In This Section...

	Sen. Cornyn [R-TX]: [Introducing S. 1318] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to protect State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that...
	Sen. Biden [D-DE]: [Introducing S. 1320] Mr. President, in our search for ways to eliminate the crushing poverty that afflicts billions of people around the world, experience has taught...
	Sen. Santorum [R-PA]: [Introducing S. 1321] Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005, a bill that would abolish a tax that is severely outdated. ...
	Sen. Durbin [D-IL]: [Introducing S. 1322] Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators LEAHY, KENNEDY, and FEINGOLD in introducing the American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative...
	Sen. Leahy [D-VT]: Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the introduction of the ANTI-Gang Act with my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, Senators DURBIN, KENNEDY and FEINGOLD....
	Sen. Kennedy [D-MA]: Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues Senator DURBIN, Senator LEAHY, and Senator FEINGOLD in introducing this important legislation, the ANTI-GANG Act....
	Sen. Feingold [D-WI]: Mr. President, I am pleased to support the ANTI-GANG Act, introduced today by the Senator from Illinois, Senator DURBIN. This critical legislation will provide State...
	Sen. Stevens [R-AK]: [Introducing S. 1323] Mr. President, Dorothy Hibbs came to Girdwood in 1952 and was its Postmaster from 1954-1976. During this time, the Post Office was housed in a...
	Sen. Frist [R-TN]: [Introducing S. 1325] Mr. President, obesity ranks among the most serious health problems facing America today. Since 1970, the percentage of overweight children...
	Sen. Wyden [D-OR]: Mr. President, across this country, on couches in front of televisions and video game consoles, a silent killer called obesity is stalking America's youngsters--in...
	Sen. Clinton [D-NY]: Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act or the IMPACT Act today with my colleagues Senators FRIST, BINGAMAN, and...

Record Text

Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]: [Introducing S. 1318] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to protect State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority.

To put it mildly, these are not easy days for members of the State and Federal judiciary. I am unaware of any member of this body who has not, at one time or another, criticized a member of the State or Federal judiciary for issuing one ruling or another--including the numerous controversial rulings that have captured the Nation's attention in recent years. Indeed, in each of the two previous Congresses, the Senate unanimously approved strongly worded resolutions "strongly disapprov[ing]" the infamous decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit striking down the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. See S. Res. 71 (108th Cong.) and S. Res. 292 (107th Cong.).

To be sure, judges are supposed to follow and apply the law--not legislate from the bench. On numerous occasions, I have spoken out against instances of judicial activism. But there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to register one's disapproval and disagreement.

The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to express disagreement with government officials--including State and Federal judges. There is certainly nothing inappropriate about criticizing judicial rulings with which one sharply disagrees. But it is entirely inappropriate to threaten the impeachment and removal of judges simply for issuing rulings with which one disagrees. It is inappropriate to file lawsuits against judges in the hope of pestering or bankrupting them in retaliation for judicial actions one does not like. And it is absolutely deplorable for any person to undertake violence, threats of violence, or other illegal acts against judges.

As a former State trial judge and State supreme court justice of 13 years, who has a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by recent acts of courthouse violence. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence. I have grieved with those families. And during the Easter recess earlier this year, I met with an old friend, a Federal judge in Texas, to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect our judges and courthouse personnel against further acts of violence. So I look forward to legislation that will soon be introduced to strengthen courthouse security and to otherwise bolster protections against violence for judges, their staff, and their families.

Today I would like to introduce legislation to protect State and Federal judges against a different kind of threat--a lesser threat than violence to be sure, but an important one nonetheless: the threat of civil litigation in retaliation for unpopular judicial actions. For centuries, our common law has protected judges against civil litigation by conferring upon them courtroom immunity. It has long been understood that judicial immunity is an essential element of protecting judicial independence and ensuring that judges have the ability and freedom to do their jobs. As the Senate Judiciary Committee noted less than a decade ago: "Even when cases are routinely dismissed, the very process of defending against those actions is vexatious and subjects judges to undue expense. More importantly, the risk to judges of burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that threatens judicial independence and may impair the day-to-day decisions of the judiciary in close or controversial cases." Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996--S. 1887, S. Rep. No. 104-366 at 37 (1996).

