Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the introduction of the ANTI-Gang Act with my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Durbin, Kennedy and Feingold.

The American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative--Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs Act of 2004 is a bill carefully crafted to target violent criminal street gangs whose activities extend beyond the neighborhood and have a substantial impact on Federal interests.

As a former county prosecutor, I have long expressed concern about making Federal crimes out of every offense that comes to the attention of Congress. I know that States have competent and able police departments, county sheriffs' offices, prosecutors and judges. Gangs are, more often than not, locally-based, geographically-oriented criminal associations, and our local communities are on the front lines of the fight against gang violence. We should be supplementing the work of our State and local law enforcement officers, not usurping them. This is why this bill specifically targets only those gangs where there is a provable Federal interest. This is why this bill requires consultation with our State and local counterparts before embarking on a Federal prosecution of historically State crimes. And this is why major provisions of the bill are directed toward helping State and local law enforcement officers prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes in their own neighborhoods.

There are four major sections of the bill:

First, the bill gives State and local prosecutors financial resources to guard against neighborhood gangs by authorizing $72.5 million for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes; $40 million for grants to develop gang prevention,

research, and intervention services; and $60 million for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. Federal funds are also provided for hiring new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to fund technology, equipment and training grants to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate state and Federal coordination.

The first defense in protecting our youth against gang influence is a good offense. I have long thought that programs aimed at combating gang activity must incorporate gang prevention and education--programs that would examine why our youth choose to associate in gangs and prey on others--to be effective. When Chairman Hatch appropriately targeted gang violence as a subject for a full Committee hearing last year, all agreed that we should be doing more to deter our youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill heeds that call.

Another unifying theme of the expert witnesses at the Committee's hearing was the serious need for Federal assistance in protecting witnesses who will provide information about and testify against gangs from intimidation. Our bill not only provides funding to help protect witnesses, it also makes it a Federal crime to intimidate witnesses in certain State prosecutions involving gang activity.

Second, the bill defines a Federal criminal street gang by using well-established legal principles and providing recognizable limits. Rather than create yet another cumbersome and broad-reaching Federal crime that overlaps with numerous existing Federal statutes, this bill actually targets the problem that needs to be addressed: violent criminal street gangs. It recognizes that gangs are ongoing entities whose members commit crimes more easily simply because of their association with one another. Gangs prove the old adage: there is safety in numbers. Gang members can be sheep-like in their loyalty and allegiance to the gang. In this regard, the bill also explicitly and evenhandedly addresses the evidentiary significance of gang symbolism in gang prosecutions.

In addition to witness intimidation, other important crimes established by this bill include: One, participation in criminal street gangs by any act that is intended to effect the criminal activities of the gang; two, participation by committing a crime in furtherance of or for the benefit of the gang, and three, recruitment and retention of gang members. There are increased penalties for those who target minors for recruitment in a criminal street gang.

Third, the bill requires a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States, and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house additional prisoners, so that Congress can make an informed decision about whether or not to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders.

Some have suggested that the Federal Government has been unable to proceed effectively against gang crime because of Federal law's protections for juvenile offenders. I have not seen sufficient evidence to support his claim, but I think that Congressional consideration of this issue would benefit greatly from a comprehensive General Accounting Office study on this topic. We need to know both whether justice would be served by increasing the Federal role, and whether the Federal system--including both our prosecutors and the Bureau of Prisons--is prepared for such a step.

Fourth, the bill promotes the recruitment and retention of highly- qualified State and local prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for Federal employees.

We have worked very hard in crafting this legislation not to further blur the lines between Federal and State law enforcement responsibilities or to add more burdens to the FBI as the primary Federal investigative agency. Federal law enforcement has been faced with a unique challenge since the September 11 attacks. The FBI is no longer just an enforcement agency, but also has a critical terrorism prevention mission. This mission is a daunting one, and our Federal law enforcement resources are not limitless. I, for one, do not want the FBI or U.S. Attorneys to focus these limited resources on cases that are best handled at the local level.

Combating gang violence should not be a partisan battle. The tragedy of gang violence affects too many. No community can afford to lose a single youth to the arms of a waiting gang. No gang should be allowed to flourish without consequence in our communities. I urge your support for this important bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the introduction of the ANTI-Gang Act with my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Durbin, Kennedy and Feingold.

The American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative--Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs Act of 2004 is a bill carefully crafted to target violent criminal street gangs whose activities extend beyond the neighborhood and have a substantial impact on Federal interests.

As a former county prosecutor, I have long expressed concern about making Federal crimes out of every offense that comes to the attention of Congress. I know that States have competent and able police departments, county sheriffs' offices, prosecutors and judges. Gangs are, more often than not, locally-based, geographically-oriented criminal associations, and our local communities are on the front lines of the fight against gang violence. We should be supplementing the work of our State and local law enforcement officers, not usurping them. This is why this bill specifically targets only those gangs where there is a provable Federal interest. This is why this bill requires consultation with our State and local counterparts before embarking on a Federal prosecution of historically State crimes. And this is why major provisions of the bill are directed toward helping State and local law enforcement officers prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes in their own neighborhoods.

There are four major sections of the bill:

First, the bill gives State and local prosecutors financial resources to guard against neighborhood gangs by authorizing $72.5 million for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes; $40 million for grants to develop gang prevention,

research, and intervention services; and $60 million for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. Federal funds are also provided for hiring new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to fund technology, equipment and training grants to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate state and Federal coordination.

The first defense in protecting our youth against gang influence is a good offense. I have long thought that programs aimed at combating gang activity must incorporate gang prevention and education--programs that would examine why our youth choose to associate in gangs and prey on others--to be effective. When Chairman Hatch appropriately targeted gang violence as a subject for a full Committee hearing last year, all agreed that we should be doing more to deter our youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill heeds that call.

Another unifying theme of the expert witnesses at the Committee's hearing was the serious need for Federal assistance in protecting witnesses who will provide information about and testify against gangs from intimidation. Our bill not only provides funding to help protect witnesses, it also makes it a Federal crime to intimidate witnesses in certain State prosecutions involving gang activity.

Second, the bill defines a Federal criminal street gang by using well-established legal principles and providing recognizable limits. Rather than create yet another cumbersome and broad-reaching Federal crime that overlaps with numerous existing Federal statutes, this bill actually targets the problem that needs to be addressed: violent criminal street gangs. It recognizes that gangs are ongoing entities whose members commit crimes more easily simply because of their association with one another. Gangs prove the old adage: there is safety in numbers. Gang members can be sheep-like in their loyalty and allegiance to the gang. In this regard, the bill also explicitly and evenhandedly addresses the evidentiary significance of gang symbolism in gang prosecutions.

In addition to witness intimidation, other important crimes established by this bill include: One, participation in criminal street gangs by any act that is intended to effect the criminal activities of the gang; two, participation by committing a crime in furtherance of or for the benefit of the gang, and three, recruitment and retention of gang members. There are increased penalties for those who target minors for recruitment in a criminal street gang.

Third, the bill requires a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States, and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house additional prisoners, so that Congress can make an informed decision about whether or not to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders.

Some have suggested that the Federal Government has been unable to proceed effectively against gang crime because of Federal law's protections for juvenile offenders. I have not seen sufficient evidence to support his claim, but I think that Congressional consideration of this issue would benefit greatly from a comprehensive General Accounting Office study on this topic. We need to know both whether justice would be served by increasing the Federal role, and whether the Federal system--including both our prosecutors and the Bureau of Prisons--is prepared for such a step.

Fourth, the bill promotes the recruitment and retention of highly- qualified State and local prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for Federal employees.

