Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was proud to be a cosponsor, but I am especially proud of the lead sponsor, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. This is a matter he has cared passionately about, and he has worked tirelessly. He relied not only on his own family experience but also the experiences of so many other thousands of families who have seen Senator Kennedy as a champion. I applaud him. We have been in constant contact with Senator Kennedy during the time we have been talking about this issue. Incidentally, we are, of course, talking about The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act. I have talked with him about his personal experience and with those who are mentally ill, and his concern about this whole subject has been shown time and time again. So I applaud Senator Kennedy and all the other cosponsors for what they have done. Today, the Senate will finally turn to legislation to reauthorize the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act. Though this bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee in April, it has stalled on the Senate floor for 5 months due to Republican objection. I am glad that we are moving forward on this bill today. I was a sponsor of the original authorization of this Act in 2004, and I am proud that these programs have helped State and local governments to reduce crime by providing more effective treatment for the mentally ill. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the reauthorization of this important legislation in this Congress, and I thank Senators Kennedy, Domenici, and Specter for their leadership on this issue. All too often, people with mental illness find themselves in a revolving door between the criminal justice system and the streets of our communities, committing a series of minor offenses. These offenders end up in prisons or jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for them. This bill gives State and local governments the tools to break this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the public's safety, and the mentally ill offenders themselves. More than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, and about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems. Almost half the inmates in prison with a mental illness were incarcerated for committing a nonviolent crime. This is a serious problem that I hear about often when I talk with law enforcement officials and others in Vermont. Under this bill, State and local governments can apply for funding to create or expand mental health courts or other court-based programs, which can divert qualified offenders from prison to receive treatment; create or expand programs to provide specialized training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel; create or expand local treatment programs that serve individuals with mental illness or co- occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders; and promote and provide mental health treatment for those incarcerated in or released from jails and prisons. The grants created under this program have been in high demand, but only about 11 percent of the applications submitted have been able to receive funding due to the scarce Federal funds available. The bill's sponsors and I worked hard to determine an appropriate authorization level of funding, which has unfortunately been slashed in this bill in order to accommodate the objection of the junior Senator from Oklahoma. I look forward to working with Senators Kennedy, Domenici, and Specter as the appropriations process moves forward so that these vital programs can be adequately funded. This legislation brings together law enforcement, corrections, and mental health professionals to help respond to the needs of our communities. They are familiar with the unique problems states face with mentally ill offenders, and they understand the importance of federal support. I am glad the Republican objection to moving this bill forward has been lifted, and I hope the House passes this important bill swiftly.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, one, I appreciate his kind words. He and I have been friends from our days when we first met as prosecutors in our jurisdictions. So I appreciate that. I also appreciate the fact that he has said privately what he has said publicly in thanking me. The Senators from Colorado, the Senators from Florida, and the Senators from Virginia have also joined with the Senators from Pennsylvania in thanking me for moving these nominations. I am sure when the Record is read that Senators from the other States will be aware of what we have done. But I do appreciate that. His words mean a great deal to me.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in January 2005, Senator Hatch and I wrote to the Register of Copyrights out of a concern that the length of copyright terms was having an unintended consequence of creating a class of ``orphan works''--works that may be protected by copyright, but whose owners cannot be identified or located. Creative works are collecting dust because those who would like to bring them to light are respectful of the copyright laws and will not use those works if they cannot locate the owners. This unfortunate situation is keeping creative and cultural works from the public, and does not advance the purpose of the copyright laws. Today, the Senate completes work on legislation I introduced along with Senator Hatch to remedy this situation. The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 is designed to enable use of works whose copyright status and ownership is uncertain without the user facing prohibitive statutory damages. The act does not dramatically restructure current copyright law--it does not impose new registration requirements, nor does it provide for a transfer of copyright ownership or rights. The bill simply provides for a limitation on remedies in discrete, limited circumstances in which, among other things, the owner of the work is not locatable. Any infringer who wishes to use an orphan works limitation on remedies must perform a diligent search in good faith, document that search, and, in the event that the owner emerges, negotiate with the copyright owner in good faith regarding reasonable compensation. If any of these conditions, or others set forth in the bill, is not met, the limitation on remedies is unavailable and an infringer faces the full statutory damages as well as costs and attorney's fees. At its core, the bill seeks to unite users and copyright owners, and to ensure that copyright owners are compensated for the use of their works. It does not create any orphans, and it does not create a license to infringe. By providing an incentive to search, in the form of a limitation on remedies, more users will find more owners; more works otherwise hidden will be used; and more copyright owners will receive compensation. The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act will thus allow the public to enjoy works that are currently left unseen and unused. I hope the House can take up this measure, and send it to the President for signature.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate confirmed the nomination of J. Patrick Rowan to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the National Security Division at the Department of Justice. We continue in our efforts to rebuild the Department of Justice after the scandals of the Gonzales era and the Bush administration. We have already confirmed 35 executive nominations so far this Congress, including the confirmations of 12 U.S. attorneys, seven U.S. Marshals, and a new Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Associate Attorney General. We are poised to add to this total, having reported out of committee this month another 6 high-level executive nominations, including the nomination of Greg Garre to be Solicitor General of the United States, one of the highest and most prestigious positions at the Department of Justice. At the beginning of this Congress, the Judiciary Committee began its oversight efforts. Over the 9 nine months, our efforts revealed a Department of Justice gone awry. The leadership crisis came more and more into view as I led a bipartisan group of concerned Senators to consider the United States Attorney firing scandal, a confrontation over the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, the untoward political influence of the White House at the Department of Justice, and the secret legal memos excusing all manner of excess and subverting the rule of law. What our efforts exposed was a crisis of leadership that took a heavy toll on the tradition of independence that has long guided the Justice Department and provided it with safe harbor from political interference. It shook the confidence of the American people. Through bipartisan efforts among those from both sides of the aisle who care about federal law enforcement and the Department of Justice, we joined together to press for accountability. That resulted in a change in leadership at the Department, with the resignations of the Attorney General and virtually all of its highest- ranking officials. But the oversight efforts did not complete our work. We continue in the waning days of the Bush administration to try to return to the right track and ensure that the rule of law is restored as the guiding light for the work of the Department. Mr. Rowan, who currently serves as acting head of the National Security Division, has an opportunity now and if confirmed to playa significant role in that restoration. In the wake of the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001, and toward the end of President Bush's first year in office, this country had an opportunity to show that we could fight terrorism, secure our Nation, and bring the perpetrators of those heinous acts to justice, all in a way that was consistent with our history and our most deeply valued principles. A number of us reached out to the White House in an effort to craft a thoughtful, effective bipartisan way forward. The White House, supported by the Republican leadership in Congress, chose another path. They diverted our focus from al-Qaida and capturing Osama bin Laden to war and occupation in Iraq. They chose to enhance the power of the President and to turn the Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, at the Department of Justice into an apologist for White House orders-- from the warrantless wiretapping of Americans to torture. In my view, that approach has made our country less safe. We are all too familiar now with the litany of disastrous actions by this administration: rejecting the Geneva Conventions--which the President's counsel referred to as ``quaint''--against the advice of the Secretary of State; establishing a system of detention at Guantanamo Bay in an effort to circumvent the law and accountability; attempting to eliminate the Great Writ of habeas corpus for any non- citizen designated by the President as an enemy combatant; setting up a flawed military commission process that, after 6 years, has finally resulted in its first trial of a terrorist after more than 80 have been tried successfully in our court system; and permitting cruel interrogation practices that in the worst cases amount to officially sanctioned torture. These misguided actions and policies have rested upon a legal edifice built in secret by OLC opinions that have turned the rule of law on its head by interpreting laws Congress has passed. This week the Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas relating to those opinions. For the better part of 8 years, OLC's work has largely been kept secret from this oversight Committee, despite our efforts. Keeping binding interpretations of secret law from Congress is wrong. The advice we have seen from OLC has been deeply flawed, sloppy, and flat out wrong--but it has been permitted to happen because secrecy has prevented our oversight. Unjustified secrecy continues to prevent the review by this Committee that would provide a check and some control on how the administration is interpreting the law that is Congress's constitutional responsibility to write. That obsessive secrecy even prevents us from knowing the subject matter on which OLC has written opinions. There is no justification for keeping OLC legal interpretations secret from this committee, let alone the index I have long sought. That is why I sought and now have the authorization for subpoenas after years of being rebuffed and slow-rolled in our attempts to find out how this administration has interpreted and applied the laws written by Congress. Another one of the misguided policies of the Bush-Cheney administration was rebuked earlier this summer in the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush. That decision reaffirmed our core American values by concluding that detainees at Guantanamo have the right to bring habeas corpus claims in Federal court. I applauded that decision because I have maintained from the beginning that the provisions of the Military Commission Act that purported to strip away those rights were unconstitutional and un-American. This should not have been a hard decision, but I hope Mr. Rowan understands that it was a vitally important one. The Courts have a long history of considering habeas petitions and of handling national security matters, including classified information. I have great confidence in our system of justice and its ability to handle these issues. The administration made this mess by seeking to avoid judicial review at all costs, causing years of delay and profound uncertainty. It has now been rebuked four times by the Supreme Court. Habeas Corpus is the ultimate guarantee of fairness and a check on executive excess. It is vital that we ensure that we have a functioning, independent Justice Department, and that this sad era in the history of the Department is not repeated. We have seen what happens when the rule of law plays second fiddle to a President's agenda and the partisan desires of political operatives. It