Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senators Craig, Sununu, Durbin, and Reid, my distinguished colleagues from Idaho, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Nevada, the Patriot Oversight Restoration Act of 2003, a short bill whose singular but important purpose is to provide Congress the opportunity to take a hard look at the USA PATRIOT Act, which we passed in the anxious weeks following the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. This bipartisan bill is moderate in scope; it would simply expand the sunset provision already enacted in the PATRIOT Act, to cover a number of additional provisions. The ensuing debate, however, should be considerable. My hope is that, before the sunset expires in December 2005, Congress will methodically revisit PATRIOT, with an eye toward achieving a suitable balance between the need to address the threat of terrorism and the need to protect our constitutional freedoms--and with the lessons of the past few years to guide us.

We recently marked the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. As we reflect on that terrible day, and honor those who were lost, I strongly believe we should take stock of where we stand in our fight against terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress and the administration did forge a constructive partnership to write the USA PATRIOT Act, which was meant to help our law enforcement and intelligence communities prevent future attacks from occurring. The PATRIOT Act represented our best efforts, under difficult circumstances, to balance the rights and liberties of the American people with the very urgent need to confront a threat to our Nation.

Even in balancing this tension, we granted the executive branch an unprecedented, vast new array of powers. We did so because we believed the administration's claim that it needed these powers to protect us, and because we trusted the administration's promise that it would use these powers appropriately. I noted at the time that PATRIOT was not the bill that I, or any of the sponsors, would have written if compromise were unnecessary. But I believed in the bill's purpose, and I gave it my vote and support. I worked hard to add checks and balances to many of its provisions, and did so.

Unfortunately, like many Members who supported the act--and like many Americans nationwide--I have come to feel disappointed. Since we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, it has grown increasingly apparent that the trust and cooperation Congress provided to the executive branch has proved to be a one-way street. In the quarter-century that I have served in the Senate, no administration has been more secretive, more resistant to congressional oversight, and more disposed to acting unilaterally, without the approval of the American people or their democratically elected representatives. Despite the administration's unprecedented public relations campaign to promote the PATRIOT Act-- including a 16-State, 18-city tour by the Attorney General himself--the administration has yet to show that it is using its PATRIOT powers wisely. Instead, it has been secretly drafting a sequel to PATRIOT that would grant it even more far-reaching powers.

I would never oppose an open discussion of any legislative tool that would help in the fight against terrorism. But for such a debate to be fruitful, we need to know more about the tools that are already available, including those created by the PATRIOT Act. Which are working, and how well? Which are not working, and why? Which, if any, struck the wrong balance, threatening the civil liberties of our citizens while doing little or nothing to keep our Nation secure?

Immediately after the PATRIOT Act passed, the administration draped a cloak of secrecy around its use. When lawmakers and citizens have attempted to start a dialogue on PATRIOT-related issues, the response has been to ignore, insult or derisively dismiss them.

Attorney General Ashcroft has repeatedly declined to appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions, and his Department is painfully slow to respond to written requests for information. To quote my friend Senator Grassley, ``getting information from the Justice Department under Ashcroft is like pulling teeth.'' By ignoring oversight requests until answers are moot or outdated, and responding in only vague and conclusory fashion, if at all, the Justice Department frustrates our constitutional system of checks and balances, and sows the sort of public distrust that now accompanies the PATRIOT Act.

Just recently, in July, the Department dumped on committee members literally hundreds of pages of answers to questions that had been submitted to Attorney General Ashcroft and other senior Department officials following their testimony before the committee more than a year earlier. To give just one example of what a travesty it is when oversight questions remain unanswered for a year or more, the Department's responses dated July 17, 2003, devoted fully 15 pages to answering questions about Operation TIPS--an ill-conceived program that Congress had already terminated more than 8 months earlier.

Is the Department incapable of responding to congressional inquiries in a timely fashion? Is it deliberately stonewalling? Or does it simply believe that oversight is a game that it need not play?

Even more troubling, high-level administration officials have rashly suggested that anyone who dares to voice their concerns as unpatriotic, anti-American and pro-terrorist. In one of his rare appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft charged that ``fear mongers''--those who were raising concern about the loss of civil liberties--were only aiding the terrorists. More recently, a Justice Department official dismissed the many local government resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act by saying ``half are either in cities in Vermont, very small population, or in college towns in California. It's in a lot of the usual enclaves where you might see nuclear free zones, or they

probably passed resolutions against the war in Iraq.''

It is unfortunate that the Justice Department felt it appropriate to ridicule these grass-roots efforts to participate in an important national dialogue. The opportunity to engage in public discourse is one of the hallmark benefits of being an American, and I am proud that Vermont towns are among those dedicated to thinking about and acting on these important issues. But more importantly, the concerns expressed in my home State are being echoed by Americans nationwide. To date, anti- PATRIOT resolutions have been passed by 178 communities in 32 States including Idaho, New Hampshire, and Illinois. These communities represent millions upon millions of Americans, not just a few free- spirited Vermonters, as the Justice Department has insinuated.

Concerns about the administration's antiterror tactics are also shared by Members on both sides of aisle, many of whom supported the PATRIOT Act as well as the war in Iraq, but who now know that the administration has been less than forthright about what it has been doing in the name of the American people. In July, the House voted to nullify section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement to ask a court to delay notice of a search warrant where it could have certain adverse results. And several bills have been introduced in both Houses to roll back another PATRIOT Act provision, section 215, which gives federal agents new power to obtain records from libraries and bookstores. Remarkably, in response, the Justice Department then declassified information summarily reflecting that it has never used the Section 215 powers--despite expressing urgent ``need'' during pre- PATRIOT Act debate. And almost simultaneous to this announcement, the President urged support for an alternative record gathering power when Section 215 is still on the books. One has to question the inconsistencies in these two positions and whether Congress should blindly confer data gathering powers on an administration that does not provide a hint of factual support for such requests. There is overall a growing sense in the nation that Congress moved too fast in enacting the PATRIOT Act, and that the Justice Department moved too slowly in explaining its use of this sweeping legislation.

When we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, I noted that Congress needed to exercise careful oversight of how the Justice Department, the FBI and other executive branch agencies used the newly expanded powers that the act provided. The need for oversight and accountability is the reason that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted on a sunset provision for several key provisions in PATRIOT--provisions that blurred the lines between criminal investigation and intelligence gathering. We succeeded, but only in part; several PATRIOT provisions that should have been subject to the sunset--including a few that were sunset or even cut in the version of the bill reported by the House Judiciary Committee--were omitted from the sunset. As enacted, the sunset applies only to certain enhanced surveillance authorities in title II of the act.

The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would extend PATRIOT's sunset provision to other enhanced surveillance provisions in title II of the act. These include subsections (a) and (c) of section 203, which authorize the disclosure of grand jury information to foreign enforcement, intelligence and immigration officials; sections 210 and 211, which broaden the types of information that law enforcement may obtain, upon request, from electronic communication service providers and cable service operators; section 213, which authorizes so-called ``sneak and peak''--delayed notification--search warrants; sections 216 and 222, which significantly expand when, where, and how law enforcement can obtain a pen register or trap and trace order; and section 219, which authorizes judges to sign search warrants for properties located outside their districts.

