Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma. Amendment No. 6 Withdrawn

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma and I be recognized for a total of 6 minutes evenly divided.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and I worked together to advance both of these amendments in a bipartisan way. We worked together during the last year, and we are working together again this year. Our amendment closes a gap in our Public Safety Officers Benefits Act for emergency service providers by extending Federal benefits to emergency service providers who die or are disabled in the line of duty and who work for private, nonprofit emergency services organizations. A tragedy in Vermont 2 years ago highlighted this issue. First responder Dale Long from Bennington, VT, was Bennington Rescue Squad's 2008 EMT of the Year and a 2009 recipient of the American Ambulance Association's Star of Life Award. Shortly after that ceremony, he was killed in the line of duty. Given the private, nonprofit status of his ambulance service, he is ineligible for Federal death benefits. The Judiciary Committee--all Republicans, all Democrats--unanimously approved this legislation last Congress. The Leahy-Inhofe amendment is fully paid through an included offset. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and I have talked about this. He comes from a part of the country where people have to fly to rescue. We drive to rescue. We are much smaller. They fly. Either way, we ought to be doing something to protect the people who are out there trying to rescue or aid people in distress. I am proud to join with Senator Inhofe, and I hope at some appropriate time the amendment, as now amended, will be accepted.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield back any time remaining.

Mr. LEAHY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will consider, and I anticipate confirm, 3 of President Obama's nominations to fill judicial vacancies on Federal district courts in Arkansas, Oregon, and Texas. All 3 of the nominations--P.K. Holmes to the Western District of Arkansas, Judge Diana Saldana to the Southern District of Texas, and Judge Marco Hernandez to the District of Oregon--will fill judicial emergency vacancies. Given the serious need on those courts, and the qualifications of these nominees, there is no reason they could not have been confirmed when they were nominated and reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last Congress. There is every reason for the Senate to act promptly now that President Obama has renominated them, the Judiciary Committee has reconsidered them, and they have again been reported to the Senate unanimously. I am hopeful that our actions today signal a return to regular order in the consideration of nominations without unexplained and damaging delays. I am hopeful that this signals a return to cooperation to confront a judicial vacancies crisis that has put at serious risk the ability of all Americans to find equal access to a fair hearing in court. Chief Justice Roberts commented on this in his most recent statement on the judiciary. The White House counsel recently spoke to the crisis. The President wrote us last year urging action. The real costs of these unnecessary partisan delays fall on Americans who depend on the courts. Last September, President Obama wrote that these delays in Senate consideration of judicial nominees are ``undermining the ability of our courts to deliver justice to those in need . . . from working mothers seeking timely compensation for their employment discrimination claims to communities hoping for swift punishment for perpetrators of crimes to small business owners seeking protection from unfair and anticompetitive practices.'' The President was, and still is, right. The Attorney General warned us last year that ``the system on which we all depend for a prompt and fair hearing of our cases when we need to call on the law--is stressed to the breaking point.'' The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, a group of career Federal prosecutors likewise wrote to us, stating that, ``Our federal courts cannot function effectively when judicial vacancies restrain the ability to render swift and sure justice.'' As we consider these nominations today, there are still more than 100 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. Unlike the progress we made during President Bush's first 2 years in office when the Senate confirmed 100 judges and sharply reduced judicial vacancies, during the first 2 years of President Obama's term, we were only allowed to consider 60 judicial nominations. Despite vacancies for nearly 1 out of every 8 Federal judgeships, last year the Senate adjourned without voting on 19 judicial nominations favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. The 3 judges we will confirm today were among those 19. They could and should have been confirmed last year. The Senate must do better. We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. This President has reached across the aisle to work with home State Republican Senators. His nominees, like the nominees from Texas and Arkansas before us today, are supported by their home State Republican Senators. They are not controversial. They tend to be superbly qualified nominees with a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. The 3 nominees before us today, the 11 judicial nominees voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously last week, and the 4 other judicial nominations that will be considered on February 17 are all nominees who were nominated last Congress and considered and approved by the Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support. With judicial vacancies now at 104, nearly half of them judicial emergency vacancies, the Nation cannot afford further delays by the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court. This is unacceptable. In order for the Senate to ensure that the courts are functioning at full capacity, we must restore regular order. A return to regular order would mean that nominations sent by the Judiciary Committee to the Senate should be considered expeditiously, not stalled interminably. Noncontroversial nominations should be taken up and approved on a regular basis. They should not be stalled for weeks and months for no good reason. We must return to the Senate's longstanding practice of quickly considering well-qualified consensus judicial nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee. Senators should not stall noncontroversial nominees. We should not have months and months of damaging delays for no good reason on virtually every judicial nomination. If Senators want to debate a nomination, we should have one. But then we should vote. Nominations that do have opposition should be taken up on a regular basis for debate, with cloture votes if necessary, so that all nominations can be acted upon in a reasonable amount of time. The Senate must move beyond the petty partisanship that has resulted in this vacancy crisis. I thank Senator Grassley, the Judiciary Committee's new ranking member, for his cooperation in helping us to report 11 of the previously reported judicial nominations last week, and for working with me to schedule our first confirmation hearing of the new Congress. I look forward to continuing to work with him, with Majority Leader Reid and with Republican Leader McConnell to schedule votes on the many other nominees reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee so that we can ensure that the Federal judiciary has the judges and resources it needs to provide justice to Americans in courts throughout the country. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee during 17 months of President Bush's first 2 years in office with a Democratic majority, we favorably reported 100 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. All 100 were confirmed. I continued to work hard to make progress considering President Bush's circuit and district court nominations as ranking member during the President Bush's 3rd and 4th years in office when Senator Hatch was the committee chairman, and the Senate confirmed another 105. That should be our benchmark. By the end of this Congress, we should consider and confirm 205 Federal judges, just as we did during President Bush's first term. That is how we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels at which they have remained throughout these first 2 years of the Obama administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end of the Bush administration. With the three confirmations today our total will stand at 63. Overall, judicial vacancies were reduced during the Bush administration from more than 10 percent to less than 4 percent. During the Bush administration, the Federal court vacancies were reduced from 110 to 34 and Federal circuit court vacancies were reduced from a high of 32 down to single digits. Regrettably, this progress has not continued with a Democratic President in office. Instead, the minority has allowed votes on only 60 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees, judicial vacancies have skyrocketed and remain over 100 and over 10 percent. Today the Senate considers 3 of President Obama's qualified nominees. President Obama nominated Paul K. Holmes, III, last April to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Mr. Holmes is currently Of Counsel at the Fort Smith, AR, law firm where he formerly worked for more than two decades as an associate and a partner. Previously, he was the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. As U.S. Attorney, Holmes served for 2 years on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee. Mr. Holmes earned the highest possible rating--unanimously well qualified--from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, and his nomination has now garnered the support of 3 Arkansas Senators, Senators Pryor and Lincoln last Congress, and also Senator Boozman. I thank the Senators from Arkansas for working with us. I am pleased that Mr. Holmes will be confirmed without further delay. President Obama nominated Diana Saldana last July to fill an emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Texas, the district she has served as a magistrate judge since 2006. Before taking the bench, Judge Saldana served the Southern District for 5 years as a Federal prosecutor, and she previously was a lawyer in private practice and a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The child of migrant farmworkers, Judge Saldana began working alongside her family in the sugar beet fields at age 10, and she continued to do so for more than a decade. After graduating from law school, she served as a law clerk to then-Chief Judge George P. Kazen. If confirmed, Judge Saldana will fill the vacancy created by Judge Kazen's retirement. Judge Saldana earned the highest possible rating-- unanimously well qualified--from the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. She has the support of her two Republican home State Senators. Senator Cornyn called her ``one of the toughest law enforcers in South Texas,'' and Senator Hutchison added that Judge Saldana ``has some of the finest qualities we expect in our judges.'' Her nomination has twice been reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. I am pleased she will be confirmed without further delay. Marco A. Hernandez was nominated last July to fill an emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. He has served as a State judge in Oregon for the last 15 years, first on the district court and now as a circuit court judge. Previously, Judge Hernandez was a deputy district attorney in Washington County, OR, and a lawyer for Oregon Legal Services. Judge Hernandez has the support of his two home State Senators, and he has now been nominated to this position by Presidents of both parties. If confirmed, he will become the first Latino to serve as a Federal judge in Oregon. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last Congress and again this Congress. It was ironic that after Senator Sessions made quite a fuss that Judge Hernandez had not been considered and confirmed when nominated at the very end of the Bush administration, the Senator then proceeded to delay committee consideration of his nomination last year and then Republican objections prevented Senate action last year. I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley for their consistent support for Judge Hernandez's nomination and am pleased that he will be confirmed without further delay. I have often said that the 100 of us in the Senate stand in the shoes of over 300 million Americans. We owe it to them to do our constitutional duty of voting on the President's nominations to be Federal judges. We owe it to them to make sure that hard-working Americans are able to have their cases heard in our Federal courts. All three branches of the Federal Government come together when the Senate considers a President's nomination to a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. The Senate has a constitutional duty to act responsibly to consider the President's nominees and to confirm members of the Judiciary. Most importantly, the Senate has a responsibility to the American people to help ensure that Federal judges are there to protect their rights and administer justice. I mentioned that one of the nominees is Judge Diana Saldana to the Southern District of Texas. I see my good friends, both the Senators from Texas, are here, one of whom I have the privilege to serve with on the Senate Judiciary Committee and one of whom I have the privilege to serve with in the Senate. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is there time for the Senator form Arkansas if he wants it? I request 2 minutes equally divided on the Arkansas nomination, and I yield my time to the senior Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the 112th Congress began just 1 month ago, with both sides of the political aisle voicing a renewed commitment to cooperation. It is not hard to understand why I am disappointed that at the first opportunity, Senate Republicans have chosen to manipulate the open amendment process. The Senate minority is demanding a vote on an amendment to repeal the health care reform law in its entirety--an issue totally unrelated to the bill we are considering, the FAA Transportation Modernization Safety Improvement Act, which creates jobs, makes airline travel safer and more efficient, and offers consumers a `passenger bill of rights.' The Senate's vote today follows the carefully staged show vote a few weeks ago by the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives. The American people have the right to know what a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act really means. Repeal of this law would take away the rights of millions of patients and would eliminate insurance coverage for millions more, from the aging and elderly, to men and women with preexisting conditions, to the most vulnerable children. When you boil away the rhetoric, the only alternative offered to the American people by advocates of repeal is: Don't get sick. This amendment would turn back the clock to a time when, once again, women would have to pay more for health insurance than men, insurance companies could rescind a health insurance policy because someone gets sick, and coverage could forever be denied to someone born with a disease or ailment. In Vermont, repeal would mean nearly 2,000 young adults would no longer have coverage through their parents' insurance plans, more than 5,000 Vermont seniors would see an increase in the price of their prescriptions, and 350,000 Vermonters with private insurance could have lifetime limits slapped on how much insurance companies will spend on their health care. Some in Congress want to drain federal spending on domestic programs while looking the other way in supporting a repeal amendment that will accelerate the health cost spiral and add to our ballooning deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that repeal of the Affordable Care Act would boost the federal debt and deficits by $230 billion. The economic turmoil would reach beyond the overall costs of repeal by removing vital antifraud provisions I have long advocated that have helped the Obama administration recover billions of taxpayer dollars. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would remove these fiscal safeguards and reopen the floodgates to insurance discrimination, by putting insurance companies back in charge. Opponents of the Affordable Care Act have gone to new lengths to repeat and prolong this political battle. Not only do they want to replay a 2-year long debate on a law that was enacted by a decisive majority, but some opponents are also replaying the debate in the courts. These political opponents seek to achieve in the courts what they could not in Congress. They want judges to override legislative decisions properly assigned by the Constitution to Congress, the elected representatives of the American people. Today, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the constitutionality of the historic Affordable Care Act. A dozen federal courts have dismissed challenges to the law. Another four courts have heard arguments about its constitutionality; two have upheld the law as constitutional, and two have not. Legal challenges to the law are expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. As I concluded during the debate on the Affordable Care Act, I have no doubt that Congress acted well within the bounds of its constitutional authority in working to secure affordable health care for all Americans through this plan that is based on the long established health insurance marketplace. The testimony we heard today from constitutional scholars makes clear that the language and spirit of the Constitution provides for such a response to a clearly established national need, as do judicial precedent and prior acts of Congress that also protect hardworking Americans in the national health care market and promote the general welfare. The Senate should not be spending its valuable time relitigating a law that has already helped millions of Americans and will help millions more as the law is fully implemented. The American people rightly expect us to work together and make progress on so many challenges that we face today. I will not support a return to less protection, less coverage, less fairness and higher costs. The Affordable Care Act extended health insurance to millions of families in Vermont and across the country. Those who represent the American people in Congress should stand ready to get to work for their constituents. This is not a time to cobble back together a broken system that has burdened most American households with health coverage uncertainty and crippling costs.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2011. The Justice for All Act, passed in 2004, was unprecedented, bipartisan criminal justice legislation. It was Congress's most significant step forward in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country and to improve public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. After several hearings and much work, with this legislation we continue the process of building on that foundation to go still further in making sure our criminal justice system works fairly and effectively for all Americans. Senator Klobuchar, Senator Franken, and Senator Harkin join me today as original cosponsors of this important bill, and I thank them for their ongoing support. I also appreciate the involvement of Senators on the other side of the political aisle, including Senators Sessions and Grassley, who have participated in the development of this bill and provided valuable input. I am confident that this bill will pass with bipartisan support, as the original Justice for All Act did, and I look forward to working with Senators from both parties to reach that goal. In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which aimed to improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong. The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act. The act also included vital provisions to ensure that crime victims have the rights and protections they need and deserve and that States and communities take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and ensure prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform. The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them. In too many communities around the country, large numbers of untested rape kits have been found, many of which have not even made their way to crime labs. It is unacceptable that rape victims must still live in fear and wait for justice. We must act to fix this continuing problem. The original Justice for All Act included the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Program, which authorized significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith, who lived in fear for years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others need not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause. Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to States for the testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. I have worked with Senators of both parties to ensure full funding for the Debbie Smith Act each year. As I have researched this problem of untested rape kits, there is one thing that I have heard again and again: the Debbie Smith program has been working and is making a major difference. I have heard from the Justice Department, States including my home State of Vermont, law enforcement, and victims' advocates that Debbie Smith grants have led to significant and meaningful backlog reduction, and to justice for victims, in jurisdictions across the country. Unfortunately, despite the good strides we have made and the significant Federal funding for backlog reduction, we have seen alarming reports of continuing backlogs. A study in 2008 found 12,500 untested rape kits in the Los Angeles area alone, and while Los Angeles has since made progress in addressing the problem, other cities have now reported backlogs almost as severe. In 2009, the Justice Department released a report finding that in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape cases, evidence had not even been submitted to a crime lab. That Justice Department study gets to a key component of this problem that has not yet been addressed. No matter how much money we send to crime labs for testing, if samples that could help make cases instead sit on the shelf in police evidence rooms and never make it to the lab, that money will do no good. Police officers must understand the importance of testing this vital evidence and must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. In too many jurisdictions rape kits taken from victims who put themselves through further hardship to take these samples--rape kits that could help law enforcement to get criminals off the street--are sitting untested. The bill we introduce today will finally address this part of the problem by mandating that the Department of Justice develop practices and protocols for the processing of DNA evidence and provide technical assistance to State and local governments to implement those protocols. The bill authorizes funding to States and communities to reduce their rape kit backlogs at the law enforcement stage by training officers, improving practices, developing evidence tracking systems, and taking other key steps to make sure that this crucial evidence gets to the labs to be tested. The bill will also help us get to the bottom of this problem by calling for the development of a standardized definition of ``backlog'' covering both the law enforcement and lab stages and by implementing public reporting requirements to help us to identify where the backlogs are. It also takes steps to ensure that labs test DNA samples in the best order so that those samples which can help secure justice for rape victims are tested most quickly. It will also put into place new accountability requirements to make sure that Debbie Smith Act money is being spent effectively and appropriately. The bill makes important changes to existing law to ensure that no rape victims are ever required to pay for testing of their rape kits and that these costs are covered with no strings attached. Senator Franken has been a strong advocate of this important provision, and I thank him for his help. In the years since the Justice for All Act passed, we have also seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail, and we have faced the harrowing possibility that the unthinkable may have happened: the State of Texas may have executed an innocent man. We must act to ensure that our criminal justice system works as it should so that relevant evidence is tested and considered and all defendants receive quality representation. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act takes important new steps to ensure that defendants in serious cases receive adequate representation and, where appropriate, testing of relevant DNA samples. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women of law enforcement, and I know that the vast majority of the time our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know though that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel, and when all relevant evidence is retained and tested. Sadly, we learn regularly of defendants released after new evidence exonerates them. We must do better. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and it is doubly an outrage that, in those cases, the guilty person remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes, which makes all of us less safe. This legislation takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the constitution. This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. Prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize the importance of quality defense counsel. It was persuasive to me when Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified before the Judiciary Committee that it helps her do her job as a prosecutor when there are competent defense attorneys. I have also learned through this process that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money. This legislation will also help ensure that the innocent are not punished while the guilty remain free by strengthening Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence. This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and the Committee has heard strong testimony that the program is making an impact. The legislation we introduce today expands the very modest authorization of funds to this important program and clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are required to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more States to participate. The bill also asks States to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. I appreciate Senator Sessions' longstanding support for this important program. Finally, the legislation strengthens rights for victims of crime. It gives crime victims an affirmative right to be informed of all of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert their legal rights in court. I thank Senators Feinstein and Kyl for their leadership in this area and their assistance in developing these provisions. In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements without increasing total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term. I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve. Numerous organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National District Attorneys' Association have expressed strong support for this bill. Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2011. The Justice for All Act, passed in 2004, was unprecedented, bipartisan criminal justice legislation. It was Congress's most significant step forward in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country and to improve public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. After several hearings and much work, with this legislation we continue the process of building on that foundation to go still further in making sure our criminal justice system works fairly and effectively for all Americans. Senator Klobuchar, Senator Franken, and Senator Harkin join me today as original cosponsors of this important bill, and I thank them for their ongoing support. I also appreciate the involvement of Senators on the other side of the political aisle, including Senators Sessions and Grassley, who have participated in the development of this bill and provided valuable input. I am confident that this bill will pass with bipartisan support, as the original Justice for All Act did, and I look forward to working with Senators from both parties to reach that goal. In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which aimed to improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong. The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act. The act also included vital provisions to ensure that crime victims have the rights and protections they need and deserve and that States and communities take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and ensure prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform. The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them. In too many communities around the country, large numbers of untested rape kits have been found, many of which have not even made their way to crime labs. It is unacceptable that rape victims must still live in fear and wait for justice. We must act to fix this continuing problem. The original Justice for All Act included the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Program, which authorized significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith, who lived in fear for years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others need not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause. Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to States for the testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. I have worked with Senators of both parties to ensure full funding for the Debbie Smith Act each year. As I have researched this problem of untested rape kits, there is one thing that I have heard again and again: the Debbie Smith program has been working and is making a major difference. I have heard from the Justice Department, States including my home State of Vermont, law enforcement, and victims' advocates that Debbie Smith grants have led to significant and meaningful backlog reduction, and to justice for victims, in jurisdictions across the country. Unfortunately, despite the good strides we have made and the significant Federal funding for backlog reduction, we have seen alarming reports of continuing backlogs. A study in 2008 found 12,500 untested rape kits in the Los Angeles area alone, and while Los Angeles has since made progress in addressing the problem, other cities have now reported backlogs almost as severe. In 2009, the Justice Department released a report finding that in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape cases, evidence had not even been submitted to a crime lab. That Justice Department study gets to a key component of this problem that has not yet been addressed. No matter how much money we send to crime labs for testing, if samples that could help make cases instead sit on the shelf in police evidence rooms and never make it to the lab, that money will do no good. Police officers must understand the importance of testing this vital evidence and must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. In too many jurisdictions rape kits taken from victims who put themselves through further hardship to take these samples--rape kits that could help law enforcement to get criminals off the street--are sitting untested. The bill we introduce today will finally address this part of the problem by mandating that the Department of Justice develop practices and protocols for the processing of DNA evidence and provide technical assistance to State and local governments to implement those protocols. The bill authorizes funding to States and communities to reduce their rape kit backlogs at the law enforcement stage by training officers, improving practices, developing evidence tracking systems, and taking other key steps to make sure that this crucial evidence gets to the labs to be tested. The bill will also help us get to the bottom of this problem by calling for the development of a standardized definition of ``backlog'' covering both the law enforcement and lab stages and by implementing public reporting requirements to help us to identify where the backlogs are. It also takes steps to ensure that labs test DNA samples in the best order so that those samples which can help secure justice for rape victims are tested most quickly. It will also put into place new accountability requirements to make sure that Debbie Smith Act money is being spent effectively and appropriately. The bill makes important changes to existing law to ensure that no rape victims are ever required to pay for testing of their rape kits and that these costs are covered with no strings attached. Senator Franken has been a strong advocate of this important provision, and I thank him for his help. In the years since the Justice for All Act passed, we have also seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail, and we have faced the harrowing possibility that the unthinkable may have happened: the State of Texas may have executed an innocent man. We must act to ensure that our criminal justice system works as it should so that relevant evidence is tested and considered and all defendants receive quality representation. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act takes important new steps to ensure that defendants in serious cases receive adequate representation and, where appropriate, testing of relevant DNA samples. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women of law enforcement, and I know that the vast majority of the time our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know though that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel, and when all relevant evidence is retained and tested. Sadly, we learn regularly of defendants released after new evidence exonerates them. We must do better. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and it is doubly an outrage that, in those cases, the guilty person remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes, which makes all of us less safe. This legislation takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the constitution. This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. Prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize the importance of quality defense counsel. It was persuasive to me when Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified before the Judiciary Committee that it helps her do her job as a prosecutor when there are competent defense attorneys. I have also learned through this process that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money. This legislation will also help ensure that the innocent are not punished while the guilty remain free by strengthening Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence. This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and the Committee has heard strong testimony that the program is making an impact. The legislation we introduce today expands the very modest authorization of funds to this important program and clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are required to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more States to participate. The bill also asks States to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. I appreciate Senator Sessions' longstanding support for this important program. Finally, the legislation strengthens rights for victims of crime. It gives crime victims an affirmative right to be informed of all of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert their legal rights in court. I thank Senators Feinstein and Kyl for their leadership in this area and their assistance in developing these provisions. In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements without increasing total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term. I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve. Numerous organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National District Attorneys' Association have expressed strong support for this bill. Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to call the Senate's attention to a small U.S. aid program in Afghanistan that has a big impact, which I suspect few people here know about. Shortly after 9/11 and the U.S. invasion to topple the Taliban, a young Californian woman named Marla Ruzicka traveled alone to Afghanistan where she soon learned about incidents where U.S. bombs had missed their targets and killed civilians. The international press ran stories about those tragedies but nothing was being done to take responsibility for what had happened or help the families of the victims. Marla decided to do something about it, and she organized protests at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, rallied the media, and not long after was in Washington urging Congress to help the families and show that the United States does not turn its back on innocent victims of our own mistakes. It was because of Marla that we started a new program, now known as the Afghan Civilian Assistance Program, ACAP, which is managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development and implemented by the Afghan staff of the International Organization for Migration. Over the past 8 years, ACAP has provided millions of dollars in small grants to families and communities that have suffered losses as a result of the military operations. The funds have been used for such things as to rebuild a house that was damaged or destroyed, buy a herd of sheep, start a small grocery or weaving business, or provide medical care or vocational training. After the invasion of Iraq, Marla moved on to Baghdad and, to make a long story short, again thanks to her advocacy we started a similar program there. Tragically, on April 16, 2005, she too became an innocent victim, and died, along with her Iraqi colleague Faiz Ali Salim, in a car bombing. That program is now known as the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund, and it has helped the families of thousands of innocent Iraqi victims rebuild their lives. Earlier this week I received from USAID some descriptions of recent ACAP assistance to Afghan families. While they describe exceedingly tragic losses of innocent life, they also illustrate the difference a program like this makes and why it is so important to our larger goals in that country. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce legislation to hold criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. This is an issue that received considerable attention last year, and I was pleased that the Congress finally passed comprehensive food safety reforms. But our work is not done. The Food Safety Accountability Act increases the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who violate our food safety laws in those cases where there is conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury. The legislation I propose will allow law enforcement to seek sentences of up to 10 years in jail for those who contaminate our food supply with the intent to mislead or defraud consumers, and endanger Americans. Last year, I introduced similar legislation which received unanimous support from the Senate Judiciary Committee. I hope the Judiciary Committee, and the full Senate, will give it the same consideration this year. I'd like to thank Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken for their ongoing support of the bill. Senator Sessions, Senator Hatch, Senator Coburn, and Senator Grassley had concerns about its breadth, and we were able to work together to address these concerns in the legislation I introduce today. Just last summer, a salmonella outbreak caused hundreds of people to fall ill and triggered a national egg recall. The company responsible for the eggs at the root of this summer's salmonella crisis had a long history of environmental, immigration, labor, and food safety violations. It is clear that fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who intentionally poison the food supply will go to jail. The Food Safety Accountability Act will help to do that in the most egregious cases. Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who violate our food safety laws with the intent to mislead or defraud. Doing so is already illegal, but it is merely a misdemeanor right now, and the Sentencing Commission has found that it generally does not result in jail time. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our children in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business. In the last Congress, a mother from Vermont, Gabrielle Meunier, testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about her seven-year- old son, Christopher, who became severely ill and was hospitalized for six days after he developed salmonella poisoning from peanut crackers. Thankfully, Christopher recovered, but Mrs. Meunier's story highlighted improvements that are needed in our food safety system. No parent should have to go through what she experienced. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe. After hearing Mrs. Meunier's account, I called on the Department of Justice to conduct a criminal investigation into the outbreak of salmonella that made Christopher and many others so sick. These products were linked to the deaths of nine people and have sickened more than 600 others. It appears that the company responsible knew that their peanut products had tested positive for deadly salmonella, but rather than immediately disposing of the products, the company sought ways to sell them anyway. The evidence suggests that the public was misled, and that the company put profit above the public's safety. The Food Safety Accountability Act increases the chances that those who disregard the safety of Americans and commit food safety crimes will face jail time, rather than merely a slap on the wrist, for their criminal conduct. On behalf of the hundreds of individuals sickened by recent salmonella outbreaks, I hope Senators of both parties will act swiftly to pass this bill. We have come a long way, but must continue to be diligent to ensure that our food safety system is strong. The Justice Department must be given the tools it needs to investigate and prosecute crime involving food safety, and we must work together, from farm to fork, to improve the safety of food in this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join privacy advocates, industry leaders and government officials from across our Nation in celebrating Data Privacy Day 2011--a day to raise awareness about data privacy practices and rights. Today, Americans from all walks of life reap the countless benefits of the Internet and the latest technological advances. But, with these many rewards, comes growing uncertainty and unease about how sensitive personal information is collected, shared and stored. In the digital age, our Nation faces the difficult challenge of protecting our computer networks from cyber threats. At the same time, we must encourage American innovation and respect privacy rights. Data Privacy Day provides an important opportunity to remind all Americans about how essential privacy is to our daily lives. This day is also a time for us in Congress to remember the important work that we must complete to better protect digital privacy rights. As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to do my part. This year, I will continue--and hopefully complete--work on bipartisan data privacy legislation that will better protect Americans' sensitive personal data and reduce the risk of data security breaches. The Senate Judiciary Committee has favorably reported my Personal Data Privacy and Security Act three times. We must finish this pressing work during the 112th Congress and finally enact comprehensive data privacy legislation. I will also continue the important work that the Judiciary Committee began during the last Congress to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, so that our digital privacy laws keep pace with the information age. When I first wrote ECPA in the mid-1980s, no one could have imagined the technological advances and threats to digital privacy that we see today. Updating this law to reflect the realities of our time is essential to keeping us safe from cyber threats and critical to ensuring that our Federal privacy laws keep pace with advancing technologies. The year ahead will also present opportunities to study emerging privacy issues, such as the use of full body scanners at our airports and threats to online privacy. The 112th Congress affords all of us in Congress an opportunity to make sure that this universal right to be left alone remains viable in the digital age. I commend the many stakeholders and leaders from across the Nation who are holding events to commemorate Data Privacy Day. I look forward to working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and in both Chambers, on legislation to better protect the privacy rights of all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce legislation to hold criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. This is an issue that received considerable attention last year, and I was pleased that the Congress finally passed comprehensive food safety reforms. But our work is not done. The Food Safety Accountability Act increases the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who violate our food safety laws in those cases where there is conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury. The legislation I propose will allow law enforcement to seek sentences of up to 10 years in jail for those who contaminate our food supply with the intent to mislead or defraud consumers, and endanger Americans. Last year, I introduced similar legislation which received unanimous support from the Senate Judiciary Committee. I hope the Judiciary Committee, and the full Senate, will give it the same consideration this year. I'd like to thank Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken for their ongoing support of the bill. Senator Sessions, Senator Hatch, Senator Coburn, and Senator Grassley had concerns about its breadth, and we were able to work together to address these concerns in the legislation I introduce today. Just last summer, a salmonella outbreak caused hundreds of people to fall ill and triggered a national egg recall. The company responsible for the eggs at the root of this summer's salmonella crisis had a long history of environmental, immigration, labor, and food safety violations. It is clear that fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who intentionally poison the food supply will go to jail. The Food Safety Accountability Act will help to do that in the most egregious cases. Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who violate our food safety laws with the intent to mislead or defraud. Doing so is already illegal, but it is merely a misdemeanor right now, and the Sentencing Commission has found that it generally does not result in jail time. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our children in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business. In the last Congress, a mother from Vermont, Gabrielle Meunier, testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about her seven-year- old son, Christopher, who became severely ill and was hospitalized for six days after he developed salmonella poisoning from peanut crackers. Thankfully, Christopher recovered, but Mrs. Meunier's story highlighted improvements that are needed in our food safety system. No parent should have to go through what she experienced. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe. After hearing Mrs. Meunier's account, I called on the Department of Justice to conduct a criminal investigation into the outbreak of salmonella that made Christopher and many others so sick. These products were linked to the deaths of nine people and have sickened more than 600 others. It appears that the company responsible knew that their peanut products had tested positive for deadly salmonella, but rather than immediately disposing of the products, the company sought ways to sell them anyway. The evidence suggests that the public was misled, and that the company put profit above the public's safety. The Food Safety Accountability Act increases the chances that those who disregard the safety of Americans and commit food safety crimes will face jail time, rather than merely a slap on the wrist, for their criminal conduct. On behalf of the hundreds of individuals sickened by recent salmonella outbreaks, I hope Senators of both parties will act swiftly to pass this bill. We have come a long way, but must continue to be diligent to ensure that our food safety system is strong. The Justice Department must be given the tools it needs to investigate and prosecute crime involving food safety, and we must work together, from farm to fork, to improve the safety of food in this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Congress now faces a deadline to take action on the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. The bill I introduce today, the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011, will preserve law enforcement techniques that are set to expire on February 28, 2011, and extend them to December 2013. This bill will also promote transparency and expand privacy and civil liberties safeguards in current law. It increases judicial oversight of government surveillance powers that capture information on Americans. This is a package of reforms that all Americans should support. In fact, a bipartisan group of Senators on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it in the last Congress. In the 111th Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported virtually identical legislation, S. 1692, with bipartisan support, including the votes of Senators Kyl and Cornyn. Subsequent negotiations produced a package that was endorsed by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. Because Congress did not act on that negotiated package of reforms, but instead passed an extension of the expiring authorities until February 28, 2011, I took steps to see that key portions of the package were implemented administratively by the Department of Justice. Even with this progress, enacting the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 remains imperative for several reasons. First, surveillance authorities are set to expire in a matter of weeks. We should not play politics with national security by delaying debate over these issues until the 11th hour. I am prepared to extend the sunsets on the three expiring provisions to December 2013, the same sunset date I included in S.1692RS, the bill I introduced in the 111th Congress. Earlier this month, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to extend the expiring provisions only until February 2012, an expiration date chosen deliberately to try to force a debate over national security in an election year. My bill sets a longer sunset period, which law enforcement strongly favors. Second, the Senate should pass the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 to codify the steps forward that the Attorney General has taken by implementing parts of the bill administratively. The reforms adopted by this Attorney General could be undone by a future Attorney General with the stroke of a pen. We must ensure that the progress in accountability and transparency that we achieved last year is not lost simply because it was never written into the statute. Third, we must enact the parts of the bill that the Attorney General did not or could not adopt because they require a change in