We have worked very hard in crafting this legislation not to further blur the lines between Federal and State law enforcement responsibilities or to add more burdens to the FBI as the primary Federal investigative agency. Federal law enforcement has been faced with a unique challenge since the September 11 attacks. The FBI is no longer just an enforcement agency, but also has a critical terrorism prevention mission. This mission is a daunting one, and our Federal law enforcement resources are not limitless. I, for one, do not want the FBI or U.S. Attorneys to focus these limited resources on cases that are best handled at the local level.

Combating gang violence should not be a partisan battle. The tragedy of gang violence affects too many. No community can afford to lose a single youth to the arms of a waiting gang. No gang should be allowed to flourish without consequence in our communities. I urge your support for this important bill.

Mr. President, I proudly note passage of S. Res. 310, a resolution to designate May 15, 2004, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. I again cosponsored this resolution with Senator Campbell, as we do every year. We are right to remember and commemorate the sacrifice and commitment of our law enforcement officers serving our communities, States and country. We annually honor the officers and their families who made the ultimate sacrifice for public safety.

I commend Senator Campbell for his leadership in this issue. This marks the 8th year running that he and I have teamed up to submit the resolution to commemorate National Peace Officers Memorial Day. As a former deputy sheriff, Senator Campbell has experienced first-hand the risks faced by law enforcement officers every day while they protect our communities.

I also want to thank each of our Nation's brave law enforcement officers for their unwavering commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens. They are real-life heroes.

Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who guard our communities do so at great risk. Each year, 1 in 15 offices is assaulted, 1 in 46 officers is injured, and 1 in 5,255 officers is killed in the line of duty in the United States every other day. After the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, 72 peace officers died while trying to ensure that their fellow citizens in those buildings got to safety. That act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of this country.

In 2003, 146 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 237 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction including better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved training, and advanced emergency medical care. And, in total, more than 17,100 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice--of that number 43 are police officers who have already been killed in 2004 while serving in the line of duty.

During the 108th Congress, we have improved the Justice Department's Public Safety Officers Benefits program by making law the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act (Public Law 108-182), which allows survivors of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes while participating in non-routine stressful or strenuous physical activities to qualify for federal survivor benefits.

The Senate also passed the Campbell-Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, S. 764, which will extend through FY 2007 the authorization of appropriations for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program that helps State, tribal and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. The House has yet to act on this important measure. We want to be sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.

Last month, the Senate added to the gun liability bill by a vote of 91-8 the Campbell-Leahy Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, S. 253. This measure would establish national measures of uniformity and consistency to permit trained and certified on-duty, off-duty or retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in most situations so that they may respond immediately to crimes across State and other jurisdictional lines, as well as to protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals.

This National Peace Officers Memorial Day, Vermonters will remember our brave State Police Trooper, Sergeant Michael Johnson, who was killed last Father's Day while trying to stop a suspect leading two other State troopers on a high-speed chase. Sergeant Johnson was not even on duty, but he went to help his fellow troopers that Sunday afternoon after hearing their trouble on his radio. He had just deployed a set of tire spikes across the interstate when the suspect swerved to avoid the spikes and struck him. Sergeant Johnson left behind his wife and three children. Words are insufficient for the brave sacrifice of the man who was so admired by his family, community and the Vermont State Police force. In memory of this bravery and service to his family, community, State and country, Sergeant Johnson will be one of the names added this year to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.

National Peace Officers Memorial Day will provide the people of the United States with the opportunity to honor the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by our police forces. More than 15,000 peace offices are expected to gather in Washington to join with the families of their fallen comrades. I thank the Senate for acting on this important resolution.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are we still in morning business?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, last Thursday I came to the floor to mark Earth Day, and I wanted to highlight the laser-like focus of the Bush administration in rolling back 30 years of environmental protections. When one looks at their record, it is literally breathtaking.

The reason I am concerned about this is that most of our environmental legislation was put together by bipartisan coalitions. In my State of Vermont we do not think of the environment as a Republican or a Democratic issue. We think of it as an issue of protecting what is best about our country and protecting it for not only ourselves but for our children and our grandchildren.

Unfortunately, this administration tends to look at the environment as something where they should react to their largest contributors and take advantage of what it may do for them today and let our children and our grandchildren worry about it tomorrow.

Why do I say this? Three years into office, the Bush administration has taken well over 300 actions to weaken and sometimes to gut environmental protections to clean the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. They have taken huge steps to hand over our public lands to timber, oil and gas companies for more drilling and logging.

With this record, it is no wonder that the administration continues to use every page of its public playbook to downplay the effect of these rollbacks.

One of their favorite tactics is announcing environmental rollbacks on Fridays or around holidays when they think the American public will not be paying attention. In fact, we all know if you have something good you want to announce, you do it early in the week, you do it with a lot of fanfare. But if you have something you don't want anybody to pay much attention to, you do it late on Friday.

The administration has announced at least 40 environmental rollbacks on Fridays, another 20 on holidays. Actually, for them, every Friday is Friday the 13th: Friday, November 22, the clean air rollback; Friday, January 3, 2003, fast-tracked logging; Friday, January 29, 2003, clean water protections threatened; Friday, July 11, 2003, weakened our drinking water protections; Friday, October 10, 2003, changed environmental rules for mining waste; on Friday, October 17, 2003, dioxin regulation, or in this case deregulation. And on and on. These are just a few of the actions they have taken on Friday. They show just how far the administration has gone in gutting the Clean Air Act, ramping up logging in some of our spectacular national forests, dumping more mining wastes on public lands, and dumping more sewage sludge on private lands.

Another favorite tactic is either ignoring or sometimes, if the science doesn't suit their political needs, if they cannot get away with ignoring the science, then they just change it. One of the most blatant examples of this was the White House scrubbing of an annual EPA air report to avoid any mention of evidence of climate change.

Just recently, the New York Times reported on the creative White House fact spinning of the administration's proposed retreat from strong mercury controls at powerplants.

We all recognize their favorite tactic: If you are going to gut the environment, then just give it a nice name. You can see the number of focus groups they must use in the administration to come up with these names. They don't say, we are going to join Polluters-R-Us, or we are going to give a payoff to some large polluting corporation because they helped out in a fundraiser. Instead, they will go to focus groups and find out what will sound good to people, what is a good line we can use and maybe they won't look behind it, maybe they will just look at the rhetoric and ignore the reality.

I will give some examples. ``Clear Skies'' and ``Healthy Forests''-- these are lines they use, but they are just about as accurate as ``No Child Left Behind.''

They have used all of these tactics when it comes to misleading the public. For example, on wetlands protections, last January--on a Friday, of course--the administration announced one of its most sweeping rollbacks to take away protections under the Clean Water Act for 20 million acres of wetlands. This policy created such a groundswell of opposition from hunters, anglers, environmental groups, and others that the President finally withdrew the proposed rulemaking last December. One of the things they found out is hunters, anglers, and environmentalists often include a whole lot of Republicans as well as a whole lot of Democrats, and that the environment is not just for one party. But they got such enormous objection that they withdrew it-- they had to withdraw it--but they did not tell the public they were not revoking the underlying instructions to Federal agencies to follow the same policy that leaves 20 million acres of wetlands at risk.

That is why I found it so interesting that the President would start his reelection attempts to greenwash his administration's anti- environmental record by talking about wetlands. Here you have this enormous anti-environmental record. You put at risk 20 million acres of wetlands. You would think the last thing in the world they would want to do is talk about wetlands, but that is what he started with. He had some nice photo-ops walking around the salt marshes and wetlands of Maine, but when you look between the lines of his Earth Day announcement, it doesn't hold water.

While the President was touting his plan to restore 1 million acres of wetlands, he made no mention of his policy to revoke protection of 20 million acres. We will give you 1, we will take back 20. He didn't tell the folks in Maine that he proposed to cut the funding next year for one of the programs, the Wetlands Reserve Program, that was supposed to help meet his 1 million-acre target. You take back 20 million acres, you promise 1 million acres, but then you say, we won't even give you the money for the 1 million. He did not tell the folks in Maine that his administration has not fully funded this program since Congress expanded it in the last farm bill.

Yes, as he said in Maine, the President did indeed sign the farm bill to expand it. That is part of his job. But it is quite a leap for the administration to now promote that as one of their environmental accomplishments. In fact, the administration has done everything it can to shortchange the conservation programs that are so important, not only to Maine and Florida but to every other State. He not only proposed cuts to the WRP but also to other programs that might help landowners and farmers conserve the resources on their land.

When the President went down to Florida campaigning the next day, he also forgot to mention a few key facts, such as the fact that the Army Corps has allowed more than 3,800 acres of wetlands to be drained or filled in the Everglades. The Bush administration stood by and watched as the Army Corps signed off on development permits that are destroying the Everglades. It has also argued against Clean Water Act regulations of water being pumped from urban Broward County into the Everglades.

If you go back to the 300-plus rollbacks under this administration, it brings up even more policies that are hurting the environment in Maine and Florida and Vermont. The administration's retreat from aggressive mercury controls on powerplants has just been the most recent of these all-out environmental assaults.

It is hard to say we are family friendly when we are going to put more mercury into the air, the water, and the fish pregnant women eat, or by which the newborn children might be affected. That is not being family friendly, to say we have to support our polluting industries because they have been strong supporters of the President and it is tough about the newborn children.

The President, as any President of any party, can always get nice photo-ops. But his record on the environment is too mired on reversals and rollbacks for any greenwash to last too long. Greenwash, like whitewash, doesn't stick too long, and despite all the public relations maneuvering, the public recognizes the enormous and long-term effect of the Bush policies on our environment and on our health. When the administration is done, it will mean more pollution in the rivers and streams, more toxins in the air, and of course a lot less natural resources to pass on to the next generation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on May 12, Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos is planning to visit Washington for meetings with President Bush and other top administration officials. I mention this because welcoming President dos Santos to the United States is contrary to President Bush's January 12, 2004, proclamation barring corrupt foreign officials from entering the United States.

President Bush's proclamation suspends entry into the United States of public officials, and their spouses, children, and dependents, if their ``solicitation or acceptance of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of their public functions has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States.'' It also bars officials ``whose misappropriation of public funds or interference with the judicial, electoral, or other public processes'' has harmed the national interest.

If this standard does not apply to President dos Santos, it is hard to imagine to whom it could apply. He presides over one of the world's most corrupt governments. The IMF has concluded that between 1997 and 2002, Angola could not account for the expenditure of $4.2 billion in public funds, attributing this loss--equivalent to 10 percent of Angola's GDP--in substantial part to high-level corruption.

In a corruption trial in France in 2003, the former head of the oil company Elf Aquitaine testified that President dos Santos had received large bribes from the company. According to the Intelligence Unit of ``The Economist'' magazine, President dos Santos tops the list of the richest men in Angola, one of Africa's poorest countries.

President Bush's proclamation states that corruption is a threat to U.S. national interests when it has serious adverse effects on, among other things, ``U.S. foreign assistance goals . . . or the stability of democratic institutions and nations.'' I could not agree more. Massive corruption has clearly had these effects in Angola. To protect their ability to misappropriate public funds, Angolan leaders have limited press freedom, intimidated the judiciary, and resisted democratic and economic reforms. Moreover, they have refused to spend the country's oil revenues to lift their people from poverty. Half of Angola's children are malnourished even as government officials amass fortunes.

President Bush's proclamation states that persons to be barred entry for corruption, as well as those whose entry would not be contrary to the national interest, ``shall be identified by the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee, in his or her sole discretion, pursuant to such standards and procedures as the Secretary may establish.'' If the Secretary has not yet acted to establish clear and consistent standards and procedures for making these determinations, he needs to act promptly. And whether he has or not, the policy behind President Bush's proclamation should be applied to the visit of President dos Santos and other Angolan officials.

I strongly agree with President Bush that the corruption of public institutions threatens United States ``efforts to promote security and to strengthen democratic institutions and free market systems.'' As I have said before, corruption is like a cancer. It is the biggest obstacle to development--from Indonesia to Guatemala, from Nigeria to Pakistan. It undermines virtually everything we are trying to do through the Foreign Operations budget.

Fortunately, some leaders are trying to stop it, such as President Bolanos of Nicaragua, and we should do everything possible to support him and people like him, by prosecuting corrupt officials for money laundering or other violations of U.S. law, and by denying them visas to the United States.

Again, I commend President Bush for his proclamation and urge the Secretary of State to implement it vigorously.

Madam President, as I came on the floor, I heard a discussion of several Senators about the passing of Mary McGrory.

The distinguished senior Senator from Utah, who is now on the floor, and I were talking to editors and others at a press gathering in Washington this morning. I mentioned Mary McGrory at the beginning of that.

When Marcelle and I first came to Washington, Mary was one of the first people we met. I always enjoyed my time with her. She was a great writer with searching questions, and did not suffer fools idly. She was very quick and very able in deflating those who had inflated themselves far beyond what they deserved.

She also helped so many people. I remember the girl from an orphanage she helped, referring to her as ``Mary McGlory.'' Indeed, she has gone to her own glory now, but she made it possible for some others.

She was a remarkable person, a remarkable person who will not be matched. There will be many others who will carry the banner, but none will do it with her ability.

I also liked the fact every time she would take a vacation in Italy she would come and chat with me about it. My mother's family is still in Italy. We would discuss favorite recipes, notwithstanding our Irish names.

Madam President, Earth Day usually marks the beginning of the President's and his green team's migration out to our Nation's parks, forests, and wildlife refuges.

Since this is an election year, I am sure they are ramping up their efforts to greenwash their environmental record with very nice photo ops.

Greenwash, like whitewash, doesn't stick. You have only to open the daily newspaper to see the laserlike focus the Bush administration has taken to rolling back our environmental laws, and while doing so rewarding special interests and corporate polluters. The starkest example is their outright assault on the most bipartisan environmental law of the 20th century, the Clean Air Act. I say bipartisan because leading Republicans and leading Democrats across the political spectrum, in the House and in the Senate, came together to pass the Clean Air Act. My predecessor, the senior Senator from Vermont, Bob Stafford, was one of those leaders.

You would think of all acts, one that would be put together by Republicans and Democrats would be safe from assault by this Administration. That is not the case.

By stealthy executive fiat, the Administration has dismantled the Clean Air Act bit by bit to let polluting industries off the hook when it comes to cleaning up dirty coal-fired powerplants that each year belch hundreds of thousands of tons of soot and toxic pollutants-- pollutants like mercury.

The administration's actions to retreat from strong mercury controls, to undermine current lawsuits against the biggest utility companies, and to allow new coal-fired powerplants to be built without the best controls amounts to a triple whammy for public health and the environment.

We often speak about being family friendly in this body. How do we tell a pregnant mother or a parent with small children how family friendly it is to allow more mercury into our air and into our water and the fish we eat.

When the Clean Air Act was passed, Congress gave coal-fired powerplants a grace period to either clean up or shut down. At the end of the Clinton administration, we were making real progress toward meeting that goal. States such as my State of Vermont, which have been the dumping ground for toxic pollutants like mercury for decades, were finally going to get some relief. But, unfortunately, the only people letting out a sigh of relief now are the CEOs and corporate attorneys in the boardrooms of multibillion dollar energy companies. They are the only ones celebrating this Earth Day.

Despite all of the administration's public relations tactics, I believe the American people are catching on, and enough is enough. To date, this Administration has made well over 300 rollbacks to our environmental protections. Think of that, three years in office and they have had 300 rollbacks of our environmental laws.

There is certainly a lot about which the American people should be outraged. But I think it is important to take note of the strong bipartisan and growing outcry about the Administration's latest retreat from the Clean Air Act in the form of its mercury proposal.

Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Dayton, and I were joined by 41 other Senators in calling on the administration to withdraw its mercury proposal. The concerns are building so swiftly they may soon reach critical mass.

Look at this map. It gives some indication why the concerns are so great and why the objections are bipartisan.

This is the Environmental Protection Agency's own map: ``Mercury Deposition in the United States.''

This is the Canadian border along here. Look how the mercury, because they are willing to violate and allow

violations of the Clean Air Act, comes across. Look how it inundates the States in this area. My own State of Vermont is basically hidden under the deepest red of mercury pollution on the chart.

The new EPA proposal to reduce mercury emissions was supposed to bring the powerplants into the 21st century and clean up their emissions. It does not do that. It falls short of what is necessary and falls far short of what is possible.

Despite the Administration's best efforts to use every tactic in its public relations arsenal to convince Americans more mercury in the water, food, and environment over a long period of time is the best we can do, it is not working.

In the last 2 months, much has come to light about the Administration's close collusion with polluting industries and devising its policy on mercury. The lobbyists from the industry sent their proposal to the Administration. The Administration does not even pretend to look at this scientifically or be independent. They just take it verbatim. They might as well have kept the letterheads from some of these companies. Instead of using the EPA letterhead, they could put ``Polluters 'R Us,'' or whatever industry sent to them. There are 20 examples where industry helped ghostwrite the mercury proposal.

In a way, it is almost humorous that they would be so blatant about turning this over to the polluters, except that it suggests a very serious breach of the public rulemaking process and undermines the public trust in EPA's ability to be an independent decision-maker and perform its mission to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment.

This Administration has a credibility problem about its approach to the Clean Air Act and to mercury pollution. New warnings about mercury risk from tuna, increasing numbers of pregnant women with mercury levels above safe levels, more newborns being born with high mercury levels, all are adding up to widespread and growing public demand for prompt action. We know from reports in the New York Times that the Bush administration employed a favorite tactic of sweeping science under the rug when it was drafting the mercury proposal.

But we cannot ignore the facts. This chart shows the estimates of newborn children and women with unsafe mercury blood levels. They have doubled. These are some of the estimates from EPA scientists about which the White House wished the American people did not know.

Anyone who has children or grandchildren should worry about this issue. Anybody who is expecting a child should worry about what this administration is doing. Anybody who has young children should worry about what they are doing. The estimate of women of childbearing age with mercury levels above what EPA considers safe has doubled. Apparently, the administration does not want the public to know that their mercury proposal does not go far enough fast enough to protect mothers and newborns from mercury.

The same strategy is to ignore career staff and public health experts in the administration's proposal to write a giant loophole into the Clean Air Act New Source Review, called NSR. For anyone who has not seen it, I suggest a careful reading of the New York Times magazine article from several weekends ago titled ``Up In Smoke'' to see how the Bush administration strategically placed industry lawyers in key positions at EPA, spending the last few years helping the biggest utility companies in the country get off the legal hook of pollution control plans. They put the fox in to guard the henhouse. They have said to industry--and these are industries that contributed mightily to this administration--they have said: We will set aside the nonpartisan nonpolitical scientists; we will set aside the people whose sworn duty is to be here to protect the American public; we will put your lawyers in place, and we will let them write the rules for the rest of the country.

Agency experts repeatedly warned the political appointees at the EPA that through new policy, this new NSR policy would undercut the lawsuits.

And they went even further. They gave industry even more than they asked for and now industry attorneys are going to court where cases have been brought and are saying they should be dismissed because of the administration's actions. This is a very real problem in States like mine, if you are downwind.

If Government wins the NSR cases despite the administration's back- door tactics and hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic pollutants will be cut.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration is not satisfied. Retreating from strong mercury controls, undermining the NSR cases, is not enough. We now have reports that say the administration is considering new guidelines to States to limit their ability to require that new coal- fired plants use the best available technology to reduce emissions. That should set off alarm bells in the Northeast.

This chart shows where new proposed plants are. The power industry has plans to build nearly 100 new coal-fired powerplants in the United States over the next 10 years, but the administration is trying to make darn sure they do not have to put in the kind of technology necessary to cut pollutants. These plants, located mostly in the Midwest and Great Lakes, will add thousands of pounds of new pollutants to our Nation's air.

Over the last several decades, we have learned what comes out of the plants ends up in the lakes, rivers, and streams, as well as the food supplies of the children in the Northeast.

If coal really is making a come back, as people predict, we should ensure it is not at the expense of our health and environment. On every front, the Bush administration is selling American technology and American ingenuity short. The administrations is setting the bar way too low, and they have set the clock for far too long. The technology exists to go much further. The administration needs to start putting the public interest ahead of special interests and tell the industry to use it. Just think of that, putting the public interest ahead of special interest. What a novel idea. If we did that, the American people would much better served.

I hope the administration will withdraw its industry-ghostwritten, scientifically unjustifiable mercury rule, withdraw its NSR policy and drop plans to allow new powerplants to be built without the best environmental controls. I worry that the industry stalwarts within the administration will continue with their schemes to let corporate polluters off the hook.

Remember, this is the same White House that tried to put more arsenic in our drinking water. The American people know their real slogan is, ``Go ahead and pollute, we don't give a hoot.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am disappointed my friends across the aisle are insisting on proceeding to this partisan asbestos bill. I say that because the legislation is not ready for prime time. It is not ready for floor consideration. I am one who believes the Senate should pass legislation to establish a national trust fund to compensate asbestos victims. Actually, I chaired the first Judiciary Committee hearing on this subject back in September of 2002.

This bill would create a trust fund with unfair compensation, inadequate funding, no startup protections, delayed sunset provisions, and major solvency problems. Despite its title, this partisan bill is far from fair.

It is a mistake for the Republican leadership to insist on proceeding to a bill with so many major problems still unresolved. Again, this bill is not ready for floor consideration.

We did have a bipartisan dialog over the past year, and I hoped that would yield a fair and efficient compensation system we could in good conscience offer to those suffering today from asbestos-related diseases and also to those victims who we know are going to come in the future.

Unfortunately, the Senate majority leadership decided to walk away from those negotiations and resort to unilateralism by introducing a partisan bill, and that is a shame. I believe so many of my friends on the Republican side would like to have a good bill, but to have a good bill of this complexity requires real work and we have to work as legislators and we have to have substance, not symbolism. We have to have reality, not rhetoric.

The introduction of this bill raises many questions--most notably what

the sponsors are trying to achieve because it is certainly not a fair compensation model for asbestos victims. By breaking off the bipartisan negotiations and hastily pushing a bill to the floor, the Republicans have turned their back on all of us who have worked so hard for so long to find a fair solution.

Creating a fair national trust fund to compensate asbestos victims is one of the most complex legislative undertakings I have been involved with in nearly 29 years in the Senate. The interrelated aspects necessary for a fair national trust fund are like a Rubik's Cube, and that is all the more reason why we should have a fair national trust fund bill and have it be a consensus piece of legislation. Otherwise it does not work, it does not become law.

That is why I have been involved in months of bipartisan negotiations. I worked so hard to encourage the interested stakeholders to reach agreement on all these critical details.

I thank Senators Daschle, Dodd, Feinstein, Specter, and other Senators, the representatives from organized labor, the trial bar, and industry who worked so hard to try to reach consensus on a national trust fund that would fairly compensate asbestos victims and also to provide the financial certainty for their defendants and their insurers.

We did reach bipartisan agreement on two of the four cornerstones of a successful trust fund. Senator Hatch and I brought together the Leahy-Hatch amendment that gave appropriate medical criteria to determine who should receive compensation and an efficient, expedited system for processing claims. But we have yet to reach consensus on the other two cornerstones of a successful trust fund--fair award values for asbestos victims and adequate funding to pay for the compensation. Even if we have the medical criteria and if we lowball the amounts, if we do not adequately handle it, it makes no difference.

