Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with my good friend Senator Hatch, the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2001. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than other nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would increase the retirement benefits given to Assistant United States Attorneys by including them as ``law enforcement officers'' ``LEOs'', under the Federal Employees' Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System. The bill would also allow the Attorney General to designate other attorneys employed by the Department of Justice who act primarily as criminal prosecutors as LEO's for purposes of receiving these retirement benefits. The primary reason for granting enhanced retirement benefits to LEOs is the often dangerous work of law enforcement. Currently, Assistant United States Attorneys, ``AUSAs'', and other Federal prosecutors are not eligible for these enhanced benefits, which are enjoyed by the vast majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. This exclusion is unjustified. The relevant provisions of the United States Code dealing with retirement benefits define an LEO as an employee whose duties are, ``primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331(20) and 8401(17). AUSAs and other Federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations, interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting, debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements and representing the government at trials and sentencings, all of which fall within the definition of the duties performed by law enforcement officers. Indeed, once a defendant is brought into the criminal justice system, the person with whom they have the most fact-to-face contact, and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal prosecutor. Although prosecutors do not personally execute arrests, searches and other physically dangerous activities, LEO status is accorded to many criminal justice employees who do not perform such tasks, such as pretrial services officers and probation officers and accountants, cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, because they are often the most conspicuous representatives of the government in the criminal justice system, Federal prosecutors are natural targets for threats of reprisals by vengeful criminals. Indeed, there are numerous incidents in which assaults and serious death threats have been made against Federal prosecutors, sometimes resulting in significant disruption of their personal and family lives. Only recently a veteran Federal prosecutor in the Western District of Washington was murdered in his home, and, although the crime remains unsolved, based upon the facts of the case the authorities have referred to the crime as a hit. In addition, I have received many other accounts from Federal prosecutors regarding specific threats to which they and their families have been subjected because of the performance of their duties. Federal prosecutors have written to me that they have been forced to relocate themselves and their families due to death threats; that they have been assaulted; that they and their families have been followed by members of criminal organizations; that have been forced to install security systems at their homes and to change their routes to and from the office to protect their safety and the safety of their families. As our war against terrorism continues, Federal prosecutors will be on the front lines once again as the symbols of our criminal justice system, and unfortunately therefore the targets of those who seek its downfall. Among other tasks, the Attorney General has designated AUSA's to play a major role working with police and Federal agents in forming each judicial district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force. One Federal prosecutors wrote to me stating that shortly after his name was in the local news as heading his district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force and he had spoken to his family about taking suitable precautions, that his young son came into his bedroom one night holding a hockey stick for protection asking about their safety. Thus, Federal prosecutors and their families will deal more than ever with a level of stress and danger that justifies their being treated as LEOs. Enhanced retirement benefits are also justified by the Federal Government's need for experienced prosecutors to bring ever more sophisticated cases under increasingly complex Federal criminal laws. In recent years, we have seen the growth of complex Federal prosecutors to combat the threats posed by organized crime, drug cartels, terrorist groups and other sophisticated criminals. The prosecution of such difficult cases is best handled by experienced prosecutors. It is therefore in the public interest to provide reasonable financial incentives for talented, experienced prosecutors to remain in government service. This bill would make Assistant United States Attorneys and other Federal prosecutors designated by the Attorney General eligible for immediate, unreduced retirement benefits at age 50 with 20 years of service. For example, prosecutors who are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System would receive 50 percent of the average of their three highest years' salary. At the same time, it would exempt prosecutors from the mandatory retirement provisions that require other law enforcement officers to retire at age 57. Because the loss of physical strength and agility does not adversely affect a person's ability to function as a prosecutor, there is no reason to mandate early retirement. Two important features of this bill will contain its costs. First, the bill provides that incumbent Federal prosecutors are themselves responsible for making up the difference in individual contributions owed to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund for their prior service. An incumbent has the choice of making up this difference either by making a payment up front or by accepting a reduction in retirement benefits. Second, government contributions for the prior service of incumbents are made ratably over a ten-year period under this bill. Thus, payments for prior government contributions are spread out to lessen the financial impact. These two provisions will insure that the cost of the bill is kept well within reasons. This bill enjoys broad, grass root support. In the last month alone, I have received literally hundreds of letters supporting this bill, sent from over 40 States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The bill also enjoys support in the law enforcement community. The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the Federal Criminal Investigators Association, and the Southern States Police Benevolent Association have all written me to voice support for the inclusion of AUSAs in the definition of an LEO. In addition, I know that other Senators, including Senator Mikulski, are considering additional measures to expand these same retirement benefits to other Federal employees who perform law enforcement functions, including IRS employees whose primary duty is to collect delinquent taxes. I support and commend their leadership in bringing these matters to the forefront. For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Hatch, and I urge its swift enactment into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with a sectional analysis.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with my good friend Senator Hatch, the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2001. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than other nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would increase the retirement benefits given to Assistant United States Attorneys by including them as ``law enforcement officers'' ``LEOs'', under the Federal Employees' Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System. The bill would also allow the Attorney General to designate other attorneys employed by the Department of Justice who act primarily as criminal prosecutors as LEO's for purposes of receiving these retirement benefits. The primary reason for granting enhanced retirement benefits to LEOs is the often dangerous work of law enforcement. Currently, Assistant United States Attorneys, ``AUSAs'', and other Federal prosecutors are not eligible for these enhanced benefits, which are enjoyed by the vast majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. This exclusion is unjustified. The relevant provisions of the United States Code dealing with retirement benefits define an LEO as an employee whose duties are, ``primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331(20) and 8401(17). AUSAs and other Federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations, interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting, debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements and representing the government at trials and sentencings, all of which fall within the definition of the duties performed by law enforcement officers. Indeed, once a defendant is brought into the criminal justice system, the person with whom they have the most fact-to-face contact, and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal prosecutor. Although prosecutors do not personally execute arrests, searches and other physically dangerous activities, LEO status is accorded to many criminal justice employees who do not perform such tasks, such as pretrial services officers and probation officers and accountants, cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, because they are often the most conspicuous representatives of the government in the criminal justice system, Federal prosecutors are natural targets for threats of reprisals by vengeful criminals. Indeed, there are numerous incidents in which assaults and serious death threats have been made against Federal prosecutors, sometimes resulting in significant disruption of their personal and family lives. Only recently a veteran Federal prosecutor in the Western District of Washington was murdered in his home, and, although the crime remains unsolved, based upon the facts of the case the authorities have referred to the crime as a hit. In addition, I have received many other accounts from Federal prosecutors regarding specific threats to which they and their families have been subjected because of the performance of their duties. Federal prosecutors have written to me that they have been forced to relocate themselves and their families due to death threats; that they have been assaulted; that they and their families have been followed by members of criminal organizations; that have been forced to install security systems at their homes and to change their routes to and from the office to protect their safety and the safety of their families. As our war against terrorism continues, Federal prosecutors will be on the front lines once again as the symbols of our criminal justice system, and unfortunately therefore the targets of those who seek its downfall. Among other tasks, the Attorney General has designated AUSA's to play a major role working with police and Federal agents in forming each judicial district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force. One Federal prosecutors wrote to me stating that shortly after his name was in the local news as heading his district's Anti-Terrorism Task Force and he had spoken to his family about taking suitable precautions, that his young son came into his bedroom one night holding a hockey stick for protection asking about their safety. Thus, Federal prosecutors and their families will deal more than ever with a level of stress and danger that justifies their being treated as LEOs. Enhanced retirement benefits are also justified by the Federal Government's need for experienced prosecutors to bring ever more sophisticated cases under increasingly complex Federal criminal laws. In recent years, we have seen the growth of complex Federal prosecutors to combat the threats posed by organized crime, drug cartels, terrorist groups and other sophisticated criminals. The prosecution of such difficult cases is best handled by experienced prosecutors. It is therefore in the public interest to provide reasonable financial incentives for talented, experienced prosecutors to remain in government service. This bill would make Assistant United States Attorneys and other Federal prosecutors designated by the Attorney General eligible for immediate, unreduced retirement benefits at age 50 with 20 years of service. For example, prosecutors who are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System would receive 50 percent of the average of their three highest years' salary. At the same time, it would exempt prosecutors from the mandatory retirement provisions that require other law enforcement officers to retire at age 57. Because the loss of physical strength and agility does not adversely affect a person's ability to function as a prosecutor, there is no reason to mandate early retirement. Two important features of this bill will contain its costs. First, the bill provides that incumbent Federal prosecutors are themselves responsible for making up the difference in individual contributions owed to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund for their prior service. An incumbent has the choice of making up this difference either by making a payment up front or by accepting a reduction in retirement benefits. Second, government contributions for the prior service of incumbents are made ratably over a ten-year period under this bill. Thus, payments for prior government contributions are spread out to lessen the financial impact. These two provisions will insure that the cost of the bill is kept well within reasons. This bill enjoys broad, grass root support. In the last month alone, I have received literally hundreds of letters supporting this bill, sent from over 40 States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The bill also enjoys support in the law enforcement community. The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the Federal Criminal Investigators Association, and the Southern States Police Benevolent Association have all written me to voice support for the inclusion of AUSAs in the definition of an LEO. In addition, I know that other Senators, including Senator Mikulski, are considering additional measures to expand these same retirement benefits to other Federal employees who perform law enforcement functions, including IRS employees whose primary duty is to collect delinquent taxes. I support and commend their leadership in bringing these matters to the forefront. For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Hatch, and I urge its swift enactment into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with a sectional analysis.