Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate an article by Rabbi Michael Cohen who is director of special projects at the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies. Rabbi Cohen recently submitted the article entitled ``The Genesis of Diversity'' to the New York Times. In this article, Rabbi Cohen eloquently reminds us that environmental and biological diversity is not simply a thought or something we simply sit back and observe. Rather we are constant participants in the act of diversity and as such it is our responsibility as human beings to protect our environment. This article serves as a reminder of the importance of preserving environmental and biological diversity during this holiday season. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rabbi Michael M. Cohen's article entitled ``The Genesis of Diversity'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, being introduced today by Senators Lieberman and Smith. I cosponsored this legislation in the last Congress and I am pleased to do so again. This important legislation would provide domestic partners of Federal employees the same protections and benefits afforded to spouses of Federal employees. These benefits, available for both same and opposite-sex domestic partners of Federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries and insurance benefits, including life, Family and Medical Leave and health insurance. Equal pay for equal work is a cornerstone of our country's bedrock principles, and so too should equal access to important benefits. Insurance benefits, work incentives and retirement options comprise a significant portion of all employee compensation. By not offering domestic partnership benefits to its employees, the Federal government is unfairly withholding these valuable options from dedicated employees across the country. The idea that benefits should be extended to same sex couples has become increasingly prevalent in America's largest and most successful companies, state and local governments, and in educational institutions. Over half of all Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees, up from just 25 percent in 2000. Offering domestic partnership benefits to Federal employees would improve the quality of its workforce, demonstrate its commitment to fairness and equality for all Americans, and bring the Government in line with some of the Nation's largest employers. Providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees is long overdue. It is the right thing to do, it is the sensible step to take in the interest of having a fair and consistent policy, and I hope that the Senate will act quickly on this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Then I will not yield back.

Mr. LEAHY. Equally divided in the usual fashion?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. the PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. Amendment No. 3876 to Amendment No. 3874

Mr. LEAHY. I recommend that the Senators, for those who wish to go home, may want to make speeches after the vote. If they would like to make them before, of course. If they would like to make them before, they have that absolute right, and we would not yield back any time.

Mr. LEAHY. You want to stay here for the next hour and a half and vote and the next hour or so for the judge and vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am advised that there are between both sides nearly an hour and a half left to debate. My colleagues have been asking when we might vote on this and on the judge who is also to be voted on. If my friends on the other side are willing to yield back all their time, I am willing to yield back all time on this side and go to a vote on this measure. I am not trying to cut off anybody from their long speeches. But if they are willing to do that, we could save an hour and a half, yield back time on both sides, and then yield back everything but 1 minute per side on the judicial nomination and go straight to a vote on that. Do I hear any takers? I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on both the Republican and Democratic side.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that we included funding in the appropriations package for landmark programs created by the Justice For All Act of 2004. Specifically, we provide $2.5 million for Capital Litigation Improvement Grants to improve the quality of legal representation in State capital cases, and over $152 million to improve Federal and State DNA collection and analysis systems critical to the prosecution of the guilty and the protection of the innocent from wrongful prosecution. The Justice For All Act capped more than 4 years of effort by a bipartisan House and Senate coalition that included both supporters and opponents of the death penalty. It is the most significant step we have taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country and restore public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. That law increased Federal resources for combating crimes with DNA technology, established safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions, and enhanced protections for victims of Federal crimes. It authorized the Debbie Smith grant program to address the DNA backlog crisis in the Nation's crime labs, and created new grant programs to reduce other forensic science backlogs, train criminal justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, and promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. It also established enhanced and enforceable rights for crime victims in the Federal criminal justice system. The law also included legislation I authored called the Innocence Protection Act. That measure provides access to postconviction DNA testing in Federal cases, helps States improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases, and increases compensation in Federal cases of wrongful conviction. It established the Kirk Bloodsworth PostConviction DNA Testing Program to help States defray the costs of postconviction DNA testing. Getting the Justice For All Act fully-funded has proven to be tough, especially given the fiscal