Bipartisan medical criteria have already eliminated what businesses contend were the most troublesome claims, but that kind of fair compensation is not free.

The Judiciary Committee's unanimous agreement on the Leahy-Hatch medical criteria is meaningless if the majority, in effect, rewrites the categories by failing to compensate those who fall within them. Even with consensus on medical criteria, if the award value is unfair, then the bill is unfair and it is unworthy of our support. That is the case with this partisan bill.

Since my first hearing on this issue nearly 2 years ago, I have emphasized one bedrock principle: It has to be a balanced solution. I cannot support a bill that gives inadequate compensation to victims. I will not adjust fair award values into some discounted amount to make the final tally come within a predetermined and artificial limit. That is not fair.

It is critical that there is adequate funding at the inception of a national trust fund since there are more than 300,000 current pending cases in our legal system. Upfront contributions from defendants and insurers will be necessary to accommodate the inevitable, and that is thousands of these pending claims coming in on the very first day of the trust fund.

The new Hatch-Frist bill actually provides less upfront funding and less overall funding than we voted out of the Judiciary Committee. That is not fair. The partisan emphasis in this bill on behalf of the industrial and insurance companies involved, to the detriment of victims, has produced an unbalanced bill. This bill is a reflection of the priorities that went into it.

Many of us have worked hard for more than a year toward the goal of a consensus asbestos bill. So this new partisan bill is especially saddening and confounding. We could have a bill that protects defendants; it would protect the insurance companies; it would protect the corporations; and it would protect the people who have been sickened by asbestos. We could have done that. We could have brought finality to this issue. We could have ended endless litigation. We could have let corporations go on with their business. We could have made sure the victims knew they were going to get adequate compensation. We have missed a golden opportunity.

After the cloture vote on this partisan asbestos bill, the Senate will take up and pass the Kyl-Feinstein-Hatch-Leahy crime victims' rights legislation. This bipartisan legislation is a good example of what the Senate can do when we work together to reach consensus. Unfortunately, the bipartisan process of the crime victims' rights legislation is being abandoned by the majority on this partisan asbestos bill.

We should be asking ourselves this question: Does this partisan turn the sponsors of this bill have taken help or hurt our efforts to produce and enact a consensus asbestos bill? I say it does not help.

We have enough of a debate going on behind me, so I will yield to someone in a different part of the Chamber, Senator Kennedy, so he can make himself heard for 10 minutes.

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

Madam President, I see my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, in the Chamber. I know the distinguished Senator from California will be joining us shortly. What is the time allocation? I know the distinguished Senator from Arizona wants to make sure we all have time, but I was just curious where we are.

I do not anticipate using all my time by any means. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Arizona who had indicated earlier that he fit us in because of conflicting schedules that the Senator from California and I have. Before I even begin, I want to again thank the distinguished Senators from Arizona and California for all they have done on this issue.

This past Sunday, as we all know, marked the start of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year to refocus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims. One would almost think we would not have to do that, but as a matter of fact, too often, the needs of victims are not met, and their rights are not fully honored. I learned this during my time as a prosecutor. I think all of us have learned this, from the experiences and some terribly gripping stories that we have heard from our constituents.

This year, the Senate had been scheduled to mark the occasion of National Crime Victims' Rights Week by taking up S.J. Res. 1, a proposed constitutional amendment. It was going to end up being days, maybe weeks, of debate even though everyone knew that the constitutional amendment was not going to pass. We went through this process back in April of the year 2000, during the last Presidential election year.

I said then, during that earlier debate on the constitutional amendment, that I have worked long and hard to protect and advance crime victims' rights, as have many on both sides of the aisle in this body. As a prosecutor for 8\1/2\ years, I worked day to day, year to year alongside victims, seeking justice on their behalf. This was back at a time before people spoke much about victims having rights. I like to think that my office was a model in this regard, for making sure that victims were heard.

I have worked on and have led many legislative efforts on behalf of victims throughout my service in the Senate. One of the most recent of those efforts was the creation of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund. I am grateful to have been able to take part in something that has brought some relief to so many victims.

But I will never forget the victims I worked with as a prosecutor or the needs of the new victims minted each day through the crimes committed against them.

For years, at Christmas time, I received a very poignant letter from a woman who was the victim of a very serious crime. She told me how she was doing, how her children were doing.

When I go to the grocery store in Vermont, or I'm walking down the street, I run into people who were helped during those years and who had a voice during those years. It is gratifying, but I have to think about the fact that every single day, there are a whole lot more crimes, and a whole lot more victims.

I have always believed that victims should be afforded certain basic protections. I believe victims should be notified when the defendant is in court or when he is about to be released. I believe victims should be heard at critical stages of the prosecution. I believe victims are entitled to restitution from offenders.

In recent years, the debate has never been about whether victims should be protected. Of course they should. Rather, the debate has been about how victims should be protected.

I did not think the proposed constitutional amendment was the best way forward. I still believe that. We all agree, and every witness who testified before the Judiciary Committee on this issue agreed, that every right provided by the victims' rights amendment can be, or already is, protected by State or Federal statutory law.

So we have long had the power to enhance victims' rights through regular legislation, passed with a simple majority vote, and make an immediate difference in the lives of crime victims. Legislative enhancements are more easily enacted, more directly applied and implemented, and more able to provide specific, effective remedies. In addition, as Chief Justice Rehnquist and others have pointed out, statutes are more easily corrected if we find, in hindsight, that they need correction, clarification, or improvement.

When we pass the Kyl-Feinstein-Hatch-Leahy Victims' Rights Act, we will take a step that I have long advocated. So I thank and commend the principal sponsors of S.J. Res. 1, the distinguished Senators from California and Arizona. We came from both sides on the constitutional debate, but all of us are deeply committed to the cause of victims' rights, and that is why we came together on this legislation.

This legislation will provide crime victims in the Federal system with all the rights and protections that the proposed constitutional amendment would have provided. In fact, our statute goes further than the constitutional amendment because it gives the same rights and protections to all crime victims, not just to the victims of violent crimes. The elderly woman who is defrauded out of her life savings will get the same protection from this statute as other crime victims.

This statute, S. 2329, also spells out how victims' rights are to be enforced, using language that Senator Kennedy and I developed in S. 805, the Crime Victims Assistance Act. In addition to providing victims with standing to assert their rights in mandamus actions, S. 2329 will establish an administrative authority in the Department of Justice to receive and investigate victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of Justice employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination of employment.

We have incorporated other proposals from S. 805 as well, to help States implement and enforce their own victims' rights laws. And we have called for two annual reports, one by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the other by the General Accounting Office, to make sure we get some feedback on how the rights and procedures established by the statute are working in practice. Over time, we will be able to modify and fine-tune the statute so that it provides an appropriate degree of protection for the rights of crime victims.

I have no doubt we are going to pass this law today. I believe the other body will pass the law, and the President will sign it. Then part of our duty is going to have to be to follow up to see how it works.

I said to some of the representatives of victims' groups this morning, keep our feet to the fire. Make sure we follow up. Passage of this bill will necessitate careful oversight of its implementation by Congress. If, as I hope, federal judges and prosecutors take victims' rights seriously, there should be little need for victims to bring mandamus actions to enforce their rights. But if, for whatever reason, victims feel that they are not being treated fairly, we may see a wave of new litigation in the federal courts, with victims and their lawyers having to insert themselves into criminal cases. We will need to monitor the situation closely.

I am committed to giving victims real and enforceable rights. But I am convinced that prosecutors should be capable of protecting those rights, once we make them clear. In my experience, prosecutors have victims' interests at heart.

Senator Kennedy and I proposed in the Crime Victims Assistance Act a limited-standing provision, which applied with respect to the victim's right to attend and observe the trial, and under which a victim could assert her right if the prosecutor refused to do so. Passing such a provision would have allowed us to observe over a period of time whether direct participation of victims in criminal proceedings has any unanticipated consequences for the administration of justice.

