Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I join with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in offering this amendment. As the Senators know, this reauthorizes Department of Justice grants for new Boys and Girls Clubs in each of our 50 States. This bipartisan amendment authorizes $60 million in Department of Justice grants for each of the next 5 years to establish 1,200 additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. In fact, this will bring the number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000. That means they will serve approximately 6 million young people by January 1, 2007. I am very impressed with what I see about the Boys and Girls Clubs as I travel around the country. In 1997, I was very proud to join with Senator Hatch and others to pass bipartisan legislation to authorize grants by the Department of Justice to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. We got very strong bipartisan support. We increased the Department of Justice grant funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs from $20 million in fiscal year 1998 to $60 million in fiscal year 2001. That is why we have now 2,591 Boys and Girls Clubs in all 50 States and 3.3 million children are served. It is a success story. I hear from parents certainly across my State how valuable it is to have the Boys and Girls Clubs. I hear it also from police chiefs. In fact, one police chief told me, rather than giving him a couple more police officers, fund a Boys and Girls Club in his district; it would be more beneficial. This long-term Federal commitment has enabled Vermonters to establish six Boys and Girls Clubs--in Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes. In fact, I believe the Vermont Boys and Girls Clubs have received more than a million dollars from the Department of Justice grants since 1998. Last week at a Vermont town meeting on heroin prevention and treatment, I was honored to present a check for more than $150,000 in Department of Justice funds to the members of the Burlington club to continue helping young Vermonters find some constructive alternatives for both their talents and energies, because we know that in Vermont and across the Nation Boys and Girls Clubs are proving they are a growing success at preventing crime and supporting young children. Parents, educators, law enforcement officers, and others know we need safe havens where young people can learn and grow up free from the influence of the drugs and gangs and crime. That is why the Boys and Girls Clubs are so important to our Nation's children. Indeed, the success already in Vermont has led to efforts to create nine more clubs throughout my home State. Continued Federal support would be critical to these expansion efforts in Vermont and in the other 49 States as well. I was disappointed when the President's budget request called for eliminating funding for Boys and Girls Clubs from the Department of Justice's programs for State and local law enforcement assistance. I realize there was an effort to bring down the budget to compensate for what has been a very large tax cut, but I think this money should have been left in. I think the administration makes a mistake in cutting out the money for the Boys and Girls Clubs. In fact, based on last year's appropriations, the failure of the Bush administration to request funding for the Department of Justice grants for Boys and Girls Clubs amounts to a $60 million cut in our Federal drug and crime prevention efforts. I have written to the administration. I hope the President will reconsider this decision. I hope he will realize that the Boys and Girls Clubs is not a Democratic initiative or a Republican initiative; this is a commonsense initiative that both parties have endorsed. Those of us who have children or grandchildren know instinctively how important it is. If we have any doubt, we can just talk to any of the parents in the towns or communities where there are Boys and Girls Clubs; they will tell you how valuable they are. In fact, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America are the most successful youth organization in the country today, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. I worked together on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Attorney General Ashcroft, and I applaud him because he is a big booster of the Boys and Girls Clubs. He spent a lot of his youth at a club in Missouri, he told me. I am hopeful that the Attorney General will also support additional Department of Justice funding for more Boys and Girls Clubs. He was very helpful to the debate when Senator Harkin and I offered an amendment to add one-half billion dollars to the Department of Justice Department in fiscal year 2002 that would fund programs that assist State and local law enforcement. Our amendment, the Leahy-Harkin law enforcement budget amendment, passed the Senate unanimously. It does continue funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs and their Department of Justice grants. In fact, the budget resolution conference report retained most of the funding increases in the Leahy-Harkin law enforcement amendment. I hope the amendment today to reauthorize the Department of Justice grants to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America will clear the way for the administration to endorse Federal funding for this effort. It is something on which Senator Hatch and I have joined forces. We want to demonstrate this is not a Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democratic effort. It is a commonsense effort because these clubs make such a real difference in the lives of millions of America's young people. Mr. President, I see others in the Chamber, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution to honor our Federal, State and local law enforcement officers who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our public safety. I commend Senator Campbell for his leadership in submitting Senate Resolution 63. I want to recognize the other cosponsors of the resolution on the Senate Judiciary Committee: Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Thurmond, Biden, Grassley, Kohl, DeWine, Feinstein, Sessions, Feingold, Brownback, Schumer, McConnell, and Durbin. Since my time as a State prosecutor, I have always taken a keen interest in law enforcement in Vermont and around the country. Vermont has the reputation of being one of the safest States in which to live, work and visit, and rightly so. In no small part, this is due to the hard work of those who have sworn to serve and protect us, and we should do what we can to honor them and their families. Our Nation's law enforcement officers put their lives at risk in the line of duty everyday. No one knows when danger will appear. Unfortunately, in today's violent world, even a traffic stop may not necessarily be ``routine.'' Each and every law enforcement officer across the Nation deserves our heartfelt respect and appreciation on Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senators Lieberman and Levin the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2001. I introduced similar legislation in the last Congress, and was pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The measure was introduced in the last Congress by Representatives Foley, Franks and Ackerman as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058, and has again been introduced on April 4, 2001, by Representatives Foley and Ackerman as H.R. 1449. Moreover, the legislation passed the Senate, on November 5, 1999, as part of the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to Internationals and War Criminals Act,'' S. 1754, but unfortunately was not acted on by the House. The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation. The loss last week by the United States of its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission is highly embarrassing and unfortunate, but by ensuring that our country is no safe haven for human rights abusers, we can lead the world by our actions. War criminals and human rights abusers have used loopholes in current law to enter and remain in this country. I have been appalled that this country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent civilians. For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court that Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in Ethiopia engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them in the late 1970's when they lived in that country. The court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1,500,000 to the plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996). Yet, while Negewo's case was on appeal, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted him citizenship. As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration relief.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657. In fact, the Center for Justice and Accountability, a San Francisco human rights group, has identified approximately sixty suspected human rights violators now living in the United States. Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock that door to those human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should promptly show them the door out. We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too long after the last world war to focus prosecutorial resources and attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Last month, thousands of declassified CIA documents were made public, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud help enact in 1998, and made clear the extent that United States relied on and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, noted, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United States. When I first introduced this bill in 1999, the Pulitzer prize-winning paper, the Rutland Herald, opined on October 31, 1999, that: For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything, U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip across the border to find a home in America. The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. One Clinton Administration witness testified in February, 2000: Right now, only three types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from entering or remaining in the United States. The types of prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly defined. Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello, Associate Deputy Attorney General). The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act closes these loopholes. The Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, currently provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, are inadmissable to the United States and deportable. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The Justice Department's specialized OSI unit is authorized under a 1979 Attorney General order to investigate only Nazi war criminals, not any other human rights abuser. The bill would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to (1) add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' and (2) remove limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom.'' The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits: an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1). ``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean: prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from: (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(2). The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for ``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Such term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.'' The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii). For clarity and consistency, the bill would substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of levels of complicity. Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, IFRA, limits its application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the individual's spouse and children, if any. The bill would delete reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor Aceves opines: This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the commission of these acts. William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at 683. In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for the spouse or children. This is a serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are not within an individual's control. None of the other grounds relating to serious human rights abuse prevent the spouse or child of an abuser from entering or remaining lawfully in the United States. Moreover, the purpose of these amendments is to make those who have participated in atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by holding the family members of such individuals accountable for the offensive conduct over which they had no control. Changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted: [s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency for this function can be seen in the experiences of the Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at 689. We need to update OSI's mission to ensure effective enforcement. Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute, and remove Nazi war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective enforcement. Since the OSI's inception in 1979, 61 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, 49 such individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied entry. OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when Attorney General Civiletti established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct all ``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order. Little is being done about the new generation of international human rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are costly. As any prosecutor, or, in my case, former prosecutor, knows instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. Since I introduced this bill in the last Congress, there have been no further developments in the Kelbessa Negewo case, he still remains living in Atlanta. In addition, there has been no action taken on Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, the former head of the Salvadoran National Guard, a unit whose members kidnaped, raped, and murdered four American churchwomen during the El Salvadoran civil war. Vides Casanova remains in the United States. We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and enforcement. No war criminal should ever come to believe that he is going to find safe harbor in the United States. The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with authorization to investigate, remove, denaturalize, prosecute or extradite any alien who has participated in Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for Office of Special Investigation, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad, not just Nazis. The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. OSI has worked, and it is time to update its mission. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and may best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions. The bill directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a prosecution. As one human rights expert has noted: The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to offer. But when we ask the question ``where should they be?'' the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers. Hearing on H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept. 28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights). I appreciate that this part of the legislation has proven controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in the bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has concluded that OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657. Similarly, the Rutland Herald noted that the INS has never deported an immigrant on the basis of human rights abuses, by contrast to OSI's active deportations of ex-Nazis, while maintaining a list of 60,000 suspected war criminals with the aim of barring them from entry. Based on this record, the Rutland Herald concluded that the legislation correctly looks to OSI to carry out the additional responsibilities called for in the bill, noting that: It resolves a turf war between the INS and the OSI in favor of the OSI, which is as it should be. The victims of human rights abuses are often victimized again when, seeking refuge in the United States, they are confronted by the draconian policies of the INS. It's a better idea to give the job of finding war criminals to the office that has shown it knows how to do the job. Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission. Additional resources are authorized in the bill for OSI's expanded duties. Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and the House on implementation of the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of matters to OSI, any revisions made to INS forms to reflect amendments made by the bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due process protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill. We must honor and respect the unique experiences of those who were victims in the darkest moment in world history. We may help honor the memories of the victims of the Holocaust by pursuing all human rights abusers and war criminals who enter our country. By so doing, the United States can provide moral leadership and show that we will not tolerate perpetrators of genocide, extrajudicial killing and torture, least of all here. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a sectional analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the nomination of Larry Thompson to be Deputy Attorney General to the Senate. The Deputy Attorney General is number two in command at the Department of Justice and plays a key role as a top advisor to the Attorney General. Former Deputies include William Rogers and Byron White, Nicholas Katzenbach and Warren Christopher, Harold Tyler, Jamie Gorelick and Eric Holder. The Deputy has traditionally assumed responsibility for the day-to- day operations of the Department. The Deputy often has direct oversight of a number of divisions and units within the Department, including the FBI and those with criminal jurisdiction. The Deputy position may assume even greater significance in this Administration, since we have not seen any indication that there will be an Associate Attorney General with whom the Deputy might share those leadership responsibilities. I know that Mr. Thompson is a strong conservative. I have confidence that we can work together. I believe him when he indicates that he is prepared to have a candid and responsive relationship with the Judiciary Committee, including the Democratic Senators. I know that Mr. Thompson served previously as a United States Attorney and that he appreciates, as those of us who served as local prosecutors understand, where the front lines of law enforcement are, how they must be supported and that partisan politics have no business in law enforcement. It was not only his testimony but the testimony of Mr. Thompson's home State Senators that I found compelling. Both Senator Cleland and Senator Miller came to the Committee and gave strong support. Those statements matter. His home state Senators would be expected to know him best and it was clear to me that they know him well. Senator Cleland's endorsement was without reservation. Senator Miller described him as a consummate professional, quiet yet strong, someone who exercises enormous common sense, a person of great substance and little ego, and one who will put principle ahead of politics every time. We were assured that Larry Thompson comes with no agenda, and will base every decision on what is right, not what is popular or politically expedient. With those kinds of endorsements and assurances, and with the frank exchanges that we had during the course of the hearing process, I feel confident in supporting the nomination of Larry Thompson. I look forward to working with Mr. Thompson in the days ahead and I congratulate Mr. Thompson and his entire family on his confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Dan Bryant is well-known to many of us, especially those of us serving on the Judiciary Committee. We knew him first as an able member of the House Judiciary Committee staff and through his work as the Chief Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, working under Chairman Hyde and Congressman McCollum. At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Conyers, Senator Biden and both Senators from Virginia all came to testify on his behalf. Mr. Bryant is respectful of the Senate and, I feel, all Senators. We are already working with Mr. Bryant as he is serving as a consultant to the Department while his nomination is pending. His history and current work give me every reason to support his nomination. I look forward to working with him in the days and months ahead. His is a most demanding job. I congratulate Dan and his family on his confirmation by the U.S. Senate. nomination of larry thompson

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senators Lieberman and Levin the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2001. I introduced similar legislation in the last Congress, and was pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The measure was introduced in the last Congress by Representatives Foley, Franks and Ackerman as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058, and has again been introduced on April 4, 2001, by Representatives Foley and Ackerman as H.R. 1449. Moreover, the legislation passed the Senate, on November 5, 1999, as part of the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to Internationals and War Criminals Act,'' S. 1754, but unfortunately was not acted on by the House. The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation. The loss last week by the United States of its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission is highly embarrassing and unfortunate, but by ensuring that our country is no safe haven for human rights abusers, we can lead the world by our actions. War criminals and human rights abusers have used loopholes in current law to enter and remain in this country. I have been appalled that this country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent civilians. For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court that Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in Ethiopia engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them in the late 1970's when they lived in that country. The court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1,500,000 to the plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996). Yet, while Negewo's case was on appeal, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted him citizenship. As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration relief.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657. In fact, the Center for Justice and Accountability, a San Francisco human rights group, has identified approximately sixty suspected human rights violators now living in the United States. Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock that door to those human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should promptly show them the door out. We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too long after the last world war to focus prosecutorial resources and attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Last month, thousands of declassified CIA documents were made public, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud help enact in 1998, and made clear the extent that United States relied on and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, noted, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United States. When I first introduced this bill in 1999, the Pulitzer prize-winning paper, the Rutland Herald, opined on October 31, 1999, that: For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything, U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip across the border to find a home in America. The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. One Clinton Administration witness testified in February, 2000: Right now, only three types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from entering or remaining in the United States. The types of prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly defined. Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello, Associate Deputy Attorney General). The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act closes these loopholes. The Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, currently provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, are inadmissable to the United States and deportable. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The Justice Department's specialized OSI unit is authorized under a 1979 Attorney General order to investigate only Nazi war criminals, not any other human rights abuser. The bill would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to (1) add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' and (2) remove limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom.'' The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits: an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1). ``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean: prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from: (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(2). The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for ``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Such term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.'' The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii). For clarity and consistency, the bill would substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of levels of complicity. Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, IFRA, limits its application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the individual's spouse and children, if any. The bill would delete reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor Aceves opines: This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the commission of these acts. William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at 683. In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for the spouse or children. This is a serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are not within an individual's control. None of the other grounds relating to serious human rights abuse prevent the spouse or child of an abuser from entering or remaining lawfully in the United States. Moreover, the purpose of these amendments is to make those who have participated in atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by holding the family members of such individuals accountable for the offensive conduct over which they had no control. Changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted: [s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency for this function can be seen in the experiences of the Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at 689. We need to update OSI's mission to ensure effective enforcement. Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute, and remove Nazi war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective enforcement. Since the OSI's inception in 1979, 61 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, 49 such individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied entry. OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when Attorney General Civiletti established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct all ``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order. Little is being done about the new generation of international human rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are costly. As any prosecutor, or, in my case, former prosecutor, knows instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. Since I introduced this bill in the last Congress, there have been no further developments in the Kelbessa Negewo case, he still remains living in Atlanta. In addition, there has been no action taken on Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, the former head of the Salvadoran National Guard, a unit whose members kidnaped, raped, and murdered four American churchwomen during the El Salvadoran civil war. Vides Casanova remains in the United States. We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and enforcement. No war criminal should ever come to believe that he is going to find safe harbor in the United States. The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with authorization to investigate, remove, denaturalize, prosecute or extradite any alien who has participated in Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for Office of Special Investigation, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad, not just Nazis. The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. OSI has worked, and it is time to update its mission. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and may best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions. The bill directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a prosecution. As one human rights expert has noted: The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to offer. But when we ask the question ``where should they be?'' the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers. Hearing on H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept. 28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights). I appreciate that this part of the legislation has proven controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in the bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has concluded that OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657. Similarly, the Rutland Herald noted that the INS has never deported an immigrant on the basis of human rights abuses, by contrast to OSI's active deportations of ex-Nazis, while maintaining a list of 60,000 suspected war criminals with the aim of barring them from entry. Based on this record, the Rutland Herald concluded that the legislation correctly looks to OSI to carry out the additional responsibilities called for in the bill, noting that: It resolves a turf war between the INS and the OSI in favor of the OSI, which is as it should be. The victims of human rights abuses are often victimized again when, seeking refuge in the United States, they are confronted by the draconian policies of the INS. It's a better idea to give the job of finding war criminals to the office that has shown it knows how to do the job. Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission. Additional resources are authorized in the bill for OSI's expanded duties. Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and the House on implementation of the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of matters to OSI, any revisions made to INS forms to reflect amendments made by the bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due process protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill. We must honor and respect the unique experiences of those who were victims in the darkest moment in world history. We may help honor the memories of the victims of the Holocaust by pursuing all human rights abusers and war criminals who enter our country. By so doing, the United States can provide moral leadership and show that we will not tolerate perpetrators of genocide, extrajudicial killing and torture, least of all here. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a sectional analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I must oppose this budget resolution conference report because it is an irresponsible gamble with our economic future. Despite the best efforts of the Senate to reduce the President's risky tax cut plan, this conference report does not adequately protect the interests of low- and medium-income American men, women, and children. This resolution sets aside trillions of projected budget surpluses for tax cuts proposed by President Bush that are steeply tilted to the wealthy. It pays for the Bush tax plan at the expense of needed investments in Social Security, Medicare, education, and the environment. In addition, the cost of the Bush tax plan imperils our ability to pay off the national debt so that this nation can finally be debt free by the end of the decade. We should remember that the nation still carries the burden of a national debt of $3.4 trillion. Like someone who had finally paid off his or her credit card balance but still has a home mortgage, the federal government has finally balanced its annual budget, but we still have a national debt to pay off. In the meantime, the Federal government has to pay almost $900 million in interest every working day on this national debt. Paying off our national debt will help to sustain our sound economy by keeping interest rates low. Vermonters gain ground with lower mortgage costs, car payments and credit card charges with low interest rates. In addition, small business owners in Vermont can invest, expand and create jobs with low interest rates. I want to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren of a debt-free nation by 2010. We can achieve that legacy if the Congress maintains its fiscal discipline. But this budget resolution tosses out fiscal responsibility for skewed tax breaks. It is based on a house of cards made up of rosy budget scenarios for the next ten years. Any downturn in the economy, are of which we are now beginning to experience, threatens to topple this house of cards. Mr. President, the $5.6 trillion surplus that President Bush and others are counting on to pay for huge tax cuts is based on mere projections over the next decade. It is not real. Many in Congress have been talking about the $5.6 trillion surplus as if it is already money in the United States Treasury. It is not. While none of us hope that the budget surpluses are lower than we expect, to be responsible we need to understand that this is a real possibility. In its budget and economic outlook released in January 1st, CBO devotes an entire chapter to the uncertainty of budget projections. CBO warns Congress that there is only a 10 percent chance that the surpluses will materialize as projected by saying: ``Considerable uncertainty surrounds those projections.'' This is because CBO cannot predict what legislation Congress might pass that would alter federal spending and revenues. In addition, CBO says--and anyone whose watched the volatility of our markets over the past few months knows--that the U.S. economy and federal budget are highly complex and are affected by many factors that are difficult to predict. With all of this uncertainty in projecting future surpluses, it is amazing to me that the budget resolution insists on a fixed $1.35 trillion tax cut. I was one of five Senators still in the Senate who voted against the Reagan tax plan in 1981. We saw what happened there: We had a huge tax cut, defense spending boomed, and the national debt quadrupled. The conference report includes the full $1.5 billion increase in budget authority ($32.4 billion total) for essential Department of Justice programs to help state and local law enforcement programs contained in the Leahy/Harkin amendment that unanimously passed the Senate. However it reduces the outlays increase to $1.1 billion ($31.8 billion total) in FY 2002. The conference report also waters down the Sense of the Senate language to drop all references to specific grant programs that are targeted for cuts by the President. I cosponsored and supported a successful, bipartisan amendment in the Senate to increase funding for agriculture conservation programs on private lands by $1.3 billion. This funding was to support nationally- successful programs like the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program--programs that truly help farmers and ranchers keep their working lands and that help private landowners enhance their communities' water quality, open space, and wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, though communities all over the nation have asked Congress for help to protect and restore water quality and open space, Republican negotiators chose to strike funds for our amendment in the final conference report. The conference report also ignores communities' cries for cleaner energy and energy conservation--especially communities in the Northeast who breathe the downwind fumes of 1960's-era, dirty energy production further west. By following the Bush plan to significantly cut funding for the Department of Energy's conservation, energy efficiency, and clean energy programs, the Republican negotiators continue to ignore the 21st century energy needs of our people. During consideration of the budget resolution in the Senate, I joined many of my colleagues in supporting amendments to increase funding for education programs. Despite the passage of these important amendments, this budget resolution conference report ignores the Senate's actions and does not provide sufficient funds for our students, teachers and schools. This conference report contains no increase for K-12 or higher education discretionary spending. Mandatory spending for education and training is essentially the same as the House-passed resolution and therefore reflects none of the Senate's bipartisan actions. The conference report rejects the Harkin education amendment that provided increased funds for so many important education programs. It rejects the Jeffords/Breaux amendment, which increased funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act--fulfilling the Federal government's responsibility. This conference report also fails to accommodate the Hagel-Harkin amendment--adopted unanimously by the Senate to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--without additional cuts to student loan programs. At a time when the Senate is debating reauthorization of ESEA and considering a significant change to our education system, it makes no sense to me that we reduce education funds as is the case in this conference report. If we really want to leave no child behind, then we must acknowledge that we have a financial responsibility to support our children's education. This conference report fails to do that. The conference report includes a $1 billion increase in discretionary veterans health spending. That increase barely covers inflation in the Department of Veterans Affairs' current programs, let alone provides the department flexibility to increase the availability and quality of care. I am also concerned that this budget squeezes this money out of critical veterans health research programs, leaving investigations into spinal injuries and war wounds at inadequate levels. This conference report also drops a provision passed by the Senate that would have allowed military retirees to receive their full VA disability and retiree pay earned during their lifelong service. Once again, the other side has made it a priority to top-off the bulging piggy-banks of the wealthy with change pilfered from the fixed income checks of those who have sacrificed for our country. Mr. President, after years of hard choices, we have balanced the budget and started building surpluses. Now we must make responsible choices for the future. Our top four priorities should be paying off the national debt, passing a fair and responsible tax cut, saving Social Security, and creating a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. This budget falls far short of these priorities. For the sake of our economy and the working families of America, I will vote against this budget resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and consent on the President's nominations. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously. While I believe the President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when selecting the senior members of his team, the Senate is not a rubber stamp, and there are times where a careful review leads one to the conclusion that a nomination must be opposed. President Bush has made some excellent choices for several of the top foreign policy positions in his administration--from Colin Powell for Secretary of State to Howard Baker for Ambassador to Japan. But the nomination of Mr. Bolton is not one of those choices. I will oppose the nomination of John Bolton for the position of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, because I have serious concerns about Mr. Bolton's experience, his diplomatic temperament, and his record. Before proceeding further, it should be stated that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a double standard in the Senate's treatment of President Bush's nominees and those of President Clinton. During the Clinton administration, nominations often languished for months--and in some cases years--before the Senate, without ever coming to the floor for a vote. However, when Democrats object to a Bush administration nomination, Republicans cry foul and accuse Democrats of not playing by the rules. This double standard is evident with this nomination. President Clinton's choice for Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security was John Holum. After being confirmed by the Senate by voice vote, Mr. Holum served as Director for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, ACDA, for 6 years. When ACDA was going to be folded into the State Department, President Clinton made a sound decision to nominate Mr. Holum to be the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Despite his qualifications, a few Republicans blocked John Holum's nomination for nearly 2 years, successfully preventing a vote. This stands in stark contrast to President Bush's selection for the very same position. The nomination of Mr. Bolton--who unlike Mr. Holum is not well qualified for this position--is being voted on by the full Senate after just 2 months. The first reason that I oppose this nomination is because Mr. Bolton does not have the requisite experience for the job. I am aware that he has some solid foreign policy credentials, previously serving on the Commission on International Religious Freedom, as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, and as Assistant Administrator of USAID for Program and Policy Coordination. But John Bolton has been nominated for the senior position at the State Department responsible for supervising and managing complicated negotiations for arms control and nonproliferation issues. In these areas, his experience is seriously deficient. This is no time to learn on the job. We are confronted by a complex and rapidly changing security environment, which will require sensitive diplomatic negotiations and consultations on a wide range of international security matters with our friends, allies, and adversaries. We need someone in this position with long experience and a proven track record on these issues--which Mr. Bolton does not have. Second, as Senator Biden appropriately pointed out at Mr. Bolton's confirmation hearing, Mr. Bolton lacks the diplomatic temperament for this job. He is prone to making confusing statements and using inflammatory rhetoric against those with whom he does not agree. He once stated that ``Republicans are adults on foreign policy questions, and we define what we're willing to do militarily and politically by what is in the best interests of the United States.'' What does this mean? Do Democrats not act in the best interests of the United States? Are Democrats like Lee Hamilton, Sam Nunn, and James Sasser not adults on foreign policy? It is a ludicrous and offensive statement. On another occasion, Mr. Bolton attacked those who were concerned about the defeat of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, CTBT. Some were worried that the Senate's decision to vote down a major international security pact for the first time since the Treaty of Versailles could signal a turn toward isolationism. Mr. Bolton's response was that these reactions were ``indications of a profoundly misguided and potentially dangerous philosophy in American foreign policy'' and that people who held this view were ``timid and neo- pacifist.'' Again, is being vigilant about the possibility of American isolationism, something that contributed to the Second World War, timid or neo-pacifist? What is a neo-pacifist, anyway? And with respect to the International Criminal Court, ICC, Mr. Bolton said that ``[s]upport for the International Criminal Court concept is based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an international judicial system unsupported by any meaningful evidence and running contrary to sound principles of international crisis resolution.'' Why was the decision to sign the Treaty, and join 139 other nations including 17 of our NATO allies, emotional? Is it not rational to conclude that signing the Treaty enables us to maintain the maximum influence over the ongoing negotiations and obtain additional concessions in the process? These are representative of statements from Mr. Bolton that are confusing, inaccurate and inflammatory. While those of us in politics are used to this sort of thing, effective international diplomacy is not conducted in this manner. It is not the kind of temperament that we need from our most senior arms control official at the State Department. I am also deeply concerned about Mr. Bolton's record on arms control and nonproliferation agreements and his views on international law. Although he has supported some security treaties in the past, he is philosophically opposed to most of the treaties that comprise the foundation of the international nonproliferation regime. He once said that the CTBT and other treaties are ``unenforceable'' and provide ``illusionary protections.'' Moreover, he argued that ``[w]hile treaties may well be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not `law' as we apprehend them.'' In fact, the principle that treaties and other forms of international law are binding is widely accepted. Whether trading with other nations or insisting on the right to traverse international water or airspace, we rely on treaties and international agreements to protect our interests. It is true that treaties and other agreements are just one part of international security. Nevertheless, they are an extremely important part. Mr. Bolton's statements make me seriously question his commitment to this aspect of our security, and I do not want to confirm an individual with this record to a position that is responsible, in part, for advancing U.S. interests by upholding and promoting international nonproliferation agreements. Finally, I would note that the timing of the vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination could not be worse. From Kyoto to missile defense, the Bush administration has made a number of unilateral decisions that have caused great concern among our allies in Europe and Asia. And, there are reports that more could be on the way--such as ``unsigning'' the ICC Treaty. I firmly believe that confirming someone to this important position who has limited experience on these issues, lacks the diplomatic temperament for the job, and has, at best, a mixed record of supporting international arms control agreements, sends yet another negative signal to our friends and allies. We need a person in this important position who will help craft a bipartisan foreign policy and work with our friends and allies to make America more secure. Mr. Bolton is not that person, and I will vote ``no'' on his nomination. Mr. President, I recognize that Mr. Bolton will receive sufficient votes to become our next Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I hope that the fact that he was only reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee by a margin of one vote, and that several senior Senators with expertise and many years of experience in arms control opposed his nomination, will cause him to reflect on the way he has approached these issues in the past. This is a position of great responsibility. He should use it to demonstrate that he can work constructively and respectfully with people, whether they agree or disagree with him, to help advance the interests of this nation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week I had the pleasure of attending the raising of the old Jones Brothers granite shed in Barre, Vermont. This historic wooden building built in 1895 will be raised four feet off the ground for several months while a new foundation is poured and the building is secured. Once one of the largest granite manufacturing plants in the world, this building will soon be home to the Vermont Granite Museum, a tribute to one of Vermont's oldest and proudest industries. As the grandson of a stonecutter I cannot think of a better way to honor this heritage than a world class museum and learning center in the heart of Vermont. I would like to share with my colleagues the comments of my fellow Vermonters, Edwin Granai and Marsha Davis, who spoke eloquently of this building, its history and what the museum will mean to our state. I ask consent that the statements of Edwin Granai and Marcia Davis be printed in the Record. The statements follow: Remarks of Edwin Granai ``In Italia,'' my grandmother used to say, ``Una volta un portiere sempre un portiere (Once a porter always a porter).'' At the beginning of the last century in Italy those born into poverty lived a life of poverty. The rigid class structure of the monarchy would prevail in Italy for another half century. My grandparents did not have a half century to wait, so they came America, the ``Promised Land.'' My grandfather emigrated from the quarries of Carrara, Italy, to the quarries of Barre, Vermont to find work and above all opportunity. The Promised Land did not materialize for him. His earnings never rose above subsistence level and he lost his health at mid-life. He died in his forties with empty pockets and dust- filled lungs. My father, after completing the fourth grade at Brook Street School, went to work at the age of ten years in 1907 in this very building to help support his family. In time America did become the Promised Land for my father and for his children, of which I am one. But my grandfather died as he came, poor. Other immigrants made it in the first generation. Last Fall I stayed an extra day in Washington to visit the recently completed National Cathedral. It is one of the world's great churches. Roger Marigi was the Master Carver for a quarter century during the completion years. His grandfather came to Barre at the same time mine did. Marigi says: ``My grandfather came to America from Italy in 1890 . . . He went to Barre, Vermont, because all the Italian stone carvers were up there. That's where you got your job . . . You went up to Barre because that's where the work was. Granite. You stayed there and learned . . .'' The work was here because we have Barre Gray, the durable and aesthetically pleasing stone that adorns memorials, buildings, and plazas throughout the world. And we had the skilled quarriers, artisans and sculptors to extract and shape that stone. They came from Italy, Scotland, Sweden, England, Spain, France, Canada, and around the world to Barre. The work is still here for the same reasons. We have a 4500-year supply of Barre Gray. And we still have the finest quarriers, manufacturers, artisans and sculptors shaping that stone. Sculptors from all over America and around the world come to Barre today to learn from and work with Barre stone artisans. These assets--the stone and skilled workers--are like the foundation we dedicate today. This foundation is the starting point for the restoration of this historic building. Our granite and our skilled workers are both out heritage and the starting point for the renewal of Barre's granite industry. At the beginning of this new century we live in a very different world from that of our fathers. The citizens of Barre City and Barre Town recognized this when they gathered in 1994 to brainstorm their vision for the future. They saw the challenge of the global marketplace. They recognized that in today's world economy our granite industry is in fierce competition with lesser quality stone and inferior artistry. In the vision of the Vermont Granite Museum they recognized the value of combining and displaying the wisdom of the past with a modern learning environment that will create a dynamic marketing force for the industry. The educational programs of the museum will invigorate the worldwide learning connection. The tourist benefit, 90,000 people per year, will infuse six million dollars annually into the central Vermont economy. More importantly together they will create a new level of awareness for the beauty, function and utility of Barre Gray in all its uses, and a new level of appreciation for stone finishing and carving as both art and vocation. This is an ambitious project and it is happening thanks in large part to everyone here assembled. I grew up in Barre and maintain strong family and community ties. I have never seen such a strong focus and wide spread support for a community project. The scale requires it. I had never been in this building until I toured it with Marcia a year and a half ago. I came to see what we were starting with and to imagine what it could become. I was not prepared for what happened to me within minutes of my entry. Suddenly and unexpectedly I was keenly aware of the ghost of my deceased father working here as a child and young man. His presence was so real it penetrated my heart and threatened my composure. It took my breath away. And, when I got my breath, I then thought of my grandfather and said a silent prayer of thanks to Coriolano for his courage to leave his homeland to come to America. I will never forget that moment. It profoundly deepened my connection to my heritage here in Barre, to my father and grandfather through the work that they did and the sacrifices they made. It connected me in a new way to their courage and spirit, and in so doing strengthened my determination to put my shoulder to this project. The pay-off of this project began for me on that day when the rehabilitation of this building had barely begun. I can only imagine the impact of the finished museum. If I seem enthused about this project it is because I am. And my enthusiasm increases each step of the way. As we dedicate this foundation of what is to be a world class museum and learning center we are half way to our twelve million-dollar goal. That is remarkable. But just as remarkable is the energy that has emerged around this project. It is the kind of energy that will create a new prosperity for this community and region. The glass is half full--enough to toast the courage and fortitude of our ancestors and to say with certainty to our heirs that the future of Barre is as solid as the rock--Barre Gray--upon which it is build.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally turning its attention to retroactively renewing Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects family farmers and helps them prevent foreclosures and forced auctions of their farms. Unfortunately, many family farmers have been left in legal limbo in bankruptcy courts across the country since Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code expired on July 1, 2000. Last year, the House of Representatives passed narrow legislation to retroactively renew Chapter 12, but that legislation died in the Senate. I worked to adopt the House-passed bill last year to renew Chapter 12, along with a number of Democratic Senators, but the Senate Majority Leader never scheduled a vote on the bill. This year, Representative Nick Smith and Representative Tammy Baldwin introduced H.R. 256 to retroactively renew Chapter 12. Thanks to their bipartisan efforts the House passed the bill on February 28 by a vote of 408-2. I commend them for their leadership in securing House passage of this legislation. Earlier this month, Representative Smith and Representative Baldwin wrote to me about trying to secure quick Senate passage of H.R. 256. I agreed that the Senate should act immediately to renew Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code and send their legislation to the President for his signature into law. I am glad the Majority Leader is finally taking up our request to take up and pass H.R. 256. During the debate earlier this year on comprehensive changes to the bankruptcy system, some proponents of the controversial reform bill claimed that it must be passed to restore Chapter 12 to the Bankruptcy Code. I hope today's action to pass a stand alone Chapter 12 bill will make it clear to all that the Senate does not have to pass a mammoth bankruptcy reform bill to provide family farmers with bankruptcy protection. I also hope today's action will put an end to any efforts to use Chapter 12 as leverage to enact controversial bankruptcy reform legislation. Our family farmers deserve better. I strongly support H.R. 256 to retroactively give our family farmers bankruptcy protection if they fall on hard times. It is past time for Congress to retroactively renew Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a safety net for our nation's family farmers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the beginning of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year to focus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims. I am pleased to take this opportunity to introduce legislation with my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and our cosponsors, Senators Feingold, Murray, Johnson, Schumer and Harkin. Our bill, the Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001, represents the next step in our continuing efforts to afford dignity and recognition to victims of crime. My involvement with crime victims began more than three decades ago when I served as State's Attorney in Chittenden County, VT, and witnessed first-hand the devastation of crime. I have worked ever since to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the rights and dignity of victims of crime, rather than one that presents additional ordeals for those already victimized. I am proud that Congress has been a significant part of the solution to provide victims with greater rights and assistance. Over the past two decades, Congress has passed several bills to this end. These bills have included: the Victims Witness Protection Act of 1982; the Victims of Crime Act of 1984; the Victims' Bill of Rights of 1990; the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990; the Violence Against Women Act of 1994; the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996; the Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997; the Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998; and the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. The legislation that we introduce today, the Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001, builds upon this progress. It provides for comprehensive reform of the Federal law to establish enhanced rights and protections for victims of Federal crime. Among other things, our bill provides crime victims with the right to consult with the prosecution prior to detention hearings and the entry of plea agreements, and generally requires the courts to give greater consideration to the views and interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice process. Responding to concerns raised by victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, the bill provides standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert the right of the victim to attend and observe the trial. Assuring that victims are provided their statutorily guaranteed rights is a critical concern for all those involved in the administration of justice. Our bill would establish an administrative authority in the Department of Justice to receive and investigate victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of Justice employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination of employment. In addition to these improvements to the Federal system, the bill proposes several programs to help States provide better assistance for victims of State crimes. These programs would improve compliance with State victim's rights laws, promote the development of state-of-the-art notification systems to keep victims informed of case developments and important dates on a timely and efficient basis, and encourage further experimentation with the community-based restorative justice model in the juvenile court setting. Finally, the Crime Victims Assistance Act would make several significant amendments to the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, and improve the manner in which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved. Most significantly, the bill would eliminate the cap on VOCA spending, which has prevented more than $700 million in Fund deposits from reaching victims and supporting essential services. Congress has capped spending from the Fund for the last two fiscal years, and President Bush has proposed a third cap for fiscal year 2002. These limits on VOCA spending have created a growing sense of confusion and unease by many of those concerned about the future of the Fund. We should not be imposing artificial caps on VOCA spending while substantial unmet needs continue to exist. The Crime Victims Assistance Act replaces the cap with a formulaic approach, which would ensure stability and protection of Fund assets, while allowing more money to go out to the States for victim compensation and assistance. These are all matters that can be considered and enacted this year with a simple majority of both Houses of Congress. They need not overcome the delay and higher standards necessitated by proposing to amend the Constitution. They need not wait the hammering out of implementing legislation before making a difference in the lives of crime victims. The Judiciary Committee has held several hearings over the last five years on a proposed constitutional amendment regarding crime victims. Unfortunately, the Committee has devoted not a minute to consideration of legislative initiatives like the Crime Victims Assistance Act, which Senator Kennedy and I first introduced in the 105th Congress, to assist crime victims and better protect their rights. Like many other deserving initiatives, it has taken a back seat to the constitutional amendment debate that continues. I regret that we have not done more for victims this year, or during the last few years. I have on several occasions noted my concern that we not dissipate the progress we could be making by focusing exclusively on efforts to amend the Constitution. Regretfully, I must note that the pace of victims legislation has slowed noticeably and many opportunities for progress have been squandered. One notable exception was the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, which included a Leahy-Feinstein amendment dealing with support for victims of international terrorism. Senator Feinstein cares deeply about the rights of victims, and I am pleased that we could work together on some practical, pragmatic improvements to our federal crime victims' laws. I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, victims groups, prosecutors, judges and other interested parties on how we can most effectively enhance the rights of victims of crime. Congress and State legislatures have become more sensitive to crime victims rights over the past 20 years and we have a golden opportunity to make additional, significant progress this year to provide the greater voice and rights that crime victims deserve. I would like to acknowledge several individuals and organizations that have been extremely helpful with regards to the legislation that we are introducing today: Dan Eddy, National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards; Steve Derene, Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of Crime Victims Services; Susan Howley, National Center for Victims of