valor--have been immigrants. But no matter how great their sacrifice, leadership, or love for this country, they remain ineligible to be a candidate for President. This amendment would remove this unfounded inequity.

Today I ask the members of this body if we desire to continue to invite these brave men and women to defend this Nation's liberty, to protect Her flag, to be willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice, and yet deny them the opportunity to strive for the ultimate American dream--to become our President? I respectfully submit that we should not.

My proposal to amend the Constitution is not one I take lightly. As our founding fathers envisioned, our Constitution has stood the test of time. It has remained largely intact for more than 200 years due to the careful, deliberative, and principled approach of the framers. This is truly an extraordinary achievement. On a few appropriate occasions, however, we have generated the will to surmount the cumbersome, but no doubt necessary, hurdles to amend the Constitution. I believe the time has now come to address the antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires our President to be a natural born citizen. It has long outlived its original purpose.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment.