Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2003,'' which will double funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, reauthorize the Center through fiscal year 2007, and increase Federal support to help NCMEC programs to find missing children across the Nation.

I am pleased that Senators Hatch, Kennedy, DeWine, Biden, Shelby and Lincoln join me as the original cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation. Today, Senators DeWine, Lincoln and Shelby launched the new Senate Caucus on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. I am honored to join the Caucus co-chairs as a founding member of the Caucus, and thank them for their leadership in this area.

It pains us all to see on TV, in the newspapers or milk cartons photo after photo of missing children from every corner of the Nation. As a father and grandfather, I know that an abducted child is the worst nightmare. Unfortunately, it is a nightmare that happens all too often. Indeed, the Justice Department estimates that 2,200 children are reported missing each day. There are approximately 114,600 attempted stranger abductions every year, with 3,000 to 5,000 of those attempts succeeding. Experts estimate that children and youth comprise between 85 and 90 percent of missing person reports. These families deserve the assistance of the American people and helping hand of the Congress.

As the Nation's top resource center for child protection, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children spearheads national efforts to locate and recover missing children and raises public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, molestation, and sexual exploitation.

NCMEC works to make our children safer by being a national voice and advocate for those too young to vote or speak up for their own rights. The Center operates under a Congressional mandate and works in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement officers, social service agencies, elected officials, judges, prosecutors, educators, and the public and private sectors to break the cycle of violence that historically has perpetuated these needless crimes against children.

The Center's professionals have disturbingly busy jobs--they have worked on more than 90,000 cases of missing and exploited children since its 1984 founding, helping to recover more than 70,000 children, and raised its recovery rate from 60 percent in the 1980s to 94 percent today. The Center has set up a nationwide, toll free, 24-hour telephone hotline to take reports about missing children and clues that might lead to their recovery, a National Child Pornography Tipline to handle calls from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children through the production and distribution of pornography, and a CyberTipline to process online leads from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children. It has taken the lead in circulating millions of photographs of missing children, and serves as a vital resource for the 17,000 law enforcement agencies located throughout the U.S. in the search for missing children and the quest for child protection.

NCMEC is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia and operates branch offices in five other locations throughout the country to provide hands-on assistance to families of missing children, advocating legislative changes to better protect children, conducting an array of prevention and awareness programs, and motivating individuals to become personally involved in child-protection issues. It has also grown into an international organization, establishing the International Division of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which has been working to fulfill the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International child Abduction. The International Division provides assistance to parents, law enforcement, attorneys, nonprofit organizations, and other concerned individuals who are seeking assistance in preventing or resolving international child abductions.

NCMEC manages to do all of this good work with a $10 million annual DOJ grant, which expires after fiscal year 2003. We must act now both to extend its authorization and increase the Center's funding to $20 million each year through fiscal year 2007 so that it can continue to help keep children safe and families intact around the Nation. There is so much more to be done to ensure the safety of our children, and the bipartisan legislation we introduce today will help the Center in its efforts to prevent crimes that are committed against them.

The Protecting Our children Comes First Act also increases Federal support for NCMEC programs to find missing children by allowing the U.S. Secret Service to provide forensic and investigating assistance to the NCMEC, as well as any State or local law enforcement agency, in any investigation involving missing or exploited children.

The bill also amends of the Missing Children's assistance Act to coordinate the operation of the Center's CyberTipline to provide all online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation, including the distribution of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. Since its creation in 1998, the CyberTipline has fielded almost 100,000 reports, which has allowed Internet users to quickly and easily report suspicious activities linked to the Internet.

We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be moved easily through the Senate and House. Efforts to protect our children do not deserve to be used as pawns by groups who play politics by attaching it to more controversial measures. I applaud the ongoing work of the Center and hope both the Senate and the House will promptly pass this bill to provide more Federal supply for the NCMEC to continue to find missing children and protect exploited children across the country.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2003,'' which will double funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, reauthorize the Center through fiscal year 2007, and increase Federal support to help NCMEC programs to find missing children across the Nation.

I am pleased that Senators Hatch, Kennedy, DeWine, Biden, Shelby and Lincoln join me as the original cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation. Today, Senators DeWine, Lincoln and Shelby launched the new Senate Caucus on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. I am honored to join the Caucus co-chairs as a founding member of the Caucus, and thank them for their leadership in this area.

It pains us all to see on TV, in the newspapers or milk cartons photo after photo of missing children from every corner of the Nation. As a father and grandfather, I know that an abducted child is the worst nightmare. Unfortunately, it is a nightmare that happens all too often. Indeed, the Justice Department estimates that 2,200 children are reported missing each day. There are approximately 114,600 attempted stranger abductions every year, with 3,000 to 5,000 of those attempts succeeding. Experts estimate that children and youth comprise between 85 and 90 percent of missing person reports. These families deserve the assistance of the American people and helping hand of the Congress.

As the Nation's top resource center for child protection, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children spearheads national efforts to locate and recover missing children and raises public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, molestation, and sexual exploitation.

NCMEC works to make our children safer by being a national voice and advocate for those too young to vote or speak up for their own rights. The Center operates under a Congressional mandate and works in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement officers, social service agencies, elected officials, judges, prosecutors, educators, and the public and private sectors to break the cycle of violence that historically has perpetuated these needless crimes against children.

The Center's professionals have disturbingly busy jobs--they have worked on more than 90,000 cases of missing and exploited children since its 1984 founding, helping to recover more than 70,000 children, and raised its recovery rate from 60 percent in the 1980s to 94 percent today. The Center has set up a nationwide, toll free, 24-hour telephone hotline to take reports about missing children and clues that might lead to their recovery, a National Child Pornography Tipline to handle calls from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children through the production and distribution of pornography, and a CyberTipline to process online leads from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children. It has taken the lead in circulating millions of photographs of missing children, and serves as a vital resource for the 17,000 law enforcement agencies located throughout the U.S. in the search for missing children and the quest for child protection.