is a disaster for the American people. Both the President and the Nation are best served by a Justice Department that provides sound advice and takes responsible action, without regard for political considerations--not one that develops legalistic loopholes and ideological litmus tests to serve the ends of a particular administration. I congratulate Mr. Rowan and his family on his confirmation today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, following Republican opposition to the Senate's effort to pass a comprehensive immigration bill last summer, President Bush and other Republicans moved on and away from this admirable goal. They chose, instead, to accommodate the most extreme views in their party with respect to immigration. Secretary Chertoff turned to mass immigration raids and building border walls that have consumed millions of taxpayer dollars, tread on the rights of property owners along the southern border, scarred the environment and tarnished the reputation of the United States around the world. One aspect of the immigration debate on which I have continued to press this year is the backlog in citizenship applications. Last year, the administration insisted on a fee increase for citizenship applications and assured us it would cut processing time if authorized. That increase, along with the increased enforcement activities, and an impending presidential election, combined to result in a surge in citizenship applications. In just three months, May, June, and July of 2007, the immigration agency received over 700,000 citizenship applications. By last October, the agency had over 1 million citizenship applications pending, and a significant backlog had developed. Yet the administration did little. Its response reminded me of its preparations for Hurricane Katrina or the current financial meltdown. The anticipated surge in applications was not adequately planned for but resulted in a crisis before the administration would begin to notice. In early 2008, Senator Kennedy and I pressed Secretary Chertoff. We joined, along with Senator Schumer, in writing to the Homeland Security Secretary about this problem in advance of our April 2008 oversight hearing. At the April hearing, I asked Secretary Chertoff for a firm commitment that persons who had applied for U.S. citizenship by March 31, 2008, would have their applications processed in time to register and vote in the upcoming Presidential election. Seven months should have been adequate to consider these applications, especially when the agency had sold the increase in fees to us by saying it would cut processing time to less than seven months. When Secretary Chertoff sought to excuse his delays by blaming the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, for being slow to clear name checks, we made sure to provide the FBI with additional resources. At our most recent FBI oversight hearing with Director Mueller last week, I continued to raise the issue. At one point, the backlog in citizenship applications was 1 million. By this spring, it was still nearly half a million. After the most recent oversight hearing, we were told that it has been significantly reduced and now numbers in the tens of thousands. I thank the agents at the FBI and U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, USCIS, for their hard work. The monthly updates we demanded have been helpful not only to us, but apparently also to encourage progress within the agency. That is, of course, still too many. No one who has been here, working hard, following the law, who has applied for citizenship more than 6 months ago, ought to be denied participation in the upcoming Presidential election because the Homeland Security bureaucracy has been too slow to process his or her application. Now is the time for the agency to make a final push to process the remaining backlog of applications by the end of this month so that lawful immigrants will have time to register and will be able to vote. It is unacceptable that tens of thousands of people, some of whom have been waiting for 2 years to have their applications processed, will be left in limbo and unable to participate as citizens during the elections in November. So there is still significant work to do. The Senate took an important step Wednesday night when it passed S. 2840, the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act. I am pleased the Senate has given its unanimous support to this legislation. This bill is intended to help the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS expedite citizenship applications for members of the Armed Forces by creating a liaison with the FBI and by setting processing deadlines for these applications. Those who serve in our military and who wish to become citizens do not deserve to experience unnecessary bureaucratic delays. Their dedication to the United States, and their desire to become full participants in the democracy they help defend, ought to be met with a process that is as fair and efficient as possible. The legislation the Senate passed last night will help to streamline the citizenship process for the legal permanent residents who have served the country they wish to call their own. I hope that this legislation will help move Congress toward seeking additional improvements in the citizenship process for everyone. The granting of citizenship is one of the most sacred privileges our Nation conveys, and only comes to those who have worked hard to achieve it. Ensuring that it is carried out with care and efficiency is a goal all members of congress should support. I thank Senators Schumer and Hagel for successfully moving this legislation through the Senate, and thank all Senators for supporting this measure. I commend Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer and the other members of the Judiciary Committee who have worked with me all year in our oversight effort to ensure that the citizenship application backlog of 1 million would be eradicated. Senator Kennedy, in particular, is someone who has been unrelenting in his focus on this issue and characteristically fought for fairness, dignity and the rights of those least powerful among us. Senator Kennedy is our longtime chairman of the Immigration subcommittee, and has led the Senate on immigration matters for years. He asked me to express his appreciation to USCIS for its progress in clearing up the backlog in naturalization applications that otherwise would have deprived over a million eligible citizens the opportunity to participate in our democracy during this fall's election. He asked me to say that the right to vote is the most precious right that American citizens have. He welcomes these new Americans, and he urges them to go to the polls this November. I hope that as a new administration takes office and begins to help this Nation rise above the divisiveness, corruption, and failures of the last 8 years, we can renew our commitment to immigration reform. The answer does not lie in policies based on fear or isolationism, but in a restoration of America's rightful role in the world. It does not lie in denying children the opportunity for an education. It does not lie in denying American farmers and small business owners willing workers, nor does it lie in exploiting foreign labor to disadvantage American workers. And the answer does not lie in raiding workplace after workplace, tearing apart families, or building walls along our borders.

Mr LEAHY

Mr LEAHY. Mr. President, before the Senate is important legislation I introduced months ago to extend for 5 years the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect Supreme Court Justices when they leave the Supreme Court grounds. Senator Specter cosponsored this measure with me. We have extended the Court police's authority to protect Justices before, the last time in 2004. This authority expires at the end of this year. This is exactly the type of bill that should pass by unanimous consent without delay. I hotlined the bill and it was cleared on the Democratic side of the Senate for passage months ago, but I was told that there was a Republican objection. Although I would prefer to pass this measure clean, Senator Kyl has insisted on adding an amendment. I will consent to this amendment because this bill needs to pass to extend the Supreme Court police's authority. The time for passage is now, without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will pass the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act. I want to thank Senator Biden for his leadership in the Senate in supporting this important program, and I was pleased to work with him and others, as I have before, to ensure that the Debbie Smith grant program is given the authorization to continue its vital work. I should take this opportunity to thank Debbie Smith for her courage and for the tireless efforts of her and her husband, Rob, on behalf of rape victims. In her own case, DNA testing led to the arrest and conviction of her attacker, but the backlog of rape kits waiting to be tested forced her to endure an excruciating wait before the culprit could be found and justice could be done. The legislation that she inspired and worked so hard to pass aims to ensure that other victims do not have to live in fear through a long and unnecessary delay. In 2004, after years of work, Congress passed a significant package of criminal justice reforms known as the Justice for All Act, which substantially increased Federal resources available to State and local governments to combat crime with DNA technology. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program was a key component of that legislation. I worked hard for years to try to get the Debbie Smith Act passed, and I was thrilled in 2004 to finally be able to call Debbie to tell her that our hard work had paid off. I have pushed every year since for full funding of this crucial program. As DNA testing moved to the front lines of the war on crime, forensic laboratories nationwide experienced a significant increase in their caseloads, both in number and complexity. Funding simply did not keep pace with this increasing demand, and forensic labs nationwide became seriously bottlenecked. Backlogs have seriously impeded the use of DNA testing in solving cases without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong claims of innocence--as labs are required to give priority status to those cases in which a suspect is known. Solely for lack of funding, critical evidence remains untested while rapists and killers remain at large. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program has given States help they desperately needed, and continue to need, to carry out DNA analyses of backlogged evidence. It has provided a strong starting point in addressing this serious problem, but much work remains to be done before we conquer these inexcusable backlogs. That is why I so strongly support reauthorization of this vital program. Some in both Chambers have expressed a desire to expand and improve this program and other DNA testing programs. I share those goals and will work with others to pursue them next year. It is very important, though, that we reauthorize the Debbie Smith program now, when we can and should, and turn to more difficult tasks in the next Congress when we will be able to give them the attention they require. This reauthorization bill authorizes $755 million over the next 5 years to reduce the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs. I am glad that the Senate has passed it, and I hope the House promptly passes this version of the bill, and the President promptly signs it. I hope too that Congress fully funds this important program. I want to make one point on the issue of rape kit testing, which this legislation does so much to promote and which Debbie Smith has worked so hard to make available for all victims of horrendous attacks. No victim should ever be required to pay the cost of a rape kit. Collecting and testing evidence from serious crimes is a responsibility our Government and our community bears, and it should never be seen as a revenue source for cities and towns. It appalls me that any official in any community would condone such a practice, and I hope it will stop. I congratulate Debbie and Rob Smith on this key step toward the reauthorization of this important program, and I look forward to working with them to continue to find ways to protect women, assist crime victims, and bring criminals to justice.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this spring, I was proud to introduce the bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act of 2008 along with Senator Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. I am pleased that finally, after four months of delay due to an objection, the Senate has acted to pass this important bill. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act was included in the Advancing America's Priorities Act, a larger package of bills the Senate considered this summer. All of the bills contained in the Advancing America's Priorities Act should have passed by consent, but were stalled on the Senate floor by Republican objection. Like most of the measures in the bill, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act has bipartisan backing and passed the House with overwhelming support. This is legislation on which we should all agree, and I am glad the objection has been lifted. I hope the House will quickly consider this legislation and send it to the President to be signed into law. Regrettably, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, who neither attended the Judiciary Committee hearing we had on this bill, nor objected when the legislation was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, has insisted on substantive changes to the bipartisan and bicameral consensus bill before he will lift his objection. He opposes including a public awareness campaign so that the youth who might benefit from these programs know about the services their community provides. We removed it at the request of the Senator. He has also objected to allowing youth to stay in the Transitional Living Program a few extra months in order to make sure they are able to leave the program safely. I have worked with the House to clarify language that the extended length of stay would only be used by programs in exceptional circumstances. He has also required that the authorized level of funding for these programs that help our Nation's youth be slashed. I intend to work with Senators Harkin and Specter and others on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that these programs are funded at the appropriate level that should have been authorized into law. We have made further concessions on other legislation to accommodate him. I have made still more concessions to the junior Senator from Arizona, who made additional extraneous demands at the eleventh hour. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act is the way in which the Federal Government helps communities across the country protect some of our most vulnerable children. It was first passed the year I was elected to the Senate. We have reauthorized it several times since then, and working with Senator Specter and Senators on both sides of the aisle, I am glad the Senate has done so again this year. The programs authorized during the past 30 years by the RHYA have consistently proven critical to protecting and giving hope to our Nation's runaway and homeless youth. Under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, every State receives a basic center grant to provide housing and crisis services for runaway and homeless youth and their families. Community-based groups around the country can also apply for funding through the Transitional Living Program and the sexual abuse prevention/street outreach grant program. The transitional living program grants are used to provide longer term housing to homeless youth between the ages of 16 and 21, and to help them become self-sufficient. The outreach grants are used to target youth susceptible to engaging in high-risk behaviors while living on the street. Despite the changes to the bill made in response to Republican objections, our bill makes improvements to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act reauthorizations of past years. It doubles funding for states by instituting a minimum of $200,000, which will allow states to better meet the diverse needs of their communities. This bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop performance standards for grantees. Providing program guidelines would level the playing field for bidders, ensure consistency among providers, and increase the effectiveness of the services under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. In addition, our legislation develops an incidence study to better estimate the number of runaway and homeless youth and to identify trends. The incidence study would provide more accurate estimates of the runaway and homeless youth population and would help lawmakers make better policy decisions and allow communities to provide better outreach. On April 29, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to focus the Senate's attention on these problems and to identify and develop solutions to protect runaway and homeless youth. It was the first Senate hearing on these matters in more than a decade. We heard from a distinguished panel of witnesses, some of whom spoke firsthand about the significant challenges that young people face when they have nowhere to go. Our witnesses demonstrated that young people can overcome harrowing obstacles and create new opportunities when given the chance. One witness went from living as a homeless youth in his teens to earning two Oscar nominations as a distinguished actor. Another witness is working with homeless youth at the same Vermont organization that enabled him to stop living on the streets and is on his way to great things. Our witness panel gave useful and insightful suggestions on how to improve the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act to make it more effective. We have included many of these recommendations in our bill. The prevalence of homelessness among young people in America is shockingly high. The problem is not limited to large cities. Its impact is felt strongly in smaller communities and rural areas as well. It affects our young people directly and reverberates throughout our families and communities. That this problem continues in the richest country in the world means that we need to redouble our commitment and our efforts to safeguard our Nation's youth. We need to support the dedicated people in communities across the country who work to address these problems every day. In my home State of Vermont, the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth, the New England Network for Child, Youth, and Family Services, and Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington all receive grants under these programs and have provided excellent services that provide assistance to thousands of youth. The overwhelming need for services is not limited to any one state or community. Many transitional living programs are forced to turn away young people seeking shelter. We heard testimony of an exemplary program within blocks of our Nation's Capitol that has a waiting list as long as a year. This is unacceptable. The needs in our communities are real, and reauthorizing the law will allow these programs to expand their enormously important work. These topics are difficult but deserve our attention. I am glad the Senate has taken an important step toward addressing these issues by passing the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will unanimously pass the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, H.R. 923, a bipartisan bill to provide critical tools and resources for the Department of Justice and FBI to expeditiously investigate and prosecute decades-old unsolved civil rights cold case crimes. This bill overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last year and unanimously passed the Senate on two previous occasions, in the 108th and 109th Congresses. Its consideration in the Senate has been needlessly delayed due to a Republican objection. Finally, this bipartisan legislation will be sent to the President. This legislation includes the Missing Child Cold Case Review Act, a critical measure which I sponsored last Congress. It allows inspectors general of Federal law enforcement agencies to authorize staff to provide much needed assistance to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children--NCMEC--inactive case files. In order to bolster their efforts to solve these heart-wrenching cases, NCMEC needs the assistance and the cooperation of inspectors general. I am pleased that this legislation will help the men and women at NCMEC carry out this important mission. The primary purpose of the Till bill is to track down those whose violent acts during a period of national turmoil remain unpunished. In 1955, the brutal murder of a 14-year-old African-American teenager named Emmett Till stirred the conscience of our country. No one has been punished for this tragic and brutal murder. Fifty-two years later, Emmett Till's family and the families of hundreds of other Americans who lost their lives in the fight for equal rights, still await justice. Racially motivated violence during this turbulent time left a scar on the fabric of our democracy. Far too often, its goal was to divide communities and intimidate certain citizens from achieving full participation in our democracy and exercising their constitutional rights to vote, to travel, and to stay in a federally protected enclave, and, most often, the right to live where you please. The Federal Government has traditionally been the guardian of last resort for our Nation's most vulnerable inhabitants. Yet sadly for much of our Nation's history, African-Americans and other citizens involved in civil rights activities were not protected in the full enjoyment of their rights. Indeed, as FBI Director Mueller acknowledged last year, ``[m]any murders during the civil rights era were not fully investigated, were covered up or were misidentified as accidental death or disappearance.'' With the passage of the Till bill today, we once again acknowledge past governmental missteps and seek to right these wrongs. The Till bill provides the necessary tools for the Federal Government, along with State and local officials, to investigate and prosecute civil rights decades-old unsolved crimes. First, the bill creates two new offices to investigate and prosecute these decades-old cold case crimes. Rather than creating a new unit or section within the Justice Department, the legislation allows precious Federal resources to be used by the FBI field offices and Federal prosecutors in the states where these prosecutions will occur. Second, it will empower the Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice to work with local communities in identifying unsolved cases. In a similar vein, the bill also allows the Justice Department to issue grants to State and local law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of violations of State and local laws similar to Federal criminal civil rights statutes. Many Federal criminal civil rights prosecutions may be time-barred or face ex post facto concerns. Allowing Federal grants to State and local entities will allow for justice to prevail even where Federal law may be inadequate. Third, the bill incorporates my recommended change to provide oversight over this initiative. Congress will be able to track how many cold cases were selected for further inquiry and how many were not. This change strengthens oversight and protects ongoing investigations from being compromised. In a February 2007 press conference, the Director of the FBI announced that the FBI and Justice Department would work with civil rights organizations to bring closure to decades-old unsolved civil rights crimes. Yet, just a few weeks ago, press reports indicated that the Justice Department and FBI have yet to prosecute a single case under the agency's cold case initiative already in place. This is further evidence that vigorous oversight is needed, and I hope this bill will help. Although I am happy this bill has finally passed the full Senate, this noncontroversial and bipartisan bill should not have taken several Congresses to pass. The Till bill was one of many bills that the majority leader included in S.3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act. The majority leader selected three dozen legislative items from the jurisdiction of seven Senate committees, including eight Judiciary Committee bills, for this effort. These are all measures with bipartisan support and, we believe, the support of a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate. Each of these bills has the support of all Democratic Senators and had overwhelming support, but stalled on the Senate floor by Republican objection. Ensuring the civil rights of all Americans is a core American value, and I am disappointed that a single Republican objection prevented this bipartisan legislation from passing long ago by unanimous consent. Our Nation should always be thankful to those who risked their lives fighting for civil rights. During the recent reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, I was reminded that the lives of Medgar Evers, Vernon Dahmer, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and countless others, demonstrate that ordinary persons can change the world. Three months ago, we commemorated the 44th anniversary of the deaths of Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman. The sacrifice and courage of these Americans--many of whom gave their lives toiling for freedom-- made our democratic ideals real, and continue to inspire future generations to fight for civil rights. This important bill is long overdue. As each day passes evidence fades and witnesses age. We must have a sense of urgency. Justice cannot afford to wait. Earlier this month, we witnessed an unfortunate example of the impact waiting too long to prosecute these cases can have on the administration of justice. Recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of former Klansman James Seale, who was charged with the 1963 abduction and killings of two African-American teenagers in Mississippi. At that time Mr. Seale committed the horrendous crimes a jury of his peers convicted him of, Congress had no statute of limitations on Federal kidnapping. I was disappointed that, in overturning his conviction, a court of appeals would misinterpret congressional intent and retroactively apply a procedural bar that we did not intend to apply to crimes that occurred almost a decade before. I thank Senator Dodd and my good friend Representative John Lewis for their leadership and hard work on this legislation. Representative Lewis is a civil rights hero who courageously marched and fought for equal justice in America. I know this bill is important to him, and I am deeply appreciative of his tireless efforts on this important legislation. I also thank Senator Cochran for his support. Last year we traveled overseas together, and I know this bill is important to him and his State. I thank the majority leader for his leadership in advancing this legislation. I also appreciate the help of Senator Byrd in helping us move this bill through the Senate. Lastly, I thank the many civil rights and law enforcement organizations who have worked so hard to enact this legislation: the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Emmett Till Justice Campaign, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law, the ACLU, the Fraternal Order of Police, and so many others. In July, I had the honor to meet Simeon Wright, Emmett Till's cousin, who was with Mr. Till on the horrible night he was kidnapped. This bill will begin the process of seeking restorative justice for families, like Mr. Wright, who were victimized by these horrific crimes and so justice went undone for so many years. We