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this nominee has the support of both Senators from his home State. Blue slips have been returned by both of them. We have had the hearing. He did very well. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, is a valued member of the Judiciary Committee, and I would like to yield to him, as he is one of those who has proposed and supported this nominee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I heard the comments made by my good friend from Nevada earlier. I agree with him. The conservation title of the Harkin bill is there to help mitigate western water conflicts. I have been on the Agriculture Committee for 26 years now. It was the first committee I went on when I came here. I have heard a lot of the debates on conservation practices and on water matters. We get concerned about water in the East for different reasons than they do in the West. We have heard the comments of my friend from Montana. My home in Vermont has a well. We live on a dirt road. We have to provide our own water. We are certainly very careful about protecting the water we have. Our home had once been a farm. They had to have water for the cattle. We know what it is. This is not a case where you are going to willy-nilly transfer water away. In fact, under the amendment that the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has proposed to the Harkin bill, it provides specifically that the State law is paramount. In other words, if Nevada or Montana or anywhere else has a water transfer law, then nothing happens unless it is approved under the State law. It is not a case where the Federal Government just comes over and takes over things. This proposal is here to make sure we plan before we are in trouble, before we are in a drought situation. When you get into a drought situation, when you have those kinds of problems, there is not an awful lot you can do to help farmers or alleviate their economic impact, or, for that matter, the regional impact on farmers because they fail. So what this amendment would do is try to create those kinds of programs that would help lessen water conflicts--not for the good years, because in the good years there aren't any conflicts. In the good years, everybody has plenty of water; nobody really thinks about it. This is the plan for those drought years. It is almost the biblical 7 fat years and 7 lean years. The Water Conservation Program that is included in Chairman Harkin's bill is the first tool we will have in the Federal farm policy to actually address the program. This program actually is very familiar. Most farmers know about the CRP program, the Conservation Reserve Program. Farmers know that program. The program is extremely popular. This follows it. In fact, under the new water conservation program, a farmer could enroll land in the program, reducing farming on that land, but it is totally voluntary. This is not something where Big Brother comes in saying you to have do it. It is totally voluntary. You can't transfer anything anyway if your State has already passed a law saying you can't. It is really designed to put as much power in the hands of the farmer as their own State would allow. Instead of focusing on wildlife, for example, wildlife improvements on the land, the farmer could agree to transfer the water associated with that land to provide water for fish and other wildlife, something that those who hunt, fish, or just are concerned with the environment should like very much. It actually operates basically the same way as every other conservation program in this bill. All the protections have been built in here, protections of saying that you can't override State law. You have to make it voluntary. The farmers and ranchers themselves are going to make these decisions. We have done this in CRP. We have done the Conservation Reserve Program in the past. That has proved very popular. I have some very careful farmers in my State, good Yankee stock. They want to make darn sure they are doing something that protects the farmers' sons and daughters afterwards. They sign up for the CRP because they know it works. I know the Senator from California is here. I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if nobody has any objection, I ask unanimous consent that we vacate the yeas and nays on the next two nominations and that the Chair put the question of each one of them separately to the body on a voice vote.

Mr. LEAHY. If I could respond to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, my request is that we vacate the yeas and nays on the next two nominations and that we bring them up separately now and that the body be allowed to vote on them by voice vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am about to make a unanimous consent request on these judges. I want people to know the three judicial nominations before us today fill vacancies in the District of Columbia, the eastern district of Louisiana, and Kansas. When we act favorably on these nominations, we will have confirmed 24 Federal judges since July, including 6 to the courts of appeals. I mention that because when I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in July, Federal court vacancies were rising to 111. Since July, we have worked very hard. The Senate has been cooperative. We have confirmed two dozen judges. We are lowering the number of vacancies. In fact, since I became chairman, we have had 19 additional vacancies arise. But we have not only outpaced this high level of attrition, we have lowered the vacancies to under 100. Of course, we would not have had nearly as many vacancies had the Senate confirmed the judges nominated by President Clinton. We have made progress and outpaced attrition. We have filled vacancies. We are moving forward. I thank Senators on both sides of the aisle who have helped so much on this, who have worked with us even when we had to move out of the Senate office buildings because of anthrax attacks and the September 11 attacks. We have kept going. Contrary to what one person said on TV, inaccurately, and I assume by mistake, this weekend about not keeping up with attrition, we not only have kept up with attrition, we have outpaced attrition. We will try to keep that number moving in the right direction. In spite of the upheavals we have experienced this year with the shifts in chairmanship, the delay in reorganizing the Senate and assigning Members to the committees, the vacancies that have arisen since this summer, the need to focus our attention on responsible action in the fight against international terrorism and the threats and dislocations of the anthrax attacks, we are making progress. Far from taking a ``time out,'' as Republicans were suggesting, this Committee has been in overdrive since July and we redoubled our efforts after September 11, 2001. During the last 6\1/2\ years when a Republican majority controlled the process, the vacancies rose from 65 to at least 103, an increase of almost 60 percent. Since July, we have been making strides to reverse that record and have worked hard to reduce vacancies below the 111 vacancies that existed in July. In addition to the three nominations being considered by the Senate today, another three nominations to vacancies on the District Courts in New Mexico, Arizona and Georgia are on the Senate Executive Calendar, and another five nominations were included in a hearing last Wednesday. If the Committee is able to report those nominations and the Senate acts favorably on them before recessing for the year, we will have confirmed 32 judges since July and 28 since the August recess. This is more judges than were confirmed after the August recess in any of the last 6\1/2\ years. It would be more judges than were confirmed in the first year of the Clinton administration and include twice as many judges to the Courts of Appeals as were confirmed that year. It would be more than twice as many judges as were confirmed in the first year of the first Bush administration, including more judges to the Courts of Appeals. The President has yet to send nominations to fill more than half of the current vacancies. This is a particular problem with the 71 District Court vacancies, for which 50--more than--70 percent--do not have nominations pending. We have been able to reduce vacancies over the last 6 months through hard work and a rapid pace of scheduling hearings. Until I became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, no judicial nominees had been given hearings this year. No judicial nominees had been considered by the Judiciary Committee or been voted upon by the Senate. After almost a month's delay in the reorganization of the Senate in June while Republicans sought leverage to change the way judicial nominations had traditionally been considered and abruptly abandoned the practices that they had employed for the last 6\1/2\ years, I noticed our first hearing on judicial nominees within 10 minutes of the reorganization resolution being adopted by the Senate. I have previously noted that during the 6\1/2\ years that the Republican majority most recently controlled the confirmation process, in 34 of those months they held no confirmations for any judicial nominees at all, and in 30 other months they conducted only a single confirmation hearing involving judicial nominees. Since the Committee was assigned its members in early July, 2001, we have held confirmation hearings every month, including two in July, two during the August recess, two during December and three hearings during October. Only once during the previous 6\1/2\ years has the Committee held as many as three hearings in a single month. On the other hand, on at least three occasions during the past 6\1/2\ years the Committee had gone more than five months without holding a single hearing on a pending judicial nominee. We have held more hearings involving judicial nominees since July 11, 2001 than our Republican predecessors held in all of 1996, 1997, 1999 or 2000. In the last six months of this extraordinarily challenging year, the Committee has held 11 hearings involving judicial nominees. Last week the Committee held its tenth hearing on judicial nominations and yesterday I chaired our eleventh since the Committee was assigned its membership on July 10, 2001. During the three months since September 11, the Judiciary Committee has held seven judicial confirmation hearings--the same number that the Republican majority held in all of 1999 and one more than they held in all of 1996. Since July we have held hearings on 34 judicial nominees, including seven to the Courts of Appeals. Since September 11 we have held hearings on 27 judicial nominees, including four to the Courts of Appeals. Working with the Majority Leader and the Deputy Leader, I have adopted a practice for the second half of this year of working with all Senators and with the Administration to try to fill an many judicial vacancies as possible. To date we have succeeded in confirming 24 judges. We have persevered through extraordinary circumstances during which the Senate building housing the Judiciary Committee hearing room was closed, as were the buildings housing the offices of all the Senators on the Committee. We persevered through a partisan filibuster preventing action on the bill that funds our nation's foreign policy initiatives and provides funds to help build the international coalition against terrorism. We showed patience and resolve when at our November hearing a family member of one of the nominees grew faint and required medical attention. That hearing was completed after attending to those medical needs. We have accomplished more, and at a faster pace, than in years past. Even with the time needed by the FBI to follow up on the allegations that arose regarding Judge Wooten in connection with his confirmation hearing, we have proceeded much more quickly than at any time during the last 6\1/2\ years. Thus, while the average time from nomination to confirmation grew to well over 200 days for the last several years, we have considered nominees much more promptly. Measured from receipt of their ABA peer reviews, we have confirmed the judges this year, including the Court of Appeals nominees, on average in less than 60 days. So, we are working harder and faster than previously on judicial nominations, despite the difficulties being faced by the nation and the Senate. We have also completed work on a number of judicial nominations in a more open