In addition to these title II provisions, the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would also extend the sunset to a handful of provisions in titles IV, V, VIII and X of the PATRIOT Act. These provisions include sections 411 and 1006, which expand the Government's authority to declare certain persons inadmissible to the United States; section 412, which grants the Attorney General authority to ``certify'' that an alien is engaged in activity that endangers the national security, and to take such an alien into custody; section 505, which gives law enforcement greater authority to access telephone, bank, and credit records through the issuance of so-called ``National Security Letters,'' even if no criminal investigation is pending and without court review; sections 507 and 508, which remove certain privacy protections for educational records and surveys--called ``obstacles'' to investigating terrorism in the PATRIOT Act; section 802, which defines ``domestic terrorism'' in a way that could be read to include political protesters engaged in civil disobedience; section 806, which uses the aforementioned definition of ``domestic terrorism'' to expand the government's civil forfeiture authority; and section 1003, which references another section of PATRIOT that is already covered by the sunset.

With the PATRIOT Act, Congress provided government investigators with a virtual smorgasbord of new powers from which to choose. Is the Government gorging itself on the secretive powers allowed for ``foreign intelligence'' gathering, with their less onerous procedural requirements, rather than relying on bedrock criminal investigatory techniques that are subject to more rigorous review by the Federal courts? Have we provided too many choices and too much power to a limited few? These are questions that require answers before the more far-reaching provisions of PATRIOT are etched into stone.

The events of September 11, 2001, resound in our hearts and in our memories. We owe it to the American people to be circumspect in the powers and authorities we grant, even in the name of national security. Our country was attacked on September 11 because of the democratic principles that this country stands for and that we love. It would be a cruel twist of irony to abandon those principles in the guise of a law named ``PATRIOT'' that might prove to be anything but a defender or protector of those cherished rights and freedoms.

The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act offers a cautious and sensible solution to evolving fears about the PATRIOT Act. It will allow Congress to re-examine some of the important legal issues that abruptly confronted us in the weeks following September 11, and to re-assess our efforts with the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, three years ago, Senator Smith, Senator Collins and I joined together to introduce the Innocence Protection Act, a modest and practical package of reforms aimed at reducing the risk of error in capital cases. The reforms we proposed were designed to create a fairer system of justice, where the problems that have sent innocent people to death row would not occur, and where victims and their families could be more certain of the accuracy, and finality, of the results.

During the last Congress, the Innocence Protection Act gained enormous momentum, with 32 Senators and 250 Representatives--well over half the House--signed on in support. Hearings were held in each House, and a version of the bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 7. Now is the time to finish the job and enact this important legislation.

I am pleased, today, to introduce the Innocence Protection Act of 2003. This legislation is a piece of a larger bill called the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which provides an infusion of Federal funds to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs and to improve the capacity of Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses.

The Innocence Protection Act of 2003 proposes two critical reforms. First, it provides greater access to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases, where it can help expose wrongful convictions, and authorizes $25 million in grants over 5 years to help defray the costs of such testing. Second, the bill addresses what all the statistics and evidence show is the single most frequent cause of wrongful convictions--inadequate defense representation at trial. By far the most important reform we can undertake is to help States establish minimum standards of competency and funding for capital defense.

Other provisions of the Innocence Protection Act establish standards for preserving biological evidence in criminal cases, and substantially increase the maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded in Federal cases of wrongful conviction.

Today's Innocence Protection Act is a modified version of the bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last year. These modifications follow many months of negotiation and deliberation, and were made to build further on the groundswell of support for the bill, both here on Capitol Hill and across America. More than ever, the bill is a collaborative product of which we all can be proud--an exercise of bipartisanship that is in the best tradition of the United States Congress.

I want to thank and commend the Senators and Representatives who worked so hard this summer and fall to come to agreement on a bill that we can all strongly support.

First and foremost, I want to thank my partner in this endeavor, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this goal. I also want to thank our lead Republican sponsors in both houses, Senators Gordon Smith and Susan Collins, and Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, all of whom have been steadfast in their commitment to this effort.

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, deserves high praise for his leadership in our recent negotiations, as does the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, and I thank them both. Senator Hatch and I have debated these issues for years. I have always appreciated his thoughtful approach and serious commitment to improving the criminal justice system. Representative Sensenbrenner played an instrumental role in this process and I do not believe we could have come so far without his dedication. In addition, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Senator Feinstein, who has devoted countless hours over the years to reconciling the policy differences that prevented this legislation from moving forward.

I am sorry that Senator DeWine could not be with us earlier today to announce the introduction of the bill, and appreciate his willingness to allow us to proceed. I have long worked with Senator DeWine on funding important forensic science tools for law enforcement, and we are currently working on a proposal with regard to how the mentally retarded are treated by the criminal justice system. His leadership on these issues is important and greatly appreciated.

Thanks, too, to the many members on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate and in the House, who have supported this legislation over the years. Working together, we can finally begin to address the many problems facing our capital punishment system.

Capital Representation Improvement Grants: I would like to take a moment now to elaborate on the capital defense representation provisions of the bill, both because they are the more important provisions and because they have been the principal subject of the recent revisions to the bill.

The new version of the Innocence Protection Act establishes a grant program for States to improve the systems by which they appoint and compensate lawyers in death cases. States that authorize capital punishment may apply for these grants or not, as they wish. However, if a State chooses to accept the money, it must open itself up to a set of requirements designed to ensure that its system truly meets basic standards. After all, the point of the bill is not to throw money at the problem of inadequate representation; the point is to fix it.

Earlier versions of the Innocence Protection Act took more of a ``carrot and stick'' approach to the counsel issue. The ``carrot'' was the same as in the current version: millions of dollars in Federal grants to help achieve adequate representation in capital cases. The ``stick''--which is no longer in the bill--has evolved over the years. At one

time, we proposed that States that failed to meet basic competent counsel standards would have their death sentences given less deference and subjected to more rigorous Federal court review. In some versions of the bill, non-complying States would also have forfeited some Federal prison grant funding over time. In the version that the Judiciary Committee approved last year, if a State chose not to participate in the new Federal grant program, the Attorney General would award the money to one or more defender organizations within the State, to be used for capital defense work.

Each of these various mechanisms would have helped ensure cooperation on the part of the States, and I am disappointed that I was unable to prevail upon my colleagues to include any one of them. Still, I believe that the current formulation is a good first step and will make a difference, provided that the grant program is fully funded and that the States which are most in need of reform elect to participate.

As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the bill aimed to ensure full funding of the counsel program by providing that, if Congress failed to appropriate sufficient funding for the program, up to 10 percent of the Byrne block grant would be used for this purpose. I regret that this provision has been dropped from the bill; it seemed to me a good way to express our commitment to ensuring that the program is funded. However, given the tremendous support for this legislation in both houses, and on both sides of the aisle, I am confident that Congress will speak with one voice in ensuring that our years of effort are not undermined by a failure to appropriate the money needed to make this legislation effective.

Getting States to participate in the program may be more difficult. Indeed, the States that are in most need of reform may be the least inclined to participate, given that they will have the most to do to bring their indigent defense systems into compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant. While I am hopeful that States will want to improve their systems, and will welcome the infusion of Federal funds for this purpose, Congress will need to monitor this program carefully to ensure that it is meeting its stated objective of improving the quality of legal representation provided to indigent defendants in State capital cases and, if it is not, to take additional remedial action.

Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program: We have also established a $25 million grant program to help defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing. This program is named in honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing.

I first met Kirk in February 2000, when he came to me as a man who had been exonerated after almost nine years of wrongful imprisonment. I am proud to say that we have become close friends and partners in the fight to reform capital punishment in America. I am also delighted that Kirk can finally feel truly free. Just a few weeks ago, the State of Maryland charged another man with the crime for which Kirk was convicted and sentenced to death, after prosecutors finally ran the DNA evidence in the case through the DNA database. The prosecutor who sent Kirk to death row, and who had previously refused to acknowledge his innocence, went to his home to apologize to him.

Kirk Bloodsworth's battle to prove his own innocence has been won. But his nightmare of wrongful conviction has been repeated again and again across the country. Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the 1970s, more than 110 individuals who were convicted and sentenced to death have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. In addition, since the introduction of forensic DNA typing into the legal system in the early 1990s, many more individuals who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing. The Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program will help assist others who have experienced wrongful conviction.

Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program: As I noted earlier, this version of the Innocence Protection Act is being introduced as part of a larger package of criminal justice reforms, titled the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which will substantially increase Federal resources available to State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA technology. Among other things, this legislation creates the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes $755 million over the next five years to reduce the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs.

I have worked with the proponents of this program to revise the allocation formula, so that each State is guaranteed a minimum allocation of .50 percent of the total amount appropriated in a fiscal year. This will make the program fair for all States, including smaller States like Vermont.

As DNA testing has moved to the front lines of the war on crime, forensic laboratories nationwide have experienced a significant increase in their caseloads, both in number and complexity. Funding has simply not kept pace with this increasing demand, and forensic labs nationwide are now seriously bottlenecked.

Backlogs have seriously impeded the use of DNA testing in solving cases without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong claims of innocence--as labs are required to give priority status to those cases in which a suspect is known. Solely for lack of funding, critical evidence remains untested while rapists and killers remain at large. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program will give States the help they desperately need to carry out DNA analyses of backlogged evidence, and I strongly support its passage and full funding.

Expansion of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program: The bill also expands and extends for another three years an existing grant program, named after our late colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. Congress passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act three years ago, with the goal of improving the quality and timeliness of State and local forensic science services. I was proud to cosponsor that legislation, and have worked since its passage to secure full funding for the grant program it establishes. Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of other Members, and notwithstanding the urgent pleas of lab directors nationwide, the President has never requested funding for Paul Coverdell grants, and Congress has never appropriated sufficient funds to make the program effective. The legislation we introduce today renews our commitment to this important initiative.

Our bill also expands the purposes for which Paul Coverdell grants may be used, to include the elimination of a non-DNA forensic evidence backlog. The need for this measure was highlighted earlier this year at a subcommittee hearing on funding forensic sciences. Witness after witness testified that DNA evidence is not the only evidence that is going untested for lack of resources. Crime labs are also facing substantial backlogs with respect to other types of forensic science evidence, including firearms, latent prints, controlled substances, toxicology, trace evidence, questionable documents, and forensic pathology. We need to ensure that our labs are equipped to address the full range of issues that they are called upon to handle.

We have had a constructive debate. We have shown that the death penalty system is broken, and we have built a bipartisan coalition supporting reforms. It is now time to act. Our bill reflects a principled consensus on the most basic and essential reforms; it raises no serious constitutional or law enforcement concerns; it will improve criminal justice in America considerably; and it may well save innocent lives. I am therefore proud to sponsor it, and I urge its speedy passage into law.

Mr. President, with our votes on two more judicial nominees today, the Senate will have confirmed 60 judges in the 15 months that Republicans have controlled the Senate majority. In 17 months, when the Democrats were in the majority, we confirmed 100 judges. So that means between those confirmed under Republican leadership--60--and the 100 under Democratic leadership, we now have confirmed 160 in less than 3 years.

Incidentally, it approaches the 4-year total of President Reagan's first term.

I have expedited confirmation of another Oklahoma nominee, as I accommodated Senator Nickles with four nominees when I was chairman, and I am happy to accommodate him now.

I hope the leadership will look to the two much needed nominees for the Southern District of California. That is the most overworked district in the entire Nation. For some reason, the leadership has not brought them up.

I wish they would. They should be considered on an expedited basis.

Last night, the Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Carlos Bea of California to a lifetime position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is the 29th circuit court nominee of President George W. Bush to be confirmed. With this number of confirmations, we have reduced the number of vacancies we inherited in the summer of 2001 in 8 of the 13 circuit courts and the number of vacancies in the other 5 courts has not increased, despite more than a dozen additional vacancies that have arisen since then. In contrast, during the Clinton administration, Republicans allowed the number of circuit court vacancies to more than double, increasing the number of vacancies on 9 of the 13 circuit courts.

As I mentioned last night, the Senate has confirmed 12 circuit court nominees of President Bush in this year alone, which is more circuit court confirmations than Republicans allowed in 5 of the 6 full years they controlled the Senate during the Clinton administration. Last night, the Senate confirmed the 58th judicial nominee of President Bush this year, which is the same number as Republicans allowed in all of 1995. With the two confirmations we expect this morning, we will have confirmed more judicial nominees of this President this year than in 5 of the 6 years of Republican control of the Senate.

At the conclusion of the confirmation votes today, a total of 60 judicial nominees of President Bush will be confirmed this year, in addition to the 100 confirmations during 17 months of the Democratic majority in the Senate. This number of confirmations, 160, is significantly higher than Republicans allowed by the third year of President Clinton's second term, the most recent Presidential term, when they allowed 135 judicial nominees of that President to be appointed from 1997 through the end of 1999. That year, because the Republican chairman insisted that President Clinton nominate Utahan Ted Stewart to the district court, no nomination hearings were even held until the summer. In all, during the prior 6 years of Republican control of the Senate, 248 of President Clinton's district and circuit court nominees were confirmed but more than 60 were blocked form getting confirmation votes.

Despite this recent history, Democrats have supported the confirmation of 160 of President Bush's judicial nominees. As Senator Frist observed on the floor of the Senate last week when six additional judicial nominees were confirmed: ``Again, steady progress has been made with respect to these judicial nominations.'' The number of confirmations in the two home States of the nominees being voted on today supports that observation of the majority leader.

We have already confirmed 13 district court judges to the State of Texas and today we vote on the 14th judge appointed to the Federal trial courts in Texas, Magistrate Judge Marcia Crone. Despite her 11 years of service in the Southern District of Texas, Magistrate Judge Crone earned a partial ``Not qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, ABA. In all, 23 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees have received minority or majority ratings of ``Not qualified'' from the ABA, which is cause for concern. Sometimes we are able to deduce the basis of those ratings, but sometimes we cannot. It is too bad that the ABA will not provide us with the facts and factors behind such ratings. Without that information and based on the record we have before us, Magistrate Judge Crone garnered the bipartisan support of the Judiciary Committee.

Magistrate Judge Crone is nominated to 1 of the 15 new seats Democrats created to address increased caseloads around the country, and once she is sworn in there will be no vacancies in the district courts in Texas, a situation that Republicans would not allow when a Democrat was in the White House. In fact, had Democrats not created 15 new seats on the Federal courts when we

were in the majority last year, there would be fewer than 30 vacancies in the Federal courts today. As it stands, with the confirmations today, there will be 44 vacancies on the Federal bench, the lowest level reached for this President and indeed the lowest number of vacancies since 1990.

Similarly, with the confirmation of Ronald White to the district court in Oklahoma, Democrats will have supported the confirmation of a judge to a vacancy that arose last Thursday. Senator Nickles has been eager to fill this vacancy, which occurred just four business days ago and we are accommodating him. When I chaired the committee we similarly worked hard to confirm four judicial nominees to vacancies in Oklahoma.

I must express concern, however, that the Republican leadership has chosen to move Mr. White's nomination to such a short-lived vacancy ahead of the nominees to the Southern District of California, seats that have been greatly needed for years. During the last period of Republican control of the Senate, they refused to create seats in California to address the growing crisis to that border court. As a consequence, this Federal court in San Diego has the highest caseload per judge in the Nation, by a significant margin; senior judges have been called into continued service handling a large number of cases; and one retired judge even passed away in the midst of the stressful and pressing caseload of that court. Republican neglect was part of their efforts to deny a Democratic President and any opportunity to fill those much-needed judgeships. I hope that the Republican leadership will turn to the southern California nominees it has now skipped without more delay.

Finally, I note that Mr. White is receiving far more favorable bipartisan consideration than the last Ronald White to be nominated to the U.S. District Court. Mr. White of Oklahoma is being confirmed within 4 months of his nomination, while Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White waited 28 months for a confirmation vote. Justice White, who now serves with distinction as the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, was nominated by President Clinton to the Federal district court in June of 1997. The White House consulted at length with the home-state Senators and other officials in Missouri to find a consensus nominee and chose Justice White who was the first African American to serve on the highest court in Missouri. Senator Bond supported Justice White's confirmation and then-Senator Ashcroft advised that he would not hold his nomination.

However, the Republican chairman did not schedule a hearing for this district court nominee for almost a year. Then, after Justice White's nomination was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, which occurred almost a year after his nomination, the Republican leader refused to schedule a vote on the nomination. Justice White's nomination languished on the floor from May 1998 until the end of that year. He was renominated by President Clinton in January 1999, and the Republican chairman refused to place his name on the calendar for a vote for 6 months. Once his nomination was reported out favorably a second time the Republican leader again delayed a vote on his nomination for about 3 months.

Then, in a surprise move following a Republican caucus meeting in October 1999, Justice White nomination was defeated with every Republican voting in lock-step against his confirmation, without warning and even though some of these Senators had previously voted to report his nomination favorably to the Senate. Senator Ashcroft maligned Justice White as ``pro-criminal,'' even though Justice White's record in criminal and death penalty cases on the Missouri Supreme Court was better than some of Senator Ashcroft's appointees to that court when he was governor. When President Bush nominated John Ashcroft to be Attorney General the outrageousness of the attack on Justice White was one of the issues we explored. Senator Specter apologized to Justice White for the way he was treated by the Senate.

Of course, more than 60 of President Clinton's other judicial nominees were never allowed a confirmation vote of any kind. Those 63 other nominations were scuttled by Republicans in the dark of night, through secret or anonymous objections. This was their preferred modus operandi. Republicans perfected the art of delay by defeat for President Clinton's circuit and district court nominees, blocked 63 while confirming 248 in the 6\1/2\ years of Senate control.

I think if is time that fair-minded Republicans acknowledge those Clinton nominees who were blocked from getting votes, nominations that constituted 20 percent of all judicial nominees in those 6 years. That record stands in stark contrast to ours, with 160 of President Bush's judicial nominees confirmed in less than 3 years, with only three blocked so far. The Senate's record on President Bush's judicial nominations is now 160 to 3. The Republican record on President Clinton's judicial nominees is 248 to 63. The facts demonstrate how effectively Republicans prevented confirmation votes on judicial nominees, behind closed doors and in secret. Democrats have voted and continue to vote on President Bush's judicial nominees in the light of day, with full discussion of the serious concerns that surround the extreme nominees of this President.

With a Republican making nominations, the Senate votes today to confirm Mr. White of Oklahoma to a seat that has been vacant for less than a week. With the delay and attack on President Clinton's nominee Justice White, Republicans were content to allow the Missouri District Court to remain vacant for 5\1/2\ years, like many other judicial vacancies that arose when a Democrat was in the White House and Republicans last controlled the confirmation process.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I urge the Senate to take up and pass H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act. The Senate version of this bill--which was identical--passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee last Thursday, and this bill deserves the support of every Senator. I joined with Senator Hatch in introducing the Senate legislation to reauthorize and improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and to extend the authorization of the Missing Children's Assistance Act. This bill follows in the footsteps of the recently enacted PROTECT Act legislation and presents another milestone in our efforts to safeguard all of our children.

In the 29 years since it became law, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act has helped some of the most vulnerable children in our country. I have worked in the past to extend the program, most recently in the 106th Congress, when I cosponsored S. 249, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act, which extended the Act through this year. I am pleased to help extend it once again.

A Justice Department report released last year estimated that 1.7 million young people either ran away from or were thrown out of their homes in 1999 alone. Other studies have suggested an even higher number. This law and the programs it funds provide a safety net that helps give these young people a chance to build lives for themselves. It is slated to expire at the end of this fiscal year, and we should not allow that to happen.

In my State, both the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth and Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington receive grants under this law, and they have provided excellent services both to young people trying to build lives on their own and to those who are struggling on the streets. Reauthorizing this law will allow them to continue their enormously important work.

This bill would improve the law by extending the period during which older homeless youth can receive services under the Transitional Living Program, to ensure that all homeless youth can take advantage of services at least until they turn 18. The bill would also make permanent the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to make grants explicitly to help rural areas met the unique stresses of providing services to runaway and homeless youth. Programs serving runaway and homeless youth have found that those in rural areas are particularly difficult to reach and serve effectively, and this bill recognizes that fact.

The improvements proposed in this bill to the Missing Children's Assistance Act build on provisions included in the PROTECT Act legislation that we enacted earlier this year. In that bill, we authorized National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, activities through 2005 and authorized the center to strengthen its CyberTipline to provide online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in distribution of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. This bill would extend NCMEC through 2008. Now more than ever, it is critical for Congress to give the Center the resources it needs in order to pursue its important work. A missing or abducted child is the worst nightmare of any parent or grandparent, and NCMEC has proved to be an invaluable resource in Federal, state, and local efforts to recover children who have disappeared.

Although this is a good bill on the whole, I am disappointed that it includes a provision that prohibits grantees from using any funds provided under this program for needle distribution programs. This is a superfluous provision that simply repeats what is already law. In addition, it is unnecessary because no grantee under this program operates needle exchange programs or has expressed interest in doing so. I ask Senator Hatch to leave it out of the Senate version of this bill, and was disappointed when he refused. The inclusion of this needless provision, however, does not change the fact that this is still a very good bill.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs have received tremendous bipartisan support over the years. The House passed this bill by a vote of 404-14, and the Senate bill passed by unanimous consent last Friday. I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 1925 and send it to the President today.

Mr. President, tonight the Senate votes on the nomination of Judge Carlos Bea of California to the ninth circuit. In just 9 months this year, the Senate has confirmed 58 of President Bush's judicial nominees, which is more than Republicans allowed to be confirmed for President Clinton in 4 of the 6 years of Republican control. In fact, in just 9 months this year, the Republican led Senate has confirmed the same number of judicial nominees as they allowed for President Clinton in all 12 months of 1995. I recall well that the following annual session, 1996, Republicans allowed only 17 judicial nominees to be confirmed all year and not a single circuit court nominee was allowed a confirmation vote by the Senate.

I am glad that, in moving the nomination of Judge Bea to the ninth circuit, the Republican leadership has chosen not to follow the delaying approach they took on the nominations of two other Latino circuit court nominees of President Bush, Judge Edward Prado to the fifth circuit and Judge Consuelo Callahan to the ninth circuit. The two Democratic home State Senators support the nomination of Judge Bea and have worked to expedite his consideration. I expect most if not all Democratic Senators will vote to confirm him, just as they did Judge Prado and Judge Callahan and the scores of Hispanic nominees we have worked so hard to confirm over the last 11 years.