Crime; and John Stein, National Organization for Victim Assistance. I would also like to thank Kathryn M. Turman, the Acting Director for the Office for Victims of Crime, and Heather Cartwright and Carolyn Hightower of that office, for their work on this project. While we have greatly improved our crime victims assistance programs and made advances in recognizing crime victims rights, we still have more to do. That is why it is my hope that Democrats and Republicans, supporters and opponents of a constitutional amendment on this issue, will join in advancing this important legislation through Congress. We can make a difference in the lives of crime victims right now, and I hope Congress will make it a top priority and pass the Crime Victims Assistance Act before the end of the year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the beginning of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year to focus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims. I am pleased to take this opportunity to introduce legislation with my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and our cosponsors, Senators Feingold, Murray, Johnson, Schumer and Harkin. Our bill, the Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001, represents the next step in our continuing efforts to afford dignity and recognition to victims of crime. My involvement with crime victims began more than three decades ago when I served as State's Attorney in Chittenden County, VT, and witnessed first-hand the devastation of crime. I have worked ever since to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the rights and dignity of victims of crime, rather than one that presents additional ordeals for those already victimized. I am proud that Congress has been a significant part of the solution to provide victims with greater rights and assistance. Over the past two decades, Congress has passed several bills to this end. These bills have included: the Victims Witness Protection Act of 1982; the Victims of Crime Act of 1984; the Victims' Bill of Rights of 1990; the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990; the Violence Against Women Act of 1994; the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996; the Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997; the Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998; and the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. The legislation that we introduce today, the Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001, builds upon this progress. It provides for comprehensive reform of the Federal law to establish enhanced rights and protections for victims of Federal crime. Among other things, our bill provides crime victims with the right to consult with the prosecution prior to detention hearings and the entry of plea agreements, and generally requires the courts to give greater consideration to the views and interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice process. Responding to concerns raised by victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, the bill provides standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert the right of the victim to attend and observe the trial. Assuring that victims are provided their statutorily guaranteed rights is a critical concern for all those involved in the administration of justice. Our bill would establish an administrative authority in the Department of Justice to receive and investigate victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of Justice employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination of employment. In addition to these improvements to the Federal system, the bill proposes several programs to help States provide better assistance for victims of State crimes. These programs would improve compliance with State victim's rights laws, promote the development of state-of-the-art notification systems to keep victims informed of case developments and important dates on a timely and efficient basis, and encourage further experimentation with the community-based restorative justice model in the juvenile court setting. Finally, the Crime Victims Assistance Act would make several significant amendments to the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, and improve the manner in which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved. Most significantly, the bill would eliminate the cap on VOCA spending, which has prevented more than $700 million in Fund deposits from reaching victims and supporting essential services. Congress has capped spending from the Fund for the last two fiscal years, and President Bush has proposed a third cap for fiscal year 2002. These limits on VOCA spending have created a growing sense of confusion and unease by many of those concerned about the future of the Fund. We should not be imposing artificial caps on VOCA spending while substantial unmet needs continue to exist. The Crime Victims Assistance Act replaces the cap with a formulaic approach, which would ensure stability and protection of Fund assets, while allowing more money to go out to the States for victim compensation and assistance. These are all matters that can be considered and enacted this year with a simple majority of both Houses of Congress. They need not overcome the delay and higher standards necessitated by proposing to amend the Constitution. They need not wait the hammering out of implementing legislation before making a difference in the lives of crime victims. The Judiciary Committee has held several hearings over the last five years on a proposed constitutional amendment regarding crime victims. Unfortunately, the Committee has devoted not a minute to consideration of legislative initiatives like the Crime Victims Assistance Act, which Senator Kennedy and I first introduced in the 105th Congress, to assist crime victims and better protect their rights. Like many other deserving initiatives, it has taken a back seat to the constitutional amendment debate that continues. I regret that we have not done more for victims this year, or during the last few years. I have on several occasions noted my concern that we not dissipate the progress we could be making by focusing exclusively on efforts to amend the Constitution. Regretfully, I must note that the pace of victims legislation has slowed noticeably and many opportunities for progress have been squandered. One notable exception was the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, which included a Leahy-Feinstein amendment dealing with support for victims of international terrorism. Senator Feinstein cares deeply about the rights of victims, and I am pleased that we could work together on some practical, pragmatic improvements to our federal crime victims' laws. I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, victims groups, prosecutors, judges and other interested parties on how we can most effectively enhance the rights of victims of crime. Congress and State legislatures have become more sensitive to crime victims rights over the past 20 years and we have a golden opportunity to make additional, significant progress this year to provide the greater voice and rights that crime victims deserve. I would like to acknowledge several individuals and organizations that have been extremely helpful with regards to the legislation that we are introducing today: Dan Eddy, National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards; Steve Derene, Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of Crime Victims Services; Susan Howley, National Center for Victims of Crime; and John Stein, National Organization for Victim Assistance. I would also like to thank Kathryn M. Turman, the Acting Director for the Office for Victims of Crime, and Heather Cartwright and Carolyn Hightower of that office, for their work on this project. While we have greatly improved our crime victims assistance programs and made advances in recognizing crime victims rights, we still have more to do. That is why it is my hope that Democrats and Republicans, supporters and opponents of a constitutional amendment on this issue, will join in advancing this important legislation through Congress. We can make a difference in the lives of crime victims right now, and I hope Congress will make it a top priority and pass the Crime Victims Assistance Act before the end of the year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself to provide an increase of $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2002 for Department of Justice programs for State and local law enforcement assistance. Our amendment pays for these additional funds for our State and local crime-fighting partners from the surplus funds in the budget resolution's contingency reserve. Senator Harkin and I are concerned that the Senate is being called upon this week to vote on the Federal budget without having seen a detailed submission of where the Bush Administration may propose cuts in law enforcement programs. I, for one, would hate to see cuts in our federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. Those programs to help acquire bulletproof vests, reduce DNA backlogs, encourage modern communications, provide modern crime labs, and place cops on the beat have been so helpful to our crime control efforts. Under Attorney General Reno, and due in part to her emphasis on a coordinated effort with State and local law enforcement, crime rates fell in each of the past 8 years. Violent crimes, including murder and rape, have been reduced to the lowest levels in decades, since before the Reagan Administration. In fact, the national rate of violent crime is at its lowest level since 1978. We need to redouble our efforts, not cut them short or leave them short of funds. Unfortunately, President Bush's budget highlights in his ``Blueprint for New Beginnings'' appears to call for cutting federal assistance to State and local law enforcement by 30 percent--by ``redirecting'' $1.5 billion in Department of Justice programs for state and local law enforcement assistance. This is quite troubling. In addition, this budget resolution cuts $7.5 billion in Department of Justice funding over the next 5 years when compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline. Over the next 10 years, this budget resolution cuts $19 billion in Department of Justice funding when compared to the CBO baseline. Why does this budget resolution cut funding for the Department of Justice? With school shootings continuing across the country and the use of heroin, methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs in rural and urban settings, now is not the time to be ``redirecting'' $1.5 million away from federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. Now is not the time to be pulling back from the strong national commitment we should be making to continue to assist those on the front lines in the fight against crime and battle over illegal drug use. The success in reducing serious crime and violent crime across the nation is due in large part to the crime-fighting partnership between the Department of Justice and state and local law enforcement agencies, which benefits from Department of Justice state and local law enforcement assistance. We should all remember the bipartisan success stories that make up the Department of Justice's state and local law enforcement assistance programs. For example, last year, Congress appropriated $60 million to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for grants to Boys and Girls Clubs across the nation within the Department of Justice's programs for state and local law enforcement assistance. In Vermont and every other state in the nation, Boys and Girls Clubs are a great and growing success in preventing crime and supporting our children. In FY 2001, Congress appropriated $523 million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program within the Department of Justice's programs for state and local law enforcement assistance programs. Republicans and Democrats support this essential block grant for law enforcement equipment and other needs for state and local police departments. The Department of Justice's programs for state and local law enforcement assistance include the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. Senator Campbell and I authored the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act in 1998. In its first two years of operation, this program funded more than 325,000 new bulletproof vests for our nation's police officers, including more than 536 vests for Vermont law enforcement officers. In FY 2001, Congress appropriated $569 million for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Assistance Program for Byrne discretionary and formula grants within the Department of Justice's programs for state and local law enforcement assistance programs. In Vermont, the Department of Public Safety receives about $2 million in Byrne grant funding a year to maintain the Vermont Drug Task Force to combat heroin and other illegal drugs. Byrne grants fund drug task forces in many other states as well. The Department of Justice's programs for state and local law enforcement assistance also include such proven crime-fighting and drug-prevention programs as the Violent Offender Incarceration Prison Grant Program; Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Prison Grant Program; Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program; COPS Program; Violence Against Women Act; Crime Identification Technology Act; and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Programs. Moreover, this year's budget request for Department of Justice state and local law enforcement assistance should include new bipartisan crime-fighting programs that Congress passed last year. In 2000, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate and House passed the Computer Crime Enforcement Act, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act and the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act. These Department of Justice programs are needed to support our nation's police officers. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the Leahy-Harkin amendment to increase funding by $1.5 billion for the 2002 fiscal year for the Department of Justice programs for state and local law enforcement assistance. I yield to my friend from Iowa.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, I call up amendment 238.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am today introducing a simple, yet forceful, bill designed to address a growing problem among school children. I am tired of major soft drink companies trying to take school lunch money away from children. It is one thing for the school bully to take lunch money from school kids, it is another for Coca-Cola or Pepsi to take it. In some areas, school scoreboards and school uniforms are now plastered with soda ads under exclusive contracts with vending machines all over the place. According to a report issued by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, 20 years ago boys consumed more than twice as much milk as soda, and girls 50 percent more; now boys and girls consume twice as much soft drink as they do milk. I had a huge battle with Coca-Cola in 1994 when they tried to derail my child nutrition bill--``The Better Nutrition and Health for Children Act'' because I wanted schools to know they had the right to ban soda vending machines if they chose. That 1994 controversy began when Coca-Cola sent out letters to school authorities around the country misrepresenting my bill. They were resorting to scare tactics instead of honest debate. The letter sent by Coca-Cola made numerous false allegations including that soft drinks are USDA-approved. That was not, and is still not true. The controversy now is over exclusive contracts with soda manufacturers so they get to blanket schools with soda vending machines and signs advertising their products. Also, in some schools sodas are actually being given away to children during lunch. For schools participating in the national school lunch program I want the vending machines turned off during lunch on all school grounds--it is that simple. During lunch, I do not want sodas sold to school children by the school. And the Secretary of Agriculture should carefully consider, based on sound nutritional science, whether to turn off the soda vending machines and stop soft drink sales before lunch. You don't have to be a scientist to know that eating habits learned in childhood translate into a longer and healthier life. Leaving the vending machines on during lunch sets a bad example, and tempts children to spend their lunch money. Soft drinks are a $60 billion a year industry. The fancy commercials and big-time advertising rake in huge profits for the soda manufacturers. Children don't vote, children don't hand out large sums of PAC money, children don't hire expensive lobbyists. But I have always put the welfare of children ahead of corporate profits, and I always will. Coca-Cola recently announced that they will encourage other soda manufacturers to stop the practice of negotiating exclusive soda contracts with schools. That does not solve the program. The issue is not which company is selling the sodas, but whether the sodas should be sold at all, before and during lunch. Doing away with exclusive contracts could just mean more soda vending machines in schools. This is not the way for schools to raise money. My bill would ban the sale of soda and ``pure-sugar'' candies such as cotton candy, gum balls, licorice, and the like, to school children in school during the lunch period and during breakfast. It would also prohibit the practice in some schools of giving away soda during lunch. For the period after breakfast and before lunch, the bill would mandate that the Secretary of Agriculture take into account the nutritional health of children and design a rule based on ``sound nutritional science'' that could ban the sale (or donation) of sodas and similar high-sugar foods, throughout school property or on some portions of school property. The bill would permit the Secretary to leave the current approach intact--which would allow such sales if the school wanted. In this nutritional health analysis, the Secretary would have to consider what foods, such as milk or juices, are most likely to be displaced by the consumption of sodas before and during lunch. The Secretary would also have to weigh the low nutritional value of sodas as compared to soda substitutes such as juice or milk. A recent study published in The Lancet concluded that for each glass of sugar-sweetened drink consumed by a child, their risk of becoming obese increased 1.6 times. It was also recently reported that soda consumption negatively impacts the ability of a child to meet their daily requirements for calcium, vitamin A, and magnesium. Variations in the amount of calcium consumed during childhood can result in decreased bone mass which may lead to a 50 percent greater risk of hip fracture in later years. I recently heard from one of my constituents on this issue while Jenny Dorman is only in 6th grade, she has a great deal of wisdom for her age. Her letter gets right to the point on this important issue of how soda consumption impacts health. I ask unanimous consent that her letter be included in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the last Congress I introduced a bill, S. 2993, with Senator Kohl to give the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, and the Department of Justice, DOJ, the ability to effectively enforce antitrust laws concerning contract and payment arrangements between drug companies which could hurt consumers. Unfortunately, no action was taken on that Leahy-Kohl bill, and the newspapers are now full of articles about allegations that Shering- Plough paid $90 million to generic drug manufacturers to delay sales of a low-cost generic drug taken by heart patients. While these allegations have yet to be resolved for those particular companies, this story highlights the need to pass legislation to prevent this type of problem from happening in the future. If Dante were writing The Inferno today, he might well have reserved a special place for those who engage in these anti-consumer conspiracies. The Federal Trade Commission deserves credit for exposing this problem, during last Congress and this Congress. Under the bill we are introducing today, companies are required to give the FTC and the Justice Department the information they need to prevent manufacturers of patented drugs--often brand-name drugs--from simply paying generic drug companies to keep lower-cost products off the market. These deals which prevent competition hurt senior citizens, hurt families, and cheat healthcare providers. These pharmaceutical giants and their generic partners then share the profits gained from cheating American families. The companies have been able to get away with this by signing secret deals with each other not to compete. Our bill, the ``Drug Competition Act of 2001'', will expose these deals and subject them to immediate investigation and appropriate action by the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department. This solves the most difficult problem faced by federal investigators: finding out about the improper deals. This bill does not change the so-called Hatch-Waxman Act, it does not amend FDA law, and it does not slow down the drug approval process. It allows existing antitrust laws to be enforced by ensuring that the enforcement agencies have information about no-compete deals. The same confidentiality requirements will still apply to the FTC and to DOJ, as under current law. The issue of making deals which prevent competition was addressed in a New York Times editorial titled, ``Driving Up Drug Prices,'' published on July 26, 2000. The editorial noted that even though the FTC ``is taking aggressive action to curb the practice. It needs help from Congress to close loopholes in federal law.'' This bill is that help, and the bill slams the door shut on would-be violators by exposing the deals to our competition enforcement agencies. Under current law, manufacturers of generic drugs are encouraged to challenge weak or invalid patents on brand-name drugs so that consumers can enjoy lower generic drug prices. Current law grants these generic companies a temporary protection from competition to the first manufacturer that gets permission to sell a generic drug before the patent on the brand-name drug expires. This approach then gives the generic drug manufacturer a 180-day head start on other generic companies. That was a good idea. The unfortunate loophole that has been open to exploitation is the fact that secret deals can be made that allow the manufacturer of the generic drug to claim the 180-day grace period, to block other generic drugs from entering the market, while, at the same time, getting paid by the brand-name manufacturer for not selling the lower-cost generic drug. The bill we are introducing today will shut this loophole down for companies who want to cheat the public, but keeps the system the same for companies engaged in true competition with each other. This bill would give the FTC or the Justice Department the information they need to take quick and decisive action against companies driven more by greed than by good sense. It is important for Congress not to overreact to these outrages by throwing out the good with the bad. Most generic companies want to take advantage of this 180-day provision and deliver quality generic drugs at much lower costs for consumers. We should not eliminate the incentive for them to do that. Instead, we should let the FTC and DOJ look at every single deal that could lead to abuse so that only the deals that are consistent with the intent of that law will be allowed to stand. We look forward to suggestions from other Members on this matter and from brand-name and generic manufacturers who will work with us to make sure this loophole is closed. . We are pleased that Congressman Waxman will introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working with him and with the other cosponsors in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the Drug Competition Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I must oppose this budget because it is an irresponsible gamble with our economic future. This resolution sets aside trillions of projected budget surpluses for tax cuts proposed by President Bush that are steeply tilted to the wealthy. It pays for the Bush tax plan at the expense of needed investments in Social Security, Medicare, education, law enforcement and the environment. In addition, the cost of the Bush tax plan imperils our ability to pay off the national debt so that this nation can finally be debt free by the end of the decade. We should remember that the nation still carries the burden of a national debt of $3.4 trillion. Like someone who had finally paid off his or her credit card balance but still has a home mortgage, the federal government has finally balanced its annual budget, but we still have a national debt to pay off. In the meantime, the Federal government has to pay almost $900 million in interest every working day on this national debt. Paying off our national debt will help to sustain our sound economy by keeping interest rates low. Vermonters gain ground with lower mortgage costs, car payments and credit card charges with low interest rates. In addition, small business owners in Vermont can invest, expand and create jobs with low interest rates. I want to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren of a debt-free nation by 2010. We can achieve