manner than ever before. For the first time, this Committee is making public the ``blue slips'' sent to home State Senators. Until my chairmanship, these matters were treated as confidential materials and restricted from public view. We have moved nominees with less time from hearings to the Committee's business meeting agenda, and then out to the floor, where nominees have received timely roll call votes and confirmations. The past practices of extended unexplained anonymous holds on nominees after a hearing have not been evident in the last six months of this year as they were in the past. Indeed over the past 6\1/2\ years at least eight judicial nominees who completed a confirmation hearing were never considered by the Committee but left without action. Likewise, the extended, unexplained, anonymous holds on the Senate Executive Calendar that characterized so much of the last 6\1/2\ years have not slowed the confirmation process this year. Majority Leader Daschle has moved swiftly on judicial nominees reported to the calendar. Once those judicial nominees have been afforded a timely rollcall vote, the record shows that the only vote against any of President Bush's nominees to the federal courts to date was cast by the Republican Leader. With respect to law enforcement, I have noted that the administration was quite slow in making United States Attorney nominations, although it had called for the resignations of United States Attorneys early in the year. Since we began receiving nominations just before the August recess, we have been able to report, and the Senate has confirmed, 57 of these nominations. We have only a few more United States Attorney nominations received in November and December, and await approximately 30 nominations from the Administration. These are the President's nominees based on the standards that he and the Attorney General have devised. I note, again, that it is most unfortunate that we still have not received even a single nomination for any of the United States Marshal positions. United States Marshals are often the top federal law enforcement officer in their district. They are an important front-line component in homeland security efforts across the country. We are near the end of the legislative year without a single nomination for these 94 critical law enforcement positions. It will likely be impossible to confirm any United States Marshals this year having not received any nominations in the first 11 and one- half months of the year. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, some of us have been seeking to join together in a bipartisan effort in the best interests of the country. For those on the Committee who have helped in those efforts and assisted in the hard work to review and consider the scores of nominations we have reported this year, I thank them. As the facts establish and as our actions today and all year demonstrate, we are moving ahead to fill judicial vacancies with nominees who have strong bipartisan support. These include a number of very conservative nominees. The nominations before the Senate today are John Bates for the District of Columbia, Julie Robinson for the District Court in Kansas, and Kurt Engelhardt for the District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Before I became Chairman, the last confirmation to the District Court for the District of Columbia was that of Judge Ellen Huvelle. Despite being a distinguished judge in the D.C. Superior Court for nearly a decade, her nomination was pending for almost seven months before she received a hearing. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had similar credentials and suffered even worse delays. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also served as a distinguished local judge. Her confirmation, nonetheless, required two nominations over two years before she was finally confirmed in 1997. She was not confirmed for eight months after her confirmation hearing. Of course, she has now replaced Judge Jackson as the judge in charge of proceedings on the government suit and proposed settlement of that legal action against Microsoft. Despite nominees for vacancies on the District Court for the District of Columbia over the past several years, no nomination to this District Court had received a hearing in over two years. Things changed this July. First, we moved expeditiously to consider the nomination of Judge Reggie Walton to one of those longstanding vacancies. I chaired an unprecedented August recess hearing for Judge Walton and he was confirmed in September. Now we are proceeding, with the support of Representative Norton, to fill a second longstanding vacancy on the District Court for the District of Columbia. John Bates will be the second confirmation to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the last three months, after years of inaction. The vacancy that is being filled by Judge Robinson is one that existed before I became chairman. Indeed, last year the President had nominated Keith Gary Sebelius in anticipation of that vacancy. In the last 6 months of last year Mr. Sebelius was not included in a hearing and his nomination died without Committee action and without Senate action when it was returned to the White House last December. Last year the Republican majority held only two hearings involving only seven District Court nominees in July and no hearings for any other judicial nominees in August, September, October, November or December, in spite of the vacancies and pending judicial nominations to fill them. This year, during the same time frame, the Committee has held 11 hearings involving 34 judicial nominations of which 27 have already been reported favorably to the Senate. With respect to the vacancy in Kansas, Senators Roberts and Brownback wrote to me in October enclosing a letter from the Chief Judge of that District indicating that the vacancy combined with medical leave for a senior Judge had created a serious problem in that District. Chief Judge Lungstrum noted in his letter to Senator Roberts that the District in Kansas was without an active judge it its Topeka division. Just as we responded quickly to the Chief Judge of the District Court in Montana and the Chief Judge of the District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky, we have responded to Chief Judge Lungstrum. Judge Robinson was included in a hearing on November 7 and reported by the Committee last month. With respect to the vacancy on the Eastern District of Louisiana, that vacancy predated my chairmanship, as well. I recall the nomination in 1997 of Judge Lemelle to a vacancy on that court, the hearing held on his nominations more than 11 months later and his confirmation later still that year. I am glad to work with Senators Breaux and Landrieu to help fill another vacancy on that important court and to be able to do so within one-third the time it took to confirm the last judge to this District. I am proud of the work the Committee has done on nominations, and I am proud that by the end of today we will have confirmed 24 judges. I hope that by the end of this session that total will rise to about 30 as the Committee continues its work on the nominations heard last week and the Senate confirms the additional three nominees previously reported by the Committee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand both of the Senators from Louisiana have returned blue slips in support of this nominee and I support the nominee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, both of the distinguished Senators from Kansas have returned blue slips indicating their support for this nominee. The nominee is extraordinarily well qualified. And with their support, I also support the nominee and urge the Senate to confirm her.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the senior Senator from North Carolina on the International Criminal Court. In addition to being damaging to the cause of international justice, this amendment could not come at a worse time. The administration is moving heaven and earth to maintain a coalition against terrorism and hold accountable those responsible for some of the most heinous acts ever committed on American soil. As a Congress, we are working to stay united on foreign policy and support the Administration in this effort. Over the past several months, Senators from both sides of the aisle have withheld from offering controversial foreign policy amendments on topics from missile defense to the embargo against Cuba. It is unfortunate that the Senator from North Carolina has chosen to offer an amendment that ignites strong feelings from its supporters and opponents, alike. The ICC is a divisive issue between the United States and our closest allies. Virtually every member of the European Union and NATO has expressed its strong support for the court. In fact, Great Britain, our closest ally and full partner in the ongoing military effort against the Taliban, ratified the Treaty earlier this fall. Morever, the EU recently sent a letter to Secretary Powell opposing ASPA which reads: ``. . . States which support the court and value their relations with the United States should not have to make a choice between the two.'' At a time when we should be working to resolve differences with our friends, the Helms amendment does exactly the opposite by inflaming these divisions and forcing the United States to adopt an openly hostile stance against the ICC. I want to mention just a few of the specific problems with this amendment. First, the amendment authorizes the use of force to free officials from not only the United States but also from foreign countries, if they are indicted and held by the court. Let me repeat that: This amendment authorizes the use of military force by the United States, from now until the end of time, to free foreign not only United States citizens, if they are in the court's custody. While these nations are important allies, suppose some members of their militaries or intelligence services commit heinous crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the court and are being rightfully detained? As a Congress do we want to authorize a military invasion of The Hague, risking the lives of United States military personnel, to free indicted war criminals? The Helms amendment would cut off military assistance to a number of nations, including Tajikistan and South Africa. What if we wanted to upgrade an aircraft control tower in Tajikistan to help land United States planes that are carrying United States troops to Afghanistan? What about providing military assistance to South Africa to help spearhead a peacekeeping mission in Africa to which we did not want to commit United States troops? What about providing C-130 spare parts to a Nation that has ratified the ICC treaty, but wants to help airlift humanitarian aid to a region effected by famine? In addition, the amendment makes America a potential safe haven for war criminals by prohibiting the United States from turning over indicted war criminals residing on our soil. It would also place restrictions on United States participation in peacekeeping missions. We all want to pass legislation that will enhance the safety and security of our military personnel. But, this bill increases tensions with our allies and works against our efforts to maintain a coalition against terrorism. If anything, this will make our military personnel less safe. If the goal of this amendment is to prevent the International Criminal Court from getting the necessary ratifications to come into existence, it is almost certain to fail. It would require a head-to- head confrontation with our European allies and over 80 countries outside of Europe that have signed, but not yet ratified the treaty, and require us to be almost 100 percent successful. More importantly, the United States, to which the whole world looks for leadership on human rights, should not be engaged in a fruitless effort to undermine a court that will bring to justice those responsible for committing war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Instead, we should be actively engaged with the court to ensure that it operates in a way that protects the rights of American servicemembers and promotes our values and interests. The Senator from North Carolina is the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and that is where this amendment belongs. This is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend for introducing this amendment, which closes a troubling loophole in our military personnel system. Currently, members of the National Guard called up under Federal title 32 status are not eligible for the protections of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act. The act ensures that a servicemember can protect their house, life insurance, and health insurance while on active duty. It ensures a smooth transition back and forth between active service and civilian life, and it essentially underpins the entire military personnel system. We cannot defend the country without the National Guard, and we cannot attract qualified people to the Guard without the relief act. The act has not applied to Guard members called up under title 32 status because most activations over the past fifty years have been under title 10, active military duty. However, September 11 tipped the balance in the other direction. Title 32 provides more flexibility to achieve missions in the United States and guarantees local control. As a result, thousands of Guard members have been called up across the country to secure our airports, railroads, bridges, and borders under this status. This amendment extends the relief act to these proud