NCMEC is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia and operates branch offices in five other locations throughout the country to provide hands-on assistance to families of missing children, advocating legislative changes to better protect children, conducting an array of prevention and awareness programs, and motivating individuals to become personally involved in child-protection issues. It has also grown into an international organization, establishing the International Division of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which has been working to fulfill the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International child Abduction. The International Division provides assistance to parents, law enforcement, attorneys, nonprofit organizations, and other concerned individuals who are seeking assistance in preventing or resolving international child abductions.

NCMEC manages to do all of this good work with a $10 million annual DOJ grant, which expires after fiscal year 2003. We must act now both to extend its authorization and increase the Center's funding to $20 million each year through fiscal year 2007 so that it can continue to help keep children safe and families intact around the Nation. There is so much more to be done to ensure the safety of our children, and the bipartisan legislation we introduce today will help the Center in its efforts to prevent crimes that are committed against them.

The Protecting Our children Comes First Act also increases Federal support for NCMEC programs to find missing children by allowing the U.S. Secret Service to provide forensic and investigating assistance to the NCMEC, as well as any State or local law enforcement agency, in any investigation involving missing or exploited children.

The bill also amends of the Missing Children's assistance Act to coordinate the operation of the Center's CyberTipline to provide all online users an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation, including the distribution of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, and child prostitution. Since its creation in 1998, the CyberTipline has fielded almost 100,000 reports, which has allowed Internet users to quickly and easily report suspicious activities linked to the Internet.

We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be moved easily through the Senate and House. Efforts to protect our children do not deserve to be used as pawns by groups who play politics by attaching it to more controversial measures. I applaud the ongoing work of the Center and hope both the Senate and the House will promptly pass this bill to provide more Federal supply for the NCMEC to continue to find missing children and protect exploited children across the country.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are on the nomination of Timothy Tymkovich to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. As he knows, being a member of the Judiciary Committee, while the debate time was scheduled by the committee, at the same time they scheduled hearings on various judicial nominees, including a very controversial nominee to another circuit court. As have others, including the distinguished Chair, I have tried to balance my time from place to place and attend to both matters ongoing simultaneously. I am sorry that I could not be here to open the debate but was at the hearing helping to open those proceedings.

Today we consider Mr. Tymkovich as the fourth of President Bush's nominees to this circuit to be considered by the Senate. Three of the nominees to the Tenth Circuit were given hearings and confirmed during the time I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

President Bush sent up Harris Hartz of New Mexico to the Tenth Circuit. I arranged to get him a hearing and vote on the floor. In fact, I voted for him. President Bush sent up Terrence O'Brien of Wyoming. I arranged to get him a hearing and a vote on the floor. I voted for him. President Bush sent up Michael McConnell of Utah, a highly controversial, extraordinarily conservative nominee, heavily backed by the Federalist Society and others. I arranged to get a hearing for him, and I voted for him.

I mention that because it is in stark contrast to the treatment of President Clinton's nominees to vacancies on the Tenth Circuit. We were fair and took action on three of President Bush's nominees to the Tenth Circuit last year. Today the Senate is debating and voting on his last remaining nominee to that circuit.

Let us recall what happened when Republicans were in charge and there was a Democratic President. President Clinton nominated two outstanding lawyers to this vacancy, the one about which we talk today. James Lyons, whom I have known it seems forever, is a brilliant lawyer. He would have been an outstanding federal judge, one who in that position would be totally impartial, would fit the qualifications necessary for a judge--that is, when you walked in the court, you would know, whether you are Republican or Democrat, rich, poor, plaintiff, defendant, black, white or anything else, that you would be treated fairly. Mr. Lyons was not treated fairly. He was not even allowed to have a hearing let alone consideration by the Judiciary Committee or a vote by the Senate.

Then President Clinton nominated Christine Arguello, an outstanding Hispanic woman. She was not allowed to have a hearing either. It was not that she was not qualified. In fact, speaking of these two, Mr. Lyons was among the many Clinton nominees given the highest qualification by the American Bar Association. Like so many others who fit in that category, he was never allowed even to have a hearing. It was not a question of voting up or down. Republicans were in the majority. They could have voted him down. But both these well qualified nominees were not even allowed to have a hearing.

Ms. Arguello is a talented Hispanic attorney. Her nomination had widespread support from her community and State. Both Republicans and Democrats called and wrote to me on her behalf. But as with so many circuit court vacancies on the Tenth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the District of Columbia Circuit, and around the country, these qualified nominees, whose only sin was that they were nominated by a Democratic President, were not allowed to have hearings or votes.

The Republican-controlled Senate made it very clear: We will not hold hearings or vote on them. Someday there will be a Republican President, and then we will fill these seats in a campaign to stack the courts.

This was very clear. This happened during President Clinton's first term in the Senate--the Republican Senate blocking his nominations from even having a hearing because Republicans thought he would never get reelected and then they could put in Republicans to fill those judicial vacancies. It is very clear. Everybody here heard the comments in the cloakroom and in the Senators' dining room. Look at the record, in the 1996 session, the Republican Senate majority would not consider or confirm a single nominee to a circuit court anywhere in the country, not one. During that entire year only 17 judges were confirmed and all were to the district courts.

President Clinton then had a landslide reelection victory. We naively assumed that the Senate Republicans would work with us to help fill the many judicial vacancies that had been perpetuated. Not so. They thought maybe 4 years later they might have another chance and there might be a Republican administration and they could get the courts to do what we wanted. Despite vacancies that reached over 100, Republicans denied there was a vacancies crisis and insisted on slow and searching inquiries on those lucky nominees who were considered at all. Of course, more than 50 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were never given a hearing and a vote. Others, the lucky ones, were delayed for years and years before Senate Republicans would allow a vote.

Then in the most recent presidential election, as we know, Al Gore got half a million more votes but did not become President. I respect the electoral system. President Bush won the electoral vote, and there was a 1-vote margin in the Supreme Court determining that. All of a sudden, all these seats that have been kept open year after year because Republicans would not allow anybody to come forward, were valuable opportunities.

When Democrats were the Senate majority, we tried to help, to work with the administration and with Senate Republicans. Take, the Tenth Circuit. Even though President Clinton's nominees had been unfairly held up, we did not do the same thing to President Bush's nominees. We proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees in 17 months. We proceeded on three of his nominees to the Tenth Circuit and filled three of the four vacancies on that circuit by adjournment last year.