the statute. Chief among these is adding a new sunset on National Security Letters. Second is repealing the presumption in favor of the government that a judge must honor when he or she reviews an application for a section 215 order for business records. The government does not need this presumption. In fact, the Attorney General endorsed the repeal of the presumption when he expressed his support for the bill in the prior Congress. When this bill was considered by the Judiciary Committee in the 111th Congress, it received a bipartisan vote. Members of the committee agreed to continue discussions over a handful of provisions to ensure that the final language promoted transparency, protected civil liberties, and aided law enforcement. I appreciate the votes of Senators Kyl and Cornyn in favor of the reported bill. In the weeks following the 2009 markup, this bipartisan group of Senators worked closely with me and Senator Feinstein to reach an agreement on language that each Senator supported, and that the Department of Justice endorsed. In a letter dated November 9, 2009, the Attorney General strongly endorsed the bill and stated unequivocally that the bill did not pose any operational concerns. That support was reaffirmed in a letter from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to Senate and House leadership on February 19, 2010. The bill I introduce today is virtually identical to the product of those negotiations. It includes only two noncontroversial updates. First, the new bill updates the deadlines by which the Department of Justice must issue public reports. This modification simply reflects the fact that more than 1 year has passed since the original dates were written into the bill. Second, the section of the bill that previously required the Department of Justice to establish minimization procedures for National Security Letters is redrafted to reflect that fact that the Department adopted such procedures in October 2010. Otherwise, this bill is the same in substance as that which was supported by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009. We must move quickly, in advance of the looming deadline, to pass this bipartisan package. We can preserve the authorities currently in place, which give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect national security. And we can ensure that inspectors general, the Congress, and the public maintain vigilant oversight of the government, making sure these authorities are used properly and within Constitutional bounds. I urge all Senators to support the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a hero of mine, Robert Sargent Shriver. He was a man of real courage, extraordinary idealism, committed to serving this country, and a dear friend. As a veteran of World War II, the founding director of the Peace Corps, and the driving force behind Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, Sarge believed in the good things government can do for people. Among his many accomplishments, he gave us the Head Start program, the Job Corps and Legal Services for the Poor, and the Volunteers in Service to America. Later in life he became the U.S. Ambassador to France, and then president of the Special Olympics, an organization founded by his remarkable wife Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Sargent Shriver's impact on American life was profound. Through the many programs he championed, Sarge had a direct and lasting effect on the lives of millions of Americans. He was wholly committed to helping people and to the ideals he believed our country ought to stand for, and he was tireless and unrelenting in his pursuit of those goals. The Peace Corps, one of Sarge's most important and long-lasting accomplishments, enables young Americans to serve their country by building understanding between cultures and working to improve the lives of others in developing countries. Shriver's spirit lives on through the Peace Corps, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the agency fulfills his vision, and the vision of President Kennedy. My friend Bono, a committed advocate in the fight against global poverty, was himself inspired by President Kennedy's call to action and by Sargent Shriver's work to put it into effect. He recently wrote an op-ed which appeared in the New York Times entitled, ``What I Learned From Sargent Shriver.'' In honor of Sarge, I ask unanimous consent that a copy be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Congress now faces a deadline to take action on the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. The bill I introduce today, the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011, will preserve law enforcement techniques that are set to expire on February 28, 2011, and extend them to December 2013. This bill will also promote transparency and expand privacy and civil liberties safeguards in current law. It increases judicial oversight of government surveillance powers that capture information on Americans. This is a package of reforms that all Americans should support. In fact, a bipartisan group of Senators on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it in the last Congress. In the 111th Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported virtually identical legislation, S. 1692, with bipartisan support, including the votes of Senators Kyl and Cornyn. Subsequent negotiations produced a package that was endorsed by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. Because Congress did not act on that negotiated package of reforms, but instead passed an extension of the expiring authorities until February 28, 2011, I took steps to see that key portions of the package were implemented administratively by the Department of Justice. Even with this progress, enacting the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 remains imperative for several reasons. First, surveillance authorities are set to expire in a matter of weeks. We should not play politics with national security by delaying debate over these issues until the 11th hour. I am prepared to extend the sunsets on the three expiring provisions to December 2013, the same sunset date I included in S.1692RS, the bill I introduced in the 111th Congress. Earlier this month, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to extend the expiring provisions only until February 2012, an expiration date chosen deliberately to try to force a debate over national security in an election year. My bill sets a longer sunset period, which law enforcement strongly favors. Second, the Senate should pass the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 to codify the steps forward that the Attorney General has taken by implementing parts of the bill administratively. The reforms adopted by this Attorney General could be undone by a future Attorney General with the stroke of a pen. We must ensure that the progress in accountability and transparency that we achieved last year is not lost simply because it was never written into the statute. Third, we must enact the parts of the bill that the Attorney General did not or could not adopt because they require a change in the statute. Chief among these is adding a new sunset on National Security Letters. Second is repealing the presumption in favor of the government that a judge must honor when he or she reviews an application for a section 215 order for business records. The government does not need this presumption. In fact, the Attorney General endorsed the repeal of the presumption when he expressed his support for the bill in the prior Congress. When this bill was considered by the Judiciary Committee in the 111th Congress, it received a bipartisan vote. Members of the committee agreed to continue discussions over a handful of provisions to ensure that the final language promoted transparency, protected civil liberties, and aided law enforcement. I appreciate the votes of Senators Kyl and Cornyn in favor of the reported bill. In the weeks following the 2009 markup, this bipartisan group of Senators worked closely with me and Senator Feinstein to reach an agreement on language that each Senator supported, and that the Department of Justice endorsed. In a letter dated November 9, 2009, the Attorney General strongly endorsed the bill and stated unequivocally that the bill did not pose any operational concerns. That support was reaffirmed in a letter from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to Senate and House leadership on February 19, 2010. The bill I introduce today is virtually identical to the product of those negotiations. It includes only two noncontroversial updates. First, the new bill updates the deadlines by which the Department of Justice must issue public reports. This modification simply reflects the fact that more than 1 year has passed since the original dates were written into the bill. Second, the section of the bill that previously required the Department of Justice to establish minimization procedures for National Security Letters is redrafted to reflect that fact that the Department adopted such procedures in October 2010. Otherwise, this bill is the same in substance as that which was supported by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009. We must move quickly, in advance of the looming deadline, to pass this bipartisan package. We can preserve the authorities currently in place, which give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect national security. And we can ensure that inspectors general, the Congress, and the public maintain vigilant oversight of the government, making sure these authorities are used properly and within Constitutional bounds. I urge all Senators to support the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to salute Jeffrey R. Immelt for agreeing to chair the President's new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Mr. Immelt knows quite a bit about creating jobs, promoting innovation, and competing in the marketplace. As the chairman and chief executive officer of General Electric, Mr. Immelt has led the company through a major expansion into growth markets overseas and made GE a leader in manufacturing a new generation of environmentally friendly technologies. Now, as we transition from stabilizing our economy to increasing employment and growth, Mr. Immelt's experience leading GE will help him counsel the President through our long-term recovery. Mr. Immelt knows that innovation is the key to America's economic growth. Consequently, GE relies heavily on the U.S. patent system. I have been very happy to work with Mr. Immelt and GE as strong proponents of bipartisan patent reform legislation. I recently met with Mr. Immelt and was impressed by his determination to make GE even more competitive in the future than it has been in the past. He has original ideas on investing in research and development and understands that reviving and updating America's manufacturing economy is critical to creating jobs in this country. I have always been impressed with his commitment to manufacturing in Rutland, VT, where GE Aviation has a major plant. In honor of his willingness to serve in this new capacity, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Mr. Immelt's recent op- ed, ``A blueprint for keeping America competitive.