Throughout its legal existence, judicial immunity has been for the most part a creature of the common law. But there have been times when Congress has seen fit to step in and to strengthen judicial immunity--particularly when the courts have undertaken an unduly narrow view. In 1996, for example, Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act--important legislation that included a provision reversing a U.S. Supreme Court decision in order to expand the protections of judicial immunity.

It is appropriate for Congress once again to consider legislation to strengthen judicial immunity. This time, I hope Congress will respond to a recent decision by a Federal district court in Fort Worth, TX. That decision applied recent Supreme Court precedents in good faith, but in a manner that leaves judges potentially exposed to vexatious civil litigation. In Alexander v. Tarrant County, the Federal district court held that traditional judicial immunity does not protect State judges acting in their administrative capacities. Specifically, the court held that State judges authorized under State law to supervise local correctional facilities could not claim judicial immunity against suit. As a recent news report and editorial by the San Antonio Express-News make clear, that decision has left judges throughout the State of Texas in a state of uncertainty and anxiety about their

The legislation I introduce today is simple and straightforward. It protects State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority. Specifically, it provides that State and Federal judges shall be immune against any Federal civil cause of action respecting the discharge of any legislatively or constitutionally authorized duty, except for actions involving malice. The legislation would not preempt any judicial immunity that already exists under current law.

This legislation was drafted with the support of two Texas State judges--the Honorable Dean Rucker, who presides over the 318th District Court in MidIand, and who chairs the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas, and the former chairman, the Honorable Mark Atkinson of the Harris County Criminal Court. I want to thank them both for their service to Texas and for their help with this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be printed in the RECORD at the close of my remarks. I am also grateful for the technical assistance provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as well as by the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, which has been intimately involved in the defense State judges against

I hope that legislation to protect judges against deplorable acts and threats of violence will soon be introduced and quickly be enacted, and I hope that the legislation I introduce today to protect judges against vexatious litigation will likewise be considered favorably by my colleagues.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]: [Introducing S. 1320] Mr. President, in our search for ways to eliminate the crushing poverty that afflicts billions of people around the world, experience has taught us to be humble. There is no single policy or program that can deal with the underlying causes and symptoms of poverty.

But as the Hippocratic Oath reminds us, in the search for cures, "First, do no harm."

Right now, the burden of debt owed by the poorest nations of the world to the richest does harm not only to them, but to us.

In our new global environment, countries whose peoples live in abject poverty are not just a moral challenge to those of us who are blessed with affluence.

They can threaten the entire edifice of political and economic stability.

New technologies that have brought so much good to the world have shrunk the gaps in time and distance that once allowed us the luxury of inattention.

Now the very symbols of the technological superiority of our age, from the cell phone to the internet to jet airliners, have been transformed into weapons in the hands of those who are the declared enemies of our way of life.

They allow stateless actors to reach out from the shadows, from weak and failed states, to attack us here at home.

Poverty-stricken states are fertile ground for drug production and trafficking, feeding our own drug problems here.

With the scourge of AIDS and other diseases loose in the world, we cannot afford the existence of more states that cannot feed, house, educate, or innoculate their citizens.

For all of these reasons, we ignore the poverty that plagues other nations at our own peril.

That is why we need the legislation I am introducing today, with Senators DEWINE, FEINGOLD, LUGAR, and OBAMA, the Multilateral Debt Relief Act of 2005.

This legislation takes a first step in addressing that poverty it relieves the poorest nations of the world, specifically those who qualify for the Heavily Indebted Poor Country initiative of over a billion dollars a year in debt service payments that they are obliged to send the World Bank, the IMF, and the African Development Bank.

Since I worked with the President Clinton on the Enhanced HIPC initiative in 1999, we have searched for a workable definition of "sustainable debt" an amount that would not cripple a country's ability to take care of its own citizens and achieve economic growth.

In the end, it became clear that definition would continue to elude us. Whatever the best use of the limited resources of the poorest nation may be, sending checks to the multilateral banks established by the richest nations of the world is nowhere near the top of the list.

With the strong leadership of Prime Minister Blair, who will preside over the upcoming G8 Summit in July, we have cut the Gordian Knot of debt owed by the poorest nations of the world.

The announcement of the G8 Finance Ministers earlier this month on 100 percent debt relief cuts through years of debate and opens the way for a fresh start.

One hundred percent debt relief for those countries who meet the HIPC qualifications gets that debt out of the way of the many tasks before those countries in their search for economic growth.

None of our own foreign assistance programs will work to their best advantage if we send that assistance into nations who will turn around and send some of their money right back here to Washington, to the World Bank, to the IMF.

We must remember that this is indeed only the first step on a long path. With the funds this legislation will authorize, a burden of debt will be lifted, but we will still need to promote health, education, and other pillars of economic development.

We will need a more creative approach to trade with the poorest nations, who represent no economic threat, except for the threat that comes from their poverty itself. We have nothing to fear from a world in which fewer people wake up hungry, sick, and uneducated.

But with as much as $40 billion in outstanding debt stock owed by 18 countries to be removed from the books right away, our efforts in those areas have a greater chance to succeed. Up to $56 billion will be forgiven under this plan, once all 38 eligible countries are fully qualified.

I am pleased to note that this is a bipartisan initiative, one I share with Senators DEWINE, FEINGOLD, LUGAR, and OBAMA, an effort that began with the Clinton Administration and has progressed to this historic agreement under President Bush.

This legislation authorizes the funds needed for our share of the debt relief. It provides for further relief for other countries as they become eligible.

It lifts not only a debt burden from poor countries, but a moral obligation from our shoulders.

The poverty reduction it will promote will help millions around the globe and contribute materially to a more stable and secure world.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

Sen. Richard Santorum [R-PA]: [Introducing S. 1321] Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005, a bill that would abolish a tax that is severely outdated.

The telephone excise tax originated on long distance service under the Spanish American War Act of 1898. At that time, only the wealthy had telephones, the U.S. had no income tax, and the country relied on excise taxes to fund the war. However, you would not know the intent of this tax by looking at your phone bill. The charge on your phone bill doesn't say "luxury tax" or "war tax." So why does this tax still exist?

Although created to cover war expenses in 1898, the revenue from the telephone excise tax goes into the general receipts of the U.S. Treasury and is not earmarked for any particular government function or service. From its inception, the federal telephone excise tax was repeatedly imposed on a temporary basis. However since 1932, the tax has continuously been imposed. This tax has been scheduled to expire--partially or completely--at least 17 different times. In 1990, and just before the tax was set to expire, Congress made the tax permanent at 3 percent of local and long distance services.

The Joint Committee on Taxation stated in its January 2005 report "there is no compelling policy argument for imposing taxes on communications services." The Congressional Budget Office took this a step further by stating in February 2005 that the tax "has harmful effects on economic policy."

Repeal of this tax provides consumers with two main benefits--removal of a regressive tax and elimination of an "invisible tax." First, the tax is considered a regressive tax because lower-income individuals spend a higher percentage of their income on the taxed item than those with higher-incomes. A 1987 study by the CBO concluded that excise taxes on telephone service had a greater impact on low-income families than did excise taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Studies have shown that individuals and families with income less than $10,000 spend almost 10 percent of their income on telephone bills. Individuals and families earning $50,000 spend two percent of their income for telephone service.

Second, repeal eliminates this "invisible" tax that consumers pay through their telephone companies. Because phone companies collect the tax from their customers, the government is spared the expense. However, this convenience for the government makes the tax "invisible" to consumers by tying it to the payment of their phone bills. Additionally, any administrative costs associated with the collection of this tax are most likely passed forward to the consumers, artificially raising the cost of telecommunications with no benefit from the additional taxes.

Telephone service providers lose as well under the current tax, and its repeal would further reduce the cost of telecommunications for consumers. Providers carry the administrative costs of being the government's tax collector. Additionally, while providers do not bear this tax directly, the tax raises the cost of services for consumers and in turn reduces both the number of subscribers and the amount of services requested.

Common sense dictates that repeal of the telephone excise tax is long overdue. Communication is not a luxury. Rather, communications have become part of the basic fabric of our social and economic life. The growth of the technologies on which communications rides and the widespread use of communications in general should be encouraged and not taxed. The telephone tax is a regressive, inequitable, inefficient and unnecessary tax that Congressional policy makers have found to serve no rational policy purpose. I strongly urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting the repeal of the telephone excise tax.

Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]: [Introducing S. 1322] Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators LEAHY, KENNEDY, and FEINGOLD in introducing the American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs (ANTI-GANG) Act, which is a comprehensive bill that will help State and local prosecutors prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes.

Gang violence is a serious, nationwide program. The National Youth Gang Survey estimated that in 2002 there were 21,500 gangs comprised of 731,500 members in the United States. The FBI has noted that "[s]treet gangs and other loosely knit groups are responsible for a substantial portion of the increase in violent crime in the United States." The problem is clearly felt in Chicago, IL, where over 40 percent of the homicides last year were gang-related. The Chicago Police Department is currently tracking 68 identified gangs, with an estimated 68,000 members.

I would like to commend the State and local prosecutors and law enforcement agencies for their work in fighting this problem. The ANTI-GANG Act would authorize $862.5 million in grants over the next five years to provide them with the tools they need and have specifically requested of Congress to combat violent gangs.

For example, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) wrote the following: "We must find new methods of protecting those individuals brave enough to come forward as witnesses. Our biggest problem is getting the financial help to establish, and run, meaningful witness protection programs." The National Alliance of Gang Investigators (NAGI) also has identified a trend in witness intimidation that is "dramatically affecting the prosecution of violent gang offenders." The ANTI-GANG Act responds by authorizing $300 million over five years for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. This bill also would allow the Attorney General to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses in state gang, drug, and homicide cases, and it would allow States to obtain the temporary protection of witnesses in State gang cases through the Federal witness relocation and protection program, without any requirement of reimbursement for those temporary services.

The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $250 million over five years for grants to develop gang prevention, research, and intervention services. However, these grants should not be limited to those areas already identified as "high intensity" interstate gang activity areas. The NAGI also has identified a trend of gangs migrating from larger cities to smaller communities, which is fueled in large part by an increase in gang involvement in drug trafficking. This may be related to the spread of methamphetamine, which is the fastest-growing drug in the United States and, according to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the "single-greatest threat to rural America today." In response to these trends, the ANTI-GANG Act would allow rural communities and other jurisdictions to apply for these grants, to prevent gang violence from occurring in the first place. The ANTI-GANG

gang activity areas (HIIGAAs). Importantly, this bill would allow HIIGAAs to be integrated with High Intensity Interstate Drug Trafficking Areas (HIIDTAs), to avoid conflicts in those areas where the two entities would coexist.

The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $50 million over five years for technology, equipment, and training to identify gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases to facilitate coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors;

In addition to these new resources, the ANTI-GANG Act will effectively strengthen the ability of prosecutors to prosecute violent street gangs, by creating a stronger Federal criminal gang prosecution offense. This new offense criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, recruitment and retention of gang members, and witness intimidation. At the same time, it responds to concerns raised by the NDAA regarding potential conflicts with local investigation and prosecution efforts, by requiring certification by the Department of Justice before any prosecution under this bill could be undertaken in Federal court.

The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes the recruitment and retention of highly-qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for Federal employees. Almost a third of prosecutors' offices across the country have problems with recruiting or retaining staff attorneys, and low salaries were cited as the primary reason for recruitment and retention problems. This proposed loan forgiveness program is supported by the American Bar Association, the NDAA, the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

The ANTI-GANG Act will effectively strengthen the ability of prosecutors at the local, State, and Federal level to prosecute violent street gangs, and it will give State and local governments the resources they need to protect witnesses and prevent youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill achieves these important goals without increasing any mandatory minimum sentences, which conservative jurists such as Justice Anthony Kennedy have criticized as "unfair, unjust, unwise." It also does not unnecessarily expand the Federal death penalty--a measure which has been included in other Federal gang legislation but is opposed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, NAACP, ACLU, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Finally, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition has raised the following concerns regarding Federal gang legislation that would allow more juveniles to be prosecuted as adults in the Federal system: "[T]he fact remains that transfer of youth to the adult system, simply put, is a failed public policy. Comprehensive national research on the practice of prosecuting youth in the adult system has shown conclusively that transferring youth to the adult criminal justice system does nothing to reduce crime and actually has the opposite effect. In fact, study after study has shown that youth transferred to the adult criminal justice system are more likely to re-offend and to commit more serious crimes upon release than youth who were charged with similar offenses and had similar offense histories but remained in the juvenile justice system. Moreover, national data show that

In light of these concerns, the ANTI-GANG Act provides Congress with the necessary data to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders, by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house additional prisoners. The American Bar Association has written that this study is "the more prudent course of action at this time."

The ANTI-GANG Act is a comprehensive, common-sense approach to fight gang violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]: Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the introduction of the ANTI-Gang Act with my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, Senators DURBIN, KENNEDY and FEINGOLD.

The American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative-Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs Act of 2005 is a bill carefully crafted to target violent criminal street gangs whose activities extend beyond the neighborhood and have a substantial impact on Federal interests.

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

There are four major sections of the bill: first, the bill gives State and local prosecutors financial resources to guard against neighborhood gangs by authorizing $62.5 million for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes; $50 million for grants to develop gang prevention, research, and intervention services; and $60 million for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. Federal funds are provided for hiring new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to fund technology, equipment and training grants to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate state and federal coordination.

The first defense in protecting our youth against gang influence is a good offense. I have long thought that programs aimed at combating gang activity must incorporate gang prevention and education--programs that would examine why our youth choose to associate in gangs and prey on others--to be effective. When Senator HATCH appropriately targeted gang violence as a subject for a full Judiciary Committee hearing in 2003, all agreed that we should be doing more to deter our youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill heeds that call.

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

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

In addition to witness intimidation, other important crimes established by this bill include: 1. participation in criminal street gangs by any act that is intended to effect the criminal activities of the gang; 2. participation by committing a crime in furtherance of or for the benefit of the gang, and 3. recruitment and retention of gang members. There are increased penalties for those who target minors for recruitment in a criminal street gang.

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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]: Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues Senator DURBIN, Senator LEAHY, and Senator FEINGOLD in introducing this important legislation, the ANTI-GANG Act.

Gang violence is a serious problem in many communities across the Nation, and it deserves a serious response by Congress. The keys to success include aggressive steps to take guns out of the hands of criminal gang members and other violent juvenile offenders, and effective prevention programs that discourage gang membership and provide realistic alternatives for at-risk youth.

As one example of what works, I urge my colleagues to consider the innovative, cooperative crime-fighting strategy developed in Boston. It engaged the entire community, including police and probation officers, clergy and community leaders, and even gang members in a united effort to reduce gang violence, strengthen after-school prevention programs, and take guns out of the hands of juvenile offenders.

The project also established new and effective channels of communication between the police and neighborhood leaders. This strategy was very successful--juvenile homicides dropped 80 percent from 1990 to 1995. It succeeded without prosecuting more juveniles as adults, without housing nonviolent juvenile offenders in adult facilities, and without spending large sums of money on new juvenile facilities.

The Massachusetts Legislature's Joint Committee on Public Safety issued a report last January which concluded unequivocally that successful anti-gang programs depend on a "wide variety of solutions." Relying on recommendations by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the report noted that "preventing youth from joining gangs is the most cost-effective long-term strategy." Reflecting the input from an investigative hearing and a working group of ten mayors in metropolitan Boston, the report recognized that there is "no silver bullet for combating gang violence."

It would be a mistake for Congress to ignore these successful efforts to stop gang violence. Since different communities may find different ways to combat these difficult issues, the bill does not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach that will only make the current problem of gang violence worse. Instead of ignoring the primary role of State and local governments in fighting violent gang crimes in their communities, our ANTI-GANG Act strengthens that role, by giving local law enforcement and prosecutors the resources they need by authorizing $862 million in grants over the next 5 years.

The provisions in the bill for witness relocation and protection are particularly important. Our bill meets this need by authorizing $60 million in assistance. The urgency of preventing witness intimidation in gang-related cases can not be overstated. Effective prosecution of such violence depends upon it.

In addition, our bill amends the current law on Federal witness relocation and protection to make clear that the Attorney General can use these provisions to protect witnesses in State gang, drug, and homicide cases. We also permit States to obtain the temporary protection of witnesses in gang cases, without any requirement of reimbursement. The current complex reimbursement procedures deter State and local prosecutors from obtaining assistance for witness protection from the Federal government, even in emergencies.

The ANTI-GANG Act respects the primary role of State and local governments in fighting street crime, but it also recognizes that violent gangs can have a substantial impact on Federal interests. According to the most recent National Drug Threat Assessment, criminal street gangs are responsible for the distribution of much of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and other illegal drugs being distributed in communities throughout the United States. Such gang activity interferes with lawful commerce and undermines the freedom and security of entire communities.

The Act strengthens the ability of prosecutors at all levels--Federal, State and local--to prosecute violent street gangs, and it does so without increasing mandatory minimum sentences or unnecessarily expanding the Federal death penalty to include State murder offenses.