With respect to this remaining nomination, that of Timothy Tymkovich,

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, recognition and congratulations are in order for a school and a group of young men known throughout Vermont for their honor, integrity and prowess on the hockey rink.

Norwich University, the nation's oldest private military college, sits in the picturesque town of Northfield, VT. It is a quaint college town, and it is a unique college, hosting a mix of military cadets and more traditional college students.

The cadets, as their hockey team is known, have a reputation for being an NCAA Division III hockey powerhouse. It is cold in Northfield this time of year, but a few weeks ago, Norwich University's Kreitzberg Arena was warmed by a sellout crowd gathered to watch the Cadets capture their second NCAA Division III hockey title in just four years.

The Cadets staged a come-from-behind 2-1 win over Oswego State on March 22 to capture the title. After trailing 1-0 going into the third period, Norwich was looking at the possibility of being shut out, something that has not happened to the program in 278 consecutive games, a streak dating back to the 1993-94 season. Junior defensemen Lou DiMasi, a Vermont native, was quoted by the Burlington Free Press on the team's third period comeback, saying: ``There was no way we were going to let it get away.'' Junior defensemen Aaron Lee scored his thirteenth goal of the season in the third period to tie the game, and senior team captain Toza Crnilovic notched the game-winning goal for the championship.

Norwich coach Mike McShane has built a remarkable record over the past 8 years, winning the Eastern College Athletic Conference East crown five times and reaching five ``Frozen Fours.'' Since Mike McShane began coaching the Cadets, the team has had five 20-win seasons accompanied by a long list of individual accomplishments for members of Cadet teams, including national players of the year and a long list of All-Americans.

Following the game, Coach McShane attributed part of the team's success to the great support the Cadets have from Norwich and Northfield. ``We've got great support here and that helps a lot. You saw the president and the chairman of the board of trustees out there at center ice in the celebration. You don't see that at many schools.''

Norwich finished the season with an impressive record of 27-3, and many of the Cadets' stars will be returning next year. And, as surely as the sugar rises each year in the maples, Vermonters next year will be closely following the Cadets through another great season. Until next winter, the Cadets have earned the right to bask in the glow of knowing they have accomplished another successful season, bought with hard work, skill and determination.

Mr. President, today we again demonstrate how cooperative the Senate and, in particular, Democratic Senators are being to an administration that continues to refuse to work with us to select consensus court judges who could be confirmed relatively quickly by the Senate and fill the remaining Federal court vacancies.

In the prior 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee, we were able to confirm 100 judges and vastly reduce the judicial vacancies that Republicans had stored up by refusing to allow nominees of President Clinton to be considered. We were able to do so despite the hostility of the White House. The judicial nominees of this President are conservatives, many of them quite to the right of the mainstream. Many of these nominees have been active in conservative political causes or groups. Democrats moved fairly and expeditiously on as many as we could consistent with our obligations to evaluate carefully and thoroughly these nominees to lifetime seats in the federal courts.

Last year alone, in an election year, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed 72 judicial nominees, more than in any of the prior six years of Republican control. Not once did the Republican-controlled Committee consider that many of President Clinton's district and circuit court nominees.

While Republicans point to the 377 judges confirmed under President Clinton, but they fail to mention that only 245 of them were confirmed during the 6\1/2\ years Republicans controlled the Senate. That amounts to only 38 confirmations per year when the Republicans last held a majority and there was a Democrat in the White House. In 1999, the Republican majority did not hold a hearing on any judicial nominee until June. Tomorrow, the Republican majority will hold its seventh hearing including a 32nd judicial nominee in the last 2 months. The Senate Judiciary Committee is acting like a runaway train, operating at breakneck speed and breaking longstanding rules and practices of the committee.

This year we have had a rocky beginning with a hearing for three controversial circuit court nominees that has caused a great many problems we might have avoided. The chairman's insistence on terminating debate on the Cook and Roberts nominations is another serious problem. Of course, the administration's unwillingness to work with the Senate so that we may be provided the documents and information needed to proceed with a final vote on the Estrada nomination has already proved to be a significant problem. The opposition to the Sutton nomination is

also extensive. The concerns about the Tymkovich nomination are significant. The unprecedented nature of a President renominating someone for the same judicial position after a defeat in committee has led to the Owen nomination is pending on the floor with the assent of only the Republicans on the committee.

Nonetheless, the Senate has proceeded to confirm 114 of President Bush's judicial nominees, including 14 this year alone. The Senate confirmed the controversial nomination of Jay Bybee to the Ninth Circuit, another pro-life judicial nominee. With this one circuit court confirmation, the Senate has confirmed more circuit court judges than Republicans allowed to be confirmed in the entire 1996 session. In addition, I note that it was not until September 1999, 9 months into the year, that 14 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were confirmed in the first session of the last Congress in which Republicans controlled the Senate majority. At the pace set by Republicans now, we are a full six months ahead of that schedule.

The Indiana nominee, Theresa Lazar Springmann, is currently a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. She has the bipartisan support of her home State Senators. The fact that she is being confirmed to the district court months in advance of the vacancy arising demonstrates how cooperative the Senate is being. Only rarely has a nominee been confirmed in advance of a vacancy arising. The nominee is well regarded and supported by her home State Senators. I congratulate Judge Springmann and her family on her confirmation.

Mr. President, while there are continuing problems caused by the administration's refusal to work with Democratic Senators to select consensus judicial nominees who could be confirmed relatively quickly by the Senate, today we again demonstrate what can happen when the administration works with us.

In spite of the President's lack of cooperation, the Senate in the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee was able to confirm 100 judges and vastly reduce the judicial vacancies that had built up and were prevented by the Republican Senate majority from being filled by President Clinton. Last year alone the Democratic-led Senate confirmed 72 judicial nominees, more than in any of the prior 6 years of Republican control. Not once did the Republican-controlled committee consider that many of President Clinton's district and circuit court nominees. In our efforts to turn the other cheek and treat this President's nominees better than his predecessor's had fared, we confirmed 100 judges in 17 months. Yet not a single elected Republican has acknowledged this tremendous bipartisanship and fairness. When Chief Justice Rehnquist thanked the committee for confirming 100 judicial nominees, this was the first time this accomplishment had been acknowledged by anyone from a Republican background. I thanked him last week when I appeared before the Judicial Conference.