For 2 full years this White House refused to nominate any Latino for the circuit courts other than the highly divisive and controversial nomination of Miguel Estrada. Then the White House refused to work with the Senate to provide the information needed to consider that nomination. Ultimately Mr. Estrada asked that his nomination be withdrawn so that he could devote his attention to his law practice at a prestigious law firm. The Republican leadership delayed Senate consideration of Judge Edward Prado's nomination for a month, then delayed consideration of the nomination of Judge Consuelo Callahan. Their false claim of anti-Hispanic bias among Democrats has been rebutted by the facts.

Democrats have voted to confirm 13 Latinos nominated by President Bush to the Federal courts. Last Congress, Senate Democrats swiftly confirmed six Latino judicial nominees chosen by President Bush-- Christina Armijo of New Mexico, Judge Phillip Martinez of Texas, Randy Crane of Texas, Judge Jose Martinez of Florida, Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum of Texas, and Jose Linares of New Jersey. This Congress, Democrats have unanimously supported the confirmation of seven other Latino judicial nominees--Edward Prado of Texas to the fifth circuit, Consuelo Callahan of California to the ninth circuit, S. James Otero of California, Cecilia Altonaga of Florida, Xavier Rodriguez of Texas, and Frank Rodriguez Montalvo of Texas. And today we vote on the nomination of Judge Bea.

Democrats supported the appointment of 11 Latinos nominated by President Clinton to the appellate courts, but Republicans blocked 3 of them. Of the 12 Latino appellate judges currently seated in the Federal courts, 8 were appointed by President Clinton and 2 by President Bush.

Republicans blocked six Latino nominees of President Clinton from ever receiving a vote--three for the circuit courts and three for the district courts. Republicans blocked Enrique Moreno, who President Clinton nominated to the fifth circuit; Jorge Rangel, who President Clinton nominated to the fifth circuit; and Christine Arguello, who President Clinton nominated to the tenth circuit. In addition, Republicans refused to allow votes on district court nominees, Ricardo Morado, R. Samuel Paz, and Anabelle Rodriguez. Although Republicans denied confirmation votes for six Latinos nominated by President Clinton, among the more than 60 other judicial nominees, Democrats have opposed only a handful of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Many Hispanic nominees of President Clinton were also delayed by Republicans including immigrants Judge Rosemary Barkett and Judge Sonia Sotomayor, as well as Mexican-Americans Judge Richard Paez and Judge Hilda Tagle. Republicans filibustered Judge Paez's nomination for more than 4 full years before finally allowing him a confirmation vote.

Like many of President Clinton's Hispanic nominees, Judge Bea's nomination is supported by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and others in the local community.

After today's vote, the Senate's tally is 158 to 3 with 158 lifetime judicial nominations confirmed and three of the most extreme having been blocked. This stands in stark contrast to the Republican record during their prior 6 years of control of the Senate, when Republicans allowed the confirmation of 248 of President Clinton's judicial nominees and blocked confirmation votes on 63 of his judicial nominees, 20 percent. The historical record shows that in 6 years of control, Republicans blocked votes on almost two dozen of President Clinton's circuit court nominees, including five nominees for the fourth Circuit, three for the fifth Circuit, three for the sixth Circuit, three for the ninth Circuit, two for the tenth Circuit and two for the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, in the third and fourth year's of President Clinton's second term, when they controlled the Senate majority and timetable, less than half of President Clinton's circuit nominees were confirmed. Despite this history, Democrats held the first hearings and votes in years for President Bush's nominees to the fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth and D.C. Circuits. Only a handful of the most extreme or controversial nominees of President Bush have been blocked from receiving votes.

Despite the recent past when Republicans blocked so many more circuit court nominees of President Clinton, they seem determined to use judicial nominations for their 2004 election strategy. As the Los Angeles Daily Journal reported last week:

Despite the fact that judicial nominations barely register

on the public's radar screen, Republicans say the issue is a

good one for them. They plan to continue to push hard for

Bush's nominees, even in the face of firm Democratic

opposition. And, they believe, the more nominees that

Democrats block, the more the Republican charge of Democratic

``obstructionism'' will resonate with voters, ultimately

paying dividends in the 2004 elections, especially in the

South. ``Our strategy has been: We don't want to see these

people go down, but if they're going to go down, the

Democrats have to hurt for it,'' said the [Republican] aide.

Bush himself has said he intends to make his judicial

nominees an issue in 2004. ``I'm reminding people of the

issue of judges,'' Bush said in a round-table meeting with

Texas reporters last week. ``I will elevate this issue as the

course of the campaign goes on.''

For 5 of the 6 full years that Republicans controlled the Senate during the Clinton administration they did not allow 12 circuit court nominees to be confirmed all year. With Judge Bea's

confirmation, Democrats will have joined in the confirmation of far more circuit court nominees of this President than Republicans allowed on average for President Clinton. In the years 1995 through 2000 just seven circuit court nominees were allowed to be confirmed per year on average. This is the twelfth circuit judge confirmed in the last 9 months. This is in addition to the 17 circuit judges confirmed while I chaired the Judiciary Committee and Democrats made up the Senate majority in 2001 and 2002. That totals 29 circuit judges confirmed in the last 26 months.

Republicans do not want to discuss these facts and seem to hope that the American public is not closely watching the actual work of the Senate since 1995. Far from being obstructionist, Senate Democrats have been accommodating in confirming the vast majority of President Bush's judicial nominees, 150 so far. Despite the very real Republican obstruction of dozens and dozens of President Clinton's judicial nominees, we have turned the other cheek in voting for President Bush's very conservative nominees to seats kept open by Republican obstruction of President Clinton's nominees.

As a consequence, there are now fewer vacancies on the Federal courts today and earlier this year than at any time in the past 13 years. Had we not created new seats for this President to fill, we would be at the all-time low vacancies of the Reagan administration. There are more lifetime appointed Federal judges serving on the bench today than at any time in American history. This is hardly the portrait of obstructionism that Republicans will try to sell to the American people.

We have been fair but we will not be rubberstamps for this or any administration. The stakes are too high and the Constitution is too important to do otherwise.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to take up and pass S. 1451, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act. It passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee earlier today, and it deserves the support of every Senator. I joined with Senator Hatch in introducing this legislation to reauthorize and improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and to extend the authorization of the Missing Children's Assistance Act. This bill follows in the footsteps of the recently enacted PROTECT Act legislation, and presents another milestone in our efforts to safeguard all of our children.

In the 29 years since it became law, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act has helped some of the most vulnerable children in our country. I have worked in the past to extend the program, most recently in the 106th Congress, when I cosponsored S. 249, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act, which extended the act through this year. I am pleased to help extend it once again.

A Justice Department report released last year estimated that 1.7 million young people either ran away from or were thrown out of their homes in 1999 alone. Other studies have suggested an even higher number. This law and the programs it funds provide a safety net that helps give these young people a chance to build lives for themselves. It is slated to expire at the end of this fiscal year, and we should not allow that to happen.

In my State, both the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth and Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington receive grants under this law, and they have provided excellent services both to young people trying to build lives on their own and to those who are struggling on the streets. Reauthorizing this law will allow them to continue their enormously important work.

This bill would improve the law by extending the period during which older homeless youth can receive services under the Transitional Living Program, to ensure that all homeless youth can take advantage of services at least until they turn 18. The bill would also make permanent the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to make grants explicitly to help rural areas meet the unique stresses of providing services to runaway and homeless youth. Programs serving runaway and homeless youth have found that those in rural areas are particularly difficult to reach and serve effectively, and this bill recognizes that fact.