crunch that all criminal justice programs have faced in recent years. However, as a senior member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that sets the Justice Department budget, I have worked closely with CJS Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby to include in the omnibus package roughly $155 million to advance the comprehensive and far-reaching reforms in the criminal justice system established under the Justice For All Act. I thank my colleagues for their leadership in this area. State and local authorities will be better able to implement and enforce crime victims' rights laws, including Federal victim and witness assistance programs. They can apply for grants to develop and implement victim notification systems so that they can share information on criminal proceedings in a timely and efficient manner. The intent of the Justice For All Act was to create a fairer and more accurate system of justice for all Americans. The spending priorities set forth in the Justice Department portion of the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations package will help protect crime victims, maximize the use of forensic DNA evidence testing, and provide safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions. I note that this bill is the product of more than 9 months of work by the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. It meets the President's arbitrary budget ceiling, but because of the arbitrary ceiling, we have had to cut a number of things. Senator Gregg, Congresswoman Lowey, Congressman Wolf, and I worked on that to agree to the numbers so that the foreign ops part is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill, it is a bipartisan bill that attempts to address a myriad of foreign policy, national security, and domestic needs of this country. Other subcommittees worked just as hard and in a similar bipartisan manner. None of us are completely happy with the outcome. We had to make exceedingly difficult cuts to get to the President's number. But that is the nature of this process. It is ironic that a President who said he would veto this bill unless it was within his self-proclaimed budget ceiling because he wants to keep a lid on spending, is asking Congress for another $70 billion in emergency funding to continue the war in Iraq. Those dollars do not score against the budget, so the White House can espouse the fiction that the President is being fiscally responsible at the same time that he piles on the debt for future generations. Of course, he never threatened to veto any of the appropriations conference reports during the past 6 years. It is a political ploy after inheriting a balanced budget and tripling the national debt, but it is going to be hard felt by the American people. Cuts in funding for education, health care, public infrastructure, homeland security, environmental protection, transportation--no part of the federal budget was exempted except defense. The State and Foreign Operations portion of the bill is $2 billion below the President's budget. A full $1.3 billion of that cut was the result of the President's veto threat. It means fewer children will receive vaccinations in the poorest countries, less money for international peacekeeping, less for HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment, less for non-proliferation and anti- terrorism programs, less for disaster relief, less for education, environment, energy and agriculture programs. But, if the President gets his way, there will be tens of billions of dollars more to keep our troops bogged down in Iraq, while the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites continue to fight among themselves. Despite that, this omnibus bill is a far, far better outcome than continued spending at the fiscal year 2007 levels, and the dire consequences that would bring. The State and Foreign Operations portion totals $35.1 billion in discretionary budget authority including $2.4 billion in emergency spending. Without emergency spending, the bill totals $32.8 billion, which is $2 billion below the President's regular fiscal year 2008 request and $1.52 billion above the fiscal year 2007 level. Here are some of the highlights: We provide $6.5 billion for global health programs, including $345 million to combat malaria, $150 million for tuberculosis, and $5 billion for HIV/AIDS. We provide $546 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Added to funds in the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, this omnibus bill provides a total of $841 million for the Global Fund, an increase of $115 million above last year's level. It includes $446 million for child and maternal health, which is almost $100 million above last year's level. We provide $1.69 billion for United Nations peacekeeping, $550 of which will support the desperately needed UN-African Union force in Darfur. The bill provides $1 billion to assist the world's refugees, and $100 million to help Jordan cope with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees that have flooded that country, which is already home to tens of thousands of Palestinians. The bill provides the requested funds for Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the West Bank, Lebanon, and other needy countries. It provides $1.54 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which is $344 million above the Senate-passed level. It provides $501 million for Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs, an increase of $55 million above the fiscal year 2007 level. The bill does not include the so-called Mexico City language concerning international family planning which would have led to a Presidential veto. It is regrettable that the President would rather score political points than support private organizations that would use our funds for voluntary family planning services. The bill provides $968 million for embassy security, which is $190 million above the fiscal year 2007 level. There are several other important provisions in the State and Foreign Operations portion of this omnibus bill. One would make long overdue reforms to current law by allowing