Almost all of the judges confirmed are conservatives, many of them quite to the right of the mainstream, and many are pro-life. Many of these nominees have been active in conservative political causes or groups, but we moved fairly and expeditiously on as many as we could.

We cut the number of vacancies on the courts from 110 to 50, despite an additional 60 new vacancies that had arisen. I recall that the chairman said in September of 1997 that 103 vacancies, during the Clinton Administration, did not constitute a ``vacancy crisis.'' He also repeatedly stated that 67 vacancies meant ``full employment'' on the Federal courts. Even with the vacancies that have arisen since we adjourned last year, we remain below the ``full employment'' level that Senator Hatch used to draw for the Federal courts with only 50 vacancies remaining on the district courts and courts of appeals, according to the Judiciary Committee website. Unfortunately, the President has not made nominations to a number of those seats, and on more than half of the current vacancies he has missed his self-imposed deadline of a nomination within 180 days. Of course, several of the nominations he has made are controversial.

This year the President has taken the truly unprecedented action of renominating candidates voted down in committee in spite of the serious concerns expressed by fair-minded members of this committee. That is a significant problem.

This year we have had a rocky beginning with a hearing that has caused a great many problems we might have avoided. The chairman's insistence on terminating debate on the Cook and Roberts nominations is another serious problem. Of course, the administration's unwillingness to work with the Senate so that we may be provided the documents and information needed to proceed with a final vote on the Estrada nomination has already proved to be a significant problem. The opposition to the Sutton nomination is also extensive.

Nonetheless, the Senate has proceeded to confirm 113 of President Bush's judicial nominees, including 13 this year alone. The Senate confirmed the controversial nomination of Jay Bybee to the Ninth Circuit, another pro-life judicial nominee. Already this year the Senate has confirmed more circuit court judges than Republicans allowed to be confirmed in the entire 1996 session. In addition, I note that it was not until September, 1999, that 13 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were confirmed in the first session of the last Congress in which Republicans controlled the Senate majority. This year we are 6 months ahead of that schedule.

The California nominee comes from the bipartisan selection commissions Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer have established in California and the Indiana nominee has the bipartisan support of his home State Senators. I congratulate the nominees and their families.

Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure and commend Senator Campbell for his leadership on this matter. This is a measure the Senate passed last year as S. 1644. The Senate's action in May, 2002, unfortunately met with resistance in the House of Representatives and our bill was not enacted into law last year as it should have been.

Senator Campbell correctly proceeded to reintroduce the bill as S. 330, earlier this year. The bill provides for two things: highway signs to guide visitors to veterans cemeteries and a criminal provision for the willful destruction of memorials and cemeteries for our Armed Forces veterans.

I have urged all Senators, Republicans and Democrats, to support this modest legislative effort to help honor our Armed Forces veterans. In addition, of course, I will continue to support efforts to improve medical services, veterans hospitals, and other benefits for the women and men who risk and have risked their lives and livelihoods to protect all of us.

I asked the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to include this matter on the agenda for Judiciary Committee action last week I thank him for accommodating our request and am happy that this bill was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate. I am confident that the Senate will again pass it. I trust that this year the House of Representatives will act favorably on this good legislation to honor our veterans.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Ms. Stabenow and my other colleagues today in offering this amendment to express the sense of the Senate that the final conference agreement on the budget resolution should not reduce funding for domestic nutrition programs below the current baseline levels. The reconciliation instructions included in the House Budget Resolution to cut mandatory funding in the areas of domestic nutrition assistance would be devastating to the children and families who count on these programs to meet their daily food needs. In these difficult economic times, we must not put the basic needs of low-income Americans--particularly children--on the chopping block in order to make room for an ill-advised tax cut package this country cannot afford. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment.

Mr. President, the administration's budget was wrong for the Nation when the President proposed it in February. It is even worse for the Nation now that we are at war. I will oppose it, and I hope that reason and common sense will prevail in the remaining steps of the budget process to prevent this package from doing lasting damage to the economy and to our communities.

As incredible as it might seem, this budget plan would worsen the fiscal and economic harm done by the administration's 2001 economic package, which, in one fell swoop squandered the hard-won budget surpluses and converted them to ever-deepening deficits and debt. Making matters all the worse, this budget would compound this squandering while the Nation is at war.

Can anyone seriously argue, just for instance, that it makes fiscal or economic sense to borrow money to pay for a tax cut package which itself is steeply tilted to the wealthiest individuals?

This budget plan is misguided in its priorities. It severely underfunds essential health, education and employment training programs; it contains an enormous government giveaway to wealthy corporations and the wealthiest individuals that will skyrocket our Nation's debt; and it is wholly inadequate to meet the domestic security needs of the first-responder agencies that are our first line of defense against terrorism.

Even before the war, when the President unveiled his budget proposal in February, his priorities were sharply out of kilter with the Nation's needs. By severely underfunding education and other domestic needs, and by making a nearly $700 billion tax package the focus of his budget, the President compounds the irresponsible polices of the last 2 years that have traded record surpluses for record deficits.

Let me cite just a few examples of how bad the President's budget is for Vermont: The $6.7 million cut in afterschool programs that will leave 9,566 children in my State without afterschool activities; the $2,405,259 cut in Clean Water Act funding, at a time when Vermont has nine toxic waste sites on the National Priorities List; the $524,673 cut in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that helps Vermonters who need assistance with the electricity and heating bills; the $793,220 cut in the Community Services Block Grant that provides local organizations in Vermont with funds to help reduce poverty, revitalize low-income communities, and offer families the help they need to become fully self-sufficient; and the elimination of the COPS police-hiring program that has put 245 officers on our streets. And I could go on and on.