could not pass this legislation today without their efforts. Mr. Wright, and so many others, should be congratulated for their courage and their commitment to fighting for justice for so many years. With its passage, we take an important step towards finally bringing to justice individuals who committed heinous crimes against civil rights activists and African-American citizens. Equally important, we send an important message to all Americans about the depth of our commitment. We have made great progress in the last few decades towards achieving equal justice under law. The Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act brings us one step closer towards that important goal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer and Sessions in introducing a bipartisan bill that would greatly improve the administration and efficiency of our Federal court system. The Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008 is an attempt to assist the Federal judiciary by replacing antiquated processes and bureaucratic hurdles with the necessary tools for the 21st century. I previously introduced a court improvement bill in the 108 Congress. I hope the bill we introduce today will pass the full Senate with unanimous support and not be held up by a Republican objection like the similar measure I introduced 4 years ago. I have also supported past legislative proposals from the Judicial Conference to improve the administration of justice in our Federal courts. In recent years, the job of the Federal judge has changed considerably. Today, Federal judges at both the trial and appellate level are hearing more cases with fewer available judicial resources. We have a responsibility to pass legislation that helps them keep up with changing times and circumstances. Our independent judiciary is the envy of the world, and we must take care to protect it. Just as it is the judiciary's duty to deliver justice in a neutral and unbiased manner, it is the duty of the legislative branch to provide the requisite tools for the women and men who honorably serve on our judiciary to ably fulfill their critical responsibilities. The legislation we introduce today contains technical and substantive proposals carried over from previous Congresses. The legislation also contains additional proposals that the Federal judiciary believes will improve its operations and allow it to continue to serve as a bulwark protecting our individual rights and liberties. First, the provisions in the bill facilitate and update judicial operations. For example, the bill would authorize realignments in the place of holding court in specified district courts. It also would remove a ``public drawing'' requirement for the selection of names for jury wheels, which is now a function performed more efficiently by computers. These provisions would add convenience to the men and women--who as lawyers, litigants, and jurors--appear before our Federal courts. Second, the bill contains provisions that would improve judicial resource management and strengthen the constitutional protection of Americans' right to serve on juries. The bill would make a juror eligible to receive a $10 supplemental fee after 10 days of trial service instead of 30 days. Juries serve to vindicate the rights of all Americans, including the poor, the powerless, and the marginalized. I am glad this bill takes steps to ensure that economic hardship will not be an obstacle to an individual performing his or her duty to serve on a jury. No American should be threatened or intimidated from exercising their right to serve on a jury. This legislation would strengthen the penalties for employers who retaliate against employees serving on jury duty. It would do so by increasing the maximum civil penalty for an employer who retaliates against an employee serving on jury duty from $1,000 to $5,000 and add the potential penalty of community service. The bill also provides district courts with the discretion to bring into court those individuals who fail to respond to jury summons, instead of having their appearance mandated by statute. This improvement would empower Federal judges to decide what action is appropriate for those who fail to respond to a jury summons. Third, in the area of criminal justice, provisions in the bill would also clarify existing law to better fulfill Congress's original intent or to make technical corrections. The bill makes technical corrections to a Federal probation and supervised release statute. By correcting these technical errors, we restore the original intent of Congress, including that intermittent confinement applies to supervised release as well as probation. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware that confinement, even intermittent confinement, is not always the appropriate response. I am glad that this provision includes the proper safeguards and limitations to ensure that intermittent confinement will not be abused. The legislation would also explicitly authorize the Director of Administrative Office to provide goods and services to pretrial defendants and clarifies similar authority recently made available for post-conviction offenders through the Second Chance Act of 2007. Under current law, there is no explicit statutory authority to provide for services on behalf of offenders who do not suffer from substance abuse problems or psychiatric disorders. This provision would fill in that gap by providing services to pretrial defendants to ensure their appearance at trial. Finally, the bill would ensure sufficient representation by Federal judges among the members of the Sentencing Commission. In 2003, House Republicans saddled the bipartisan and non-controversial AMBER Alert bill with numerous unrelated and ill-conceived provisions, collectively known as the ``Feeney Amendment,'' that effectively overturned the basic structure of the carefully crafted sentencing guideline system. The bill we introduce today contains a provision, similar to the JUDGES Act that I cosponsored in 2003, that would reverse the provisions in the Feeney Amendment that limited the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. Our Federal judges are experts on sentencing policy, indeed they preside over criminal sentencing proceedings daily; I am glad this restoration has been included. This important legislation has the support of the Administrative Office of the Courts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, and senators on both sides of the aisle. Our judiciary needs these improvements to increase its efficiency and administrative operations. I urge my Senate colleagues to quickly pass this noncontroversial legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer and Sessions in introducing a bipartisan bill that would greatly improve the administration and efficiency of our Federal court system. The Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008 is an attempt to assist the Federal judiciary by replacing antiquated processes and bureaucratic hurdles with the necessary tools for the 21st century. I previously introduced a court improvement bill in the 108 Congress. I hope the bill we introduce today will pass the full Senate with unanimous support and not be held up by a Republican objection like the similar measure I introduced 4 years ago. I have also supported past legislative proposals from the Judicial Conference to improve the administration of justice in our Federal courts. In recent years, the job of the Federal judge has changed considerably. Today, Federal judges at both the trial and appellate level are hearing more cases with fewer available judicial resources. We have a responsibility to pass legislation that helps them keep up with changing times and circumstances. Our independent judiciary is the envy of the world, and we must take care to protect it. Just as it is the judiciary's duty to deliver justice in a neutral and unbiased manner, it is the duty of the legislative branch to provide the requisite tools for the women and men who honorably serve on our judiciary to ably fulfill their critical responsibilities. The legislation we introduce today contains technical and substantive proposals carried over from previous Congresses. The legislation also contains additional proposals that the Federal judiciary believes will improve its operations and allow it to continue to serve as a bulwark protecting our individual rights and liberties. First, the provisions in the bill facilitate and update judicial operations. For example, the bill would authorize realignments in the place of holding court in specified district courts. It also would remove a ``public drawing'' requirement for the selection of names for jury wheels, which is now a function performed more efficiently by computers. These provisions would add convenience to the men and women--who as lawyers, litigants, and jurors--appear before our Federal courts. Second, the bill contains provisions that would improve judicial resource management and strengthen the constitutional protection of Americans' right to serve on juries. The bill would make a juror eligible to receive a $10 supplemental fee after 10 days of trial service instead of 30 days. Juries serve to vindicate the rights of all Americans, including the poor, the powerless, and the marginalized. I am glad this bill takes steps to ensure that economic hardship will not be an obstacle to an individual performing his or her duty to serve on a jury. No American should be threatened or intimidated from exercising their right to serve on a jury. This legislation would strengthen the penalties for employers who retaliate against employees serving on jury duty. It would do so by increasing the maximum civil penalty for an employer who retaliates against an employee serving on jury duty from $1,000 to $5,000 and add the potential penalty of community service. The bill also provides district courts with the discretion to bring into court those individuals who fail to respond to jury summons, instead of having their appearance mandated by statute. This improvement would empower Federal judges to decide what action is appropriate for those who fail to respond to a jury summons. Third, in the area of criminal justice, provisions in the bill would also clarify existing law to better fulfill Congress's original intent or to make technical corrections. The bill makes technical corrections to a Federal probation and supervised release statute. By correcting these technical errors, we restore the original intent of Congress, including that intermittent confinement applies to supervised release as well as probation. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware that confinement, even intermittent confinement, is not always the appropriate response. I am glad that this provision includes the proper safeguards and limitations to ensure that intermittent confinement will not be abused. The legislation would also explicitly authorize the Director of Administrative Office to provide goods and services to pretrial defendants and clarifies similar authority recently made available for post-conviction offenders through the Second Chance Act of 2007. Under current law, there is no explicit statutory authority to provide for services on behalf of offenders who do not suffer from substance abuse problems or psychiatric disorders. This provision would fill in that gap by providing services to pretrial defendants to ensure their appearance at trial. Finally, the bill would ensure sufficient representation by Federal judges among the members of the Sentencing Commission. In 2003, House Republicans saddled the bipartisan and non-controversial AMBER Alert bill with numerous unrelated and ill-conceived provisions, collectively known as the ``Feeney Amendment,'' that effectively overturned the basic structure of the carefully crafted sentencing guideline system. The bill we introduce today contains a provision, similar to the JUDGES Act that I cosponsored in 2003, that would reverse the provisions in the Feeney Amendment that limited the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. Our Federal judges are experts on sentencing policy, indeed they preside over criminal sentencing proceedings daily; I am glad this restoration has been included. This important legislation has the support of the Administrative Office of the Courts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, and senators on both sides of the aisle. Our judiciary needs these improvements to increase its efficiency and administrative operations. I urge my Senate colleagues to quickly pass this noncontroversial legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have closely followed developments in Nepal for several years, and have been encouraged by the progress that tiny Himalayan country is making to end a divisive, bloody conflict and become a more peaceful, just and democratic society. An enormous amount of work remains to be done, including the writing of a new constitution, demobilization and reintegration of Maoist combatants, restructuring and reform of the Nepali Army, policies and programs to address the legacy of discrimination against women and minority groups, programs of assistance for the millions of impoverished rural Nepali people who are illiterate and lack basic services, and justice for victims of atrocities committed by both sides of the conflict. As chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee I have included additional assistance for Nepal, above the amounts requested by the White House, for these efforts, and I commend the U.S. Ambassador, Nancy Powell, for the way that she has represented our country there. The United States has a strong interest in a democratic, peaceful Nepal, and although the situation remains fragile and the future unpredictable, Ambassador Powell and her staff have worked hard in an even-handed, diplomatic way to help keep the peace process on track. I have also urged the leaders of Nepal's political parties, including the Maoists, to put partisan and personal interests aside for the greater good of their