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, once again, at the beginning of a new Congress, Majority Leader Reid has signaled his intent to improve our Nation's immigration system with a plan to transform and modernize our laws to meet the needs of the country. I support the majority leader in this effort, as I have now for several Congresses. The American people recognize that our current immigration system is deeply flawed. It is far too easily exploited by unscrupulous employers and others who seek to profit from the vulnerabilities of those seeking work and a new life. We can and should put an end to the too common abuses and transform our system into an orderly, secure, and efficient way to strengthen our economy and fulfill our humanitarian traditions. We must also confront the situation created by the millions of undocumented people who are living and working in the shadows in the United States--the vast majority of whom are otherwise following our laws and making positive contributions to our economy. We can all agree that we have arrived at a point that is not sustainable, and we must face up to it with a solution that is achievable. As both President Bush and President Obama, along with their Secretaries of Homeland Security, have acknowledged, we cannot simply enforce our way out of a broken immigration system. I agree. We must reject the easy slogans that reduce this highly complex problem to a bumper sticker solution--something the late Senator Ted Kennedy spoke against so passionately. When we talk about the millions of immigrants living and working in the United States as a mass of ``illegals'' to be sent out of the United States, we denigrate their humanity. As a nation, we can agree that we will have no tolerance for those who are out of status and go on to commit crimes. But for those whose only transgression was entering the United States unlawfully in search of a better life for themselves and their families, we should proceed in a manner that is consistent with our best qualities as a humanitarian and compassionate nation. Achieving what the majority leader has proposed will not be easy. We have experienced the difficulty again and again in recent years. I am heartened that the legislation the majority leader introduced includes reference to the DREAM Act and to AgJOBS, both of which I have strongly supported for many years. Even if our progress is incremental, I believe that working on behalf of America's farmers and individuals whose undocumented status is not a result of their own volition is a sound starting place. Among other important goals, the legislation calls on Congress to ``support our national and economic security.'' Along with AgJOBS and the DREAM Act, I hope Senators will also recognize the fundamental unfairness that exists in our immigration laws for gay and lesbian Americans and that this is also an economic issue. I have said many times that no American should be forced to choose between their loved ones and their country. But this is the reality many Americans face, and it is wrong. Due to this false choice, many talented Americans choose to leave their country for nations that treat binational, same- sex couples fairly, often at a cost to their employers and our Nation's economic growth. There are existing immigration programs that Congress should strongly support and improve, such as the EB-5 Regional Center Program, which has a proven record as an engine to promote job creation and capital investment in American communities. With permanence, added efficiencies, and strong oversight, this program can continue to operate as an economically productive part of our overall immigration system. We must also reform our refugee laws to ensure that those in need of protection find safety in the United States. Americans have endured the bitter politics of immigration for far too long. The hurtful rhetoric has obstructed progress and has deepened the divisions on an issue that will require bipartisanship and compromise on all sides. It is my sincere hope that the divisions are not too deep to be repaired and that we can make progress on fixing our struggling system. A rational, economically productive, and humane immigration system should be a cornerstone of our democracy; a source of pride instead of anger, frustration or intolerance. Our history demonstrates that immigration to the United States and the tremendous diversity that has resulted, has set us apart as an example of freedom and unity for the rest of the world. I hope as the 112th Congress begins, we will work together toward a better system for America and all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the United States of America has long been the world leader in invention and innovation. That leadership has propelled our economic growth, but we cannot remain complacent while expecting to stay on top. A Newsweek study last year found that only 41 percent of Americans believe that the United States is staying ahead of China on innovation. A Thompson Reuters analysis has already predicted that China will outpace the United States in patent filings this year. China, in fact, has a specific plan not just to overtake the United States this year in patent applications, but to more than quadruple its patent filings over the next 5 years. That is astonishing, until considering that China has been modernizing its patent laws and promoting innovation while the United States has failed to keep pace. It has now been nearly 60 years since Congress last acted to reform American patent law. We can no longer wait. Today, I am reintroducing bipartisan patent reform legislation that is the culmination of three Congresses worth of bipartisan, bicameral work, including eight hearings in the Senate alone. The Patent Reform Act of 2011 is structured on legislation first introduced in the House by Chairman Smith and Mr. Berman in 2005. The legislation will accomplish three important goals, which have been at the center of the patent reform debate: improve the application process by transitioning to a first-inventor-to-file system; improve the quality of patents issued by the USPTO by introducing several quality-enhancement measures; and provide more certainty in litigation. In many areas that were highly contentious when the patent reform debate began, the courts have stepped in to act. Their decisions reflect the concerns heard in Congress that questionable patents are too easily obtained and too difficult to challenge. The courts have moved the law in a generally positive direction, more closely aligned with the text of the statutes. Most recently, the Federal Circuit aggressively moved to constrain run-away damage awards, which has plagued the patent system by basing awards on unreliable numbers, untethered to the reality of licensing decisions. As the court continues to move in the right direction, it is more apparent than ever that the gatekeeper compromise on damages we have worked to reach with Senator Feinstein and others is what is needed to ensure an award of a reasonable royalty is not artificially inflated or based on irrelevant factors. The courts have addressed issues where they can, but in some areas, only Congress can take the necessary steps. The Patent Reform Act will both speed the application process and, at the same time, improve patent quality. It will provide the USPTO with the resources it needs to work through its application backlog, while also providing for greater input from third parties to improve the quality of patents issued and that remain in effect. High quality patents are the key to our economic growth. They benefit both patent owners and users, who can be more confident in the validity of issued patents. Patents of low quality and dubious validity, by contrast, enable patent trolls and constitute a drag on innovation. Too many dubious patents also unjustly cast doubt on truly high quality patents. The Patent Reform Act provides the tools the USPTO needs to separate the inventive wheat from the chaff. It will allow our inventors and innovators to flourish. The Department of Commerce recently issued a report indicating that these reforms will create jobs without adding to the deficit. The Obama administration supports these efforts, as do industries and stakeholders from all sectors of the patent community. Congressional action can no longer be delayed. Innovation and economic development are not uniquely Democrat or Republican objectives, so we worked together to find the proper balance for America--for our economy, for our inventors, for our consumers. Thomas Freidman wrote not too long ago in The New York Times that the country which ``endows its people with more tools and basic research to invent new goods and services [] is the one that will not just survive but thrive down the road. . . . We might be able to stimulate our way back to stability, but we can only invent our way back to prosperity.'' Reforming our patent system will stimulate the American economy through structural changes, rather than taxpayer dollars. I look forward to working with all Senators and our counterparts in the House, who have also made this a bipartisan priority, to ensure that this is the year we make our patent system reward inventors and provide certainty to users. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friends and neighbors from New England--Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine--to introduce a bill that would allow Vermont and Maine to set the appropriate truck-weight standards on the interstates in their states. For too long, Vermont and Maine have been at a competitive disadvantage while our next-door neighbors in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Quebec have enjoyed the economic benefits that come with higher highway truck weight limits. Due to these restrictions, the heaviest truck traffic in Vermont and Maine must travel over smaller and narrower roadways, creating significant safety concerns for pedestrians and motorists and putting pressure on our already overburdened secondary roads and bridges. That is why Senator Collins and I included language in the 2010 transportation funding bill to implement pilot programs that allowed heavier trucks on interstates in Vermont and Maine for one year and studied the impacts of this policy change on highway safety, bridge and road durability, commerce, truck volumes, and energy use in Vermont. During the past year I have heard from a number of Vermont truckers, business owners, and state and local officials who support extending the pilot program because of the economic and safety benefits they saw when the trucks were on the Interstates. Most importantly, many Vermonters reported a significant reduction of heavy truck traffic in our downtowns and villages. Unfortunately, last month the leadership on the other side of the aisle blocked consideration of an omnibus budget bill that included a provision Senator Collins and I authored to extend the Vermont and Maine truck weight pilot programs for another year. This sudden and senseless reversal of a previous commitment to support the bill led to the end of the Vermont and Maine pilot programs in December. As a result the heaviest trucks in our states have been forced to divert back to secondary roads--and the negative economic impact of these trucks is once again being felt in downtowns and villages throughout Vermont and Maine. I am pleased to join with Senators Collins and Snowe in introducing this bipartisan bill today. It will stop overweight trucks from having to rumble through our historic villages and downtowns, and it will better protect our citizens and our ailing transportation infrastructure. I appreciate the support this legislation has received from the State of Vermont, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont Truck and Bus Association, the Vermont Petroleum Association, the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, and many individual businesses and municipalities throughout Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act of 2011. This legislation is an important first step toward guaranteeing the effectiveness and scientific integrity of forensic evidence used in criminal cases, and in ensuring that Americans can have faith in their criminal justice system. In March of 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its examination of serious issues concerning forensic science, which is at the heart of our criminal justice system. The Committee has studied the problem exhaustively, and has worked with a wide array of experts and stakeholders. The legislation I introduce today is a product of this process. It seeks to strengthen our confidence in the criminal justice system, and the evidence it relies upon, by ensuring that forensic evidence and testimony is accurate, credible, and scientifically grounded. The National Academy of Science published a report in February 2009 asserting that the field of forensic science has significant problems that urgently need to be addressed. The report suggested that basic research establishing the scientific validity of many forensic science disciplines has never been done in a comprehensive way. It suggested that the forensic sciences lack uniform and unassailable standards governing the accreditation of laboratories, the certification of forensic practitioners, and the testing and analysis of evidence. The National Academy of Science's report was an urgent call to action. It has been hailed and widely cited since its release. It has also been criticized by many. I did not view the Academy's report as the final word on this issue, but rather as the starting point for a searching review of the state of forensic science in this country. Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held two hearings on the issue. Committee members and staff spent countless hours talking to prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, judges, forensic practitioners, academic experts, and many, many others to learn as much as we could about what is happening in the forensic sciences and what needs to be done. As this effort has progressed, I have been disturbed to learn about still more cases in which innocent people may have been convicted, and perhaps even executed, in part due to faulty forensic evidence. It is a double tragedy when an innocent person is convicted. An innocent person suffers, and a guilty person remains free, leaving us all less safe. We must do everything we can to avoid that untenable outcome. At the same time, through the course of this inquiry, it has become abundantly clear that the men and women who test and analyze forensic evidence do tremendous work that is vital to our criminal justice system. I remember their important contributions and hard work from my days as a prosecutor, when some of the forensic disciplines we have now did not even exist. Their work is even more important today, and we need to strengthen the field of forensics--and the justice system's confidence in it--so that their hard work can be consistently relied upon, as it should be. It is beyond question that everyone recognizes the need for forensic evidence that is accurate and reliable. Prosecutors and law enforcement officers want evidence that can be relied upon to determine guilt and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Defense attorneys want strong evidence that can be used to exclude innocent people from suspicion. Forensic science practitioners want their work to have as much certainty as possible and to be given deserved deference. All scientists and all attorneys who care about these issues want the science that is admitted as evidence in the courtroom to match the science that is proven through rigorous testing and research in the laboratory. There is also general agreement that the forensic sciences can be improved through strong and unassailable research to test and establish the validity of the forensic disciplines, as well as the application of consistent and regular standards in the field. There is a dire need for well managed and appropriately directed funding for research, development, training, and technical assistance. It is a good investment, as it will lead to fewer trials and appeals, and will reduce crime by ensuring that those who commit serious offenses are promptly captured and convicted. There is also broad consensus that all forensic laboratories should be required to meet rigorous accreditation standards and that forensic practitioners should be required to obtain meaningful certification. The bill I introduce today seeks to address these widely recognized needs. It requires that all forensic science laboratories that receive Federal funding or Federal business be accredited according to rigorous standards. It requires all relevant personnel who perform forensic work for any laboratory or agency that gets Federal money to become certified in their fields, which will mean meeting basic proficiency, education, and training requirements. The bill sets up a rigorous process to determine the most serious needs for research to establish the basic validity of the forensic disciplines, and establishes grant programs to provide for peer- reviewed scientific research to answer fundamental questions and promote innovation. It also sets up a process for this research to lead to appropriate standards and best practices in each discipline. The bill funds research into new technologies and techniques that will allow forensic testing to be done more quickly, more efficiently, and more accurately. I believe these are proposals that will be widely supported by those on all sides of this issue. There have been of course some areas of disagreement, particularly as to who should oversee these vital reforms to the field of forensics. Some have argued that, because the purpose of forensic science is primarily to produce evidence to be used in the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases, it is vital that those regulating and evaluating forensics must have expertise in criminal justice. They have said that at the Federal level, the Department of Justice is the natural place for an office to examine and oversee the forensic sciences and have emphasized the need for forensic science practitioners to have substantial input in evaluating research and standards. Others have argued that, for forensic science to truly engender our trust and confidence, its validity must be established by independent scientific research, and standards must be determined by scientists with no possible conflict of interest. They have argued for protections to ensure independent scientific decision making, as well as the significant involvement of Federal scientific agencies. I find both of these arguments persuasive. I know firsthand the importance of understanding how the criminal justice system works when evaluating the needs and practices in forensic science. I also understand that it is absolutely essential that forensic science be grounded in independent scientific research in order to avoid any question of convictions being based on faulty forensic work. This legislation attempts to address both of these concerns with a hybrid structure that ensures both criminal justice expertise and scientific independence. It establishes an Office of Forensic Science in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General within the Department of Justice. That office will have a Director who will make all final decisions about research priorities, standards, and structure and who will implement and enforce the systems set up by the legislation. It also establishes a Forensic Science Board composed of forensic and academic scientists, prosecutors and defense attorneys, and other key stakeholders. The Board will have a careful balance, and a majority of its members will be scientists. It will recommend all research priorities and standards and other key definitions and structures before the Director of the Office of Forensic Science makes a decision. The bill will include important protections to encourage the Director to defer to the recommendations of the Board and to ensure that he or she explains to Congress and to the public, with opportunities for comment, any decision to disregard the Board's recommendations. The bill also establishes committees of scientists to examine each individual forensic science discipline to determine research needs and standards. It includes protections to ensure that the committees' recommendations receive significant deference, and the committees will be overseen by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, a respected scientific agency. NIST will also implement grant programs for research into the forensic sciences premised on the research priorities established by the Forensic Science Board and the Office of Forensic Science. The National Science Foundation will help to ensure that the grant programs are run properly, with rigorous scientific peer review and without any bias. This bill aims to carefully balance the competing considerations that are so important to getting a review of forensics right. It also capitalizes on existing expertise and structures, rather than calling for the creation of a costly new agency. It seeks to proceed modestly and cost effectively, with ample oversight, checks, and controls. I am committed to exploring ways to use existing resources so that this urgent work will not negatively impact the budget. Ultimately, improvements in the forensic sciences will save money, reduce the number of costly appeals, shorten investigations and trials, and help to eliminate wrongful imprisonments. I understand that sweeping forensic reform and criminal justice reform legislation not only should, but must, be bipartisan. There is no reason for a partisan divide on this issue; fixing this problem does not advance the interests of only prosecutors or defendants, or of Democrats or Republicans, but the interests of justice. I have worked closely with interested Republican Senators on this vital issue. I will continue to work diligently with Senators on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this becomes the consensus bipartisan legislation that it ought to be. I hope many will cosponsor this legislation, and work with me to ensure its passage. I want to thank the forensic science practitioners, experts, advocates, law enforcement personnel, judges, and so many others whose input forms the basis for this legislation. Your passion for this issue and for getting it right gives me confidence that we will work together successfully to make much needed progress. I hope all Senators will join me in advancing this important legislation to bolster confidence in the forensic sciences and the criminal justice system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the United States of America has long been the world leader in invention and innovation. That leadership has propelled our economic growth, but we cannot remain complacent while expecting to stay on top. A Newsweek study last year found that only 41 percent of Americans believe that the United States is staying ahead of China on innovation. A Thompson Reuters analysis has already predicted that China will outpace the United States in patent filings this year. China, in fact, has a specific plan not just to overtake the United States this year in patent applications, but to more than quadruple its patent filings over the next 5 years. That is astonishing, until considering that China has been modernizing its patent laws and promoting innovation while the United States has failed to keep pace. It has now been nearly 60 years since Congress last acted to reform American patent law. We can no longer wait. Today, I am reintroducing bipartisan patent reform legislation that is the culmination of three Congresses worth of bipartisan, bicameral work, including eight hearings in the Senate alone. The Patent Reform Act of 2011 is structured on legislation first introduced in the House by Chairman Smith and Mr. Berman in 2005. The legislation will accomplish three important goals, which have been at the center of the patent reform debate: improve the application process by transitioning to a first-inventor-to-file system; improve the quality of patents issued by the USPTO by introducing several quality-enhancement measures; and provide more certainty in litigation. In many areas that were highly contentious when the patent reform debate began, the courts have stepped in to act. Their decisions reflect the concerns heard in Congress that questionable patents are too easily obtained and too difficult to challenge. The courts have moved the law in a generally positive direction, more closely aligned with the text of the statutes. Most recently, the Federal Circuit aggressively moved to constrain run-away damage awards, which has plagued the patent system by basing awards on unreliable numbers, untethered to the reality of licensing decisions. As the court continues to move in the right direction, it is more apparent than ever that the gatekeeper compromise on damages we have worked to reach with Senator Feinstein and others is what is needed to ensure an award of a reasonable royalty is not artificially inflated or based on irrelevant factors. The courts have addressed issues where they can, but in some areas, only Congress can take the necessary steps. The Patent Reform Act will both speed the application process and, at the same time, improve patent quality. It will provide the USPTO with the resources it needs to work through its application backlog, while also providing for greater input from third parties to improve the quality of patents issued and that remain in effect. High quality patents are the key to our economic growth. They benefit both patent owners and users, who can be more confident in the validity of issued patents. Patents of low quality and dubious validity, by contrast, enable patent trolls and constitute a drag on innovation. Too many dubious patents also unjustly cast doubt on truly high quality patents. The Patent Reform Act provides the tools the USPTO needs to separate the inventive wheat from the chaff. It will allow our inventors and innovators to flourish. The Department of Commerce recently issued a report indicating that these reforms will create jobs without adding to the deficit. The Obama administration supports these efforts, as do industries and stakeholders from all sectors of the patent community. Congressional action can no longer be delayed. Innovation and economic development are not uniquely Democrat or Republican objectives, so we worked together to find the proper balance for America--for our economy, for our inventors, for our consumers. Thomas Freidman wrote not too long ago in The New York Times that the country which ``endows its people with more tools and basic research to invent new goods and services [] is the one that will not just survive but thrive down the road. . . . We might be able to stimulate our way back to stability, but we can only invent our way back to prosperity.'' Reforming our patent system will stimulate the American economy through structural changes, rather than taxpayer dollars. I look forward to working with all Senators and our counterparts in the House, who have also made this a bipartisan priority, to ensure that this is the year we make our patent system reward inventors and provide certainty to users. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friends and neighbors from New England--Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine--to introduce a bill that would allow Vermont and Maine to set the appropriate truck-weight standards on the interstates in their states. For too long, Vermont and Maine have been at a competitive disadvantage while our next-door neighbors in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Quebec have enjoyed the economic benefits that come with higher highway truck weight limits. Due to these restrictions, the heaviest truck traffic in Vermont and Maine must travel over smaller and narrower roadways, creating significant safety concerns for pedestrians and motorists and putting pressure on our already overburdened secondary roads and bridges. That is why Senator Collins and I included language in the 2010 transportation funding bill to implement pilot programs that allowed heavier trucks on interstates in Vermont and Maine for one year and studied the impacts of this policy change on highway safety, bridge and road durability, commerce, truck volumes, and energy use in Vermont. During the past year I have heard from a number of Vermont truckers, business owners, and state and local officials who support extending the pilot program because of the economic and safety benefits they saw when the trucks were on the Interstates. Most importantly, many Vermonters reported a significant reduction of heavy truck traffic in our downtowns and villages. Unfortunately, last month the leadership on the other side of the aisle blocked consideration of an omnibus budget bill that included a provision Senator Collins and I authored to extend the Vermont and Maine truck weight pilot programs for another year. This sudden and senseless reversal of a previous commitment to support the bill led to the end of the Vermont and Maine pilot programs in December. As a result the heaviest trucks in our states have been forced to divert back to secondary roads--and the negative economic impact of these trucks is once again being felt in downtowns and villages throughout Vermont and Maine. I am pleased to join with Senators Collins and Snowe in introducing this bipartisan bill today. It will stop overweight trucks from having to rumble through our historic villages and downtowns, and it will better protect our citizens and our ailing transportation infrastructure. I appreciate the support this legislation has received from the State of Vermont, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont Truck and Bus Association, the Vermont Petroleum Association, the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, and many individual businesses and municipalities throughout Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act of 2011. This legislation is an important first step toward guaranteeing the effectiveness and scientific integrity of forensic evidence used in criminal cases, and in ensuring that Americans can have faith in their criminal justice system. In March of 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its examination of serious issues concerning forensic science, which is at the heart of our criminal justice system. The Committee has studied the problem exhaustively, and has worked with a wide array of experts and stakeholders. The legislation I introduce today is a product of this process. It seeks to strengthen our confidence in the criminal justice system, and the evidence it relies upon, by ensuring that forensic evidence and testimony is accurate, credible, and scientifically grounded. The National Academy of Science published a report in February 2009 asserting that the field of forensic science has significant problems that urgently need to be addressed. The report suggested that basic research establishing the scientific validity of many forensic science disciplines has never been done in a comprehensive way. It suggested that the forensic sciences lack uniform and unassailable standards governing the accreditation of laboratories, the certification of forensic practitioners, and the testing and analysis of evidence. The National Academy of Science's report was an urgent call to action. It has been hailed and widely cited since its release. It has also been criticized by many. I did not view the Academy's report as the final word on this issue, but rather as the starting point for a searching review of the state of forensic science in this country. Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held two hearings on the issue. Committee members and staff spent countless hours talking to prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, judges, forensic practitioners, academic experts, and many, many others to learn as much as we could about what is happening in the forensic sciences and what needs to be done. As this effort has progressed, I have been disturbed to learn about still more cases in which innocent people may have been convicted, and perhaps even executed, in part due to faulty forensic evidence. It is a double tragedy when an innocent person is convicted. An innocent person suffers, and a guilty person remains free, leaving us all less safe. We must do everything we can to avoid that untenable outcome. At the same time, through the course of this inquiry, it has become abundantly clear that the men and women who test and analyze forensic evidence do tremendous work that is vital to our criminal justice system. I remember their important contributions and hard work from my days as a prosecutor, when some of the forensic disciplines we have now did not even exist. Their work is even more important today, and we need to strengthen the field of forensics--and the justice system's confidence in it--so that their hard work can be consistently relied upon, as it should be. It is beyond question that everyone recognizes the need for forensic evidence that is accurate and reliable. Prosecutors and law enforcement officers want evidence that can be relied upon to determine guilt and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Defense attorneys want strong evidence that can be used to exclude innocent people from suspicion. Forensic science practitioners want their work to have as much certainty as possible and to be given deserved deference. All scientists and all attorneys who care about these issues want the science that is admitted as evidence in the courtroom to match the science that is proven through rigorous testing and research in the laboratory. There is also general agreement that the forensic sciences can be improved through strong and unassailable research to test and establish the validity of the forensic disciplines, as well as the application of consistent and regular standards in the field. There is a dire need for well managed and appropriately directed funding for research, development, training, and technical assistance. It is a good investment, as it will lead to fewer trials and appeals, and will reduce crime by ensuring that those who commit serious offenses are promptly captured and convicted. There is also broad consensus that all forensic laboratories should be required to meet rigorous accreditation standards and that forensic practitioners should be required to obtain meaningful certification. The bill I introduce today seeks to address these widely recognized needs. It requires that all forensic science laboratories that receive Federal funding or Federal business be accredited according to rigorous standards. It requires all relevant personnel who perform forensic work for any laboratory or agency that gets Federal money to become certified in their fields, which will mean meeting basic proficiency, education, and training requirements. The bill sets up a rigorous process to determine the most serious needs for research to establish the basic validity of the forensic disciplines, and establishes grant programs to provide for peer- reviewed scientific research to answer fundamental questions and promote innovation. It also sets up a process for this research to lead to appropriate standards and best practices in each discipline. The bill funds research into new technologies and techniques that will allow forensic testing to be done more quickly, more efficiently, and more accurately. I believe these are proposals that will be widely supported by those on all sides of this issue. There have been of course some areas of disagreement, particularly as to who should oversee these vital reforms to the field of forensics. Some have argued that, because the purpose of forensic science is primarily to produce evidence to be used in the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases, it is vital that those regulating and evaluating forensics must have expertise in criminal justice. They have said that at the Federal level, the Department of Justice is the natural place for an office to examine and oversee the forensic sciences and have emphasized the need for forensic science practitioners to have substantial input in evaluating research and standards. Others have argued that, for forensic science to truly engender our trust and confidence, its validity must be established by independent scientific research, and standards must be determined by scientists with no possible conflict of interest. They have argued for protections to ensure independent scientific decision making, as well as the significant involvement of Federal scientific agencies. I find both of these arguments persuasive. I know firsthand the importance of understanding how the criminal justice system works when evaluating the needs and practices in forensic science. I also understand that it is absolutely essential that forensic science be grounded in independent scientific research in order to avoid any question of convictions being based on faulty forensic work. This legislation attempts to address both of these concerns with a hybrid structure that ensures both criminal justice expertise and scientific independence. It establishes an Office of Forensic Science in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General within the Department of Justice. That office will have a Director who will make all final decisions about research priorities, standards, and structure and who will implement and enforce the systems set up by the legislation. It also establishes a Forensic Science Board composed of forensic and academic scientists, prosecutors and defense attorneys, and other key stakeholders. The Board will have a careful balance, and a majority of its members will be scientists. It will recommend all research priorities and standards and other key definitions and structures before the Director of the Office of Forensic Science makes a decision. The bill will include important protections to encourage the Director to defer to the recommendations of the Board and to ensure that he or she explains to Congress and to the public, with opportunities for comment, any decision to disregard the Board's recommendations. The bill also establishes committees of scientists to examine each individual forensic science discipline to determine research needs and standards. It includes protections to ensure that the committees' recommendations receive significant deference, and the committees will be overseen by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, a respected scientific agency. NIST will also implement grant programs for research into the forensic sciences premised on the research priorities established by the Forensic Science Board and the Office of Forensic Science. The National Science Foundation will help to ensure that the grant programs are run properly, with rigorous scientific peer review and without any bias. This bill aims to carefully balance the competing considerations that are so important to getting a review of forensics right. It also capitalizes on existing expertise and structures, rather than calling for the creation of a costly new agency. It seeks to proceed modestly and cost effectively, with ample oversight, checks, and controls. I am committed to exploring ways to use existing resources so that this urgent work will not negatively impact the budget. Ultimately, improvements in the forensic sciences will save money, reduce the number of costly appeals, shorten investigations and trials, and help to eliminate wrongful imprisonments. I understand that sweeping forensic reform and criminal justice reform legislation not only should, but must, be bipartisan. There is no reason for a partisan divide on this issue; fixing this problem does not advance the interests of only prosecutors or defendants, or of Democrats or Republicans, but the interests of justice. I have worked closely with interested Republican Senators on this vital issue. I will continue to work diligently with Senators on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this becomes the consensus bipartisan legislation that it ought to be. I hope many will cosponsor this legislation, and work with me to ensure its passage. I want to thank the forensic science practitioners, experts, advocates, law enforcement personnel, judges, and so many others whose input forms the basis for this legislation. Your passion for this issue and for getting it right gives me confidence that we will work together successfully to make much needed progress. I hope all Senators will join me in advancing this important legislation to bolster confidence in the forensic sciences and the criminal justice system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.