In 2001, I voted against the Bush tax package because it was too skewed toward the wealthiest Americans and it was fiscally irresponsible. Since then, we have gone from record surpluses to red ink, and the economy is still floundering. Leading economists have repeatedly made clear that the elimination of taxes on dividends paid to investors, the centerpiece of the President's tax-cut proposal, will do little if anything to spur economic growth or to reduce the Nation's jobless rate.

As Congress shapes an economic package, fiscal responsibility needs to be a priority. We need to be smart about how we proceed, and we need to be fair about it. The tax cuts the President has proposed not only will worsen our Federal deficit, but it will also eliminate $16 million in revenue from the State of Vermont. Congress now has the responsibility to bring stability and sensible fiscal policies back into the budget process. We must work to reestablish a balanced budget and to restore our country's economic health.

Our Nation is at war. We have nearly a quarter of a million troops in the Middle East. We have five carrier battle groups in the region. And we have National Guard units being called up all across the country. Yet the President has only recently submitted an estimate to Congress about the cost of this war. The $75 billion he requested on Monday does not adequately address our country's homeland security needs and is likely just a start in funding all of the United States operations in Iraq.

I was disappointed that the Senate did not adopt my amendment to boost funding for first responders. We are in a two-front war, overseas and here at home, and we need to fund both. First responders are on the front lines in defending against and preparing for terrorist attacks. The White House has refused to adequately fund homeland security, and these added responsibilities have become unfunded Federal mandates that are severely straining our police, fire and rescue agencies. Every time the alert level is raised, it costs our communities and states millions more. Everyone recognizes the vital role of first responders, but the White House is overdue in acting accordingly. The sooner we help first responders help us in the war on terrorism, the better.

In his State of the Union Message, the President was right when he said we should not pass on our problems to other Congresses, other Presidents and future generations. Unfortunately, that is exactly what this budget plan would do. The White House's own documents predict the deficit will hit highs of $304 billion this year and $307 billion in 2004. Over the next 5 years, deficits would total $1.08 trillion. Even these staggering numbers are short of the real mark because the administration will surely need hundreds of billions of dollars more in Iraq-related spending that is not counted here.

This administration has been in a rush to war, but it has been in no hurry to substantively deal with the poor economy that millions of Americans are coping with today.

This budget was a bad plan for the Nation before the war began. It is an even worse plan now.

I ask unanimous consent that an editorial by Emerson Lynn that appeared in the March 21 edition of the St. Albans Messenger be printed in the Record.

I am pleased today to introduce the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003, a bill intended to close loopholes in our immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights abusers to enter and remain in this country. Senator Hatch has joined me in offering this bill, along with Senators Lieberman and Levin. In the other body, Representatives Mark Foley and Gary Ackerman today introduce identical legislation.

Our bill would update the charter of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, OSI, which for years has investigated and has sought justice in the cases of Nazi war criminals who have sought refuge on our shores. It is time to renew the OSI charter to take into account the new generations of war criminals who try to escape justice by living among us.

This bill closely mirrors legislation I had offered that was reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and which passed the Senate during the 106th Congress. I hope and expect that, with the help of Senator Hatch and others, this bill will become law during this Congress.

As we introduce this bill, our armed forces are fighting to replace an Iraqi regime that has been marked by its utter disregard for the human rights of its people. We must not fight this war on the one hand, and let human rights abusers from around the world enter our Nation with impunity on the other.

When they learn it is so, the American people are appalled to learn that our country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent civilians. A report issued last year by Amnesty International claims that nearly 150 alleged human rights abusers have been identified living here and warns that this number may be as high as 1,000. Meanwhile, an article in the New York Review of Books stated that ``hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign nationals who have been plausibly accused of the most heinous human rights crimes, including torture and assassination, either have lived or still live freely in the U.S.'' [William Schulz, ``The Torturers Among Us,'' New York Review, p. 22, April 25, 2002.]

I introduced a similar version of this bill on May 10, 2001, and the Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a Leahy-Hatch managers' amendment on April 18, 2002. Unfortunately, the bill was subject to an anonymous hold on the Senate floor.

I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress and was pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The legislation passed the Senate on November 5, 1999, as part of S. 1754, the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act,'' but unfortunately it was not acted on by the House before the end of the 106th Congress. Nevertheless, Representatives Foley and Ackerman have provided consistent leadership in moving this legislation in the House, by introducing the measure in the l06th Congress as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058, in the 107th Congress, as H.R. 1449, and again today.

The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation.

For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court that

Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in the military dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s, engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them when they lived in that country. Negewo oversaw and participated in the torture of opposition political figures in Ethiopia, and then moved to the United States only to work at the same Atlanta hotel as one of his own victims. The court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1.5 million to the plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. [See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996).] Yet during the pendency of his appeal of the civil verdict, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted Negewo citizenship.

This situation is an affront both to the foreign victims of torture who fled here to escape their persecutors, and to the American victims of such torture and their families. As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration relief.'' [20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657.]

Indeed, another case actually involves American victims. In 1980, four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by the Salvadoran National Guard. Two former Salvadoran government officials who allegedly covered up the murders currently reside in Florida.

Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock that door to human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should promptly show them the door out.

We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too long after World War II to focus prosecutorial resources and attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Thousands of declassified CIA documents were made public last year, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud to help enact in 1998. These documents made clear the extent to which the United States relied upon and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, noted at the time, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United States.

When I first introduced this bill, the Rutland Daily Herald in Vermont editorialized that:

For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything,

U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough

to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and

then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip

across the border to find a home in America. (October 31,

1999)

The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. One Clinton Administration witness testified in February 2000 that:

The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our

ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of

torture abroad. The department also recognizes, however, that

our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough

bars for human rights abusers. . . . Right now, only three

types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from

entering or remaining in the United States. The types of

prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly

severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi

persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly

defined. [Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien

Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and

Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d

Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello,

Associate Deputy Attorney General).]

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar to human rights abusers and close loopholes in our current laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) currently provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, are both inadmissable to the United States and removable. [See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D).] This bill would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to: (1) add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing,'' and (2) remove limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom.''

The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

an act committed by a person acting under the color of law

specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental

pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to

lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or

physical control.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1).]