country at this critical time in Nepal's history. For too long, politics in Nepal have been equated with cronyism, corruption and neglect. The Nepali people who courageously took to the streets and risked their lives--some of whom lost their lives--to oust an abusive monarch, deserve a government that represents them and works to address their needs. There are three specific issues I want to mention briefly today. The first is the treatment of Tibetan refugees in Nepal. There are disturbing reports that the Nepali Government is taking steps to forcibly return to China, in violation of international law, Tibetan exiles in Nepal, presumably in an effort to curry favor with the Chinese Government. These people have risked their lives to escape Chinese repression, and in the past the Nepali Government has, with rare exceptions, provided them refuge. The Nepali Government has a legal and moral responsibility to continue to respect the rights of Tibetan refugees, and this is an issue that the United States and others will be watching closely. The second issue is justice, which is fundamental to any democratic society, and that means an independent judiciary and the rule of law. In Nepal, government officials who abuse their authority have too often escaped justice. Impunity has been the rule, including for members of the Nepali Army and Maoist forces. Recently, the Advocacy Forum and Human Rights Watch jointly published a report entitled ``Waiting for Justice: Unpunished Crimes from Nepal's Armed Conflict.'' The report describes the impunity that continues to shield those who have been credibly alleged to have violated human rights. The report includes a number of recommendations for the Nepali Government to ensure that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to justice. I urge the Nepali authorities to study the report and implement its recommendations. For the rule of law to prevail in Nepal, it must be demonstrated that human rights crimes are investigated and prosecuted and that no one is above the law. Finally, I want to mention the issue of the implementation of the Leahy amendment in Nepal. This law, which I sponsored a decade ago, requires, among other things, thorough vetting of candidates for U.S. military or police training to ensure that they have not been involved in violations of human rights. This is important because we do not want to afford the benefits and legitimacy of U.S. training to individuals who have engaged in such crimes, and we want to encourage their governments to bring them to justice. I am concerned with reports that the Leahy amendment is not being adequately implemented in Nepal, and that some Nepali military officers who have been credibly implicated in human rights violations have been approved for U.S. training. This is a matter that must be effectively addressed by the U.S. Embassy. During the war, the Maoists and the Nepali Army were responsible for widespread atrocities, including arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial killings. This eventually led to a suspension of U.S. military assistance to Nepal. After the collapse of the monarchy and the end of the fighting, that suspension was lifted, but any U.S. training of Nepali military officers should be conducted with the utmost caution and only after thorough vetting. In the past year, the focus has shifted to military reform. The U.S. can assist in this effort, particularly through our expanded international military education and training program, but we need assurance that the Nepali Army command recognizes the need for reform and to be accountable under the law. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the key recommendations in the Advocacy Forum-Human Rights Watch report be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor two Vermonters who represented their country this summer in China. Everyone at one time or another has heard the Mark Twain quote, ``It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.'' Nothing embodies this adage to me more than the commendable determination of this year's Vermont summer Olympians. Vermonters have always stood as an example of what a good hard day's work can accomplish, and this summer in Beijing was no exception. In a world of more than 6.5 billion people, our great State of 610,000 creates world class athletes that stand out against the crowd. Representing Vermont on the U.S. Women's Weightlifting Team was Carissa Gump, originally of Essex. Ever since her middle school gym teacher first convinced her to pursue weightlifting, her dedication has brought her success. One of only two U.S. women competing in her weight class, Carissa was able to finish an impressive fifth in her group and thirteenth overall. Showing off her Vermont bred toughness, she managed to complete every one of her lifts all while nursing an aggravating left wrist injury. From reading Carissa's online blog, anyone can also learn about her amazing and loving family. Her parents, Kathie and Marty, and her husband Jason took time away from work to fly to Beijing with Carissa and give her their support. This inspiring display of heart truly embodied Vermont's Olympic spirit and I would like to join with her family and friends in commending Carissa's remarkable achievement. On the track, the Men's 800 meters featured Norwich native Andrew Wheating. Andrew has become a regular in the national headlines ever since he finished second in the U.S. Olympic Trials and earned a ticket to represent his country in Beijing. Currently a sophomore at the University of Oregon and the only Vermonter to run a 4-minute-mile, Andrew has already established himself as one of the sport's rising young talents. The son of Betsy and Justin Wheating, Andrew not only showcased his talent to the world, he also realized a longtime family dream. Justin Wheating as a standout athlete in his home country of England never had a chance to represent his country in an Olympic games. However, Mr. Wheating managed to pass the torch to an exceptional son who Vermont is proud to call one of our own and Andrew's thrilling performance in these Olympic quarterfinals showed the world why. With all of the success and accolades this young man has already accumulated, there is no doubt in my mind that he has a very bright future ahead of him. In a place historically famous for its winter athletes, these exceptional competitors just further prove it is impossible to pigeon hole our great State. For those of you who enjoy skiing Vermont in the winter, perhaps it is time to come see why we call them the ``Green Mountains'' next summer? The extraordinary displays of speed and power by these Vermonters on the world's largest stage perfectly showcased our diverse range of talent and I want to thank Carissa and Andrew for making their State and country proud.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate today will pass S. 2135, the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, which will combat the unconscionable practice of using children as soldiers in violent conflicts. I thank Senator Durbin and Senator Coburn for introducing this important legislation and I am proud to be a cosponsor. I also thank them for their leadership on the Judiciary Committee's new Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. Their leadership in working with the House sponsors to produce a consensus bill that we can all support has been critical. The United States should do all it can to prevent and punish this conduct, which is so contrary to our values. The use of children as soldiers has been universally condemned as abhorrent and unacceptable. Yet over the last decade hundreds of thousands of children have fought and died in conflicts around the world. This legislation would close the gap in our law and enable the U.S. Government to bring child soldier perpetrators that are found in our country to justice. This bill creates a tough new criminal provision aimed at those who recruit or conscript children under the age of 15 into armed conflict. It extends U.S. jurisdiction to perpetrators of this crime who are present in the United States, regardless of their nationality and where the crime takes place, so that those who exploit children will not find this country to be a sanctuary from prosecution. The bill also amends immigration law to allow those who have used children as soldiers to be barred or removed from the United States. This bill is the second piece of legislation to pass both houses of Congress resulting from the work of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. I was proud to work with Senator Durbin to create the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee. I am glad that the efforts Senator Durbin and I have made to make this subcommittee a force for change and to bring focus on these important issues is resulting in legislative action, as well as providing a forum to put a spotlight on important issues. The aubcommittee has already worked to make the Genocide Accountability Act law, and it will soon provide a powerful new tool in America's efforts to prevent and punish genocide. The Subcommittee has made further progress with hearings and legislation dealing with human trafficking and other vital issues. The conduct prohibited by the Child Soldiers Accountability Act is appalling but happens all too often throughout the world. We should do everything we can to stop this offense to human rights and human dignity, which exacts such great costs from too many of the world's children. I commend the Senate for passing this important legislation today and I hope the President will quickly sign this legislation into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the House of Representatives today passed the Former Vice President Protection Act, H.R. 5938--a bill to ensure that that former Vice Presidents and immediate family members receive Secret Service protection for 6 months after they leave office. I am especially pleased that this important legislation, which will now be sent to the President for signature, includes key provisions of the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act, a critical cyber crime bill I introduced last year and that has twice unanimously passed the Senate in this Congress. I hope that the President will promptly sign this measure into law. Although the Secret Service has provided protection to former Vice Presidents over the last 30 years through a variety of temporary grants of authority, this legislation will provide clear authority for the Secret Service to provide such protection for the first time. The men and women of the Secret Service perform the very difficult job of protecting our current and former leaders exceptionally well. I am pleased that this legislation will help the Secret Service to carry out this important mission. This bipartisan legislation also includes important cyber crime provisions--portions of the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act--to protect the privacy rights of all Americans. The anticyber crime provisions in this bill are long overdue. A recent survey by the Federal Trade Commission found that that more than 8 million Americans fell victim to identity theft in 2005. In addition, a new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development encourages democratic governments around the world to more aggressively fight identity theft, by enacting stronger cyber crime laws and stiffening the penalties to deter potential cybercriminals. The key anticyber crime provisions that are included in this legislation will close existing gaps in our criminal law to keep up with the cunning and ingenuity of today's identity thieves. First, to better protect American consumers, the legislation provides the victims of identity theft with the ability to seek restitution in Federal court for the loss of time and money spent restoring their credit and remedying the harms of identity theft, so that identity theft victims can be made whole. Second, to address the increasing number of computer hacking crimes that involve computers located within the same State, the cybercrime amendment eliminates the jurisdictional requirement that a computer's information must be stolen through an interstate or foreign communication in order to federally prosecute this crime. Third, this legislation also addresses the growing problem of the malicious use of spyware to steal sensitive personal information, by eliminating the requirement that the loss resulting from the damage to a victim's computer must exceed $5,000 in order to federally prosecute the offense. The bill carefully balances this necessary change with the legitimate need to protect innocent actors from frivolous prosecutions, and clarifies that the elimination of the $5,000 threshold applies only to criminal cases. In addition, the amendment addresses the increasing number of cyber attacks on multiple computers, by making it a felony to employ spyware or keyloggers to damage 10 or more computers, regardless of the aggregate amount of damage caused. By making this crime a felony, the amendment ensures that the most egregious identity thieves will not escape with minimal punishment under Federal cyber crime laws. The legislation also strengthens the protections for American businesses, which are more and more becoming the focus of identity thieves, by adding two new causes of action under the cyber extortion statute-- threatening to obtain or release information from a protected computer and demanding money in relation to a protected computer--so that this bad conduct can be federally prosecuted. And, lastly, the legislation adds the remedy of civil and criminal forfeiture to the arsenal of tools to combat cyber crime and our amendment directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review its guidelines for identity theft and cyber crime offenses. Senator Specter and I have worked closely with the Department of Justice and the Secret Service in crafting these updates to our cyber crime laws and the legislation added as an amendment to the Former Vice