Finally, the Act encourages the recruitment and retention of highly-qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled on the current program for Federal employees. According to the National District Attorneys Association, this provision "would allow prosecutors to relieve the crushing burden of student loans that now cause so many young attorneys to abandon public service." The provision is also strongly supported by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

I commend my colleagues for their leadership in developing this important legislation to protect American communities from gang violence without undermining fundamental principles of fairness and Federal-State relations. I urge the Senate to adopt this approach, and resist any suggestion that we need to federalize the State and local juvenile justice systems in our country.

Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]: Mr. President, I am pleased to support the ANTI-GANG Act, introduced today by the Senator from Illinois, Senator DURBIN. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities.

Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The ANTI-GANG Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics.

The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow the recruitment of the very best Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorneys General and allow them to remain in public service longer so they can use their wealth of experience to combat gang violence.

The ANTI-GANG Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute, which was never intended to be used against violent street gangs, with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but also addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The ANTI-GANG Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement and certify that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest

Finally, the ANTI-GANG Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional young prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence. It is very hard to know whether this will work, and what effect if might have on the criminal justice system. With the review required by the ANTI-GANG Act, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand to Federal role in prosecuting juveniles.

We all know that the gang problem is a serious one, and that it is only getting worse. Other members of Congress have proposed different approaches to combating the gang problem, and the House of Representatives has passed its own gang bill. But the ANTI-GANG Act is the approach most responsive to the needs of State and local prosecutors who are on the ground fighting this problem, day in and day. Other approaches go down the wrong path.

State and Federal prosecutors have not demanded unchecked and increased Federal jurisdiction over State crimes that diminishes the States' historic and primary role in fighting violent street gangs. They did not come to us seeking new and expanded Federal death penalty crimes, but rather effective laws that focus on the recruitment and retention of gang members. They never mentioned needing a massive and unwarranted reworking of the Federal rules used to prosecute juveniles as adults, regardless of whether the juvenile is in a gang or not. And, to my knowledge, no prosecutors have put increased mandatory minimums targeted at first offenders on their wish list. All of these approaches sound tough, but they aren't what prosecutors and law enforcement have asked for and they won't solve the gang problem.

Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks, and walk their streets without fearing that gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The ANTI-GANG Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe. I am proud to cosponsor it and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]: [Introducing S. 1323] Mr. President, Dorothy Hibbs came to Girdwood in 1952 and was its Postmaster from 1954-1976. During this time, the Post Office was housed in a two-story hotel called The Little Dipper. Mail came into Girdwood via train. The train would slow down and throw the sack of mail to Dorothy who would be waiting by the tracks. Unfortunately, this building burned down during the 1964 earthquake. After the Post Office burned, the operation moved to Dorothy's home until another building could be acquired.

Connie Hibbs began her love for the post office at a young age when her mother, Dorothy, was Postmaster of Girdwood. Because of her hard work and efforts, Connie became the Girdwood Postmaster in 1979 and held that position until 2005.

Connie came with her mother to Girdwood in 1952 and remained for 52 years. While her mother was Postmaster, Connie helped in the Post Office and at the age of thirteen began making money orders and sorting mail. Girdwood and the Post Office have always been a part of Connie's life. Connie says she loves Girdwood. It is her town. She spent the most wonderful years of her life there as the Postmaster and a "Post Office Kid."

Connie and Dorothy believe in the importance of the Postal Service and the need to enhance the service in Girdwood. It is only appropriate that we honor them by dedicating the Girdwood Post Office after them.

Sen. William Frist [R-TN]: [Introducing S. 1325] Mr. President, obesity ranks among the most serious health problems facing America today.

Since 1970, the percentage of overweight children between 6 and 19 has quadrupled. Today, nearly one out of three children is overweight and about one in six is obese.

Obese children develop type II diabetes at an alarming rate and they can begin puberty as early as age seven. Over 70 percent of obese children become overweight or obese adults. And, obesity in adults can have catastrophic effects--including heart disease, cancer, and stroke at very high rates. The medical profession knows this.

In the last several weeks, the American Medical Association has issued new guidelines for fighting obesity. And earlier this week, a group of economists reported that nearly 12 percent of all health care spending stems from obesity.

Obesity threatens our health, it threatens our future. And successfully addressing it requires action.

Dealing with it requires national leadership and community level commitment.

