Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this month the Nation is observing National Cyber Security Awareness Month and, today, I am pleased to have Senator Specter join me in introducing our Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2007. This bipartisan criminal bill will provide new tools to federal prosecutors to combat identity theft and other cyber crimes. Senator Specter has been a valuable partner in addressing the growing problem of identity theft for many years. When he served as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we worked closely together on comprehensive data privacy legislation to combat identity theft. During my tenure as Chairman, we have continued our efforts to enact comprehensive data privacy legislation. I appreciate Senator Specter's willingness to work with me once again on this important privacy issue and I look forward to our close partnership yielding results in this Congress. When Senator Specter and I first introduced our comprehensive data privacy bill in 2005, we both knew that there was an urgent need to bring data privacy reforms to the American people. The Judiciary Committee has twice favorably reported the Leahy-Specter Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, most recently in May 2007, and that important privacy bill is now awaiting consideration by the full Senate as S.495. The privacy reforms in that bill are long overdue and I sincerely hope that the Senate will fulfill its obligation to bring meaningful privacy protections to the American people. The bipartisan Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act that we are introducing today takes several important steps to build upon our past efforts to protect Americans from the dangers of identity theft. First, our bill 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. Unfortunately, under current law, restitution for identity theft victims is only available to recover the direct financial costs incurred by victims, such as recovering funds for unauthorized credit card charges. But, many identity theft victims incur other, indirect costs, such as lost wages due to time taken off from work to resolve credit disputes. Our bill amends the Federal criminal code to clarify that restitution orders in identity theft cases may include a recovery of these kinds of indirect costs, so that identity theft victims can be made whole. Second, to address the more sophisticated and complex identity theft crimes committed in today's digital era, our bill also expands the scope of the Federal identity theft statutes so that the law keeps up with the ingenuity of today's identity thieves. The bill expands the definition of ``aggravated identity theft'' under existing law, to include the crime of ``conspiracy'' to commit any of the crimes defined as aggravated identity theft in the criminal code. The bill also adds three new crimes--passing counterfeit securities, mail theft, and tax fraud--to the list of predicate offenses for aggravated identity theft. In order to better deter this kind of criminal activity, the bill significantly increases the criminal penalties for these crimes. In addition, our bill addresses several growing and disturbing trends in the area of cyber crime. To address the increasing number of computer hacking crimes that involve computers located within the same state, the bill 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. Our bill also addresses the growing problem of the malicious use of spyware to steal sensitive personal information, by amending the criminal code to eliminate the requirement that the loss resulting from the damage to a victim's computer must exceed $5,000 in order to federally prosecute this offense. Our bill also addresses the increasing number of cyber attacks on multiple computers, by making it a felony to employ spyware or keyloggers to damage ten or more computers, regardless of the aggregate amount of damage caused. By making this crime a felony, the bill ensures that the most egregious identity thieves will not escape with minimal punishment under Federal cyber crime laws. Lastly, our bill strengthens the protections for American businesses which are more and more becoming the focus of identity thieves. Because in today's digital economy, cyber-criminals often seek to extort money from American businesses without explicitly threatening to shut down or otherwise cause damage to a company computer, our bill amends the Federal criminal code to expressly cover extortion plots that do not involve a specific threat to damage a computer. The current law does not reach this kind of bad conduct; but, our bill corrects this shortcoming 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. In addition, because a business as well as an individual can be a prime target for identity theft, our bill also closes several gaps in the federal identity theft and the aggravated identity theft statutes, so that identity thieves who steal sensitive information belonging to a small business or a corporation may also be prosecuted under these laws. Senator Specter and I have worked closely with the Department of Justice in crafting this criminal legislation and the Leahy-Specter Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act has the strong support of the Department of Justice, the Secret Service and the Federal prosecutors and investigators who are on the front lines of the battle against identity theft and other cyber crimes. The bill is also supported by the business community and consumer groups. Enacting good, bipartisan legislation to combat identity theft and to protect American consumers should be one of the Senate's top legislative priorities. Senator Specter and I are deeply committed to bringing long overdue data privacy protections to the American people. I hope that all Members of the Senate will join with us in supporting this important privacy legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3249.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The Senator from Maryland. Amendments Nos. 3279; 3283; 3290, as Modified; 3278; 3312, as Modified; 3314; 3276; 3304, as Modified; 3228, as Modified; 3208, as Modified; 3249, as Further Modified; 3311; 3209; and 3227, previously agreed to, as Modified