This Victims' Rights Act proposes a bolder experiment, entitling victims to assert a panoply of rights, regardless of whether the prosecution is already asserting the same rights on their behalf. For example, at the insistence of other sponsors, this bill will enable victims to bring mandamus actions alleging the denial of their statutory right ``to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy,'' which may be difficult claims to adjudicate.

I note with some regret that S. 2329 picks up language from S.J. Res. 1 denying victims any cause of action for damages in the event that their rights are violated. Allowing victims to vindicate their rights through separate proceedings for damages instead of through mandamus actions in the criminal case could well be a more efficient as well as a more effective way of ensuring that victims' rights are honored. Certainly the prospect of being held to account in such proceedings would provide a powerful incentive to take victims' rights seriously. But the

Republican sponsors of the bill did not want to provide for damages.

Similarly, some Republican Senators did not want to allow courts to appoint attorneys to help crime victims. It is my hope and belief that victims will seldom need representation, since they already have powerful advocates in our public prosecutors. Still, it is possible that a judge would want to appoint an attorney for a victim in an extraordinary case, as for example if there is a material conflict between the victim's interests and the interests of the prosecution. By failing to provide for this possibility, S. 2329 may perpetuate a system of unequal justice for victims, where the wealthy have the benefit of counsel, and the poor do not.

There are other provisions that were also, regrettably, left on the cutting-room floor during negotiations on this bill. First, we dropped a provision that was in the proposed constitutional amendment, which would have given victims certain rights in the context of clemency proceedings. I know Attorney General Ashcroft, when he was a Member of the Senate, felt strongly that victims should have a voice in these proceedings. I would welcome the chance to work with him, to have him provide for that within the Federal system, to do in the Federal system what he wanted to do while a member of this body.

A second provision that I would have liked to include in the bill would have authorized funding for a broad range of compliance authorities to help enforce the rights of crime victims in the state systems. Senator Kennedy and I proposed such a program in the Crime Victims Assistance Act, but I was unable to persuade my colleagues to include it in this bill.

There are a variety of remedies for violations of rights that are operating at the State level, all of which have strengths and weaknesses. Some States use more than one approach. Arizona has a non- statutory ombudsman staff position in the Attorney General's office, to receive and investigate victim complaints; a victims' legal assistance project run by a non-profit and the Arizona State University College of Law, and a system of auditing those who receive grants to implement victims' rights. Wisconsin uses a State employee to receive and attempt to resolve victim complaints, as well as a victims' rights board that can formally receive complaints and seek sanctions for violations. Alaska has a State Office of Victims' Rights. South Carolina has an independent victim ombudsman. Connecticut has a State Victim Advocate. Vermont is exploring various options. We do have a Center for Crime Victims Services, which advocates informally for victims and is one of the premier victims' services sites in the country.

Finally, I want to comment on the unusual genesis of this bill, and the extraordinary procedure that has brought us so swiftly to a vote in the Senate. As I mentioned earlier, the Senate was scheduled to begin work this week on the proposed constitutional amendment, S.J. Res. 1. On Wednesday, the Republican leadership moved to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. I would not have opposed this motion. I voted to proceed to an earlier iteration of this constitutional amendment four years ago, and I would have been prepared to proceed to it again this week. Even given the time this would have taken and the expected outcome, I would not have opposed a debate on the constitutional amendment.

It was under these circumstances that we had so little opportunity to work on crafting the crime victims' statute. I would have liked to have gotten the views of the Office for Victims of Crime and other components of the Department of Justice, for example. Many victims' groups and domestic violence organizations opposed the constitutional amendment, as did many law professors, judges, and prosecutors. I would have liked to hear their views on this statute. I am personally concerned that the statute may not adequately address the special problems raised in domestic violence and abuse situations. If it does not, then we may need to amend it again.

Given the Republican leadership's insistence on proceeding to the constitutional amendment today, there was not as much time as I would have liked to develop the statutory alternative that we vote on today, and no time to hold hearings on it or improve the bill in Committee. Fortunately, however, this is to be a statute, not a constitutional amendment, and it can be modified and improved. We will be able to make it better as we go along.

I commend my good friend, Senator Feinstein, for mediating this consensus legislation. I know that she would have preferred to pass a constitutional amendment. She has made that clear. Nevertheless, she worked hard to produce a bill that we all can support, showing once again that she is first and foremost a legislator who wants to get things done. Due in large part to Senator Feinstein's efforts, we now have an opportunity to advance the cause of victims' rights with strong, practical, bipartisan legislation. I have never doubted Senator Feinstein or Senator Kyl's commitment to victims' rights. I am delighted that we have come together to advance that common cause.

My friend and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, is another lead sponsor of this legislation. He and I have worked together on the Judiciary Committee in this area. He has been a tireless advocate for the rights of crime victims, and more generally for fairness in the administration of justice.

I want to thank David Hantman and Steve Cash of Senator Feinstein's staff; Bruce Artim and Grace Becker of Senator Hatch's staff; Steven Higgins of Senator Kyl's staff; Robin Toone of Senator Kennedy's staff; Bob Schiff and Alex Busansky of Senator Feingold's staff; Neil MacBride and Louisa Terrell of Senator Biden's staff; Chris Kang of Senator Durbin's staff; Mark Childress and Jennifer Duck of Senator Daschle's staff; and, most especially the members of my own staff for their hard work on this bill over the last several days under extraordinary circumstances and pressures.

I also want to commend and thank the many victims' advocates and service providers in Vermont and across the country who show their dedication every day of the year to crime victims. I want to thank those who work in the area of domestic violence and abuse in particular. I am thankful for their dedication and grateful for their advice and insights over the years.

For more than 20 years I have sponsored and championed legislation to help victims. I have mentioned the recent September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and I am also proud of such other advancements on behalf of victims as a law to provide assistance to victims of international terrorism, and bills to raise the cap on victims' assistance and compensation programs and to protect the rights of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. Today's vote provides us the opportunity to make progress on yet another important measure to address the needs of victims.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Center for Victims of Crime stating strong support for S. 2329 be printed in the Record as well as, for the sake of completeness, a number of editorials that appeared on this subject recently.

Madam President, I do not see others seeking time so I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today is supposed to be a day to mark the importance of protecting the environment. And thankfully, many people are. But though we are all marking the day, the only people celebrating are industry CEOs and lobbyists.

The Bush administration's laser-like focus on rolling back our environmental and public health protections is breathtaking, literally. The rollbacks are dirtying our air and destroying the health of the planet.

Instead of packing the agencies responsible for the environment with environmental stewards as you would expect, the administration has focused on creating a public relations firm under the guise of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It's been a busy PR firm: announcing environmental rollbacks on Fridays or around holidays when they think the American public is not paying attention, assigning green names to destructive policies, scrubbing regulatory actions to downplay public health risks to meet their political needs and flat out ignoring scientific facts are just a few of their favorite marketing tools.

But for all their public relations maneuvering, the public recognizes the enormous and long-term effect of these policies on our environment and our health. This PR campaign is being led by the very people the administration is supposed to be policing: industry representatives often at the heart of the most egregious environmental neglect. The administration's lates rollback has the fingerprints of lobbyists all over it, the Bush retreat from strong mercury controls at coal-fired power plants.

Unfortunately, the ``swoosh'' from the revolving door between industry lobby shops and the Bush administration has now spilled over to the Federal bench. The Bush administration recognizes that the courts have become the final backstop against their environmental rollbacks, blocking Bush attempts to gut the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and protection of our national monuments.

The courts have ruled against Bush arguments to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act 80 percent of the time. The Bush solution, give anti-environmental, unqualified industry lobbyists lifetime judicial appointments.