thousands of persecuted refugees, barred because they were members of armed groups that were allied with the U.S., or who were forced to offer food, shelter or other services to terrorist groups, to seek asylum here. This change was worked out by myself and Senator Kyl, and would provide relief to such Vietnam-era allies as the Hmong tribesman of Laos and the Montagnards of Vietnam, and for child soldiers and others who were forced against their will to provide support to terrorist groups. These people were there for us when we needed them, and we should not turn our backs when they need the safety of our shores. It is an affront to our values and to our reputation as a safe haven for victims of persecution. The changes we are making will also provide relief for Iraqi refugees, some of whom have been barred for paying ransom to secure the release of a family member who was kidnapped by insurgents. This change will not raise the number of refugees admitted to the United States, but it will bring our laws back in line with our values. This bill contains other provisions, some proposed by Democrats, some by Republicans, which make important improvements in our foreign assistance programs. We provide $300 million for safe drinking water and sanitation programs, consistent with the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act. There are funds set aside for reconciliation and people-to-people coexistence programs in the Middle East, as well as in other countries divided by ethnic, religious, or political conflict. There are new provisions which address the problem of corruption and governance in countries that receive U.S. assistance. There are new provisions to improve monitoring of U.S. military aid to countries that have human rights problems, and to address the problem of child soldiers. Mr. President, these are only a few of the items supported by both Democrats and Republicans in this omnibus bill, and they are only within the State and Foreign Operations portion. There are thousands of other important domestic programs funded by each of the other subcommittees whose bills make up this omnibus appropriations bill. Lastly, I wish the American public realized how much Senators on both sides of the aisle work together. I wish the American public realized the number of friendships there are on both sides of the aisle, both among the Senators and their families. Are we going to pass a perfect bill here? No. Am I opposed to the blank check for Iraq? Yes. We have been in Iraq longer than we were engaged in World War II. It is time to let our brave men and women come home to their families. I believe that from the bottom of my soul. The opposition I have to this bill is because of that. I know how proud I was when my youngest son, LCpl Mark Patrick Leahy of the Marine Corps, was one to answer the call in Desert Storm, as much as I feared for his safety, and how pleased I was that war ended so quickly, that he was not in harm's way. I also worry that that is not something parents can say when they see parents and wives and husbands, children and brothers and sisters when they see their family members in a war that has lasted longer than World War II. It is time to say: Come home, America. Come home, America, and face the problems in our country. Let the Iraqis now face their problems. Let them stand at the plate. Let us address the fact that we have so many unanswered problems in health and science, in addressing our myriad diseases, education, infrastructure, and everything else in this country. One thing I must say is that is in this bill, Senator Stevens and I changed the so-called WHTI provision in the omnibus. It shows some realities across the border into Canada and vice versa. There are those of us who think of Canada as that great country to the North. There are some of us who have family ties in Canada, some of us who feel that Canada is not a threat to the United States and we should not treat it as such. Mr. President, one important issue I wish to highlight today is an international border issue with our friendly neighbors in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean that could have severe implications for the social and economic ways of life for communities all across our country. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress has enacted a number of new border security measures, all with the expressed goal of preventing another terrorist incident. In this bill, we have worked hard to provide the needed resources for these programs in a fair and balanced manner. Post 9/11, everyone recognizes that there are potential threats and security needs, but we must implement them sensibly and intelligently. Over the past few years, I have heard from many Vermonters about problems they have encountered at U.S. border crossings, from long traffic backups to invasive searches and questioning to inadequate communication from Federal authorities about new facilities and procedures. Such a top-down approach does not work well in interwoven communities along the border, where people cross daily from one side to the other for jobs, shopping, and cultural events. We have hardened security around this Capitol and the White House and built fences near San Diego. But those procedures do not work on Canusa Avenue in Beebe Plain, a two-lane road where one side of the street is Vermont and the other side is Quebec, or at the Haskell Free Library and Opera House, which straddles the international border in Derby Line, Vermont, and Stanstead, Quebec. That is why I am pleased that this bill includes a much-needed delay for full implementation of the so-called Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which will require individuals from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean to present passports or other documents proving citizenship before entering the United States. I was pleased to join with Senator Stevens and many other colleagues from both bodies in pushing for inclusion of this important provision because it is clear that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State are not ready for a full rollout of the new passport