The improvements proposed in this bill to the Missing Children's Assistance Act build on provisions included in the PROTECT Act legislation that we enacted earlier this year. In that bill, we authorized National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, activities through 2005 and authorized the Center to strengthen its CyberTipline to provide online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in distribution of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. This bill would extend NCMEC through 2008. Now more than ever, it is critical for Congress to give the center the resources it needs in order to pursue its important work. A missing or abducted child is the worst nightmare of any parent or grandparent, and NCMEC has proved to

be an invaluable resource in Federal, State, and local efforts to recover children who have disappeared.

Although this is a good bill on the whole, I am disappointed that Senator Hatch did not agree to remove a provision that was included in the House-passed bill that prohibits grantees from using any funds provided under this program for needle distribution programs. This is a superfluous provision that simply repeats what is already law. In addition, it is unnecessary because no grantee under this program operates needle exchange programs or has expressed interest in doing so. The inclusion of this needless provision, however, does not change the fact that this is still a very good bill.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs have received tremendous bipartisan support over the years, and the House has already passed its version of this bill by a vote of 404 to 14. I urge the Senate to follow suit today.

Mr. President, I support the FTC's authority to establish a Do Not Call Registry, I find myself in good and widespread company. Many in the Senate, like many of my constituents in Vermont, share the frustration that I have with the recent district court decision striking down the Do Not Call Registry established at the Federal Trade Commission. Apparently we in Congress need to make things a little more clear, and this is what we are doing with this legislation: We authorize the FTC to set up and operate such a registry.

Vermont has been a leader in protecting the privacy and peace of its households from unwanted telemarketing calls. Federal law currently requires individual companies to remove consumers from their calling lists if the consumers ask them to do so. There is also a national ``telephone preference service'' registry to which consumers can submit their names and which telemarketers can consult to avoid calling those who do not wish to hear from them--but industry compliance is entirely voluntary. Two years ago, Vermont enacted a law which gives consumers a private right of action against companies that continue to call after being requested to cease. Vermonters can also sue if they are called by a telemarketer after they have put their name on the national ``telephone preference service'' registry. The FTC has expressed no intention of attempting to pre-empt such state systems, and I hope that federal agencies continue to respect the efforts and institutions established at the state level. Federal agencies should not be in the business of undercutting state efforts that are pursuing these same goals.

Those goals are simple and laudable. People should be able to enjoy the peace and quiet of their own homes, undisturbed by unsolicited sales calls. Of course, some consumers welcome such calls, and they certainly should be able to receive them. But for the thousands of Vermonters, and the millions of other Americans, who do not want to receive such calls, the FTC's Do Not Call Registry is a long-awaited relief. I understand that more than 50 million households have signed up, many of them, on-line, to be included in the Do Not Call Registry, which is set to begin its operations next week. This is an astonishing number of people, and this overwhelming response to the FTC's announcement is the best possible affirmation of the need for and of the good sense of the plan.

The Do Not Call Registry should also appeal to enlightened telemarketers. They do not, of course, want to waste time and effort talking to people who do not wish to hear from them, for whatever reason. Once the registry is operational--and I hope that this bill will meet with speedy approval and make that so--telemarketers will be able to focus their resources, their time and personnel, on the households for which they provide a useful service. Consumers will be better served, the companies seeking to make sales will be better off, and telemarketers will be more effective for both their corporate clients and the potential customers they contact.

So I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, H.R. 3161. The national Do Not Call Registry is a sensible way to protect the privacy of the American people. It deserves our support, and it deserves this effort to allow the registry to begin serving the public.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing S. 1301, the DeWine-Schumer-Leahy Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003. This bill targets the pernicious practice of invading a person's privacy through the surreptitious use of hidden surveillance equipment. Specifically, the bill makes it a crime to capture an improper, naked or near-naked image of a person without his or her consent, and in such a way as to violate his or her privacy. Any person found guilty of video voyeurism as outlined in the bill may be fined or imprisoned for up to one year, or both.

In recent years, the explosion of micro-camera technology has fed the growing phenomenon of video voyeurism. Hidden cameras have been discovered in bedrooms, bathrooms, public showers, changing rooms, locker rooms, and tanning salons, all aimed at filming unsuspecting victims in various states of undress. Often, the invasion of privacy is exacerbated when captured images are posted on the Internet for all the world to see.

I commend Senators DeWine and Schumer for bringing this invasive practice to the attention of the Judiciary Committee, and for crafting a bill that addresses it in a thoughtful and measured manner. In addition, I thank them for addressing a concern I raised during the Committee's consideration of the bill. As introduced, the bill did not expressly prohibit ``cyber-peeping''--a particularly offensive form of video voyeurism involving the contemporaneous transmission of improper images of a non-consenting person over the Internet through Web cameras and other means. As reported by the Judiciary Committee, the ``cyber- peeping'' loophole has been closed: The bill we pass today covers the simultaneous Web casting of images or any other transmissions that may not be recorded, so that defendants who use this means of violating people's privacy cannot escape punishment.

The National Center for Victims of Crime has dubbed video voyeurism ``the new frontier of stalking.'' The States are already responding to this ``new frontier'' in many different ways. Some have passed video voyeurism laws; others have addressed the conduct within the context of their laws against stalking. The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act brings the Federal criminal laws to bear on those who commit this offense within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It should be enacted without delay.

Madam President, I am pleased that we are now turning to the nomination of Magistrate Judge Larry Alan Burns for the Southern District of California. This well qualified nominee is the product of the exemplary bipartisan commission that Senators Feinstein and Boxer have worked so hard to maintain. It is a testament to their diligence that we have such stellar nominees heading to California's federal courts.

Judge Burns has been a United States Magistrate for the past six years in San Diego. Prior to becoming a Magistrate, Mr. Burns gained significant trial experience as a State and federal criminal prosecutor. Judge Burns has also served as a mentor to disadvantaged students, assisting them in achieving their educational and career goals. He was honored for his work in this area with a Faculty Mentoring Award from San Diego State University in 1996. In addition, he has taught legal courses at both the undergraduate and graduate school levels at several San Diego universities. In light of his remarkable record of public service and trial experience, it is not surprising that the American Bar Association was unanimous in its determination that Judge Burns is ``Well-Qualified'' to be a federal district court judge.

The Southern District of California the busiest federal district in the nation. Last Congress, in enacting the DOJ Reauthorization legislation, we created the seat that Judge Burns is nominated to in an effort to alleviate their staffing shortage. In light of their demanding caseload and corresponding staffing needs, the Judiciary Committee expedited nominations to the Southern District. Judge Burns was nominated on May 1, 2003 and was voted out of committee on September 4, 2003. It is unfortunate that Judge Burns and another nominee for this court have been pending on the floor all month but I am pleased that we are voting on Judge Burns today. The path of his nomination demonstrates that the fact that the Senate can act expeditiously when we receive well-qualified, consensus nominations on courts that need additional judges.

Another consensus nominee for another vacancy in that district remains on the Senate executive calendar awaiting action. I implore the Senate Republican leadership to allow a prompt vote on the nomination of Dana Makoto Sabraw. I expect that

vote to be unanimously in support, as well.

Senator Feinstein also deserves much credit for working so hard to create these additional judgeships in the Department of Justice authorization we passed in 2002. These judgeships are among those we created for border districts that have a massive caseload and that needed more federal judges. We did what the Republican majority refused to do in the years 1995 through 2000 when there was a Democratic President, namely, create additional needed judgeships for the Southern District of California. We did so under Senate Democratic leadership with a Republican President. They have been available to be filled since July 15.

The Judiciary Committee held hearings of Magistrate Judge Burns and others just before the August recess and they were unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee at our first meeting on September 4. That was three weeks ago. In addition to the nomination of Dana Makoto Sabraw, which is already favorably reported and on the Senate executive calendar awaiting action, two more nominees to two additional vacancies recently created for the Southern District of California should be considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

I congratulate the California Senators on their outstanding work and this nominee and his family on this confirmation.