that legacy if the Congress maintains its fiscal discipline. But this budget resolution tosses out fiscal responsibility for voodoo economics. It is based on a house of cards made up of rosy budget scenarios for the next ten years. Any downturn in the economy, are of which we are now beginning to experience, threatens to topple this house of cards. The $5.6 trillion surplus that President Bush and others are counting on to pay for huge tax cuts tilted toward the wealthiest one percent is based on mere projections over the next decade. It is not real. Many in Congress have been talking about the $5.6 trillion surplus as if it is already money in the United States Treasury. It is not. Let us take a close look at this $5.6 trillion. When you subtract the portion of the projected surplus that is expected to come from Social Security, we are left with $3.1 trillion over ten years. When you set the Medicare surpluses to the side, and use more realistic assumptions about taxes and spending over the next several years, that reduces the available surplus to $2.0 trillion. Under this scenario, the President's proposed tax cut of $1.6 trillion therefore has the potential to wipe out the entire surplus in one fell swoop. And that's IF the budget surplus projections are accurate. While none of us hope that the budget surpluses are lower than we expect, to be responsible we need to understand that this is a real possibility. In its budget and economic outlook released on January 1st, CBO devotes an entire chapter to the uncertainty of budget projections. CBO says that ``considerable uncertainty surrounds those projections.'' This is because CBO cannot predict what legislation Congress might pass that would alter federal spending and revenues. In addition, CBO says--and anyone who watched the volatility of our markets over the past few weeks knows--that the U.S. economy and federal budget are highly complex and are affected by many factors that are difficult to predict. In their economic outlook CBO warns Congress that there is only a 10 percent chance that the surpluses will materialize as projected. When CBO takes its own track record on forecasting surpluses, they caution that the projected surpluses over the next five years may be off in one direction or the other, on average, by about $52 billion in 2001, $120 billion in 2002, and $412 billion in 2006. Remember, that data is only for five-year projections. CBO has been making 10-year projections for less than a decade, so they admit it is not yet possible to assess their accuracy. But 10-year projections are likely to be even less accurate than five-year projections. For 2001 alone, there is considerable uncertainty about the size of the budget surplus. In January, CBO estimated that the total surplus in 2001 would reach $281 billion. Earlier in this month, however, Merrill Lynch dropped its estimate to $250 billion. Wells Capital Management, an arm of Wells Fargo, estimates a $225 billion surplus this year and a $185 billion surplus next year, 40 percent lower than the CBO's estimate for 2002. With all of this uncertainty in projecting future surpluses, it is amazing to me that the budget resolution insists on a fixed $1.2 trillion in tax cut. And the tax cuts proposed by President Bush may cost much more than $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Let us take a closer look at these proposed tax cuts. The President's tax plan, by focusing only on income tax rate reductions, leaves out millions of taxpayers who do not pay federal income taxes but who do pay payroll taxes. In Vermont, there are 23,000 families who do not pay federal income taxes. But 82 percent of those families do pay payroll taxes. For the vast majority of taxpayers, payroll taxes generate the largest tax burden, and yet the President's plan does not touch payroll taxes. With all of the uncertainty in these projections, Congress should tread very carefully when considering the size of the tax cut. While rosy surplus projections may have been accurate yesterday, we need to pay attention to circumstances today. Even Goldilocks could tell you that porridge that's just right one day, may be too cold a few days later. Congress needs to recognize that the surplus projections are not set in stone, that it is not only possible, but even likely that the projections will change and that the surpluses themselves will differ from those projections. I was one of five Senators who are still in the Senate who voted against the Reagan tax plan in 1981. We saw what happened there--we had a huge tax cut, defense spending increased, and the national debt quadrupled. I am concerned about enacting a huge tax cut before fulfilling our current unfunded federal mandates. The President's budget outline proposed up to a 30 percent cut in grants to state an local law enforcement. I've written a letter to the President and the Department of Justice, along with 17 other Senators, opposing those cuts. I am pleased that my amendment restoring $1.5 billion to fully fund the Department of Justice's local law enforcement programs was accepted. I supported an amendment to increase funding for private lands agriculture conservation programs by $1.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2002, including the Farmland Protection Program and EQIP--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. I know there is a need for five to ten times this amount for these programs. I supported several education amendments. These included amendments to increase the Pell Grant for student financial aid and increased support for the TRIO program, a successful initiative that provides support to first generation college students, particularly those from rural areas. However, the current budget proposal does not commit sufficient funds in this area. I was pleased to join my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, in an effort to fully fund the federal government's portion of IDEA costs. The President's budget proposes a $1 billion increase in discretionary veterans health spending. Such a meager increase barely covers inflation in the Department of Veterans Affairs' current programs, let alone provides the department flexibility to increase the availability and quality of care. I am also concerned that this budget squeezes this money out of critical veterans health research programs, leaving investigations into spinal injuries and war wounds at inadequate levels. After years of hard choices, we have balanced the budget and started building surpluses. Now we must make responsible choices for the future. Our top four priorities should be paying off the national debt, passing a fair and responsible tax cut, saving Social Security, and creating a real Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? I understood we were going to have votes at 9:30?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, to enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions, while erasing an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. This is the same bill I introduced last year with my colleagues Senator Bennett and Senator Lieberman. I would like to thank them for their leadership in this area and also to thank Senators Dodd, Cochran, Lincoln, Reid, and Domenici for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. In a nutshell, our bill would allow artists, writers and composers who donate works to museums and libraries to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the work. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. If we as a nation want to ensure that art works created by living artists are available to the public in the future, for study or for pleasure, it is something that artists should be allowed to do as well. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper, ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists and it hurts museums and libraries, large and small, that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has gazed at a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. The sharp decline in donations to the Library of Congress clearly illustrates this point. Until 1969, the Library of Congress received 15 to 20 large gifts of manuscripts from authors each year. In the four years following the elimination of the deduction, the library received only one such gift. Instead, many of these works have been sold to private collectors, and are no longer available to the general public. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. This loss was an unintended consequence of the tax bill that should now be corrected. More than 30 years ago, Congress changed the law for artists in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. Under this legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions, would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/ collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel. In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institutions must also certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes. It could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the donee's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works, or related activities. This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that our bill would cost $48 million over 10 years. This is a moderate price to pay for our education and the preservation of our cultural heritage. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill could, and I believe would, make a critical difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party, where it may become lost to the public forever. I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the Association of Art Museum Directors, The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, the Theatre Communications Group, Inc., and the Whitney Museum of American Art in support of this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, to enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions, while erasing an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. This is the same bill I introduced last year with my colleagues Senator Bennett and Senator Lieberman. I would like to thank them for their leadership in this area and also to thank Senators Dodd, Cochran, Lincoln, Reid, and Domenici for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. In a nutshell, our bill would allow artists, writers and composers who donate works to museums and libraries to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the work. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. If we as a nation want to ensure that art works created by living artists are available to the public in the future, for study or for pleasure, it is something that artists should be allowed to do as well. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper, ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists and it hurts museums and libraries, large and small, that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has gazed at a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. The sharp decline in donations to the Library of Congress clearly illustrates this point. Until 1969, the Library of Congress received 15 to 20 large gifts of manuscripts from authors each year. In the four years following the elimination of the deduction, the library received only one such gift. Instead, many of these works have been sold to private collectors, and are no longer available to the general public. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. This loss was an unintended consequence of the tax bill that should now be corrected. More than 30 years ago, Congress changed the law for artists in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. Under this legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions, would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/ collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel. In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institutions must also certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes. It could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the donee's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works, or related activities. This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that our bill would cost $48 million over 10 years. This is a moderate price to pay for our education and the preservation of our cultural heritage. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill could, and I believe would, make a critical difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party, where it may become lost to the public forever. I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the Association of Art Museum Directors, The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, the Theatre Communications Group, Inc., and the Whitney Museum of American Art in support of this bill.