Mr. LEAHY. I send to the desk a modification and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize the outstanding work of Clear Path International, a nongovernmental organization based in Dorset, VT. Since 2000, they have worked to locate and remove landmines and other unexploded ordnance in Vietnam, Cambodia, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, and more recently have focused on helping the innocent victims of these indiscriminate weapons with medical, rehabilitation, and vocational assistance. As someone who has fought for years to rid the world of landmines, I am proud that Clear Path is based in my home State. Clear Path recently expanded its work to Afghanistan. I ask unanimous consent that a September 15, 2007, article in the Rutland Herald about Clear Path's work be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I know he is going to be speaking on that nomination and stating his reasons for opposition, but I wanted it known by both leaders that I will not be requesting a rollcall vote on any of these. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi is on the floor and I have advised him of that also. The Senate continues, as we have all year, to make progress filling judicial vacancies when the White House will work with us. The nominations before us today for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench are Jennifer Walker Elrod for the Fifth Circuit, Roslynn Renee Mauskopf for the Eastern District of New York, Richard Jones for the Western District of Washington, and Sharion Aycock for the Northern District of Mississippi. They each have the support of both home State Senators. I thank Senators Murray, Cantwell, Cochran, Lott, Hutchinson, Cornyn, Schumer and Clinton for their work in connection with these nominations. The progress we have made this year in considering and confirming judicial nominations is sometimes lost amid the partisan sniping over the most controversial nominations. If the nominations we consider today are confirmed, the Senate will have already confirmed 33 nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench this session alone. That is more judicial nominations than were confirmed in all of 2005 or 2006 with a Republican majority. It is 16 more confirmations than were achieved during the entire 1996 session, nearly doubling that session's total of 17, when Republicans stalled consideration of President Clinton's nominations. Judge Elrod would be the Fourth Circuit court nominee confirmed so far this year. That is more than the number of President Clinton's circuit court nominations confirmed by this time in 1999 with a Republican-led Senate and four more than the Republican-led Senate confirmed in the entire 1996 session. That was the session in which not a single circuit court nominee was confirmed. That is more than were confirmed in all of 1993 and equals the total in 1983. If the nominations are confirmed today, the Senate will have confirmed 21 circuit court nominations and 133 total Federal judicial nominees in my tenure as Judiciary chairman. During the Bush Presidency, more circuit judges, more district judges--more total judges--have been confirmed in the first 24 months that I served as Judiciary chairman than during the 2-year tenures of either of the two Republican chairmen working with Republican Senate majorities. Today, we consider a nominee to the Fifth Circuit. During the Clinton administration several outstanding nominees to the Fifth Circuit were pocket filibustered. They included Judge Jorge Rangel of Texas, Enrique Moreno of Texas and Alston Johnson of Louisiana. They were pocket filibustered without a hearing or committee consideration. In contrast, the Judiciary Committee has proceeded with this nomination. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will list 44 judicial vacancies after today's confirmations. The President has sent us only 20 nominations for these remaining vacancies. Twenty-four of these vacancies--more than half--have no nominee. Of the 16 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for half of them. Of the 15 circuit court vacancies, 6--more than a third--are without a nominee. If the President would decide to work with the Senators from Michigan, Rhode Island, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and Virginia, we could be in position to make even more progress. We have helped cut the circuit vacancies from a high mark of 32 in the early days of this administration, to as few as 13. Contrast that with the Republican-led Senate's lack of action on President Clinton's moderate and qualified nominees that resulted in increasing circuit vacancies during the Clinton years from 17 to 26. During those years, the Republican-led Senate engaged in strenuous and successful efforts under the radar to keep circuit judgeships vacant in anticipation of a Republican President. More than 60 percent of current circuit court judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, with the current President having appointed more than 30 percent of the active circuit judges already. Two of the vacancies being filled today are categorized by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts as judicial emergency vacancies. With these confirmations we will have proceeded to fill 18 such vacancies this year. Jennifer Walker Elrod is a judge on the 190th District Court for Harris County, TX, a position she has held since 2002. A native of Port Arthur, TX, and a graduate of Baylor University and Harvard Law School, Judge Elrod clerked for Judge Sim Lake on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and spent 8 years in private practice at Baker Botts before joining the bench. Roslynn Renee Mauskopf has served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York since her 2002 appointment by President Bush. Ms. Mauskopf received her B.A. from Brandeis and her law degree from Georgetown before spending 13 years as assistant district attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office and serving a stint as New York State's inspector general. Richard Anthony Jones has been a judge on the King County Superior Court since 1994. Previously, Judge Jones, a graduate of Seattle University and the University of Washington School of Law, served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District of Washington, staff attorney for the Port of Seattle, and deputy prosecuting attorney for King County, also spending 6 years in private practice at Bogle and Gates. Sharion Aycock has been a state trial judge on the First Circuit Court District in Tupelo, MS, since 2003. A native of Tupelo, MS, Judge Aycock, who received her B.A. from Mississippi State University and her J.D. from Mississippi College School of Law, served for 8 years as Itawamba County prosecuting attorney, and spent time in private practice in Mississippi as a solo practitioner and at law firms. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today. The Judiciary Committee has reported dozens of measures to the Senate that await action, from privacy legislation to war profiteering legislation to court legislation, all on a bipartisan basis. Yet we are stalled on several important matters. I have spoken before of the Republican objection to our going to conference to finish work on the Court Security Improvement Act, S. 378, which the committee reported to the Senate back in March. We had to overcome a filibuster just to consider it. It ultimately passed the Senate 97 to zero. We are being prevented from going to conference to resolve differences with the House by Republican objection. I have spoken before about the War Profiteering Prevention Act, S. 119, what has been stalled for months by unspecified Republican objections. I have spoken before about the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act, S. 535. It was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, yet a Republican Senator objected to Senate passage this week. Similarly there is a modest bill to extend temporary judgeships in five districts, S. 1327. That simple bill is likewise being prevented from passage by a Republican objection. Today, I want to focus on another important measure, the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act. Two months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee originated the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, a legislative package that responds to the tragic deaths that occurred this past April on the campus of Virginia Tech. We tried to show deference to Governor Kaine and the task forces at work in Virginia and to complement their work and recommendations. Working with several Senators, including Senators Boxer, Reed, Specter, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin, the Committee originated this bill and reported it before the commencement of the academic year in the hope that the full Senate could pass these critical school safety improvements this fall. Over the past 2 weeks, Senator Schumer and I have tried separately to pass the component of the bill designed to fix flaws in the Nation's background check system. Regrettably, our efforts were blocked by a single Senator. I do not think the Senate should continue to stand by and wait for the next horrific school tragedy to make the critical changes necessary to insure safety in our schools and on our college campuses. Risks of school violence will not go away just because Congress may shift its focus. In just the last few weeks we have seen tragedy at Delaware State and Memphis, as well as incidents in California and New York. I urge the Senate to move aggressively with the comprehensive school safety legislation. It includes background check improvements together with other sensible yet effective safety improvement measures supported by law enforcement across the country. Accordingly, I urge the Senate to take up and swiftly pass S. 2084. If we are prohibited by objection from doing so by unanimous consent, then let us move to it and let those with objections seek to amend those provisions to which they object. There are too many incidents at too many colleges and schools nationwide. This terrorizes students and their parents. We should be doing what we can to help. Just this past week, a troubled student wearing a Fred Flintstone mask and carrying a rifle through campus was arrested at St. John's University in Queens, NY, prompting authorities to lock down the campus for 3 hours. The next day, an armed 17-year-old on the other side of the country in Oroville, CA, held students hostage at Las Plumas High School, which also resulted in a lock-down. The students in these situations escaped with their lives. University of Memphis student Taylor Bradford was not so lucky. He was killed on campus this past Sunday morning in what university officials believe was a targeted attack. He was 21 years old. Shalita Middleton and Nathaniel Pew were not so lucky. They were both wounded during an incident at Delaware State and are still hospitalized from the gun shot wounds with Ms. Middleton still in serious condition. They are each only 17 years old. The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act responds directly to incidents like these by squarely addressing the problem of violence in our schools in several ways. The bill enlists the States as partners in the dissemination of critical information by making significant improvements to the National Instant Background Check System, known as the NICS system. The bill also authorizes Federal assistance for programs to improve the safety and security of our schools and institutions of higher education, provides equitable benefits to law enforcement serving those institutions, and funds pilot programs to develop cutting-edge prevention and intervention programs for our schools. The bill also clarifies and strengthens 2 existing statutes--the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act--which are designed to improve public safety. Specifically, title I would improve the safety and security of students both at the elementary and secondary school level, and on college and university campuses. The K-12 improvements are drawn from a bill that Senator Boxer introduced in April, and I want to thank Senator Boxer for her hard work on this issue. The improvements include increased funding for much-needed infrastructure changes to improve security as well as the establishment of hotlines and tip-lines, which will enable students to report potentially dangerous situations to school administrators before they occur. To address