Through continued public education campaigns, we have reduced youth smoking. And I'm convinced we can do the same with obesity. That's why I'm reintroducing two bills to confront the challenge.

The first is called the Childhood Obesity Reduction Act: it will give the obesity crisis the attention it deserves. I am grateful to my colleague Senator WYDEN for his work in cosponsoring it.

The bill has two major components: first, it will establish a bi-partisan Congressional Council on Childhood Obesity which will evaluate plans to fight this health problem and give awards to "Congressional Challenge Winners."

Second, it will establish a private, non-profit foundation to fight obesity around the country.

The second bill, the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act of 2005, or IMPACT, will provide the resources we need to fight obesity everywhere in the country.

This bill, which Senators BINGAMAN, DODD, and CLINTON have joined me in sponsoring, commits us to three policies: first, we'll train more health professionals in the problems associated with being overweight and ways that they can help Americans fight obesity.

Second, we will mobilize America's community organizations to fight this problem. Through education, outreach, and intervention, schools, non-profits, and churches will get the resource they need to fight obesity. We will also give States more flexibility to use existing grant programs to fight obesity.

Finally, we will redouble our efforts to collect information about obesity's extent, consequences, costs, and the ways we can deal with them.

Obesity stems from a combination of behavior, environment, and genetics. We cannot and should not expect any single Federal effort to end it. Much of the work in fighting obesity will depend on families and communities.

And both the Childhood Obesity Reduction Act and IMPACT 2005 bill will give this crisis the attention ..... and the resources ..... it deserves.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]: Mr. President, across this country, on couches in front of televisions and video game consoles, a silent killer called obesity is stalking America's youngsters--in epidemic numbers. Today, Senator Frist and I are introducing a bipartisan bill, "The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act", to jump-start a nationwide, community-based campaign against this menace and help our children grow up healthy.

In my home State of Oregon, obesity may well become the number-two killer of our citizens--after tobacco, also the number-one killer nationally. According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, fully 22 percent of the adults in Oregon are obese and 60 percent are overweight. Even more tragic, and why we are here today, is that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says at least 31 percent of low income children between two and five years of age in Oregon are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. A lot of those overweight kids are going to become overweight and obese adults if we just sit on our hands today. Our children are beginning to show signs of devastating diseases that will only lead to a life-long illnesses and increased health care costs. And no statistic can measure the emotional toll that illness takes on a child, their families and others who love them.

The Frist-Wyden legislation, "The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act", will work to turn the tide against childhood obesity in two ways. First, it will give teachers, parents and other community leaders a one-stop shop to fight obesity. The Congressional council created by this bill will launch a comprehensive website to help everyone from Physical Education teachers to scout leaders learn what's working in schools and public-private programs. It will also offer information about how to connect with those successful programs and how to adapt them in their own schools.

For example, when a teacher wants to see what can be done to help kids get 30 minutes of activity, something that studies have shown helps to combat childhood obesity, that teacher could go to the website and see what others in a similar situation have done. They would be able to see there are partners like Nike who are willing to step up to the plate and help with programs. But that teacher might also see that physical activity is only one part of the solution and they might find ways to bring in the nutritional aspect as well through other programs that have already proven successful.

The website will also offer help in establishing goals for cutting childhood obesity at that school or in that community--and all these plans will have been evaluated by outside experts for their effectiveness.

Second, after two years, the Congressional council turns the work over to a brand-new foundation. The foundation will keep the one-stop website up and running. But at the same time, they'll be able to raise money, and use it to reward programs that work and fund programs that are sorely needed where childhood obesity threatens most.

Here's an example of how the second component of our bill would work: say an urban school wants to work on getting kids to choose vegetables instead of French fries. When they visit the Web site, they may find a successful program about actually growing fresh vegetables--so they don't think vegetables just come from a freezer or a can. The Foundation will have the wherewithal to do more than just share that information--they may be able to provide the seed money, literally, for a school garden that will grow fresh produce, and change the way those children look at food.

It is not realistic to think that children won't be in a situation where unhealthy choices for foods and snacks are available. The goal ought to be to help them know what the healthy choices are, how to balance what they eat and drink and to know that they need exercise. And the Foundation can keep pursuing those goals for the long term.