checks next summer. Muddled thinking, poor planning, and administrative hubris have plagued implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The Department of Homeland Security has rushed to implement the new passport checks before the necessary technology, infrastructure and training are in place at our border stations. If these critical features of the deployment are not in place when the new program starts, we will see severe delays at our border and law-abiding citizens from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean will have great difficulty moving between our countries. Most importantly, a hasty implementation will undermine the intended goals of the program. The massive backlogs in processing passport applications we saw earlier this year when the Departments of Homeland Security and State started to require passports for air travel is just a taste of the chaos that is likely when they start enforcing citizenship checks at our Nation's land and sea borders in January. There is another train wreck on the horizon if these Federal agencies continue pushing forward with full implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative before the necessary policies and procedures are in place to handle the surge in applications and the lengthy border crossing delays that are sure to come. I appreciate the recognition by this Congress that premature implementation will recklessly risk the travel plans of millions of Americans and the economies of scores of U.S. States and communities. The Departments of Homeland Security and State have shown that they need more time to establish a set of rules and procedures that will do more than just shut our borders down to legitimate travel and trade. Mr. President, there is one item that was in the Senate passed version of H.R. 2764, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, that the conferees agreed to address in the explanatory statement accompanying the amended bill that is Division J of the omnibus bill, relating to Uganda. That language directs the Secretary of State to submit a report within 90 days detailing a strategy for substantially enhancing United States efforts to resolve the conflict between the Lord's Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda. The language specifies certain issues to be addressed in the strategy. It also indicates that $5 million is provided to implement the strategy. Due to an oversight, the $5 million was omitted from the funding table in the explanatory statement under the Economic Support Fund heading. However, it is the intent of the conferees that this amount in unallocated Economic Support Fund assistance be made available for this purpose. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Georgia is about to speak.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. In a few weeks, I will have served with him for 33 years. Now, in Robert C. Byrd time, 33 years is but a moment. In Patrick J. Leahy's time, it is a wee bit of time. But I remember coming here as a 34-year-old Senator--Senator Byrd was the majority whip at the time--and how much he taught me, and his colleague, the leader, Mike Mansfield, and then later when he was our leader, and, of course, sat on Appropriations. He has been my leader for all of those years. I appreciate his help. His late wife Erma was a very special friend of my wife's and mine, and I hope he does not mind me mentioning her at this time. I always thought when she and my wife Marcelle would meet at the grocery store that perhaps Bob and I were at a lower level. It went to a higher level when it was not Senator Byrd and Senator Leahy. But it was Marcelle and Erma talking about Bob and Patrick, and what should we do to take care of those folks. Well, Robert C. Byrd has taken care of all of us these years. It has been a privilege to serve on the Appropriations Committee with him. It is especially nice, because one of the closest friends I have in the Senate, Thad Cochran, has been both chairman and ranking member of that committee, and those of us who have been here for over a third of a century, as I have, know the majority and minority goes back and forth. The thing that does not go back and forth is the friendships we have across the aisles. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows that his father and I were very close friends and served together. His mother and my wife were close friends. Those kinds of friendships go on through the years and through the decades. We have spoken of the Senate as being a family. Indeed it is. It is probably a family that wants to go home and go to bed, so I will not push this much longer. But I think how important it is that we do have these chances to be together. So I applaud Senator Byrd, I applaud Senator Cochran, and their staffs. Because this is the Foreign Operations Bill we are on, I want to mention my own staff: Tim Rieser, Kate Eltrich, Nikole Manatt, who handle the Appropriations subcommittee for me, and the various other matters they are involved in here; J.P. Dowd, my legislative director; Ed Pagano, my chief of staff; Bruce Cohen, who is always listed as one of the 50 most important people here in the Senate--I get listed as an asterisk--because of what he does to make sure the Judiciary matters are kept here; Jessica Berry and so many others who keep this thing going. I said to Senator Reid, our distinguished leader, we Senators are but mere constitutional impediments to our staffs. We know they are the ones who run it. Roscoe Jones of my staff was here, probably never heard me say that. He is trying desperately to keep a straight face, but it is a fact. We have included within this money for DNA funding $4.8 million for the Kirk Bloodsworth post-conviction DNA testing grants, and $147 million for the Debbie Smith DNA backlog grants. I am privileged to know both Kirk Bloodsworth and Debbie Smith.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation on time?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Georgia rising. Do you wish to speak?

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator is willing to wait for a few minutes?