The debate over William Myers, a former cattle and mining industry lobbyist, may be one of the most important environmental debates we have this year. Unlike the Bush industry appointees to Federal agencies, Mr. Myers' effect on environment and public lands would survive long past this Presidency. As I have said many times, the environment is not a partisan issue but this administration has made it clear that industry interests trump the public interest.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a legislative fellow, Erik Winchester, to be granted the privilege of the floor throughout today.

Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the start of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year to refocus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims.

This year, the Senate had been scheduled to mark the occasion by taking up S.J. Res. 1, a proposed constitutional amendment. Once again, we were going to devote days or weeks debating that proposal, even though the Republican leadership knew it had no real chance of garnering the two-thirds super-majority needed to pass. We went through a similar process four years ago, in April 2000, when the Senate debated an earlier version of the amendment during the last presidential election year.

I noted then, during that earlier debate, the fact that I have long worked to protect and advance crime victims' rights. As a prosecutor, I worked day to day and year to year alongside victims, seeking justice on their behalf. I have worked on and led many legislative efforts on behalf of victims throughout my service in the Senate. One of the most recent of those efforts was the creation of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and I am grateful to have been able to take part in something that has brought some relief to so many victims.

I will never forget the victims I worked with as a prosecutor or the needs of the new victims minted each day through the crimes committed against them. I believe that victims should be notified when the defendant is in court or when he is about to be released. I believe that victims should be heard at critical stages of the prosecution. I believe that victims are entitled to restitution from offenders. In recent years, the debate was never about whether victims should be protected--of course they should. Rather, the debate was about how they should be protected, and whether the proposed constitutional amendment was the best way to do that.

I did not think the proposed amendment was the best way forward. The one thing about which every witness who testified on this issue agreed was that every right provided by the Victims Rights Amendment can be, or already is, protected by State or federal statutory law.

We have long had it in our power to enhance victims' rights through regular legislation legislation that could pass with a simple majority and make an immediate difference in the lives of crime victims. Legislative enhancements are more easily enacted, more directly applied and implemented, and more able to provide specific, effective remedies. In addition, as Chief Justice Rehnquist and others have pointed out, statutes are more easily corrected if we find, in hindsight, that they need correction, clarification or improvement.

I am delighted to be here today with the principal sponsors of S.J. Res. 1, the distinguished Senators from California and Arizona, and with others, both supporters and opponents of the constitutional amendment, to join together in our support of this crime victims' rights statute. I commend and admire Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl for their dedication to this issue. They are deeply committed to the cause of victims' rights as are all of us who have joined together to offer this bill. It is my hope that this statute will establish more effective and enforceable rights for crime victims in the federal system, and that it can do so without delay, by a majority vote.

First, unlike S.J. Res. 1, which is limited to victims of violent crime, our statute establishes enhanced rights and protections for all victims of crime. Therefore, the elderly woman who is defrauded out of her life savings will have the same rights of notice and participation as other crime victims.

Second, our statute spells out how these rights are to be enforced, using language that Senator Kennedy and I developed in S. 805, the Crime Victims Assistance Act. In addition to providing victims with standing to assert their rights in mandamus actions, our statute would establish an administrative authority in the Department of Justice to receive and investigate victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of Justice employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination of employment.

Third, our statute incorporates additional proposals from S. 805 to help States implement and enforce their own victims' rights laws. In this way, instead of replacing programs that have already been implemented by a majority of States, our statute enables States to retain their full power to protect victims in the ways most appropriate to local concerns and local needs.

Fourth, our statute calls for two annual reports, one by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the other by the General Accounting Office. These reports will provide Congress with feedback on how the rights and procedures established by the statute are working in practice. Over time, we will be able to modify and fine-tune the statute so that it provides an appropriate degree of protection for the rights of crime victims.

I emphasize that passage of this bill will necessitate careful oversight of its implementation by Congress. If, as I hope, Federal judges and prosecutors take victims' rights seriously, there should be little need for victims to bring mandamus actions to enforce their rights. But if, for whatever reason, victims feel that they are not being treated fairly, we may see a wave of new litigation in the Federal courts, with victims and their lawyers having to insert themselves into criminal cases. We will need to monitor the situation closely.

I am committed to giving victims real and enforceable rights. But I am convinced that prosecutors should be capable of protecting those rights, once we make them clear. In my experience, prosecutors have victims' interests at heart.

Senator Kennedy and I proposed in the Crime Victims Assistance Act a limited-standing provision, which applied with respect to the victim's right to attend and observe the trial, and under which a victim could assert her right if the prosecutor refused to do so. Passing such a provision would have allowed us to observe over a period of time whether direct participation of victims in criminal proceedings has any unanticipated consequences for the administration of justice.

This Victims' Rights Act proposes a bolder experiment, entitling victims to assert a panoply of rights, regardless of whether the prosecution is already asserting the same rights on their behalf. For example, at the insistence of other sponsors, this bill will enable victims to bring mandamus actions alleging the denial of their statutory right ``to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy,'' which may be difficult claims to adjudicate.

I note with some regret that our statute picks up language from S.J. Res. 1 denying victims a civil cause of action for damages in the event that their rights are violated. Allowing victims to vindicate their rights through separate civil proceedings instead of through mandamus actions in the criminal case could well be a more efficient as well as a more effective way of ensuring that victims' rights are honored. Certainly the prospect of being sued would provide a powerful incentive to take victims' rights seriously. But the Republican sponsors of the bill did not want to provide for damages.

Similarly, some Republican Senators did not want to allow courts to appoint attorneys to help crime victims. It is my hope and belief that victims will seldom need representation, since they already have powerful advocates in our public prosecutors. Still, it is possible that a judge would want to appoint an attorney for a victim in an extraordinary case, as for example if there is a material conflict between the victim's interests and the interests of the prosecution. By failing to provide for this possibility, our new bill may perpetuate a system of unequal justice for victims, where the wealthy have the benefit of counsel, and the poor do not.

Finally, I want to comment on the unusual genesis of this bill, and the extraordinary procedure that I expect it will follow in the Senate. As I mentioned earlier, the Senate was scheduled to begin work this week on the proposed constitutional amendment, S.J. Res. 1. On Wednesday, the Republican leadership moved to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. I would not have opposed this motion. I voted to proceed to an earlier iteration of this constitutional amendment 4 years ago, and I would have been prepared to proceed to it again this week. Given the time this would take and the expected outcome, it could be argued that the Senate already has many pressing matters on its agenda, but I would not have opposed a debate on the constitutional amendment.

Given the Republican leadership's insistence on proceeding to the constitutional amendment this week, there has not been as much time as I would have liked to craft the statutory alternative that we introduce today. And because this bill will come to a vote almost immediately, we will not get to hold hearings on it and polish the text in Committee. I would have liked to get the views of the Office for Victims of Crime. Many victims' groups and domestic violence organizations opposed the constitutional amendment, as did many law professors, judges, and prosecutors. I would have liked to hear their views on this statute. I am concerned that the statute may not adequately address the special problems raised in domestic violence and abuse situations. Fortunately, however, this is a statute, not a constitutional amendment, and it can be modified with relative ease if the need arises.

I commend my good friend, Senator Feinstein, for mediating this consensus legislation. I know that she would have preferred to pass a constitutional amendment--she has made that clear. Nevertheless, she worked hard to produce a bill that we all can support, showing once again that she is first and foremost a legislator who wants to get things done. Due in large part to Senator Feinstein's efforts, we now have an opportunity to advance the cause of victims' rights with strong, practical, bipartisan legislation. I have never doubted Senator Feinstein or Senator Kyl's commitment to victims' rights. I am delighted that we have come together to advance that common cause.

Over more than 20 years I have sponsored and championed legislation to help victims. I have mentioned the recent September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and I am also proud of such other advancements on behalf of victims as a law to provide assistance to victims of international terrorism, and bills to raise the cap on victims' assistance and compensation programs and to protect the rights of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. The legislation that we introduce today should provide us the opportunity to make progress on yet another important measure to address the needs of victims, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the start of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year to refocus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims.