Mr. President, I am not quite sure. What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I have listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle who have come to the Senate floor this morning to criticize the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

Last week, Senator Kennedy, speaking for millions of concerned Americans, challenged the President and his advisers for misleading the country about the war in Iraq.

Every Senator is free to disagree with the views of another Senator. That is the nature of debate. But too often, officials in this administration, and some of my Republican friends, have questioned the patriotism, and the right to disagree, of those who criticize policies they believe are fundamentally flawed.

Senator Kennedy has asked hard and important questions about a policy that--contrary to what the American people were told to expect--has already resulted in the loss of life or limb of hundreds of American soldiers and is costing billions of dollars with no end in sight.

The reality is that since the fall of Baghdad, practically everything the White House and the Pentagon predicted about Iraq has turned out to be wrong. Yet you would hardly know it from listening to officials in Washington who consistently give evasive and overly optimistic assessments.

The administration's own shifting statements show that the threat posed by Iraq was not what we were led to believe.

Just a few months ago, Vice President Cheney insisted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted nuclear weapons. No weapons of mass destruction have yet been found.

Last week, Secretary Powell said the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds was the justification for a preemptive war 15 years later. As much as I admire and respect the Secretary, that is grasping at straws.

For months, the White House and the Pentagon tried mightily to draw a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attack against the World Trade Towers. Last week, the President belatedly conceded that there was no link.

Vice President Cheney said our troops would be treated as liberators. I am sure that most Iraqis are grateful that Saddam Hussein is gone. I am too. But it is clear the Iraqi people increasingly don't want us there.

We should all be concerned that when our soldiers--who have performed so bravely--are ambushed and killed, there seems to be increasing jubilation in the streets, and not just by the remnants of Saddam's regime.

Then, there is the issue of cost. Five months ago we passed a wartime supplemental with $2.5 billion for reconstruction in Iraq. At the time, we were told that was all that U.S. taxpayers would be asked for this year. That, we have learned, was a gross miscalculation.

Former-OMB Director Mitch Daniels said the total cost would be between $50 and $60 billion. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said:

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years.

We now know those predictions were wildly off the mark.

We are also paying other countries to support us. The State Department's own documents show that since April, the United States has provided almost $4 billion to coalition partners, other nations who supported our efforts in Iraq, and allies in the region. This does not include billions of dollars in loans.

Now the President wants another $87 billion for Iraq. Within a year, we will have spent far more than $100 billion, and it is clear that the administration will be back for many more tens of billions of dollars before next year is out.

We don't have this money in the bank. It is red ink. We are headed for a $1 trillion deficit, which will fall squarely on the backs of our children and grandchildren. That could very well be our most lasting legacy.

We are spending all this money in Iraq, but there is no supplemental to help the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have lost their jobs here at home. There is no money to fix our dilapidated public schools. There is no money for health care for the millions of Americans who lack health insurance. None for low income housing for Americans living in poverty.

I hope my Republican friends who have rushed here to defend the President's preemptive war and his policy of nation building, are also concerned about how much it may cost, how long it may take, and how many American troops may be needed in the years to come. They should be asking these questions too.

We cannot continue to drift along, spending more than $1 billion a week, with no plan other than business as usual, no realistic time table, every week another four or five Americans killed or wounded, and the growing resentment of the Iraqi people.

It is long past time to abandon the same old ``go it alone'' strategy. We need to get the international community involved. We need to work towards bringing our soldiers home sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.

Mr. President, today we vote to confirm another district court nominee, to the Western District of Pennsylvania. This nominee, Mr. Kim Gibson, is currently a judge on the Court of Common Pleas in Somerset County, in Western Pennsylvania. Judge Gibson is a graduate of West Point Military Academy and graduated second in his class from Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle, PA. Over the course of his career he has served in the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps and the public defender service. Not surprisingly, the ABA gave this nominee its highest rating--unanimous ``well qualified.''

With today's confirmation, the Senate has now confirmed 154 judicial nominees for this President. As I noted this week, the current pace of confirmation stands in stark contrast to what occurred with judicial nominees during the Clinton administration. It was not until well into the fourth year of President Clinton's second term when Republicans controlled the Senate, before this many judicial nominees were confirmed. It took President Reagan, during his first term, almost to the end of his fourth year to get this many judicial nominees confirmed, and that was with a Senate that was controlled by the same party. It also took President George H.W. Bush well into his fourth year to get this many of his judicial nominees confirmed.

In contrast, today, with the shifts in Senate control, it has effectively taken

a little more than 2 years of rapid Senate action to confirm 154 judicial nominees for this President, including 100 during Democratic control. This year alone the Senate has confirmed 54 judicial nominees, including 11 circuit court nominees in 2003. That is more confirmations in just nine months than Republicans allowed for President Clinton in 1996, 1995, 1999, or 2000. Overall, we have confirmed 28 circuit court nominees of President Bush since July of 2001, which is more than were confirmed at this time in the third year of President Reagan's first term President George H.W. Bush's term, or either of President Clinton's terms.

The Senate has held hearings for 13 Pennsylvania nominees of President Bush's to the Federal courts in Pennsylvania. While I was chairman, the Senate held hearings for and confirmed 10 nominees to the district courts in Pennsylvania, plus Judge D. Brooks Smith to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

A look at the Federal judiciary in Pennsylvania indicates that President Bush's nominees have been treated far better than President Clinton's. Today, there is no State in the union that has had more Federal judicial nominees confirmed by this Senate than Pennsylvania.

This is in sharp contrast to the way vacancies in Pennsylvania were left unfilled during Republican control of the Senate when President Clinton was in the White House, particularly regarding nominees in the western half of the State.

Just a few months ago, on May 16, 2003, Jon Delano wrote in the Pittsburgh Business Times, an article titled ``Despite Bush Protests, Court Vacancies are Down,'' about how this President's nominees in the western part of Pennsylvania have been treated more fairly than President Clinton's nominees. He wrote:

Take the Western District of Pennsylvania, for example.

During the years of the Santorum filibuster, that court of 10

judges had as many as five vacancies. Today, the Senate has

confirmed four Bush appointees--Judges Joy Contie, David

Cercone, Terry McVerry, and Art Schwab--and the fifth

nomination, attorney Tom Hardiman, has just been sent to the

Senate.

With the elevation and confirmation of Judge Brooks Smith

to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the president still needs to

name one more judge to the local court, but once completed,

Mr. Bush, with less than three years in office, will have

named--and the Senate will have confirmed--six of the 10

judges on the local federal court. That hardly sounds like

obstructionism.

Despite the best efforts and diligence of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to secure the confirmation of all of the judicial nominees from every part of his home State, there were nine nominees by President Clinton to Pennsylvania vacancies who never got a vote: Patrick Toole, John Bingler, Robert Freedberg, Lynett Norton, Legrome Davis, David Fineman, Harry Litman, Stephen Lieberman, and Robert Cindrich to the Third Circuit. Despite how well-qualified these nominees were, many of their nominations sat pending before the Senate for more than a year without being considered.

The record of this nominee stands in contrast to the record of many of this President's judicial nominees, particularly for circuit positions. Judge Gibson received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association and has enjoyed a tremendous career as both a litigator and a judge. Far too many of this President's judicial nominees have limited legal experience and no judicial experience but significant partisan experience. In fact, 23 of this President's judicial nominees have earned partial or majority ``not qualified'' ratings from the ABA. Another nominees to the same court, Tom Hardiman, has significantly less litigation experience, no judicial experience and was give a partial ``not qualified'' rating by the ABA. It is also interesting to note that their local bar association, the Allegheny County Bar Association, gave the two nominees very different peer-review ratings. Judge Gibson received a rating of ``highly recommended'' for the district court position. Mr. Hardiman, however, received a rating of ``not recommended'' by the same local bar association.