President Protection Act has the strong support of these Federal agencies and the support of a broad coalition of business, high tech and consumer groups. The bill as amended to include these critical cyber crime provisions is a good, bipartisan bill that will help to better protect our Nation's leaders and to better protect all Americans from the growing threat of identity theft and other cyber crimes. I thank Senator Specter for his hard work on this legislation. I also thank Senators Biden and Hatch and the bipartisan coalition of Senators who have joined with us to ensure its passage. In addition, I thank House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers and Congressman Bobby Scott for their assistance in enacting this bill. I also thank Majority Leader Reid, House Majority Leader Hoyer and House Majority Whip Clyburn for their leadership in advancing this legislation. Lastly, I thank the many high tech, business and consumer organizations who have worked so hard to enact this legislation to better protect the privacy and security of American consumers and American businesses. I encourage the President to promptly sign this important criminal legislation into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the innovation and achievements of SBE, Inc. in Barre, VT. For decades, SBE has demonstrated an exceptional ability to adapt to the demands of a changing marketplace. The company started as Sprague Electric in 1945, but today SBE is using cutting-edge technology to develop capacitors for use in green cars, alternative energies, Taser stun guns, and advanced military equipment. These innovative products have created dozens of quality Vermont jobs that reflect our state's commitment towards moving to alternative energy sources. I commend Ed Sawyer, president and CEO of SBE, and all of the hard- working employees in Barre for their foresight and innovation. I ask unanimous consent that a September 1, 2008, Burlington Free Press article about the company be printed in the Record so all Senators can read about the success and commendable business practices of this sustainable Vermont company.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan on the Senate floor, the chairman of the committee, and the distinguished Senator from Alabama, a key member of the committee. I will speak on the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act. This was introduced last night. It is one I hope the Senate will wholeheartedly accept. For more than 5 years, America has been fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, we have been there longer than we were in World War II. But efforts to investigate contracting fraud during these wars continue to lag. Part of the reason is not because the authorities don't want to find out whether there has been fraud, but it is difficult to uncover fraud when you are in a shooting war and conflicts continue. The problem is not new--this has happened before--and the solution is not new. Current law extends the statute of limitations for contracting fraud offenses during wartime to address this problem. In other words, if fraud has occurred, you have a certain statute of limitations. We would simply extend it. This commonsense law was passed by Congress during World War II with the support of President Roosevelt. A similar provision was passed in World War I. Those were wars in which we were involved for less time than we have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Current law only applies to declared wars and not to circumstances where Congress only authorizes the use of military force rather than officially declaring war. So the extension of the statute of limitations doesn't apply to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bipartisan Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act will close that technical loophole. It will apply the law that we already have on the books, but it will apply it not only to declared wars but also to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was pleased to join with Senator Grassley of Iowa earlier this year to introduce this legislative fix, and the Judiciary Committee reported this measure before the August recess. With each passing day, we are losing the legal authority to prosecute fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan because the existing law that extends the statute of limitations does not apply to these wars. We have an obligation, no matter whether one is for or against the war in Iraq, to protect the public interest and certainly to protect taxpayer dollars during times of war. This simple amendment will allow us to do so. We have done that in past wars. Iraq and Afghanistan should be no different. We have well-documented reports of fraud and abuse, as we have seen in other wars. When we are spending billions of dollars, often in a hurry, it is an open invitation for people to put their own interests ahead of the interests of the country, and those people who then defraud our great Nation at a time of war should be punished for it. They should not be let off the hook. Too many brave men and women are putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too many brave, patriotic Americans are doing everything they possibly can over there, risking and often losing their lives every day. We should not allow those who want to make money out of their sacrifice and defraud the Government to get away with it. The bill being paid by the American taxpayers for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is high enough. As in past wars, Congress should do all it can to ensure their money is not lost to waste and fraud. I hope Senators will join in this effort. This is not creating a new crime. It is simply saying those who do commit crimes, who do defraud America, who do defraud people who are over there serving our country, ought to be punished. I find it hard to think Members would disagree with that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. We also have the case that most jurisdictions are under a statute of limitations. If you have a crime within a jurisdiction, but then the person flees to escape prosecution, the statute does not run in that circumstance. While this is not on all fours, when you have a war situation where people are shooting each other, it is very difficult to go over and just gather the evidence. The Senator is absolutely correct. The bank robbery that occurs, you know it occurred at that moment. Somebody came in, put a gun to the teller's face, and stole the money and left. The investigators immediately start investigating the crime. Because of the person's jurisdiction, you have to investigate the crime and arrest them within the 5 years. Here the difficulty is investigating the crime when many times it is hidden. The crime is hidden, using the savings and loan example. I am simply trying to do what we did in World War II and World War I--I don't recall whether we did it in Korea or not--in past wars. I have a reluctance to give any cover to those who defraud us. We have so many contractors over there who are putting their own lives on the line, playing by the rules, doing everything right. They should be commended for that. We have others who try to take advantage of this situation when others are putting their lives on the line and sometimes losing their lives. We ought to nail them. I think we ought to nail them very hard.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I rise to commend GEN Richard A. Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, on his retirement. General Cody is one of the Nation's finest military officers, and, with a career that spans over 36 years in the Army, he leaves behind a stronger, more experienced, and more professional fighting force. Vermont is proud to call General Cody a native, and there is little doubt that his time growing up in our State capital, Montpelier, instilled in him a deep sense of loyalty and public service. From the day of his commissioning to his last formal day in the service, General Cody made an indelible mark as an aviator, not just as an officer who could wield an Apache or Blackhawk with impressive precision and skill, but as a leader who inspired other aviators and maintainers to do their best. He competently led such prestigious and capable aviation units as the 160th Special Operations Regiment and the 101st Airborne Division. In the early stages of the first gulf war, he headed up one of the earliest and strategically critical aerial attacks, paving the way for subsequent air and ground forces. He amassed an impressive 5,000 hours of flight time. It was that quality to inspire and to lead through example that elevated General Cody to the higher ranks of the U.S. Army. His service as the Vice Chief of Staff has coincided with ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he has helped the Army restructure and reequip itself for that challenging undertaking. He has always been open about the Army's needs, clearly informing the service's civilian leaders, the media, and Congress about the tools necessary to carry out its missions. He has been involved in some vigorous debates in the Pentagon, out of which emerged sensible approaches to activation and equipping of the Reserves, including the National Guard. He always has in mind his view--built through that experience and knowledge--of what is best for the Army and the country. He is an articulate spokesperson and fierce advocate. General Cody has always kept one foot in Vermont where his family has such strong roots, particularly around Montpelier where he was born and raised. Few in the State have not purchased a car at Cody Chevrolet, which is owned and operated by the General's family. He and his lovely wife Vicki have two proud sons, Capt. Clint Cody and Capt. Tyler Cody, both Apache pilots in the Army. His immediate family has had the chance to spend considerable time in the State, experiencing the deep patriotism that runs through the Green Mountains and the Champlain Valley. It was only fitting that Norwich University, the Nation's oldest military academy, recently honored General Cody. General Cody has been open about the challenges that the Army faces. His forthright manner is matched only by the quiet energy he brings to tackling problems aggressively. He is the model Army officer, a doer as much as a thinker, a loyalist as much as someone speaking straight. As he retires, I know there are many in the Army, officers and enlisted, who will continue to strive to replicate the path that he blazed with such dynamic energy. I know he will continue to be engaged with the Army, and, for that--and, above all, that incredible 36 years of service--Vermont and the whole United States are grateful.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Kennedy and other Senators in the introduction of this legislation. The bill that we introduced yesterday will correct a decision of the Supreme Court that misconstrued the intent of Congress and cut off access to our Nation's courts for citizens injured or killed by defective medical devices. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on June 11 to examine the way in which the Supreme Court's decisions in the areas of retirement benefits and consumer product safety have consistently trended against the rights of consumers and in favor of big business. In many cases that have profound effects on the lives of ordinary Americans, the Court has either ignored the intent of Congress, or sided with a Federal agency's flawed interpretation of a congressional statute's preemptive froce to disadvantage consumers. It is regrettable that an anonymous Republican Senator objected on procedural grounds to the committee completing that hearing. And it is disappointing that the same party that engages in so much partisan rhetoric complaining about activist judges refuses to hear about the judicial activism when it comes from the judges whose activism they embrace as sound judicial philosophy. The impact of the decisions that were the focus of that hearing are being felt by Americans today, whether they are prohibited from seeking redress in the courts for an injury caused by a defective product, or left without remedies to enforce rights granted by Congress relating to nondiscrimination, or retirement and health care benefits. The bill we introduce today is an important step to correcting the Supreme Court's erroneous reading of Congress' intent in enacting the medical device amendments of 1976. Where the Court reaches to the extent it did in the Riegel decision to find Federal preemption contrary to what Congress intended, Congress is compelled to act. This legislation will make explicit that the preemption clause in the medical device amendments that the Court relied upon does not, and never was intended to preempt the common law claims of consumers injured by a federally approved medical device. As I noted in the Judiciary Committee's recent hearing, many of the Court's decisions that have the most far reaching impact on Americans' wallets, retirement and health benefits, or access to justice, are the least publicized. But Americans should be deeply concerned when decisions of the Supreme Court override the policy judgments made by their elected representatives in Congress and negatively affect their day-to-day lives in significant ways. The extraordinary power to preempt State law and regulation lies with Congress alone. And as the Supreme Court has said on many occasions, the fundamental inquiry into whether a Federal statute preempts State law is the intent of Congress. I hope the introduction of this legislation sends the strong signal that some Senators intend to hold the Court to its own often-repeated pronouncements about this important principle.