This year, the Senate had been scheduled to mark the occasion by taking up S.J. Res. 1, a proposed constitutional amendment. Once again, we were going to devote days or weeks debating that proposal, even though the Republican leadership knew it had no real chance of garnering the two-thirds super-majority needed to pass. We went through a similar process four years ago, in April 2000, when the Senate debated an earlier version of the amendment during the last presidential election year.

I noted then, during that earlier debate, the fact that I have long worked to protect and advance crime victims' rights. As a prosecutor, I worked day to day and year to year alongside victims, seeking justice on their behalf. I have worked on and led many legislative efforts on behalf of victims throughout my service in the Senate. One of the most recent of those efforts was the creation of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and I am grateful to have been able to take part in something that has brought some relief to so many victims.

I will never forget the victims I worked with as a prosecutor or the needs of the new victims minted each day through the crimes committed against them. I believe that victims should be notified when the defendant is in court or when he is about to be released. I believe that victims should be heard at critical stages of the prosecution. I believe that victims are entitled to restitution from offenders. In recent years, the debate was never about whether victims should be protected--of course they should. Rather, the debate was about how they should be protected, and whether the proposed constitutional amendment was the best way to do that.

I did not think the proposed amendment was the best way forward. The one thing about which every witness who testified on this issue agreed was that every right provided by the Victims Rights Amendment can be, or already is, protected by State or federal statutory law.

We have long had it in our power to enhance victims' rights through regular legislation legislation that could pass with a simple majority and make an immediate difference in the lives of crime victims. Legislative enhancements are more easily enacted, more directly applied and implemented, and more able to provide specific, effective remedies. In addition, as Chief Justice Rehnquist and others have pointed out, statutes are more easily corrected if we find, in hindsight, that they need correction, clarification or improvement.

I am delighted to be here today with the principal sponsors of S.J. Res. 1, the distinguished Senators from California and Arizona, and with others, both supporters and opponents of the constitutional amendment, to join together in our support of this crime victims' rights statute. I commend and admire Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl for their dedication to this issue. They are deeply committed to the cause of victims' rights as are all of us who have joined together to offer this bill. It is my hope that this statute will establish more effective and enforceable rights for crime victims in the federal system, and that it can do so without delay, by a majority vote.

First, unlike S.J. Res. 1, which is limited to victims of violent crime, our statute establishes enhanced rights and protections for all victims of crime. Therefore, the elderly woman who is defrauded out of her life savings will have the same rights of notice and participation as other crime victims.

Second, our statute spells out how these rights are to be enforced, using language that Senator Kennedy and I developed in S. 805, the Crime Victims Assistance Act. In addition to providing victims with standing to assert their rights in mandamus actions, our statute would establish an administrative authority in the Department of Justice to receive and investigate victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of Justice employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination of employment.

Third, our statute incorporates additional proposals from S. 805 to help States implement and enforce their own victims' rights laws. In this way, instead of replacing programs that have already been implemented by a majority of States, our statute enables States to retain their full power to protect victims in the ways most appropriate to local concerns and local needs.

Fourth, our statute calls for two annual reports, one by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the other by the General Accounting Office. These reports will provide Congress with feedback on how the rights and procedures established by the statute are working in practice. Over time, we will be able to modify and fine-tune the statute so that it provides an appropriate degree of protection for the rights of crime victims.

I emphasize that passage of this bill will necessitate careful oversight of its implementation by Congress. If, as I hope, Federal judges and prosecutors take victims' rights seriously, there should be little need for victims to bring mandamus actions to enforce their rights. But if, for whatever reason, victims feel that they are not being treated fairly, we may see a wave of new litigation in the Federal courts, with victims and their lawyers having to insert themselves into criminal cases. We will need to monitor the situation closely.

I am committed to giving victims real and enforceable rights. But I am convinced that prosecutors should be capable of protecting those rights, once we make them clear. In my experience, prosecutors have victims' interests at heart.

Senator Kennedy and I proposed in the Crime Victims Assistance Act a limited-standing provision, which applied with respect to the victim's right to attend and observe the trial, and under which a victim could assert her right if the prosecutor refused to do so. Passing such a provision would have allowed us to observe over a period of time whether direct participation of victims in criminal proceedings has any unanticipated consequences for the administration of justice.

This Victims' Rights Act proposes a bolder experiment, entitling victims to assert a panoply of rights, regardless of whether the prosecution is already asserting the same rights on their behalf. For example, at the insistence of other sponsors, this bill will enable victims to bring mandamus actions alleging the denial of their statutory right ``to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy,'' which may be difficult claims to adjudicate.

I note with some regret that our statute picks up language from S.J. Res. 1 denying victims a civil cause of action for damages in the event that their rights are violated. Allowing victims to vindicate their rights through separate civil proceedings instead of through mandamus actions in the criminal case could well be a more efficient as well as a more effective way of ensuring that victims' rights are honored. Certainly the prospect of being sued would provide a powerful incentive to take victims' rights seriously. But the Republican sponsors of the bill did not want to provide for damages.

Similarly, some Republican Senators did not want to allow courts to appoint attorneys to help crime victims. It is my hope and belief that victims will seldom need representation, since they already have powerful advocates in our public prosecutors. Still, it is possible that a judge would want to appoint an attorney for a victim in an extraordinary case, as for example if there is a material conflict between the victim's interests and the interests of the prosecution. By failing to provide for this possibility, our new bill may perpetuate a system of unequal justice for victims, where the wealthy have the benefit of counsel, and the poor do not.

Finally, I want to comment on the unusual genesis of this bill, and the extraordinary procedure that I expect it will follow in the Senate. As I mentioned earlier, the Senate was scheduled to begin work this week on the proposed constitutional amendment, S.J. Res. 1. On Wednesday, the Republican leadership moved to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. I would not have opposed this motion. I voted to proceed to an earlier iteration of this constitutional amendment 4 years ago, and I would have been prepared to proceed to it again this week. Given the time this would take and the expected outcome, it could be argued that the Senate already has many pressing matters on its agenda, but I would not have opposed a debate on the constitutional amendment.

Given the Republican leadership's insistence on proceeding to the constitutional amendment this week, there has not been as much time as I would have liked to craft the statutory alternative that we introduce today. And because this bill will come to a vote almost immediately, we will not get to hold hearings on it and polish the text in Committee. I would have liked to get the views of the Office for Victims of Crime. Many victims' groups and domestic violence organizations opposed the constitutional amendment, as did many law professors, judges, and prosecutors. I would have liked to hear their views on this statute. I am concerned that the statute may not adequately address the special problems raised in domestic violence and abuse situations. Fortunately, however, this is a statute, not a constitutional amendment, and it can be modified with relative ease if the need arises.

I commend my good friend, Senator Feinstein, for mediating this consensus legislation. I know that she would have preferred to pass a constitutional amendment--she has made that clear. Nevertheless, she worked hard to produce a bill that we all can support, showing once again that she is first and foremost a legislator who wants to get things done. Due in large part to Senator Feinstein's efforts, we now have an opportunity to advance the cause of victims' rights with strong, practical, bipartisan legislation. I have never doubted Senator Feinstein or Senator Kyl's commitment to victims' rights. I am delighted that we have come together to advance that common cause.

Over more than 20 years I have sponsored and championed legislation to help victims. I have mentioned the recent September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and I am also proud of such other advancements on behalf of victims as a law to provide assistance to victims of international terrorism, and bills to raise the cap on victims' assistance and compensation programs and to protect the rights of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. The legislation that we introduce today should provide us the opportunity to make progress on yet another important measure to address the needs of victims, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation that we are going to recess for the party caucuses at 12:30 p.m.?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at 2:15 p.m. to speak on the asbestos legislation.

I thank the Chair.