citizen- soldiers. They must have these protections so they can focus on their mission. For them, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is taking final action on three additional judicial nominations. There are a total of nine judicial nominees who have been voted out of committee and are awaiting final action by the Senate. Today's confirmation of 1 circuit court and 2 district court judges will bring the total number of judges confirmed this year to 21. When the Senate completes its action on the nomination of the remaining 6 district court judges, we will have confirmed 27 judges since July, including 6 to the Courts of Appeals. I congratulate today's nominees and their families on their nominations, confirmations, and what is soon to be their appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the United States District courts for Kentucky and the District of Oklahoma. I also commend each of the Senators who worked with the committee and the majority leader to help bring these nominations forward and to have the Senate act to confirm them. The nominee to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Harris Hartz, comes to us with the strong support of both Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman. He was the first nominee to a Court of Appeals received by the Senate this June. His nomination is an example of the sort of progress we can make on consensus nominees with bipartisan support. The Tenth Circuit is one of many Courts of Appeals with multiple vacancies, and which has had multiple vacancies long before this summer. My recollection is that President Clinton had at least two nominees for vacancies on the Tenth Circuit pending in 1999 and for several months last year, but neither was ever accorded a hearing or a vote before the Judiciary Committee or before the Senate. Had they and other previous nominees been acted upon promptly and favorably in years just past, of course, the circumstances in the Tenth Circuit and many other courts around the country would be different today. During 6\1/2\ years, the Republican majority in the Senate allowed only 46 nominees to be confirmed to the Courts of Appeals and left dozens of vacancies unfilled. Just as we recently proceeded to confirm the first judge to the Fifth Circuit in 7 years, we are proceeding with Judge Hartz to provide some immediate relief to the Tenth Circuit. When confirmed, Judge Hartz will be the first new member of the Tenth Circuit in the last 6 years--since judges were confirmed to that Court in 1995 from Utah and Colorado. Over the past 6\1/2\ years the average time it has taken for the Senate to consider and confirm Court of Appeals nominees had risen to almost 350 days. The time it has taken for Judge Hartz's nomination is about half of that, if measured from his initial nomination in June 2001. Of course, that nomination was returned to the White House when the Republican leader objected to keeping judicial nominations pending over the August recess. Accordingly, the nomination on which the Senate acts today was not received until this September. If measured from the time the committee received his ABA peer review to the time of his confirmation today, the process has taken only 112 days. He participated in one of the many October hearings and, having answered the written questions following his hearing, was reported by the committee in November. The strong bipartisan support he has received from his Senate delegation paved the way for prompt action in one-third to one-half the time it used to take on average to consider Court of Appeals nominees. Both of the district court nominees, Danny Reeves from the Eastern District of Kentucky and Joe Heaton for the Western District of Oklahoma, whom I supported at the committee and am pleased to support today, have moved through the process with the support of Democrats and Republicans relatively quickly. Since July 2001, when the Senate was allowed to reorganize and the committee membership was set, we have maintained a strong effort to consider judicial and executive nominees. There are a total of nine judicial nominees who have been voted out of committee and are awaiting final action by the Senate. Today's confirmation of one circuit court and two district court judges will bring the total number of judges confirmed to 21. When the Senate completes its action on the nomination of the remaining six district court judges, we will have confirmed 27 judges since July, including six to the Courts of Appeals. That will be almost twice the total number of judges that were confirmed in all of 1989, the first year of the first Bush administration, and will include twice as many judges to the Courts of Appeals as were confirmed in the first year of the Clinton administration. It is also more judges that were confirmed in all of the 1996 session. Thus, despite all the obstacles, we exceeded the number of confirmations of judges during the first year of the first Bush administration by six, the last year of the first Clinton term by four, and we are on pace to confirm as many judges as were confirmed in the first year of the Clinton administration. Our total of six Court of Appeals confirmations doubles the number of appellate court judges confirmed in the entire first year of the Clinton administration, one more than the number of appellate court judges confirmed in the first full year of the first Bush administration, and six more than were confirmed in the entire 1996 session, the last year of President Clinton's first term. When I assumed the chairmanship, the number of vacancies on the Federal Bench was over 100 and quickly rose to 111. Since July, we have made significant progress. In spite of the upheavals we have experienced this year with the shifts in chairmanship, the vacancies that have arisen since this summer, and the need to focus our attention on responsible action in the fight against international terrorism, with the confirmation of these 9 nominees we will have reduced the number of vacancies to below 100 for the first time since early this year. During the time a Republican majority controlled the process over the past 6\1/2\ years, the vacancies rose from 65 to at least 103, an increase of almost 60 percent. We are making strides to improve on that record. The President has yet to send nominations to fill more than half of the current vacancies. This is a particular problem with the 71 district court vacancies, for which 49--that's 69 percent--do not have nominations pending. We have been able to reduce vacancies over the last 6 months through hard work and a rapid pace of scheduling hearings. Until I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee, no judicial nominees had been given hearings this year. No judicial nominees had been considered by the Judiciary Committee or been voted upon by the Senate. After almost a month's delay in the reorganization of the Senate in June while Republicans sought leverage to change the way the judicial nominations had traditionally been considered and abruptly abandoned the practices that they had employed for the last 6\1/2\ years, I noticed our first hearing on judicial nominees within 10 minutes of the reorganization resolution being adopted by the Senate. I have previously noted that during the 6\1/2\ years the Republican majority most recently controlled the confirmation process, in 34 of those months they held no confirmations for any judicial nominees at all, and in 30 other months they conducted only a single confirmation hearing involving judicial nominees. Since the committee was assigned its members in early July 2001, I have held confirmation hearings every months, including two in July, two during the August recess and three hearings during October. Only once during the previous 6\1/2\ years has the committee held as many as three hearings in a single month. On the other hand, on at least three occasions during the past 6\1/2\ years the committee had gone more then 5 months without holding a single hearing on a pending judicial nominee. We have held more hearings involving judicial nominees since July 11, 2001, than our Republican predecessors held in all of 1996, 1997, 1999, or 2000. In the last 6 months of this extraordinarily challenging year, the committee has held 10 hearings involving judicial nominees. Just this week the committee held our tenth hearing on judicial nominations since I became chairman, when the Senate was allowed to reorganize and this committee was assigned its membership on July 10, 2001. Since September 11, the Judiciary Committee has held six judicial confirmation hearings. We have held hearings on 33 judicial nominees, including 7 to the Courts of Appeals. Since September 11 we have held hearings on 26 judicial nominees, including 4 to the Courts of Appeals. Within 2 days of the terrible events of September 11, I chaired a confirmation hearing for the 2 judicial nominees who drove to Washington while air travel was still disrupted. Then on October 4, 2001, we held another confirmation hearing for five judicial nominees, which included a nominee from Nebraska who was unable to attend the earlier hearing because of the disruption in air travel. On October 18, 2001, in spite of the closure of Senate office buildings in the wake of the receipt of a letter containing anthrax spores and in spite of the fact that Senate staff and employees were testing positive for anthrax exposure, the committee proceeded under extraordinary circumstances in the U.S. Capitol to hold a hearing for five more judicial nominees. The building housing the Judiciary Committee hearing room was closed, as were the buildings housing the offices of all the Senators on the committee. Still we persevered. On October 25, 2001, while the Senate Republicans were shutting down the Senate with a filibuster preventing action on the bill that funds our Nation's foreign policy initiatives and provides funds to help build the international coalition against terrorism, the Judiciary Committee nonetheless proceeded with yet another hearing for four more judicial nominees. On November 7, 2001, we convened another hearing for judicial nominees within 8 extraordinary weeks--weeks not only interrupted by holidays, but by the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the receipt of anthrax in the Senate, and the closure of Senate office buildings. The hearing on November 7 was delayed by another unfortunate and unforeseen event when one of the family members of a nominee grew faint and required medical attention. With patience and perseverance, the hearing was completed after attending to those medical needs. On December 5, 2001, we convened another hearing for another group of five judicial nominees. I thank Senator Durbin for volunteering to chair that hearing for nominees from Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, and Texas. We have previously considered and reported other nominees from Alabama, Georgia, and Nevada, as well. We have accomplished more, and at a faster pace, than in years past. Even with the time needed by the FBI to follow up on the allegations that arose regarding Judge Wooten in connection with his confirmation hearing, we have proceeded much more quickly than at any time during the last 6\1/ 2\ years. Thus, while the average time from nomination to confirmation grew to well over 200 days for the last several years, we have considered nominees much more promptly. Measured from receipt of their ABA peer reviews, we have confirmed the judges this year, including the Court of Appeals nominees, on average in less than 60 days. So, we are working harder than ever on judicial nominations despite the difficulties being faced by the Nation, the Senate, and a number of members on the committee. We have also completed work on a number of judicial nominations in a more open manner than ever before. For the first time, this committee is making public the ``blue slips'' sent to home State Senators. Until my chairmanship, these matters were treated as confidential materials and restricted from public view. We have moved nominees with little or no delay at all from hearing, on to the committee's business meeting agenda, and then out to the floor, where nominees have received timely rollcall votes and confirmations. The past practices of extended unexplained anonymous holds on nominees after a hearing have not been evident in the last 6 months of this year as they were in the past. Indeed over the past 6\1/2\ years at least eight judicial nominees who completed a confirmation hearing were never considered by the committee but left without action. Just last year two of the three Court of Appeals nominees reported to the Senate, Bonnie Campbell of Iowa and Allen Snyder of the District of Columbia, were both denied committee consideration from their May hearings until the end of the year. Likewise the extended, unexplained, anonymous holds on the Senate Executive Calendar that characterized so much of the last 6\1/2\ years have not slowed the confirmation process this year. Majority Leader Daschle has moved swiftly on judicial nominees reported to the calendar. And once those judicial nominees have been afforded a timely rollcall vote, the record shows that the only vote against any of President Bush's nominees to the Federal courts to date was cast by the Republican leader. In addition to our work on judicial nominations, during the recent period since September 11, the committee also devoted significant attention and effort to expedited consideration of antiterrorism legislation. Far from taking a ``time out'' as some have suggested, the Judiciary Committee has been in overdrive since July and we have redoubled our efforts after September 11, 2001. With respect to law enforcement, I have noted that the administration was quite slow in making U.S. attorney nominations, although it had called for the resignations of U.S. attorneys early in the year. Since we began receiving nominations just before the August recess, we have been able to report, and the Senate has confirmed, 57 of these nominations. We have only a few more U.S. attorney nominations received in November, and await approximately 30 nominations from the administration. These are the President's nominees based on the standards that he and the Attorney General have devised. I note, again, that it is most unfortunate that we still have not received even a single nomination for any of the U.S. marshal positions. U.S. marshals are often the top Federal law enforcement officer in their district. They are an important front-line component in homeland security efforts across the country. We are near the end of the legislative year without a single nomination for these 94 critical law enforcement positions. It will likely be impossible to confirm any U.S. marshals this year having not received any nominations in the first 11 months of the year. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, some of us have been seeking to join together in a bipartisan effort in the best interests of the country. For those on the committee who have helped in those efforts and assisted in the hard work to review and consider the scores of nominations we have reported this year, I thank them. As the facts establish and as our actions today and all year demonstrate, we are moving ahead to fill judicial vacancies with nominees who have strong bipartisan support. These include a number of very conservative nominees. I am proud of the work the committee has done on nominations, and I am proud that by the end of the day we will have confirmed 21 judges. I hope that by the end of this session that total will rise to about 30 as the committee continues its work on the nominations heard this week and the Senate confirms the additional 6 nominees who were voted out of committee last week.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Terrorist Bombing Convention Implementation Act of 2001 and the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Convention Implementation Act of 2001. This bill would bring the United States into indisputable and immediate compliance with two important international conventions, which were signed by the United States and transmitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification by President Clinton. Both Conventions were entered into after the terrorist bombings at the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The bill also contains a provision which would enhance the ability of law enforcement authorities to work with their foreign counterparts in fighting sophisticated international criminal organizations by sharing wiretap information when appropriate. The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, ``Bombing Convention'', was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1997 and signed by the United States in January 1998. In September 1999, it was transmitted to the Senate by President Clinton for ratification. The International Convention for the Suppression of Financing Terrorism, ``Financing Convention'', was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1999 and signed by the United States in January 2000. In October 2000, it was transmitted to the Senate by President Clinton for ratification. Under the chairmanship of Senator Biden, the Foreign Relations Committee has moved expeditiously to report these conventions to the full Senate. Once ratified, they should be swiftly implemented. The passage of the proposed implementing legislation which I introduce today would ensure that the United States is in immediate compliance with these international obligations relating to terrorism. Both conventions require signatory nations to adopt criminal laws prohibiting specified terrorist activities in order to create a regime of universal jurisdiction over certain crimes. Articles 2 and 4 of the Bombing Convention require signatory countries to criminalize the delivery, placement, discharge or detonation of explosives and other lethal devices, ``in, into, or against'' various defined public places with the intent to kill, cause serious bodily injury, or extensively damage such public places. The Bombing Convention also requires that signatories criminalize aiding and abetting, attempting, or conspiring to commit such crimes. Articles 2 and 4 of the Financing Convention require signatory countries to criminalize willfully ``providing or collecting'' funds, directly or indirectly, with knowledge that they are to be used to carry out acts which either 1. violate nine enumerated existing treaties, or 2. are aimed at killing or injuring civilians with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government to do any act. The Financing Convention also requires that signatories criminalize aiding and abetting, attempting, or conspiring to commit such crimes. Signatories must criminalize such acts under Article 2 whether or not ``the funds were actually used to carry out'' such an offense. Both conventions require that signatory nations exercise limited extraterritorial jurisdiction and extradite or prosecute those who commit such crimes when found inside their borders. The conventions also require that signatories ensure that, under their domestic laws, political, religious, ideological, racial or other similar considerations are not a justification for committing the enumerated crimes. Thus, signatory nations will not be able to assert such bases to deny an extradition request for a covered crime. Finally, Article 4 of each convention requires that signatory states make the covered offenses ``punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of [the] offenses.'' This proposed implementation legislation, consistent with the House version of this bill, H.R. 3275, creates two new crimes, one for bombings and another for financing terrorist acts, that would track precisely the language in the treaties, and bring the United States into undisputed compliance. The bill would also provide extraterritorial jurisdiction as required by the conventions. Furthermore the bill would create domestic jurisdiction for these crimes in limited situations where a national interest is implicated, while excluding jurisdiction over acts where the convention does not require such jurisdiction and there is no distinct federal interest served. The bill, again consistent with the H.R. 3275, also contains ``ancillary provisions'' that would make the two new crimes predicates for money laundering charges, wiretaps, RICO charges, an 8-year statute of limitations, include them as ``federal crimes of terrorism,'' and make civil asset forfeiture available for the new terrorism financing crime. Existing laws which relate to similar crimes are predicates for each of these tools, and providing law enforcement with these ancillary provisions is both consistent and appropriate. Neither international convention requires a death penalty provision for any covered crime, and the Department of Justice has provided a memorandum to Congress, in response to a request for its views, that such a provision would not be required to bring the United States into compliance. This should come as no surprise, given international sentiment opposing the United States' use of the death penalty in other contexts. Indeed, the inclusion of a death penalty provision in the implementing legislation for these conventions could lead to complications in extraditing individuals to the United States from countries that do not employ the death penalty. Therefore, unlike the House version of the implementing legislation, the Senate version contains no new death penalty provision. Unlike H.R. 3275, the bill does not contain a third crime for ``concealment'' of material support for terrorists. The Department of Justice has conceded in the memorandum which it provided to Congress that this provision is not necessary to bring the United States into compliance with the conventions. Indeed, in the wake of the passage of similar provisions in the USA Patriot Act, P.L. No. 107-56, such legislation is not needed. Furthermore, although a similar provision is currently set forth in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339A, the House bill provides a lower mens rea requirement than that law; an important change which was not highlighted in the Administration materials provided explaining the proposal. Finally, the Senate bill contains an important new tool for international cooperation between law enforcement which is not included in H.R. 3275. Currently, there is no clear statutory authority which allows domestic law enforcement agents to share Title III wiretap information with foreign law enforcement counterparts. This may create problems when, for example, the DEA wants to alert Colombian authorities that a cocaine shipment is about to leave a Colombian port but the information is derived from a Title III wiretap. This bill would clarify the authority for sharing wiretap derived information, specifically in the Title III context. The bill provides a clear mechanism through which law enforcement may share wiretap information with foreign law enforcement, while at the same time ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards to protect this sensitive information against misuse. It adds a subsection to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2517, that permits disclosure of wiretap information to foreign officials (1) with judicial approval, (2) in such a manner and under such conditions as a court may direct, and (3) consistent with Attorney General guidelines on how the information may be used to protect confidentiality. This clarification will provide an additional tool to investigate international criminal enterprises and to seek the assistance of foreign law enforcement in our efforts. For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce this legislation and I urge its swift enactment into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, along with the sectional analysis.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, all of us have a strong desire to confront and conquer the scourge of drug abuse and the ways it ravages American lives, especially young American lives. The debate on how best to prevail in this struggle is well under way in communities and at kitchen tables across the nation. The President's nomination of John Walters to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy has been the most recent catalyst for this debate. I voted against Mr. Walters' nomination in committee. In light of that, I would like to share some of my concerns about Mr. Walters in the hope that he will take them to heart, and that he will greatly exceed my expectations and the expectations of the other Senators who voted against him in committee. I believe Mr. Walters was the wrong choice for this job, and that his sharply partisan approach to drug policy issues provides an imperfect fit for an era of growing bipartisan consensus about drugs. Indeed, his ideological bent is a hindrance when our efforts to prevent drug abuse call for cooperation and pragmatism. Until his confirmation hearings, most of the little he had said and written about drug treatment was deeply skeptical. He has focused primarily on the need to reduce the supply of drugs, too rarely focusing on the neglected demand side of the drug equation. He has also dismissed concerns about the racial impact of our current drug policies and the utility of mandatory minimum sentences. In short, Mr. Walters' public record does not inspire confidence in those of us who think Congress has occasionally made the wrong decisions in our attempts to prevent drug abuse. I do not doubt Mr. Walters' intellect or the depth of his concern about our nation's drug problems. I simply believe that he is not the best person to coordinate our anti-drug efforts. We all agree that the fight against drug abuse is vitally important. We disagree only in the methods we choose to achieve our shared goal of a drug-free America. We have worked hard on the Judiciary Committee to ensure a speedy and fair hearing for the Bush administration's executive branch nominees. Within days of the Senate's reorganization this summer and my becoming chairman, I noticed a hearing on Asa Hutchinson's nomination to head the Drug Enforcement Administration. After we had the hearing, I expedited the process to provide a quick committee vote, and then worked to secure a vote on the floor so that Mr. Hutchinson's nomination could be approved before the August recess. I similarly expedited the process for the nominations of Robert Mueller to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation and of James Ziglar to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service, among others. I scheduled John Walters' nomination hearing for the first full week following our August recess. That hearing was set for the morning of September 11, and was, of course, postponed as a result of the terrorist attacks in New York and near Washington. I made every effort to reschedule the hearing as soon as possible, consistent with our obligations to consider the anti-terrorism legislation that the Administration proposed shortly after the attacks. I believed strongly that drug abuse was still a vital problem for this nation and that we needed to continue to pay attention to our domestic priorities even as we engaged in our necessary response to terrorism. The committee