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month's 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush reaffirmed our core American values, and served as a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration's flawed power grabs over the last 6 years. The Bush administration's repeated attempts to eliminate meaningful review of its actions by the Federal judiciary have again failed to withstand Supreme Court review. This decision is a vindication for those of us who have maintained from the beginning that the administration's detention policies were not only unwise, but were also unconstitutional. In the wake of the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001, toward the beginning of President Bush's first term in office, this country had an opportunity to come together to show that we could bring the perpetrators of heinous acts to justice, consistent with our history and our most deeply valued principles. I and others reached out to the White House to try to craft a thoughtful and effective bipartisan solution. Instead, this White House, supported by the Republican leadership in Congress, pursued its goal of increasing executive power at the expense of the other branches. In so doing, they chose a path that disregarded basic rights, lessened our standing in the world, trampled some of our most deeply held values, and brought us no closer to delivering justice to those who have injured us. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which explored the mistakes and missed opportunities of the past few years, we heard from Will Gunn, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and the former chief defense counsel of the Military Commissions. He believes that ``many of our detention policies and actions in creating the Guantanamo military commissions have seriously eroded fundamental American principles of the rule of law in the eyes of Americans and in the eyes of the rest of the world.'' Kate Martin, the Director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that the administration's decision to ignore the law of war and constitutional requirements had proved to be ``disastrous,'' and that ``[d]isrespect for the law has harmed, not enhanced, our national security.'' I agree with these sobering assessments. I think that we are less safe as a result of the Bush administration's policies. Some of us have tried in vain for years to move this country away from this destructive course, but, ironically, it has taken a conservative Supreme Court to remind this administration that the President's claim to unlimited power to override our laws is wrong. Boumediene is only the latest example of the Supreme Court decisively rejecting the administration's illegal and misguided policies. In 2004, the Supreme Court decided two habeas-related cases Rasul and Hamdi. In those cases, the Court rejected the Bush administration's reckless and ill-advised attempts to deprive citizens and noncitizens of their right to challenge their indefinite detention in Federal court. I said at the time that these decisions ``reaffirm the judiciary's role as a check and a balance, as the Constitution intends, on power grabs by other branches.'' I also called on the Republican-led Congress to ``stop acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of this administration and to exercise its constitutional responsibility to rein in White House unilateralism and overreaching.'' The following year the Republican-led Congress attempted to overrule the Supreme Court's Rasul decision by passing the Detainee Treatment Act, DTA. I spoke out against the habeas-stripping provisions contained in the DTA. I warned that ``in order to uphold our commitment to the rule of law, we must allow detainees the right to challenge their detention in Federal court.'' This effort to prevent people from using habeas procedures to challenge the basis for their detention in Federal court backfired. In a later decision in the Hamdan case the Supreme Court rejected the view that the DTA stripped the courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas cases. I applauded the Hamdan decision at the time as a ``triumph for our constitutional system of checks and balances.'' But once again, instead of following the Supreme Court's repeated reminders that our Government must respect our Constitution and laws, within weeks of the Hamdan decision, the last Congress, acting in complicity with the Bush administration, hastily passed the Military Commissions Act in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections. That bill sought, once again, to strip access to Federal courts for noncitizens determined to be enemy combatants or who were merely ``awaiting determination.'' It aimed to take away habeas rights not just for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, but also potentially for millions of lawful permanent residents working and paying taxes in this country. I voted no. These were my words then: Over 200 years of jurisprudence in this country, and following an hour of debate, we get rid of it. My God, have the Members of this Senate gone back and read their oath of office upholding the Constitution? [W]e are about to put the darkest blot possible on this Nation's conscience. Regrettably, the Federal appellate court in Washington, DC the same court whose limited review was supposed to serve as a substitute for the Great Writ fumbled its opportunity to set things right. It held that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions did not violate the Constitution. Those of us who recognized that Congress had committed a historic error when it recklessly eliminated the Great Writ of habeas corpus tried to reverse what had been done. But even with the support of several Republican Members of this body, Senator Specter and I fell 4 votes short of the 60 votes required to overcome a Republican filibuster of our effort last year to restore habeas rights by adding the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. In its Boumediene decision, the U.S. Supreme Court fulfilled its constitutional responsibility--a responsibility in which so many others had failed and upheld the Constitution and our core American values. After Boumediene, the administration's record in the Supreme Court on habeas is now 0 for 4. Four times it has sought to erode the time- honored habeas right that protects the liberties our forebears fought and died for. And four times the Supreme Court has repudiated these ill-advised efforts. One cannot help but wonder where we would be in the fight against terrorism today had the Bush administration spent more time trying to catch and try terrorists, and less time trying to erode our time- honored constitutional traditions. What did a majority of the conservative Supreme Court actually say in Boumediene? First, it reiterated that the Constitution extends to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. So the Bush administration's cynical gambit to house detainees just miles from the Florida coast to avoid judicial scrutiny and accountability for its conduct has failed as a matter of constitutional law. As the opinion of the Supreme Court correctly recognizes, the basic protections represented by the Great Writ ``must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.'' Second, the Supreme Court held that the administration's detention procedures put in place back in 2005 are a constitutionally inadequate substitute for habeas corpus. The Court found that the so-called combatant status review tribunals established to determine if detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have correctly been identified as enemy combatants are hopelessly flawed. I have maintained all along that it is unfair and un-American to detain anyone without judicial recourse based on proceedings that do not allow those held even the most basic due process rights. Third, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Military Commissions Act that strip away all habeas rights for the Guantanamo detainees and others are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's opinion written by Justice Kennedy is quite eloquent and moving. While recognizing the executive authority and responsibility to apprehend and detain those who pose a real danger to our security, Justice Kennedy went on to note: Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among those are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. He wisely counsels that the Constitution is fundamental, that ``[o]ur basic charter cannot be contracted away,'' and that the Constitution is not something the administration is able ``to switch on and off at will.'' He rightly concludes: The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law. The Supreme Court reaffirmed American values, our fundamental adherence to our Constitution and the rule of law, and our great strength in so doing. What is surprising is not that the U.S. Supreme Court would follow through on the earlier holdings of its opinions by Justice O'Connor and Justice Stevens, himself a decorated combat veteran, but that the decision was not unanimous. Justice Scalia's dissent reads like a threatening partisan statement from Vice President Cheney's office rather than an independent judicial review of the case. He uses language about Islam that was rightly condemned as wrong and counterproductive by this administration's own intelligence community, and he repeats the administration's tragically mistaken mantra by lumping the various factions of Islam, including those in Iraq, as a monolithic ``enemy'' collectively responsible for the attacks on the United States on September 11. Most disappointing is that his hyperbolic rhetoric is hard to square with his own acknowledgement in the 2004 Hamdi case that habeas corpus is ``the very core of our liberty secured in our Anglo-Saxon system of separation of powers'' and that ``indefinite imprisonment on reasonable suspicion is not an available option of treatment for those accused of aiding the enemy, absent a suspension of the writ.'' What role should Congress play as the Federal judiciary begins to implement the Boumediene decision? According to Attorney General Mukasey in his recent remarks on the future of habeas, Congress should jump in the fray again in an election year. Although he does not even have legislation to propose, he asks Congress to act hastily to minimize judicial oversight and maximize executive power. The Attorney General seems to have adopted the Bush administration's mantra: ``Don't trust the courts.'' The Attorney General has it exactly wrong. Congress made a mistake in 2005 when it bent to the will of the Bush administration by passing the Detainee Treatment Act, which created the detainee review process that the Supreme Court has now determined is hopelessly inadequate. Congress made a mistake in 2006 when it bent to the will of the Bush administration by passing the Military Commission Act, which, as we now know, violated the U.S. Constitution in its efforts to stop the Federal courts from reviewing executive detention decisions. It would be foolish to bend to the will of the Bush administration once again to try to weaken or circumvent the Boumediene decision. Worse, by hastily legislating now, we would risk perpetuating the terrible policy judgments of years past that have led us so far astray in the fight against terrorism. I trust our Federal courts to get it right. Had we relied on them to dispense American justice, perhaps we would have accomplished more in the fight against terrorism over the last several years. Our courts have proven themselves up to the task of trying the likes of Zacarias Moussaoui and Jose Padilla in difficult, complex and sensitive federal proceedings where unlike the restricted rights available in habeas proceedings these defendants enjoyed the full panoply of constitutional protections. These men now stand convicted of terrorism-related offenses and they will spend the rest of their lives in prison, as they should. Just as I would not have questioned Attorney General Mukasey's ability to deal with terrorism-related prosecutions when he was a judge in Manhattan, I do not question the ability of the Federal judges in Washington, DC, to handle the habeas petitions from the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba responsibly and diligently--particularly where our courts have proved up to the task in so many actual criminal trials. I was particularly disappointed to hear the Attorney General attempt to play on Americans' fears by suggesting that, in the wake of a Supreme Court decision affirming our core values, our national security will be somehow jeopardized if Congress does not act. He knows that no detainee has been set free as a result of the Boumediene decision, and that the government will have ample opportunity to justify its detention decisions on favorable standard of proof. He knows that Federal courts have successfully conducted terrorism cases using procedures derived from the Classified Information Procedures Act to ensure that classified information is safeguarded, and there have been no leaks of information where those procedures have been employed. And he knows that the federal court in Washington, DC, is taking steps to streamline and consolidate habeas proceedings to avoid unnecessary litigation. In fact, the Federal bench in Washington, DC, is working hard to follow the rule of the Supreme Court by ensuring a prompt, safe and orderly disposition of the 250 or so detainee habeas petitions. The judges, the Department of Justice, and lawyers for the detainees are now working to resolve key issues that will allow the cases to proceed in the months ahead. The court has also taken steps on its own to consolidate common issues before one judge former Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan--to streamline the review process as much as possible. In the meantime, for those detainees who have been charged under the law of war, the district court has ruled that the military commissions may proceed as planned, and that the right to habeas corpus will crystallize only once there is a final judgment. The Bush administration can hardly complain if it takes the Federal district judges presiding over these habeas cases some time to resolve them. After all, it was the Bush administration that tried to avoid court scrutiny at