I believe that our bipartisan bill is significant for two reasons. First, it emphasizes both sides of the equation--the need for proper nutrition and the need for physical activity. Second, it and because it will create an immediate, one-stop resource, in the form of a Web site, about what we know is working now so that individuals can begin to mobilize their communities and help their children. These are also important steps in assisting our children to become healthy adults.

All of us have the same, simple goal here: getting America's children healthy. There are a lot of folks competing for our kids' attention in this arena. A lot of the competition is pretty attractive: food that's not so nutritious but sure tastes good, and video games that don't burn any calories but can occupy you for an entire afternoon. It's tough for kids to make good choices on their own. That's why it's time to mobilize this nation--and particularly this Congress, by way of legislation--to beat the epidemic of obesity plaguing our children.

Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]: Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act or the IMPACT Act today with my colleagues Senators FRIST, BINGAMAN, and DODD. This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity and combating obesity and eating disorders. Eating disorders and obesity have become serious and 2 growing public health concerns in our country. Childhood obesity has emerged as an important issue in the public, as we have seen a significant increase in the number of Americans who are overweight or obese. Today, more than 15 percent of children and adolescents are considered seriously overweight. We know that obesity and the lack of exercise are directly linked with a broad array of health problems, including heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis-related disabilities, depression and some cancers.

In New York State alone, almost 60 percent of adults are overweight or obese, while 43 percent of the children in New York City's public elementary schools are overweight and a quarter qualify as obese. Obese adults incur significantly higher annual medical expenditures than those of normal weight adults. The cost now rivals that attributable to smoking. I believe that while nutrition education is one part of the solution to the obesity problem facing our youth, it is not enough to simply say that childhood obesity is caused by eating too much junk food. Instead, we must be aware of the complex environmental, genetic, and behavioral factors that have influenced the epidemic.

Included among the factors that affect children's eating habits and activity levels are increased hours in front of the TV or computer, working parents spending more hours at the office trying to make ends meet, deteriorating healthfulness or foods available in schools, reduced access to recess and physical education in schools, changes in the physical design of neighborhoods and communities, and low self esteem. And sadly, as the number of people battling obesity has increased, eating disorders have also reached epidemic proportions in the United States. It is estimated that between 8 and 10 million people experience an eating disorder, with millions of new cases being diagnosed each year. Eating disorders do not discriminate--they affect men and women or all ages, racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic classes, and religions.

Eating disorders are linked to a variety of health problems including heart failure, kidney failure, osteoporosis, gastric ruptures, and death. Eating disorders are also often associated with a variety of mental health problems including depression, substance abuse, and suicide. The age of onset for these disorders is getting younger and younger. According to the Center for Mental Health Services, 90 percent of those who have an eating disorder are women between the ages of 12 and 25.

Research indicates that 50 percent of females between the ages of 11 and 13 see themselves as overweight, and by the age of 13, eighty percent have attempted to lose weight. We know that the most common behavior that will lead to an eating disorder is dieting. In fact, 51 percent of 9 and 10 year old girls report feeling better about themselves when they are on a diet. It is estimated that currently as many as 17 percent of high school students have been diagnosed with an eating disorder. Our youth today are striving to reach an unrealistic body ideal. Fears of falling short of this ideal are leading to dire consequences. That is why I am proud to co-sponsor of the IMPACT Act.

This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity to combat obesity and eating disorders. This legislation addresses the growing public health problems of increasing rates of obesity and eating disorders by: training students and health professionals to diagnose, treat and prevent obesity, overweight, and eating disorders; funding demonstration programs that promote healthy eating behaviors and physical activity to prevent eating disorders, obesity and being overweight, and related serious and chronic medical conditions; directing the Center for Disease Control to collect information regarding fitness levels and energy expenditure among children; authorizing the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to review all research carried out under this act and include such information, where it is

Each of these steps is needed to address our country's growing problems of obesity and eating disorders. Any comprehensive approach to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent disordered eating in our youth must be multifaceted. It must include education about nutrition and physical activity, and most importantly, it must encourage open communication about body image and self esteem. Such an effort will require the leadership and resources of healthcare providers, local communities, advocacy organizations, parents and families, and schools.

It is time that we promote and celebrate healthy bodies and healthy lifestyles regardless of size, weight indexes, or arbitrary numbers on a scale. This is a delicate task and we must make sure not to let an unhealthy emphasis on thinness jeopardize the health of our children. I look forward to working with all of my Senate colleagues to promote healthy lifestyles across the lifespan.