considered the nomination on October 10. After that hearing, the work of the Judiciary Committee was made more difficult by the anthrax concerns that led to the closing of the Senate office buildings and the displacement of Members and their staffs. Considering these delays, and the controversy that Mr. Walters engendered, I think it is a tribute to the committee that we voted on his nomination as quickly as we did, within a month of his confirmation hearing. Law enforcements is and will remain indispensable in reducing drug abuse. Indeed, we all agree that we must severely punish those who traffic in and sell drugs. More than anyone, however, law enforcement officers know that improving drug treatment and taking other measures to reduce the demand for drugs will greatly assist their efforts. The White House also understands this. President Bush has said that ``[t]he most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in America,'' and has promised that his administration will concentrate ``unprecedented attention'' on the demand for drugs. In the Senate, I have joined with Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and others in introducing S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act. That legislation would increase the federal focus on treatment programs, with targeted programs to increase the availability and effectiveness of drug treatment programs in rural areas, provide additional treatment opportunities for mothers who are addicted to drugs, and more. Although Mr. Walters testified at his confirmation hearing and wrote in his responses to written questions that he supports drug treatment efforts, his previous record casts doubt on the strength of this support. Mr. Walters has criticized the concept that addiction is a disease, referring to that concept as an ``ideology;'' even though it is held widely, if not universally, by government and private experts. He has written that ``the culture of victimhood lies at the core of the therapeutic worldview.'' He has said that he supports ``good'' treatment but sharply criticized existing treatment providers, aside from faith-based providers. These and other statements by Mr. Walters have caused great concern among many of these who care about treating drug addiction. For example, the president of the Betty Ford Center wrote to the Judiciary Committee on October 9 that: ``Mrs. Ford and I are convinced that Mr. Walters may not have the confidence in the treatment and prevention strategies that we believe are necessary for the creation and implementation of a balanced and thoughtful approach to U.S. drug policy.'' As I have said repeatedly, we cannot reduce drug abuse without punishing drug offenders, and in particular without ensuring that those who traffic in and sell drugs are incarcerated for substantial periods of time. At the same time, many of us--Democrats and Republicans--have come to question our reliance on mandatory minimum sentences for a wide variety of drug offenses, as well as the 100:1 disparity under current law between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. In his writings and statements, Mr. Walters has been hostile to reconsideration of these policy choices Congress made during the 1980s. For example, he wrote as recently as March that the arguments that we are imprisoning too many people for merely possessing illegal drugs and that criminal sentences are too long or harsh were ``among the great urban myths of our time.'' This statement flies in the face of the widespread dissatisfaction with mandatory minimum sentences among policymakers and federal judges. Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conferences composed of representatives from all 12 U.S. circuits have called for the repeal of federal mandatory minimum sentences. Mr. Walters has said he would conduct a review of the current sentencing structure, but given his past views, I do not believe that he is the best person to undertake that task. Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to State and Federal prisons increased almost 16-fold, from over 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to almost 167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998. During this time, white drug admissions increased more than 7-fold, Hispanic drug admissions increased 18-fold, and black drug admissions increased more than 26-fold. The disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine has contributed significantly to this disproportionate imprisonment of African Americans. Under current law, it takes only 1 percent as much crack cocaine to trigger equal mandatory minimum penalties with powder cocaine. This disparity has a severe racial impact, as African Americans are much more likely than white Americans to be sentenced for crack offenses. For example, in FY 1999, blacks accounted for 84.7 percent of those sentenced for crack offenses and whites accounted for just 5.4 percent. There is also reason to doubt the logic of the crack-powder distinction on law enforcement grounds. Since cocaine is imported and distributed in powder form, and only manufactured into crack at the retail level, those persons at the highest end of the drug distribution chain are rarely affected by the increased crack penalties. In other words, the harshest sentences are reserved for less-culpable offenders. Despite these troubling facts, Mr. Walters has referred to the racial impact of the sentencing disparity as a ``perceived racial injustice'' and urged Congress in 1996 testimony to ``[b]lock lower crack sentences'' and to strip the U.S. Sentencing Commission of authority even to propose changes in criminal penalties where Congress has adopted mandatory minimums. His position on this issue undoubtedly has played a role in the decision by 21 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including the ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. John Conyers, to oppose this nomination. Considering that Mr. Conyers was such a strong supporter of Asa Hutchinson's nomination to head the Drug Enforcement Administration that he took the time to write me about it, I take his strong opposition to this nomination seriously. Mr. Walters' reaction to popular and legislative judgments by various States to allow limited use of marijuana for medical purposes also concerns me. Numerous states have considered and passed medical marijuana initiatives, some by substantial majorities. Mr. Walters has responded to this trend by advocating that the federal government use the Controlled Substances Act to take away the federal licenses from any physician who prescribes marijuana to a patient in states that permit the practice. Such a step would prevent these doctors from prescribing or possessing any medication that is federally controlled, basically making the practice of medicine impossible. In addition to running roughshod over any federalism concerns whatsoever, Mr. Walters' draconian response raises questions about his sense of proportion. Although shutting down the process as he has suggested may be effective in rendering these State- passed initiatives meaningless, his proposal is a very blunt instrument, to say the least. Mr. Walters' response to written questions on this issue did not alleviate my concerns. I asked him whether the Federal government should make it a priority to prosecute people who distribute marijuana to ill people in States that have approved medical marijuana initiatives. He answered that he supports ``enforcing the law,'' and then briefly discussed the relatively small size of the DEA, without addressing whether medical marijuana cases should be a priority. I am all the more disappointed by the insufficiency of this answer in light of last month's DEA raid on a California center that provided marijuana to the ill in accordance with California law. It is absurd that such a matter has become a government priority, given our growing problems with heroin, metham- phetamines, and other far more powerful and dangerous drugs. I asked Mr. Walters recently about this raid, but he said he believed it would be inappropriate to make any substantive comment prior to his confirmation. Mr. Walters has been a prominent spokesman for active interdiction efforts in Latin America, and I fear he would seek to have the United States overextend its anti-drug role in Latin America. Prior to the development of Plan Colombia, he said that ``we need to do more in Latin America'' in ``[f]ighting drugs at the source.'' He has also been a consistent supporter of increasing the U.S. military's role in preventing drugs from entering the United States. I agree that reducing the supply of drugs would have tremendous benefits for our nation. At the same time, I agree with President Bush that the reason that so many drugs find their way to our shores is because there is substantial demand for them. The costs--both financial and political--of our involvement in the internal affairs of Latin American nations require close scrutiny. I have been skeptical about many elements of the ill- considered Plan Colombia, and we should be extremely cautious of additional proposals of that nature. In addition, Mr. Walters has been sharply critical of Mexico, calling it a ``narco state'' and a ``safe haven'' for the illegal drug industry. Although these comments were made about predecessor governments to the Fox administration, they cannot help Mr. Walters' efforts to implement the Bush administration's appropriate policy of strengthening our ties with Mexico. Mr. Walters has forcefully expressed his positions on drug-related and other issues for the better part of two decades, both in and out of government. He is a staunch advocate for interdiction and punishment, but his record has not demonstrated a commitment to a comprehensive approach to our drug problems. When the Judiciary Committee held its confirmation hearing for this nominee, I said that I feared that Mr. Walters had a hard-line law enforcement answer to every question about drug policy, at the expense of the balanced approach that we need to succeed in the struggle against drug abuse. I still hold those fears, but I hope that Mr. Walters exceeds my expectations in office.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Terrorist Bombing Convention Implementation Act of 2001 and the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Convention Implementation Act of 2001. This bill would bring the United States into indisputable and immediate compliance with two important international conventions, which were signed by the United States and transmitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification by President Clinton. Both Conventions were entered into after the terrorist bombings at the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The bill also contains a provision which would enhance the ability of law enforcement authorities to work with their foreign counterparts in fighting sophisticated international criminal organizations by sharing wiretap information when appropriate. The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, ``Bombing Convention'', was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1997 and signed by the United States in January 1998. In September 1999, it was transmitted to the Senate by President Clinton for ratification. The International Convention for the Suppression of Financing Terrorism, ``Financing Convention'', was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1999 and signed by the United States in January 2000. In October 2000, it was transmitted to the Senate by President Clinton for ratification. Under the chairmanship of Senator Biden, the Foreign Relations Committee has moved expeditiously to report these conventions to the full Senate. Once ratified, they should be swiftly implemented. The passage of the proposed implementing legislation which I introduce today would ensure that the United States is in immediate compliance with these international obligations relating to terrorism. Both conventions require signatory nations to adopt criminal laws prohibiting specified terrorist activities in order to create a regime of universal jurisdiction over certain crimes. Articles 2 and 4 of the Bombing Convention require signatory countries to criminalize the delivery, placement, discharge or detonation of explosives and other lethal devices, ``in, into, or against'' various defined public places with the intent to kill, cause serious bodily injury, or extensively damage such public places. The Bombing Convention also requires that signatories criminalize aiding and abetting, attempting, or conspiring to commit such crimes. Articles 2 and 4 of the Financing Convention require signatory countries to criminalize willfully ``providing or collecting'' funds, directly or indirectly, with knowledge that they are to be used to carry out acts which either 1. violate nine enumerated existing treaties, or 2. are aimed at killing or injuring civilians with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government to do any act. The Financing Convention also requires that signatories criminalize aiding and abetting, attempting, or conspiring to commit such crimes. Signatories must criminalize such acts under Article 2 whether or not ``the funds were actually used to carry out'' such an offense. Both conventions require that signatory nations exercise limited extraterritorial jurisdiction and extradite or prosecute those who commit such crimes when found inside their borders. The conventions also require that signatories ensure that, under their domestic laws, political, religious, ideological, racial or other similar considerations are not a justification for committing the