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, not counting leader time, what is the provision of time once Senator Feingold has introduced his second- degree amendment?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Wisconsin. I ask, of the half hour on this side, that 15 minutes be given to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, 10 minutes to the senior Senator from West Virginia, 5 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, and that the Senator from Vermont who is a cosponsor be allowed to submit a statement as though read for the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has the floor, but would he yield me at least a couple minutes in reference to what my colleague from Vermont just spoke about?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will pass S. 2135, the Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2007. I commend Senator Durbin and Senator Coburn for their leadership on this important legislation to combat the unconscionable practice of using children as soldiers in violent conflicts, and I was proud to join as a cosponsor of this bill. I am glad that Senators Durbin and Coburn worked with me and others on the Senate Judiciary Committee to produce a consensus bill and to move it through Committee and the Senate. The United States should do all it can to prevent and punish this conduct which is so contrary to our values. 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 commit human rights violations cannot come to this country as 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 another example of the good work of the Judiciary Committee's new Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. I am glad that the efforts Subcommittee Chairman 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. This is an area in which I have worked for many years as the chair and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. During the last 5 years, America's reputation has suffered tremendously. Some of our ability to lead on human rights issues has been needlessly and carelessly squandered. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and torture have tarnished that role and that tradition. The secret prisons that the President confirmed last year, this Administration's role in sending people to other countries where they would be tortured, and recent revelations of the destruction of videotapes showing cruel interrogations by the CIA have led to condemnation by our allies, to legal challenges, and to possible criminal investigations. I was proud to work with Senator Durbin to create the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee. This subcommittee will continue to closely examine some of the important and difficult legal issues that are now a focus of the Judiciary Committee and will work to reverse and correct the damaging policies established by this administration over the last 6 years. The subcommittee has already spearheaded the Genocide Accountability Act, which will soon provide a powerful new tool in America's efforts to prevent and punish genocide, and 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. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill that will help will build upon our efforts to improve the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, which has had so much success in protecting the lives of law enforcement officers across the country. The bill introduced today provides a need-based waiver of matching requirements that will aid State and local law enforcement agencies in financial hardship purchase body armor for their officers. I thank Senators Clinton, Mikulski, Shelby, and Landrieu for joining me to introduce this bill to give our law enforcement officers the protection they need. I was proud to work with Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell to author the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, which responded to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border when two state troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost. Since its inception in 1999, I have worked to reauthorize this program three times, most recently in the 2005 Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization bill. Since 1999, the BVP program has provided $173 million to purchase an estimated 500,000 vests in more than 11,500 jurisdictions nationwide. Vermont has received more than $600,000 in bulletproof vest funding under this program, which has been used to purchase 2700 vests statewide. I want to thank Senators Mikulski and Shelby for continuing to recognize this program as a priority. As Chair and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that finalizes Justice Department spending priorities, they saw fit to include more than $25 million for the Bulletproof Vest Program in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations bill. Bulletproof vests remain one of the foremost defenses for our uniformed officers, but law enforcement agencies nationwide are struggling over how to find the funds necessary to replace either aged vests, which have a life expectancy of roughly 5 years, or purchase new vests for newly hired officers. We want to ensure that our law enforcement officers are outfitted with vests that will actually stop bullets and save lives. Vests cost between $500 and $1,000 each, depending on the style. Officers are being forced to dip into their own pockets to pay for new vests due to local and State agency budget shortfalls, and will continue to do so unless the Federal Government offers more help. The bill we introduce today will give discretion to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance within the Justice Department to grant waivers or reductions in the match requirements for bulletproof vests awards to State and local law enforcement agencies that can demonstrate fiscal hardship. Our local law enforcement agencies are constantly responding to new challenges, from fighting a recent rise in violent crime to responding to threats of terrorism, and many localities lack the resources to effectively combat these challenges. Waiving the match requirement for life-saving body armor should be available for police agencies like those in New Orleans, on the Gulf Coast, or in other areas that experience disasters or other circumstances that create fiscal hardships. A tragic event in Tennessee in 2005 highlights the need for this legislation. Wayne ``Cotton'' Morgan, a Tennessee correctional officer was gunned down on August 9, 2005, outside the Kingston Court House by the wife of an inmate being escorted by Officer Morgan. He was killed, and the prisoner and his wife escaped. Officer Morgan was not wearing a bulletproof vest, although he repeatedly requested one from the warden at Brushy Mountain Prison. The Tennessee Department of Corrections Administrative Policies and Procedures memorandum required that fitted vests be provided to individuals assigned to transportation duties. Despite this requirement and Officer Morgan's repeated requests, he was not issued a vest due to lack of funding. This legislation will help ensure that no officer is left without a bulletproof vest for lack of resources in his or her department. Our law enforcement officers deserve the fundamental protection that bulletproof vests can provide. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of the Bulletproof Vests Partnership Program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. I look forward to working with the Senate to pass this bipartisan bill to better to protect our law enforcement officers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, today, Senator Hatch and I are, once again, introducing important intellectual property legislation together. We are introducing the Performance Rights Act of 2007 for a very simple and clear reason: artists should be compensated fairly for the use of their work. I am an avid music fan. Music entertains, enlightens, and inspires us. Much of the music enjoyed by most Americans, including myself, was first heard on traditional, over-the-air radio. There is no question that radio play promotes artists and their sound recordings; there is also no doubt that radio stations profit directly from playing the artists' recordings. When radio stations broadcast music, listeners are enjoying the intellectual property of two creative artists the songwriter and the performer. The success, and the artistic quality, of any recorded song depends on both. Radio stations pay songwriters for a license to broadcast the music they have composed. That is proper, and that is fair. The songwriters' work is promoted by the air play, but no one seriously questions that the songwriter should be paid for the use of his or her work. But the performing artist is not paid by the radio station. The time has come to end this inequity. Its historical justification has been overtaken by technological change; the economics of the radio industry of years past has been superseded by entirely new business models. Webcasters compensate performing artists, satellite radio compensates performing artists, and cable companies compensate performing artists; only terrestrial broadcasters still do not pay for the use of sound recordings. Artists should have the same rights regardless of whether it is a terrestrial broadcaster or a webcaster using and profiting from their work. Radio play may have promotional value to the artist, but there is a property right in the sound recording, and those that create the content should be compensated for its use. In ensuring artists are compensated, two other principles important to me are reflected in this legislation. First, noncommercial and small commercial radio stations should be nurtured, and not threatened by a change in the law. Second, songwriters, who now are, as they should be, paid for use of their work should not have their rights diminished in any way. The legislation we introduce today on a bipartisan basis, along with companion bipartisan legislation being introduced today in the House of Representatives, provides that artists will be compensated by broadcasters for the use of their work. Noncommercial stations--from Vermont Public Radio which broadcasts ``Saturday Afternoon at the Opera,'' to the campus radio station at St. Michael's college that plays ``Those Monday Blues'' and ``The Odds and Evens Jazz Show''--have a different mission than commercial stations, and therefore need a different status, one that will subject the stations only to a nominal flat fee for use of sound recordings. Commercial radio stations that have a revenue under $1.25 million, which comprises roughly three- fourths of all music radio stations, will also have a flat fee option. Traditional, over-the-air radio remains vital to the vibrancy of our music culture, and I want to continue to see it prosper as it transitions to digital. But I also want to ensure that the performing artist the one whose sound recordings drive the success of broadcast radio is fairly compensated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill that will help will build upon our efforts to improve the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, which has had so much success in protecting the lives of law enforcement officers across the country. The bill introduced today provides a need-based waiver of matching requirements that will aid State and local law enforcement agencies in financial hardship purchase body armor for their officers. I thank Senators Clinton, Mikulski, Shelby, and Landrieu for joining me to introduce this bill to give our law enforcement officers the protection they need. I was proud to work with Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell to author the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, which responded to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border when two state troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost. Since its inception in 1999, I have worked to reauthorize this program three times, most recently in the 2005 Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization bill. Since 1999, the BVP program has provided $173 million to purchase an estimated 500,000 vests in more than 11,500 jurisdictions nationwide. Vermont has received more than $600,000 in bulletproof vest funding under this program, which has been used to purchase 2700 vests statewide. I want to thank Senators Mikulski and Shelby for continuing to recognize this program as a priority. As Chair and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that finalizes Justice Department spending priorities, they saw fit to include more than $25 million for the Bulletproof Vest Program in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations bill. Bulletproof vests remain one of the foremost defenses for our uniformed officers, but law enforcement agencies nationwide are struggling over how to find the funds necessary to replace either aged vests, which have a life expectancy of roughly 5 years, or purchase new vests for newly hired officers. We want to ensure that our law enforcement officers are