all costs for the last 7 years. The Supreme Court having rejected this effort, the courts must now be permitted to do their jobs. Is there anything that Congress should do at this time? One thing that Congress could and in my view should do is to pass the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act that Senator Specter and I introduced in the wake of the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, and with which we sought to modify the Military Commissions Act. A bipartisan majority of the Senate voted with us last year when we were seeking to add it to the Department of Defense authorization bill, but we were forestalled by a filibuster. I trust that those who said they were not ready to join us last year because of the pendency of the Supreme Court case will join us now and do the right thing. It was Congress's mistake to pass the habeas stripping provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act, and we should correct it by passing our bill to amend the law. The Supreme Court has already declared those provisions unconstitutional and ineffective. In my view, it is a shame that the Supreme Court had to step in before we corrected our mistake. These unconstitutional habeas-stripping provisions are a blot on the Senate, and on the Congress, and should not reside in our laws. We should reverse the Senate's action and correct its error. I do not want to see another Senate apologize years down the road for passing laws designed to strip habeas rights, as we have seen belated apologies for America's treatment of Native Americans, the internment of Japanese Americans, and other grievous errors in our past. I do not want a future Senate to look back with shame or have to issue an apology for unconstitutional legislation coming from this great body. Congress should pass the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Thereafter we will need to join together in the weeks and months ahead to rethink the misconceived legal framework that has been devised by this administration. We will need to work together--with each other, with the House and with the new administration--to supplement our laws, consistent with our Constitution and core values, and to restore our leadership in the world and more effectively defend our Nation. We can recapture the bipartisanship that we demonstrated in the days immediately following 9/11 and move forward, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. The Supreme Court was explicit that its decision in Boumediene only reached the unconstitutional attempt to strip habeas corpus review from these detainees and that the Detainee Treatment Act and combatant status review tribunal process remain intact. Likewise, the Attorney General and Department of Justice have said that the military commissions will continue, and a federal judge in Washington, DC, recently ruled against a detainee's effort to secure habeas review before his military commission was to commence. I think we will need to review both processes. The military commission system is so deeply flawed that after close to seven years it has only just started its first trial. The world will never view those proceedings as fair or consistent with the rule of law. We are too strong and confident a nation to seek vengeance or be driven by fear. America is great in part because it does not shirk from its legal obligations but embraces them and lives by them. When America acts, as it did, to circumvent the law by holding prisoners off shore, to contract out torture to third parties, or to suspend the Great Writ, we are not the America envisioned by our Founders and preserved by every previous generation of Americans. I look forward to working in the next session with Senator Feinstein on her initiative to close the Guantanamo Bay facility, and begin to erase the damage it has done to the United States' reputation around the world. She has sponsored legislation to move us in that direction. I want to commend Senator Whitehouse for his legislative proposal to establish a congressional commission to make nonpartisan recommendations to Congress on how best to proceed in the future. I know that Senators Durbin and Specter introduced military commission bills back in 2002, around the same time that I did. We will need to work across committee lines and across the aisle, to involve not only the reconstituted Department of Justice, but also the Departments of Defense and State as we go forward. We will need to reconsider where else we went wrong and how to set the entire system on better, stronger foundations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Federal court evaluating the contempt charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers made a very significant ruling. The court's ruling is a complete rejection of the Bush administration's unprecedented and unfounded blanket claim of executive privilege and immunity. The Court's ruling is a rebuke of this White House's arrogant coverup and stonewalling, an arrogant coverup designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and even illegal actions of this administration. It is also a reaffirmation of the principle of separate, coequal branches of our Government, something that has guided our Republic since its inception and something this administration has tried to ignore by making its best efforts to accrue unchecked Executive power. I commend Judge Bates. He is a former prosecutor, a Republican appointed by President Bush. I commend Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Conyers for their steadfastness in pressing this matter. I have long pointed out this administration's claims of executive privilege and immunity, which White House officials have used to justify refusing even to show up when the Congress has subpoenaed them, are wrong. Last November, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I issued a ruling that the White House's privilege and immunity claims were not legally valid to excuse Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to the Judiciary Committee's investigations into the unprecedented firing and manipulation of U.S. attorneys. Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten's continued noncompliance with the committee's subpoenas, even after my ruling, led the committee to vote to hold them in contempt of Congress. Even with that, they have put themselves above the law by refusing to appear and testify. This week the House Judiciary Committee also cited Mr. Rove for contempt. They had previously cited Ms. Miers for her failure to appear, as well as Mr. Bolten. It is long past time for senior administration officials to abide by the law and appear before Congress to offer testimony, testimony that is compelled by subpoena. This administration places themselves above the law. What the court said is none of us is above the law, not even the President of the United States, and especially not the people who work for and take orders from the President of the United States. They are not above the law. I commend the court for making that clear. In fact, the ruling by Judge Bates could not have been more plain. He wrote: [T]he Executive's current claim of absolute immunity from compelled Congressional process for senior Presidential aides is without any support in the case law. I will be sending letters to Karl Rove's lawyer and the White House counsel to schedule Mr. Rove's and Mr. Bolten's long-overdue appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, Judge Bates explained why the Bush-Cheney administration's blanket immunity claims were an unjustified encroachment upon the constitutional powers of Congress. The judge wrote: [I]f the Executive's absolute immunity argument were to prevail, Congress could be left with no recourse to obtain information that is plainly not subject to any colorable claim of executive privilege. This result, which the court concluded was ``unacceptable,'' would be that the ``Executive's proposed absolute immunity would thus deprive Congress of even non-privileged information.'' Many of us have said that this is an administration that considers themselves above the law, that the law applies to everybody except them. Well, the court has said the law applies to them just as it does to all other Americans. Despite the administration's attempts at every turn to short circuit Congress--even the courts--from being able to evaluate the executive privilege and immunity claims, Judge Bates's concurrence in these principles is a significant milestone. I will be sending a letter today to Attorney General Mukasey. I am going to ask when he intends to withdraw the erroneous Office of Legal Council opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its noncompliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by a court and the court has said that this administration, the Attorney General, the White House--all have to abide by the law. In addition, I intend to ask the Attorney General whether the court decision will cause them to reevaluate the Department's memoranda and opinions that have supported overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the investigation of the firing and manipulation of the U.S. attorneys but also in other matters, such as the claims used to block Congress when investigating warrantless wiretapping, or the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, or even White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency's decisionmaking to protect corporations at the expense of Americans' health. The court's decision undercuts the White House's blanket claims in all of these matters. The judge wrote that: Clear precedent and persuasive policy reasons confirm that the executive cannot be the judge of its own privilege. That is why we have asked for over a year for the White House to provide us with the specific legal basis for those claims and their validity. What the White House has said is they do not have to obey the law. They can break the law, they are above the law, and when they are asked: What do you base that on? What is it that says you are above the law and the people who work for you are above the law? their answer is: Because we say so. That is it. They do not point to any statute, they do not point to any case law, they do not point to anything except their own arrogance in stonewalling the people of this country who want to know what they are doing. That is not the way to have a nation of laws. You cannot have one person decide the law will apply to you, the law will apply to me, the law will apply to everybody in this Chamber but will not apply to the President or the people who work for him. I will continue to ask whether the White House's continued assertion of executive privilege in this matter means the President takes responsibility for the decision to fire well-performing prosecutors. To date, after more than a year and a half, he has not done so. Instead, he seeks to have it both ways: Well, ``mistakes were made''--by others, of course, yet somehow, executive privilege still applies. The White House's other blanket assertion says there is no wrongdoing in the firings. We have asked: What was the basis for that? They provide none. If the White House has information that led the President and others to discount the evidence of wrongdoing the investigating committees have gathered so far, that should be produced. Otherwise, we have to conclude they do not have any and it does not exist. To the contrary, the Judiciary Committee's investigation which led to the resignation of the Attorney General, the entire senior leadership of the Justice Department, and several high-ranking White House political officials has uncovered grave threats to the independence of law enforcement from political manipulation in the highest political ranks in the White House, including Karl Rove. The evidence shows that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of Federal prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It has long been apparent that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up. The tragic and corrupt politicization of Federal law enforcement by this administration is wrong. Reports released by the Justice Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, the latest just this week, have shown the reach of the political operatives of this administration, infecting the hiring for career prosecutors and immigration judges with improper and illegal political loyalty tests designed to embed ``loyal Bushies'' throughout the Department. So far, neither the Justice Department nor the White House has taken responsibility. Apparently, the White House intends its excuses that ``mistakes were made'' and that there were just a ``few bad apples'' to suffice. What we have uncovered is a widespread effort described by the Department's own Inspector General as ``systemic'', one that involved the highest ranking office holders at the Justice Department funneling White House loyalists into career positions. The White House's response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoenas has been to assert blanket claims of executive privilege and novel claims of absolute immunity to block current and former officials from complying. Based on these claims, neither Mr. Rove nor Mr. Bolten even appeared before the Committee to respond to the subpoenas. Now, a court has said that they must. The effects of the White House's assertions of privilege and immunity have been unmistakable, amounting to the withholding of critical evidence related to the congressional investigation. And all along they have contended that their blanket claim of privilege cannot be tested but must be accepted by the Congress as the last word. Today's ruling from Judge Bates is a resounding rejection of this White House's attempt to thwart accountability and a reaffirmation of Congress's ability to conduct oversight and the right of the American people to learn the truth about their government.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I wish to discuss two matters that involve the Senate Judiciary Committee.