``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean:

prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (A) the

intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe

physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or

application, or threatened administration or application, of

mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to

disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the

threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another

person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical

pain or suffering, or the administration or application of

mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to

disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. [18 U.S.C.

Sec. 2340(2).]

The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for ``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. This term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.''

The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii).] For clarity and consistency, the bill would substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of levels of complicity.

Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), limits its application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the individual's

spouse and children, if any. This bill would delete the reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor Aceves has written:

This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month

time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A

perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to

seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the

commission of these acts. [William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich.

J. Int'l L., at 683.]

In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for the spouse or children of a violator of religious freedom. This is a serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are beyond their control. The purpose of these amendments is to make those who have participated in atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by holding the family members of such individuals accountable for the offensive conduct over which they had no control.

Under current law, most aliens who are inadmissible may receive a waiver under section 212(d)(3) of the INA to enter the nation as a nonimmigrant, where the Secretary of State recommends it and the Attorney General approves. Participants in Nazi persecutions or genocide, however, are not eligible for such a waiver. Our bill retains that provision. It does not, however, ban waivers for those who commit acts of torture or extrajudicial killings. I would hope that such waivers are used sparingly and only under the most compelling of circumstances.

Of course, changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted:

[s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to

implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does

not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice

with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and

prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights

atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency

for this function can be seen in the experiences of the

Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at

689.

Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective enforcement. Since OSI was created in 1979, more than 60 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 such individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied entry.

OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when Attorney General Civiletti, by a 1979 Attorney General order, established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct all ``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order.

I believe it is time to reward the tremendous work that OSI has done by expanding its mission to ensure effective enforcement against war criminals of all stripes.

Little is being done about the new generation of international human rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are costly. As any prosecutor knows instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and enforcement, and should never come to believe that they will find safe harbor in the United States.

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with authorization to denaturalize any alien who has participated in Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for OSI, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad not just Nazis.

The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and would best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions.

These are the sound policy and practical reasons that experts in this area recommend that the United States ``establish an office in the Justice Department similar to the one that has tracked Nazi war criminals, with an exclusive mandate to carry out the task of investigation [of suspected human rights abusers].'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 24.]

I appreciate that this part of the legislation has in the past proven controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in this bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has concluded that the OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657.

Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission instead, additional resources are authorized in the bill to cover the costs of the Office's expanded duties.

Significantly, the bill further directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a prosecution. Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994 and adopting a new law making torture anywhere in the world a crime, federal law enforcement has not used this authority. In fact, one recent observer noted that ``the U.S. has never prosecuted a suspected torturer; nor has it ever extradited one under the Convention Against Torture, although it has surrendered one person to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 23 - 24.]

As one human rights expert has noted:

``The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is

discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their

way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to

call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals

certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to

offer. But when we ask the question `where should they be?'

the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the

essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal

of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers.'' [Hearing on

H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability

Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the

House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept.

28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington

Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).]

Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House on implementation of the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of matters to the OSI, any

revisions made to immigration forms to reflect amendments made by the bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due process protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate again to give their approval to this bill, and for the House to help us finally make it law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

I am pleased today to introduce the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003, a bill intended to close loopholes in our immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights abusers to enter and remain in this country. Senator Hatch has joined me in offering this bill, along with Senators Lieberman and Levin. In the other body, Representatives Mark Foley and Gary Ackerman today introduce identical legislation.

Our bill would update the charter of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, OSI, which for years has investigated and has sought justice in the cases of Nazi war criminals who have sought refuge on our shores. It is time to renew the OSI charter to take into account the new generations of war criminals who try to escape justice by living among us.

This bill closely mirrors legislation I had offered that was reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and which passed the Senate during the 106th Congress. I hope and expect that, with the help of Senator Hatch and others, this bill will become law during this Congress.

As we introduce this bill, our armed forces are fighting to replace an Iraqi regime that has been marked by its utter disregard for the human rights of its people. We must not fight this war on the one hand, and let human rights abusers from around the world enter our Nation with impunity on the other.

When they learn it is so, the American people are appalled to learn that our country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent civilians. A report issued last year by Amnesty International claims that nearly 150 alleged human rights abusers have been identified living here and warns that this number may be as high as 1,000. Meanwhile, an article in the New York Review of Books stated that ``hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign nationals who have been plausibly accused of the most heinous human rights crimes, including torture and assassination, either have lived or still live freely in the U.S.'' [William Schulz, ``The Torturers Among Us,'' New York Review, p. 22, April 25, 2002.]

I introduced a similar version of this bill on May 10, 2001, and the Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a Leahy-Hatch managers' amendment on April 18, 2002. Unfortunately, the bill was subject to an anonymous hold on the Senate floor.

I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress and was pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The legislation passed the Senate on November 5, 1999, as part of S. 1754, the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act,'' but unfortunately it was not acted on by the House before the end of the 106th Congress. Nevertheless, Representatives Foley and Ackerman have provided consistent leadership in moving this legislation in the House, by introducing the measure in the l06th Congress as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058, in the 107th Congress, as H.R. 1449, and again today.

The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation.

For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court that

Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in the military dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s, engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them when they lived in that country. Negewo oversaw and participated in the torture of opposition political figures in Ethiopia, and then moved to the United States only to work at the same Atlanta hotel as one of his own victims. The court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1.5 million to the plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. [See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996).] Yet during the pendency of his appeal of the civil verdict, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted Negewo citizenship.

This situation is an affront both to the foreign victims of torture who fled here to escape their persecutors, and to the American victims of such torture and their families. As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration relief.'' [20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657.]

Indeed, another case actually involves American victims. In 1980, four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by the Salvadoran National Guard. Two former Salvadoran government officials who allegedly covered up the murders currently reside in Florida.

Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock that door to human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should promptly show them the door out.

We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too long after World War II to focus prosecutorial resources and attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Thousands of declassified CIA documents were made public last year, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud to help enact in 1998. These documents made clear the extent to which the United States relied upon and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, noted at the time, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United States.