outfitted with vests that will actually stop bullets and save lives. Vests cost between $500 and $1,000 each, depending on the style. Officers are being forced to dip into their own pockets to pay for new vests due to local and State agency budget shortfalls, and will continue to do so unless the Federal Government offers more help. The bill we introduce today will give discretion to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance within the Justice Department to grant waivers or reductions in the match requirements for bulletproof vests awards to State and local law enforcement agencies that can demonstrate fiscal hardship. Our local law enforcement agencies are constantly responding to new challenges, from fighting a recent rise in violent crime to responding to threats of terrorism, and many localities lack the resources to effectively combat these challenges. Waiving the match requirement for life-saving body armor should be available for police agencies like those in New Orleans, on the Gulf Coast, or in other areas that experience disasters or other circumstances that create fiscal hardships. A tragic event in Tennessee in 2005 highlights the need for this legislation. Wayne ``Cotton'' Morgan, a Tennessee correctional officer was gunned down on August 9, 2005, outside the Kingston Court House by the wife of an inmate being escorted by Officer Morgan. He was killed, and the prisoner and his wife escaped. Officer Morgan was not wearing a bulletproof vest, although he repeatedly requested one from the warden at Brushy Mountain Prison. The Tennessee Department of Corrections Administrative Policies and Procedures memorandum required that fitted vests be provided to individuals assigned to transportation duties. Despite this requirement and Officer Morgan's repeated requests, he was not issued a vest due to lack of funding. This legislation will help ensure that no officer is left without a bulletproof vest for lack of resources in his or her department. Our law enforcement officers deserve the fundamental protection that bulletproof vests can provide. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of the Bulletproof Vests Partnership Program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. I look forward to working with the Senate to pass this bipartisan bill to better to protect our law enforcement officers.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, today, Senator Hatch and I are, once again, introducing important intellectual property legislation together. We are introducing the Performance Rights Act of 2007 for a very simple and clear reason: artists should be compensated fairly for the use of their work. I am an avid music fan. Music entertains, enlightens, and inspires us. Much of the music enjoyed by most Americans, including myself, was first heard on traditional, over-the-air radio. There is no question that radio play promotes artists and their sound recordings; there is also no doubt that radio stations profit directly from playing the artists' recordings. When radio stations broadcast music, listeners are enjoying the intellectual property of two creative artists the songwriter and the performer. The success, and the artistic quality, of any recorded song depends on both. Radio stations pay songwriters for a license to broadcast the music they have composed. That is proper, and that is fair. The songwriters' work is promoted by the air play, but no one seriously questions that the songwriter should be paid for the use of his or her work. But the performing artist is not paid by the radio station. The time has come to end this inequity. Its historical justification has been overtaken by technological change; the economics of the radio industry of years past has been superseded by entirely new business models. Webcasters compensate performing artists, satellite radio compensates performing artists, and cable companies compensate performing artists; only terrestrial broadcasters still do not pay for the use of sound recordings. Artists should have the same rights regardless of whether it is a terrestrial broadcaster or a webcaster using and profiting from their work. Radio play may have promotional value to the artist, but there is a property right in the sound recording, and those that create the content should be compensated for its use. In ensuring artists are compensated, two other principles important to me are reflected in this legislation. First, noncommercial and small commercial radio stations should be nurtured, and not threatened by a change in the law. Second, songwriters, who now are, as they should be, paid for use of their work should not have their rights diminished in any way. The legislation we introduce today on a bipartisan basis, along with companion bipartisan legislation being introduced today in the House of Representatives, provides that artists will be compensated by broadcasters for the use of their work. Noncommercial stations--from Vermont Public Radio which broadcasts ``Saturday Afternoon at the Opera,'' to the campus radio station at St. Michael's college that plays ``Those Monday Blues'' and ``The Odds and Evens Jazz Show''--have a different mission than commercial stations, and therefore need a different status, one that will subject the stations only to a nominal flat fee for use of sound recordings. Commercial radio stations that have a revenue under $1.25 million, which comprises roughly three- fourths of all music radio stations, will also have a flat fee option. Traditional, over-the-air radio remains vital to the vibrancy of our music culture, and I want to continue to see it prosper as it transitions to digital. But I also want to ensure that the performing artist the one whose sound recordings drive the success of broadcast radio is fairly compensated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of attending performances by the Eagles, and I have enjoyed a long friendship with Don Henley and the members of the band. I talked with Don recently about their new double-disc set ``Long Road Out of Eden'' and how they came about making it. We also talked about the last impromptu performance of the Eagles I attended, which was at Camp David at a farewell party for President Bill Clinton, who was leaving office within 48 hours. As always, they were superb. I have listened so many times to their music while traveling, at my home in Vermont, and in my office, and I thought my colleagues may benefit from the transcript of an interview Don Henley recently had with CNN. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.