Certainly, the citizens of Western Pennsylvania deserve a well qualified judiciary to hear their important legal claims in Federal court. I am pleased to lend my support to Judge Gibson's nomination. He will be the 13th judicial nominee of this President confirmed to the State of Pennsylvania and the fifth judge confirmed to the Western District of Pennsylvania. I congratulate Judge Gibson and his family.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman and Senator Dorgan in a colloquy concerning the Rebuild America Program at the Department of Energy. The events of August have dramatically shown all of us that we need to take immediate steps to increase the reliability of our electricity grid. In Vermont, we came very close to being swept up in the blackout cascade. Our transmission grid is under increasing demand pressure. Although there are several proposals to upgrade the transmission grid, everyone recognizes that the only action we can take immediately is energy conservation. This is why I strongly support the Rebuild America Program to help bring emerging technologies to our States to improve energy efficiency in buildings. I would like to work with the chairman and Senator Dorgan to increase funding for this program to bring it closer to the Fiscal Year 2003 level.

I thank the chairman and Senator Dorgan. With the events of last month, Vermonters and people across the country need the information and outreach that this program provides. I strongly urge the chairman to use the conference to return this program to a level approaching its Fiscal Year 2003 funding of $12.7 million.

zero energy buildings

Mr. President, today, we vote to confirm two district court nominees, United States Magistrate Judge Glen Allen Conrad and South Carolina Judge Henry Floyd. Unfortunately, we are still needlessly awaiting a vote on the judicial nominees from California, for the emergency vacancies in the Southern District, the busiest court in the country.

With today's confirmations, the Senate will now have confirmed 153 judicial nominees for this President. As I mentioned last week, this pace of confirmation stands in stark contrast to what occurred with judicial nominees during the Clinton Administration. It was not until well into the fourth year of President Clinton's second term, when Republicans controlled the Senate, before this many judicial nominees were confirmed. It took President Reagan, during his first term, almost to the end of his fourth year to get this many judicial nominees confirmed, and that was with a Senate that was controlled by the same party. It also took President George H.W. Bush well into his fourth year to get this many of his judicial nominees confirmed.

In contrast, today, with the shifts in Senate control, it has effectively taken a little more than 2 years of rapid Senate action to confirm 153 judicial nominees for this President, including 100 during Democratic control. This year alone the Senate has confirmed 53 judicial nominees, including 11 circuit court nominees in 2003. That is more confirmations in just 9 months than Republicans allowed for President Clinton in 1996, 1995, 1999, or 2000. Overall, we have confirmed 28 circuit court nominees of President Bush since July of 2001, which is more than were confirmed at this time in the third year of President Reagan's first term, President George H.W. Bush's term, or either of President Clinton's terms.

The records of these two judicial nominees stands in contrast to the record of many of this President's judicial nominees, particularly for circuit court positions. Both Judge Conrad and Judge Floyd have significant judicial experience, with Judge Conrad serving as a Magistrate Judge for more than a quarter of a century. Far too many of this President's judicial nominees have limited legal experience and no judicial experience but significant partisan experience.

I note that there are now more George W. Bush appointees on the bench than there are active George Herbert Walker Bush appointees. The President's father served 4 full years. This President has served less than 3.

With these confirmations, there are no more vacancies in the district court in Virginia, as Judge Conrad joins Judge Hudson, who we confirmed last year to the district court in Virginia. Judge Floyd will join Judge Terry Wooten on the district court in South Carolina. Judge Floyd's confirmation will fill the vacancy created by the elevation of the controversial Judge Dennis Shedd last year. I congratulate Judge Conrad and Judge Floyd and their families.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a man, Kirk Noble Bloodsworth, who was the victim of a grossly imperfect system. I first met Kirk Bloodsworth in 2000 when he came to me as a man who had been exonerated after almost 9 years of wrongful imprisonment. I am proud to say that we have become close friends and partners in the fight to reform capital punishment in America.

For 8 years, 11 months and 19 days, Kirk Bloodsworth served time in prison as an innocent man. And for the next 10 years, Mr. Bloodsworth lived in a jail without bars. He lived in a world where people questioned his innocence, where rumors followed him everywhere he went, and where he was unable to find stable employment.

On July 25, 1984, 9-year-old Dawn Hamilton was brutally raped and murdered. Fifteen days later, Kirk Bloodsworth was arrested based on the testimony of several witnesses who said they had seen him near the spot where they found Miss Hamilton. There was no physical evidence linking Mr. Bloodsworth to the crime.

In March, 1985, Mr. Bloodsworth, a former Marine with no criminal background, was convicted and sentenced to death in Maryland. He was 24 years old. Subsequently, the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned Mr. Bloodsworth's conviction. However, a second jury trial found him guilty, and sentenced him to two consecutive life terms. In 1992, at the request of Mr. Bloodsworth and his attorney, the evidence from his trial--Miss Hamilton's shirt and underpants--was tested for DNA. By June 1993, two DNA fingerprinting tests--one conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and one conducted by Forensic Science Associates concluded that Mr. Bloodsworth's DNA was not the same as DNA found on Miss Hamilton's underpants.

On June 28, 1993, Mr. Bloodsworth was released from prison; in December, 1993, Maryland Governor William Schaefer pardoned him; and in June, 1994, the State of Maryland awarded him $300,000 in compensation.

The wheels of justice broke down in this case, but we cannot pretend that what happened to Kirk Bloodsworth was an exceptional occurrence. Mr. Bloodsworth's nightmare of wrongful conviction has been repeated again and again across the country. To date, 111 individuals convicted and sentenced to death have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Today Mr. Bloodsworth is outspoken about the importance of making post-conviction DNA testing available to defendants with a credible claim of innocence, something I have fought hard to accomplish as part of the Innocence Protection Act. People of good conscience can and will disagree on the morality of the death penalty. But we can all agree that a system that sentences innocent persons to death has no place in a civilized society, much less in 21st century America.

While DNA testing freed Mr. Bloodsworth from prison in 1993, the test results did not convince everyone that Kirk Bloodsworth was not guilty. Prosecutors refused to lift the veil of suspicion over him, in effect saying that the DNA tests might be sufficient to undermine his conviction, but not to prove his innocence. Mr. Bloodsworth told the Baltimore Sun that he spent years asking the county to run the DNA found on Dawn Hamilton's clothing through the State DNA database. Finally, last week, the State ran the DNA evidence through its database and the black cloud that had followed Mr. Bloodsworth for 10 years was lifted.

On September 5, 2003, Mr. Bloodsworth was told that the State tests implicated Mr. Kimberly Shay Ruffner, a convicted sex offender, as the rapist and murderer of Dawn Hamilton. Mr. Ruffner has now been charged with first-degree murder. The prosecutor who previously refused to acknowledge Mr. Bloodsworth's innocence went to his home to apologize to him.

I know that I am joined by many others when I say that I am delighted that Mr. Bloodsworth can finally feel truly free. His fight to prove his own innocence has been won. I am certain that he will continue with his efforts to fix the broken machinery of capital punishment in America and especially to assist others who experienced wrongful conviction.

I ask unanimous consent that a Baltimore Sun article detailing the recent events in Mr. Bloodsworth's case be printed in the Record.