When I first introduced this bill, the Rutland Daily Herald in Vermont editorialized that:

For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything,

U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough

to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and

then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip

across the border to find a home in America. (October 31,

1999)

The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. One Clinton Administration witness testified in February 2000 that:

The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our

ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of

torture abroad. The department also recognizes, however, that

our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough

bars for human rights abusers. . . . Right now, only three

types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from

entering or remaining in the United States. The types of

prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly

severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi

persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly

defined. [Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien

Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and

Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d

Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello,

Associate Deputy Attorney General).]

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar to human rights abusers and close loopholes in our current laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) currently provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, are both inadmissable to the United States and removable. [See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D).] This bill would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to: (1) add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing,'' and (2) remove limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom.''

The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

an act committed by a person acting under the color of law

specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental

pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to

lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or

physical control.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1).]

``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean:

prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (A) the

intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe

physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or

application, or threatened administration or application, of

mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to

disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the

threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another

person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical

pain or suffering, or the administration or application of

mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to

disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. [18 U.S.C.

Sec. 2340(2).]

The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for ``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. This term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.''

The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii).] For clarity and consistency, the bill would substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of levels of complicity.

Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), limits its application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the individual's

spouse and children, if any. This bill would delete the reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor Aceves has written:

This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month

time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A

perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to

seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the

commission of these acts. [William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich.

J. Int'l L., at 683.]

In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for the spouse or children of a violator of religious freedom. This is a serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are beyond their control. The purpose of these amendments is to make those who have participated in atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by holding the family members of such individuals accountable for the offensive conduct over which they had no control.

Under current law, most aliens who are inadmissible may receive a waiver under section 212(d)(3) of the INA to enter the nation as a nonimmigrant, where the Secretary of State recommends it and the Attorney General approves. Participants in Nazi persecutions or genocide, however, are not eligible for such a waiver. Our bill retains that provision. It does not, however, ban waivers for those who commit acts of torture or extrajudicial killings. I would hope that such waivers are used sparingly and only under the most compelling of circumstances.

Of course, changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted:

[s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to

implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does

not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice

with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and

prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights

atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency

for this function can be seen in the experiences of the

Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at

689.

Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective enforcement. Since OSI was created in 1979, more than 60 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 such individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied entry.

OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when Attorney General Civiletti, by a 1979 Attorney General order, established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct all ``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order.

I believe it is time to reward the tremendous work that OSI has done by expanding its mission to ensure effective enforcement against war criminals of all stripes.

Little is being done about the new generation of international human rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are costly. As any prosecutor knows instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and enforcement, and should never come to believe that they will find safe harbor in the United States.

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with authorization to denaturalize any alien who has participated in Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for OSI, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad not just Nazis.

The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and would best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions.

These are the sound policy and practical reasons that experts in this area recommend that the United States ``establish an office in the Justice Department similar to the one that has tracked Nazi war criminals, with an exclusive mandate to carry out the task of investigation [of suspected human rights abusers].'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 24.]

I appreciate that this part of the legislation has in the past proven controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in this bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has concluded that the OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657.

Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission instead, additional resources are authorized in the bill to cover the costs of the Office's expanded duties.

Significantly, the bill further directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a prosecution. Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994 and adopting a new law making torture anywhere in the world a crime, federal law enforcement has not used this authority. In fact, one recent observer noted that ``the U.S. has never prosecuted a suspected torturer; nor has it ever extradited one under the Convention Against Torture, although it has surrendered one person to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 23 - 24.]

As one human rights expert has noted:

``The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is

discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their

way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to

call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals

certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to

offer. But when we ask the question `where should they be?'

the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the

essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal

of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers.'' [Hearing on

H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability

Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the

House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept.

28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington

Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).]

Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House on implementation of the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of matters to the OSI, any

revisions made to immigration forms to reflect amendments made by the bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due process protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate again to give their approval to this bill, and for the House to help us finally make it law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the budget resolution now provides less funding to our Nation's first responders in the next fiscal year than it does in the current one. My amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Daschle, Reid, Biden, Schumer, Clinton, and Dayton, will increase the level of direct funding for fiscal year 2004 for first responders by $3 billion to support their efforts to protect homeland security and respond to acts of terrorism. This will bring the total funding for our State and local first responders to at least $6.5 billion for the first fiscal year.

When one calls 9-1-1, they get the State and local; they do not get Washington. They need the money.

We offset this by reducing tax reductions by $3 billion for taxpayers with annual incomes greater than $300,000, and we provide an additional $3 billion for deficit reduction. I hope we can support our Nation's police officers, firefighters, and emergency personnel by passing this amendment.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a young Vermonter whose priorities are in the right place. Matt Sheftic is the center for the University of Vermont basketball team, the first Catamounts team to reach the NCAA tournament.

Before choosing to play basketball for Coach Tom Brennan, Matt was a standout for the Essex Junction Hornets, leading them to the 1998 Vermont State Championship. He was a first team all-state selection twice, and in 1999 was named Vermont's Mr. Basketball by the Burlington Free Press, and was Vermont's Gatorade Player of the Year. At UVM, he also serves his country as a member of the U.S. Army ROTC program.

Aside from his successes on the basketball court, in the classroom, and in the ROTC program, Matt is first and foremost dedicated to his family. When his sister Lauren battled an unexpected serious illness, Matt left the basketball team to help care for her. His priorities speak volumes about him as an outstanding young man, about the closeness of the Sheftic family, and about the wonderful job his parents have done raising him.

Matt Sheftic's story is told in an article by Joe Burris in the March 20 edition of the Boston Globe. Today, in honor of Matt Sheftic and his family, and in memory of Lauren Sheftic, I ask that the article ``For Vermont's Sheftic, family came first'' be printed into the Record.

The article follows:

Mr. President, today I salute a key member of the first University of Vermont men's basketball team ever to participate in the NCAA Tournament. Taylor Coppenrath is the Vermont version of Larry Bird, a smalltown boy who found huge success on the basketball court.