enumerated crimes. Thus, signatory nations will not be able to assert such bases to deny an extradition request for a covered crime. Finally, Article 4 of each convention requires that signatory states make the covered offenses ``punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of [the] offenses.'' This proposed implementation legislation, consistent with the House version of this bill, H.R. 3275, creates two new crimes, one for bombings and another for financing terrorist acts, that would track precisely the language in the treaties, and bring the United States into undisputed compliance. The bill would also provide extraterritorial jurisdiction as required by the conventions. Furthermore the bill would create domestic jurisdiction for these crimes in limited situations where a national interest is implicated, while excluding jurisdiction over acts where the convention does not require such jurisdiction and there is no distinct federal interest served. The bill, again consistent with the H.R. 3275, also contains ``ancillary provisions'' that would make the two new crimes predicates for money laundering charges, wiretaps, RICO charges, an 8-year statute of limitations, include them as ``federal crimes of terrorism,'' and make civil asset forfeiture available for the new terrorism financing crime. Existing laws which relate to similar crimes are predicates for each of these tools, and providing law enforcement with these ancillary provisions is both consistent and appropriate. Neither international convention requires a death penalty provision for any covered crime, and the Department of Justice has provided a memorandum to Congress, in response to a request for its views, that such a provision would not be required to bring the United States into compliance. This should come as no surprise, given international sentiment opposing the United States' use of the death penalty in other contexts. Indeed, the inclusion of a death penalty provision in the implementing legislation for these conventions could lead to complications in extraditing individuals to the United States from countries that do not employ the death penalty. Therefore, unlike the House version of the implementing legislation, the Senate version contains no new death penalty provision. Unlike H.R. 3275, the bill does not contain a third crime for ``concealment'' of material support for terrorists. The Department of Justice has conceded in the memorandum which it provided to Congress that this provision is not necessary to bring the United States into compliance with the conventions. Indeed, in the wake of the passage of similar provisions in the USA Patriot Act, P.L. No. 107-56, such legislation is not needed. Furthermore, although a similar provision is currently set forth in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339A, the House bill provides a lower mens rea requirement than that law; an important change which was not highlighted in the Administration materials provided explaining the proposal. Finally, the Senate bill contains an important new tool for international cooperation between law enforcement which is not included in H.R. 3275. Currently, there is no clear statutory authority which allows domestic law enforcement agents to share Title III wiretap information with foreign law enforcement counterparts. This may create problems when, for example, the DEA wants to alert Colombian authorities that a cocaine shipment is about to leave a Colombian port but the information is derived from a Title III wiretap. This bill would clarify the authority for sharing wiretap derived information, specifically in the Title III context. The bill provides a clear mechanism through which law enforcement may share wiretap information with foreign law enforcement, while at the same time ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards to protect this sensitive information against misuse. It adds a subsection to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2517, that permits disclosure of wiretap information to foreign officials (1) with judicial approval, (2) in such a manner and under such conditions as a court may direct, and (3) consistent with Attorney General guidelines on how the information may be used to protect confidentiality. This clarification will provide an additional tool to investigate international criminal enterprises and to seek the assistance of foreign law enforcement in our efforts. For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce this legislation and I urge its swift enactment into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, along with the sectional analysis.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hatch, Reid, and Bennett in the introduction of the Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002. Senator Hatch and I, as leaders of the Judiciary Committee, have had great success in working together to protect America's innovators and to protect our patent and trademark system. This bill is another example of our bipartisan effort to strengthen America's future. By joining with Senators Reid and Bennett, this bill will send a strong message to America's innovators and inventors that the Congress intends to protect and enhance our patent system. The PTO serves a critical role in the promotion and development of commercial activity in the United States by granting patents and trademark registrations to our nation's innovators and businesses. The costs of running the PTO are entirely paid for by fees collected by the PTO form users, individuals and companies that seek to benefit from patent and trademark protections. However, since 1992 Congress has diverted over $800 million of those fees for other government programs unrelated to the PTO. This bill sends a strong message that Congress should appropriate to the PTO a funding level equal to these fees. The reason for this is simple: the creation of intellectual property by Americans, individuals and businesses, is a massive positive driving force for our economy and is a huge plus for our trade balance with the rest of the world. In recent years, the number of patient applications has risen dramatically, and that trend is expected to continue. Our patent examiners are very overworked, and emerging areas such as biotechnology and business method patents may overwhelm the system. If fully implemented as intended, this bill can greatly assist the PTO in issuing quality patents more quickly which means more investment, more jobs and greater productivity for American businesses. Similarly, early federal registration of the name, logo, or symbol of a company or product is necessary to protect rights and avoid expensive litigation. Section 2 of the bill thus authorizes Congress to appropriate to the PTO, in fiscal years 2002 through 2007, an amount equal to the fees estimated by the Secretary of Commerce to be collected in each of the next five fiscal years. The Secretary shall make this report to the Congress by February 15 of each such fiscal year. Section 3 of the bill directs the PTO to develop, in the next three years, an electronic system for the filing and processing of all patent and trademark applications that is user friendly and that will allow the Office to process and maintain electronically the contents and history of all applications. Of the amount appropriated under section 2, section 3 authorizes Congress to appropriate not more than $50 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for the electronic filing system. Third, the bill requires the PTO to develop a strategic plan to set forth for the methods by which the PTO will enhance patent and trademark quality, reduce pendency, and develop an effective electronic system for the benefit of filers, examiners, and the general public regarding patents and trademarks. I am pleased that my colleagues in the other body, Congressmen Coble and Berman, have introduced similar legislation. I am very concerned that the Bush Administration budget for FY 2002 planned to divert $207 million in PTO fees to programs outside the PTO. This diversion takes fees paid by inventors and businesses to secure patents or trademarks and uses them to promote unrelated programs. It does this at a time when the number of patent and trademark applications has increased by 50 percent since 1996, and while the ``waiting period,'' or pendency period, has increased 20 percent 1996. Even worse, the PTO estimates that the patent pendency period could increase to 38 months by 2006. The bill also contains two sections which will clarify two provisions of current law and thus provide certainty and guidance to the PTO and for inventors and businesses. Section 5 expands the scope of matters that may be raised during the reexamination process to a level which had been the case for many years. Let me explain the background. Congress established the patent reexamination system in 1980 for three purposes: to attempt to settle patent validity questions quickly and less expensively than litigation; to allow courts to rely on PTO expertise; and, third, to reinforce investor confidence in the certainty of patent rights by affording an opportunity to review patents of doubtful validity. This system of encouraging third parties to pursue reexamination as an efficient method of settling patent disputes is still a good idea. However, by clarifying current law this bill increases the discretion of the PTO and enhances the effectiveness of the reexamination process. It does this by permitting the use of relevant evidence that was considered by the PTO, but not necessarily cited. Thus, adding this sentence to current law, which only allows for reexaminations when ``substantial new questions of patentability exist'', will help prevent the misuse of defective patents, especially those concerning business method patents. It permits a reexamination based on prior art cited by an applicant that the examiner failed to adequately consider. Thus, this change allows the PTO to correct some examiner errors that it would not otherwise be able to correct. Section 6 of the bill modestly improves the usefulness of inter partes reexamination procedures by enhancing the ability of third-party requesters to participate in that process by allowing such a third party to appeal an adverse reexamine decision in Federal court or to participate in the appeal brought by the patentee. This may make inter partes reexamination a somewhat more attractive option for challenging a patent in that a third party should feel more comfortable that the courts can be accessed to rectify a mistaken reexamination decision. This section should increase the use of the reexamine system and thus decrease the number of patent matters adjudicated in federal court. I again want to express my appreciation to the co-sponsors of this bill, Senators Hatch, Reid, and Bennett and look forward to working with other Senators on these matters.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hatch, Reid, and Bennett in the introduction of the Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002. Senator Hatch and I, as leaders of the Judiciary Committee, have had great success in working together to protect America's innovators and to protect our patent and trademark system. This bill is another example of our bipartisan effort to strengthen America's future. By joining with Senators Reid and Bennett, this bill will send a strong message to America's innovators and inventors that the Congress intends to protect and enhance our patent system. The PTO serves a critical role in the promotion and development of commercial activity in the United States by granting patents and trademark registrations to our nation's innovators and businesses. The costs of running the PTO are entirely paid for by fees collected by the PTO form users, individuals and companies that seek to benefit from patent and trademark protections. However, since 1992 Congress has diverted over $800 million of those fees for other government programs unrelated to the PTO. This bill sends a strong message that Congress should appropriate to the PTO a funding level equal to these fees. The reason for this is simple: the creation of intellectual property by Americans, individuals and businesses, is a massive positive driving force for our economy and is a huge plus for our trade balance with the rest of the world. In recent years, the number of patient applications has risen dramatically, and that trend is expected to continue. Our patent examiners are very overworked, and emerging areas such as biotechnology and business method patents may overwhelm the system. If fully implemented as intended, this bill can greatly assist the PTO in issuing quality patents more quickly which means more investment, more jobs and greater productivity for American businesses. Similarly, early federal registration of the name, logo, or symbol of a company or product is necessary to protect rights and avoid expensive litigation. Section 2 of the bill thus authorizes Congress to appropriate to the PTO, in fiscal years 2002 through 2007, an amount equal to the fees estimated by the Secretary of Commerce to be collected in each of the next five fiscal years. The Secretary shall make this report to the Congress by February 15 of each such fiscal year. Section 3 of the bill directs the PTO to develop, in the next three years, an electronic system for the filing and processing of all patent and trademark applications that is user friendly and that will allow the Office to process and maintain electronically the contents and history of all applications. Of the amount appropriated under section 2, section 3 authorizes Congress to appropriate not more than $50 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for the electronic filing system. Third, the bill requires the PTO to develop a strategic plan to set forth for the methods by which the PTO will enhance patent and trademark quality, reduce pendency, and develop an effective electronic system for the benefit of filers, examiners, and the general public regarding patents and trademarks. I am pleased that my colleagues in the other body, Congressmen Coble and Berman, have introduced similar legislation. I am very concerned that the Bush Administration budget for FY 2002 planned to divert $207 million in PTO fees to programs outside the PTO. This diversion takes fees paid by inventors and businesses to secure patents or trademarks and uses them to promote unrelated programs. It does this at a time when the number of patent and trademark applications has increased by 50 percent since 1996, and while the ``waiting period,'' or pendency period, has increased 20 percent 1996. Even worse, the PTO estimates that the patent pendency period could increase to 38 months by 2006. The bill also contains two sections which will clarify two provisions of current law and thus provide certainty and guidance to the PTO and for inventors and businesses. Section 5 expands the scope of matters that may be raised during the reexamination process to a level which had been the case for many years. Let me explain the background. Congress established the patent reexamination system in 1980 for three purposes: to attempt to settle patent validity questions quickly and less expensively than litigation; to allow courts to rely on PTO expertise; and, third, to reinforce investor confidence in the certainty of patent rights by affording an opportunity to review patents of doubtful validity. This system of encouraging third parties to pursue reexamination as an efficient method of settling patent disputes is still a good idea. However, by clarifying current law this bill increases the discretion of the PTO and enhances the effectiveness of the reexamination process. It does this by permitting the use of relevant evidence that was considered by the PTO, but not necessarily cited. Thus, adding this sentence to current law, which only allows for reexaminations when ``substantial new questions of patentability exist'', will help prevent the misuse of defective patents, especially those concerning business method patents. It permits a reexamination based on prior art cited by an applicant that the examiner failed to adequately consider. Thus, this change allows the PTO to correct some examiner errors that it would not otherwise be able to correct. Section 6 of the bill modestly improves the usefulness of inter partes reexamination procedures by enhancing the ability of third-party requesters to participate in that process by allowing such a third party to appeal an adverse reexamine decision in Federal court or to participate in the appeal brought by the patentee. This may make inter partes reexamination a somewhat more attractive option for challenging a patent in that a third party should feel more comfortable that the courts can be accessed to rectify a mistaken reexamination decision. This section should increase the use of the reexamine system and thus decrease the number of patent matters adjudicated in federal court. I again want to express my appreciation to the co-sponsors of this bill, Senators Hatch, Reid, and Bennett and look forward to working with other Senators on these matters.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling interpreting a provision in the Fair Credit Reporting Act that will make it harder for Americans to protect their private financial data from identity theft. I rise today with the senior senator from Iowa to introduce the ``Protect Victims of Identity Theft Act'' to provide consumers in Vermont and across America with the protections that they need and deserve. I thank Senator Grassley for his leadership and look forward to working with him on this legislation. Unfortunately, identity theft victimizes thousands of Americans every year. Once a skilled scam artist gets his hands on a consumer's Social Security or bank account number, he can wreak unimaginable havoc on a family's finances. With society conducting more and more of its business electronically, the incidence of identity theft in America is on the rise. As of June of this year, the Federal Trade Commission reported that its identity theft hotline was answering over 1,800 calls per week, up from the 445 calls per week the hotline received in November 1999. These calls are mostly from people who have been hurt by identity theft, but thousands of others come from consumers worried about becoming an identity thief's next victim. When Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act, FCRA, more than thirty years ago, it gave consumers important tools to ensure the accuracy and privacy of their credit information. The FCRA imposed affirmative obligations on the consumer reporting agencies that maintain these reports in order to protect consumers' private information from unauthorized disclosures. The FCRA says that consumer reporting agencies must maintain ``reasonable procedures'' to avoid improper use of a consumer's private information. These safeguards are essential to protect each American's confidential financial information. The FCRA demands that consumer reporting agencies require that prospective users of credit information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which they are seeking the information, and verify that they will not use the information for any other purpose, to name just a few examples. Consumer reporting agencies that fail to live up to these obligations or that are careless with consumers' private information can be held liable to consumers harmed by their security lapses. Current law provides consumers 2 years from the ``date on which the liability arises'' to bring suit against a non-compliant consumer reporting agency. This week, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the term ``the date on which liability arises,'' means the day that a consumer reporting agency fails to comply with FCRA's requirements. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 2001 WL 1401902 (Nov. 13, 2001). As a result, the statute of limitations clock starts ticking whether or not a consumer is aware that information about his finances has been illegally handled or disclosed. That means that the 2-year limitations period can expire before a consumer ever even suspects that her credit information has fallen into the wrong hands. The 750,000 Americans who annually have their identity stolen and their credit put at risk deserve better. It is unfair for the law to only protect consumers if they discover the identity theft within 2 years of the crime, even if the consumer had no reason to know about it. That stands the normal rule of discovery for fraud on its head. Our bipartisan legislation would clarify that the statute of limitations for identity theft does not start until the consumer discovers the problem or should have discovered the problem through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The exercise of reasonable diligence is the traditional common law duty under fraud discovery rules and does not impose any new mandate or requirement on a consumer under the FCRA. This change in the law ensures that consumers have a fair opportunity to vindicate their rights. This bipartisan legislative fix is needed to put a stop to identity theft. It will encourage consumer reporting agencies to establish proper security measures needed to deny identity thieves access to Americans' most personal financial information. It ensures that the Fair Credit Reporting Act has real teeth to fulfill its mission of protecting the accuracy and privacy of consumer credit information. And it will give consumers in Vermont and across America a fair shot at vindicating their right to keep private information away from unscrupulous con artists. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling interpreting a provision in the Fair Credit Reporting Act that will make it harder for Americans to protect their private financial data from identity theft. I rise today with the senior senator from Iowa to introduce the ``Protect Victims of Identity Theft Act'' to provide consumers in Vermont and across America with the protections that they need and deserve. I thank Senator Grassley for his leadership and look forward to working with him on this legislation. Unfortunately, identity theft victimizes thousands of Americans every year. Once a skilled scam artist gets his hands on a consumer's Social Security or bank account number, he can wreak unimaginable havoc on a family's finances. With society conducting more and more of its business electronically, the incidence of identity theft in America is on the rise. As of June of this year, the Federal Trade Commission reported that its identity theft hotline was answering over 1,800 calls per week, up from the 445 calls per week the hotline received in November 1999. These calls are mostly from people who have been hurt by identity theft, but thousands of others come from consumers worried about becoming an identity thief's next victim. When Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act, FCRA, more than thirty years ago, it gave consumers important tools to ensure the accuracy and privacy of their credit information. The FCRA imposed affirmative obligations on the consumer reporting agencies that maintain these reports in order to protect consumers' private information from unauthorized disclosures. The FCRA says that consumer reporting agencies must maintain ``reasonable procedures'' to avoid improper use of a consumer's private information. These safeguards are essential to protect each American's confidential financial information. The FCRA demands that consumer reporting agencies require that prospective users of credit information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which they are seeking the information, and verify that they will not use the information for any other purpose, to name just a few examples. Consumer reporting agencies that fail to live up to these obligations or that are careless with consumers' private information can be held liable to consumers harmed by their security lapses. Current law provides consumers 2 years from the ``date on which the liability arises'' to bring suit against a non-compliant consumer reporting agency. This week, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the term ``the date on which liability arises,'' means the day that a consumer reporting agency fails to comply with FCRA's requirements. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 2001 WL 1401902 (Nov. 13, 2001). As a result, the statute of limitations clock starts ticking whether or not a consumer is aware that information about his finances has been illegally handled or disclosed. That means that the 2-year limitations period can expire before a consumer ever even suspects that her credit information has fallen into the wrong hands. The 750,000 Americans who annually have their identity stolen and their credit put at risk deserve better. It is unfair for the law to only protect consumers if they discover the identity theft within 2 years of the crime, even if the consumer had no reason to know about it. That stands the normal rule of discovery for fraud on its head. Our bipartisan legislation would clarify that the statute of limitations for identity theft does not start until the consumer discovers the problem or should have discovered the problem through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The exercise of reasonable diligence is the traditional common law duty under fraud discovery rules and does not impose any new mandate or requirement on a consumer under the FCRA. This change in the law ensures that consumers have a fair opportunity to vindicate their rights. This bipartisan legislative fix is needed to put a stop to identity theft. It will encourage consumer reporting agencies to establish proper security measures needed to deny identity thieves access to Americans' most personal financial information. It ensures that the Fair Credit Reporting Act has real teeth to fulfill its mission of protecting the accuracy and privacy of consumer credit information. And it will give consumers in Vermont and across America a fair shot at vindicating their right to keep private information away from unscrupulous con artists. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield for a moment, I haven't seen the letter, but the press described it to me and asked me about it. I told them I totally agree with you on that, that we should have hearings on this--actually a number of these steps. One of the difficult things, as the Senator knows, is getting the Attorney General to come up here and testify. I think the last person to be able to even ask him a question in our committee was the senior Senator from Pennsylvania during the terrorism bill. I only heard part of what the Senator was saying, but his usual fashion is to lay out the law and the history very clearly. I do believe we should have hearings. I intend to have a meeting with the FBI Director this afternoon. I am also going to talk to the Attorney General on this and a number of other issues, including some about which the Senator has expressed concern to me. He really should come up here before we finish for the year. We should discuss some of these issues. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is absolutely right in raising this. I appreciate him doing it. He does us all a service.