Taylor's basketball excellence has transformed his hometown, tiny West Barnet, VT, into perhaps, on a per capita basis, our State's most basketball-crazy town, and with good reason. During his career at St. Johnsbury Academy, Taylor did not make the varsity squad until his junior year, but when he finally arrived, his presence was felt. Taylor was named Vermont's 2000 Player of the Year by USA Today and Gatorade, and Mr. Basketball by the Burlington Free Press.

When Taylor joined Coach Tom Brennan's University of Vermont Catamounts, he had an immediate impact, and was named the 2002 America East Rookie of the Year, and earned All-America East, second team honors. During this season, he was named the Kevin Roberson America East Player of the Year, an honor appropriately named for one of UVM's all time greatest players. Taylor has attracted national attention, including a mention on ESPN.com's The Radar Screen. An opposing coach, Tim Welsh of Providence College said of Taylor, ``I'm glad we only have to play him once this year.''

Taylor Coppenrath's story is perhaps best told by award-winning writer Sam Hemingway of the Burlington Free Press in his column of Wednesday, March 19. I ask that the column ``Basketball Star Makes West Barnet Proud'' be printed into the Record.

The article follows:

Basketball star Coppenrath makes W. Barnet proud

[From the Burlington Free Press]

(By Sam Hemingway)

Shortly after 3 p.m. Thursday, the quiet hamlet of West

Barnet will grow even quieter.

Sharon Roy will put her small, seldom-used black-and-white

television on the counter at the West Barnet General Store

and see whether she can capture WCAX-TV Channel 3 on the

screen.

Meg Clayton has a better plan. Her good friends, the

Coppenraths, have a satellite dish, and because they''ll be

away in Utah, she intends to stop by and ``check on their

cat'' for a couple of hours.

Over at the Barnet School, the afternoon in-service session

for teachers should end in time for the staff to check out

the cable television hook-up installed at the school this

week.

The focus of all this television attention: hometown hero

Taylor Coppenrath. The 6-foot, 8-inch forward will be on

network television, leading the University of Vermont men's

basketball team in its first-ever NCAA appearance, against

the University of Arizona.

The funny thing is, no one in these parts really saw this

day coming five years ago. The funnier thing is that, now

that it's happening, no one's that surprised about it.

``He's such a sweetie,'' said Karen Stewart, the principal

of Barnet School. ``He was always very mellow, very easy

going.''

He still is. Neighbor Liddy Roberts recalled how, last

year, Coppenrath and her son, Jimmy, were home on spring

break and spent a whole day making an igloo for a youngster

in town albeit one big enough for Coppenrath to stand up

inside.

``And, of course, he and Jimmy had to go out and cook up

some hot dogs inside the igloo afterward,'' she said.

Under that unassuming exterior lurks the heart of a lion,

however.

As a kid, Coppenrath played so hard at recess, some

teachers said, the school created the Taylor Coppenrath Rule:

If you come in from recess soaked in sweat like he did, make

sure you have a set of dry clothes to put on afterward.

Name a game, and Coppenrath was ready to play it. Games

filled the idle hours for kids in the village, none more so

than basketball. The sound of a bouncing basketball often

echoed through town from dawn to dusk.

Sometimes the games involved Coppenrath and his two best

friends, Clayton's son Chris and Roberts' son Jimmy. Other

times, it drew in entire families, passers-by, anyone who

wanted to play.

``We even had family tournaments,'' said George Coppenrath,

Taylor's father. ``You had mothers, fathers, sons, daughters,

all bumping and shoving each other out there. It was fun.''

Basketball became such a fixture in West Barnet that six

years ago a paved, full-sized basketball court with two

backboards and hoops was built smack dab in the middle of the

village.

Still, the chances of a small-town kid from Vermont making

a big splash in Division 1 college basketball are as remote

as West Barnet itself, tucked into the hills 15 miles

southwest of St. Johnsbury.

Coppenrath, who kept growing taller throughout high school,

was a late-blooming star. He didn't make the varsity at St.

Johnsbury Academy until his junior year, a year after his two

West Barnet buddies had made the team.

Only as a senior did he finally receive the recognition he

deserved: Vermont's Gatorade Player of the Year, The

Burlington Free Press' Mr. Basketball and a full scholarship

from UVM. This winter he led the Catamounts in scoring and

was named the player of the year in the America East

basketball conference.

How crazy is this town for basketball now? George

Coppenrath has taken to making video tapes of UVM games and

leaving them at the two stores in town for people to borrow

and watch.

Tuesday, all of the West Barnet General Store's copies were

out on loan.

I applaud the Senate for passing S. 205, the Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, along with Senators Biden, Hatch, Lugar, and Specter. When Senator Biden introduced this last year, I worked closely with him, discharging the bill from the Judiciary Committee and encouraging the Senate to pass it. I was pleased when the Senate did so, and disappointed that the House failed to act.

This bill could not be more timely. As the United States and United Nations seek to obtain information about Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction, the scientists who have worked on biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons for Iraq hold critical information. Thus far, however, those scientists have refused to speak privately with U.N. inspectors, instead insisting that Iraqi government representatives be included in interviews. Many have suggested that these scientists fear they will be executed if they provide material assistance to the inspectors.

The Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act offers a potential way around this quandary by offering a benefit to those scientists who would like to share what they know about Iraq's weapons development. It provides for the admission to the United States of scientists who want to provide useful information about Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, along with those scientists' families. Eventually, these scientists could become legal permanent residents of the United States.

This bill has taken on increased importance since the Homeland Security Act--which has caused severe disruption in the processing of asylum and refugee applications--has taken effect. Many Iraqi scientists would surely be eligible for asylum and/or refugee status. Section 457 of the Homeland Security Act, however, eliminated the surcharges on applicants for immigration benefits, which had been used to fund the processing of asylum and refugee applications, which are generally made by destitute people. This was apparently an oversight in the hasty and secret process by which the Homeland Security Act was written by Congressional Republicans and the administration. This provision has left the asylum and refugee programs in limbo. The Senate-passed omnibus appropriations bill includes language to strike section 457 and restore the status quo, but the prospects for that change will remain unclear until the conference committee has completed its work. This gives us an added incentive to pass the Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act as quickly as possible. I urge the House to take the bill up and pass it without further delay.