the new realities of campus safety, title I also creates a matching grant program for campus safety and security to be administered out of the COPS Office of the Department of Justice. The grant program would allow institutions of higher education to apply, for the first time, directly for Federal funds to make school safety and security improvements. The program is authorized to be appropriated at $50,000,000 for the next 2 fiscal years. While this amounts to just $3 per student each year, it will enable schools to more effectively respond to dangerous situations on campus. Title II of the bill seeks to improve the NICS system. The senseless loss of life at Virginia Tech revealed deep flaws in the transfer of information relevant to gun purchases between the States and the Federal Government. The defects in the current system permitted the perpetrator of this terrible crime to obtain a firearm even though a judge had declared him to be a danger to himself and thus ineligible under Federal law. Seung-Hui Cho was not eligible to buy a weapon given his mental health history, but he was still able to pass a background check because data was missing from the system. We are working to close gaps in the NICS system. Title II will correct these problems, and for the first time will create a legal regime in which disqualifying mental health records, both at the State and Federal level, would regularly be reported into the NICS system. Title III would make sworn law enforcement officers who work for private institutions of higher education and rail carriers eligible for death and disability benefits, and for funds administered under the Byrne grant program and the bulletproof vest partnership grant program. Providing this equitable treatment is in the best interest of our Nation's educators and students and will serve to place the support of the Federal Government behind the dedicated law enforcement officers who serve and protect private colleges and universities nationwide. I commend Senator Jack Reed for his leadership in this area. Title IV of the bill makes improvements to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. These amendments to existing law will streamline the system by which qualified retired and active officers can be certified under LEOSA. It serves us all when we permit qualified officers, with a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement and no adverse employment history, to protect themselves and their families wherever they may be. Title V incorporates the PRECAUTION Act, which Senators Feingold and Specter asked to have included. This provision authorizes grants to develop prevention and intervention programs for our schools. Finally, title VI incorporates the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007, at the request of Senator Kennedy. Let us go forward and act now on this important bill. The Virginia Tech Review Panel--a body commissioned by Governor Tim Kaine to study the Virginia Tech tragedy--recently issued its findings based on a 4- month long investigation of the incident and its aftermath. This bill would adopt a number of recommendations from the Review Panel aimed at improving school safety planning and reporting information to NICS. We must not miss this opportunity to implement these initiatives nationwide, and to take concrete steps to ensure the safety of our kids. I recognize that there is no panacea to end the sad phenomenon of school violence. The recent tragedies should prompt us to respond in realistic and meaningful ways when we are presented with such challenges. I hope the Senate can promptly move this bill forward to invest in the safety of our students and better support law enforcement officers across the country. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues for my voice. We seem to have enough matter in the air to affect it. I look forward to the fact that in a couple of days I will be in Vermont where the air is much nicer, although I do love this area. I once had a longtime resident of Washington, DC, sitting on the front lawn of my farm in Middlesex, VT, looking out over miles of valleys surrounded by mountains. You don't see another person, just this magnificent view. It was a clear day. I said to him: There, what do you think of that view? He said: I don't like it. I said: What do you mean? You came here from Washington, and you are seeing one of the most beautiful views anywhere in the State of Vermont, and you don't like it? What don't you like about it? He said: I don't trust air that I cannot see. Well, we cannot see the air there, but, boy, we can breathe it. I enjoy that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the interest of my colleagues, I do not anticipate--I do not intend to ask for the yeas and nays on any of these. I have discussed this with the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and I believe I am authorized to speak for him that he is not going to be requesting the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. But no request has been made for the yeas and nays; is that correct?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have nominations before us for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench of Jennifer Walker Elrod of the Fifth Circuit, Roslynn Renee Mauskopf for the Eastern District of New York, Richard Jones for the Western District of Washington, and Sharion Aycock for the Northern District of Mississippi. The yeas and nays have not been ordered on any of these, have they?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Maryland following that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like the Senator from Vermont to also be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray for her efforts to end the use of asbestos in the United States. America should join the more than 40 other countries that have banned its use. This is an issue where the devastating health effects of asbestos far outweigh the economic benefits of its continued widespread use. It is surprising to me that there is any significant debate in light of what we know about the deadliness of this substance, and the tremendous suffering of so many Americans. Nearly 10,000 people die each year from asbestos-related disease. Asbestos is among the most lethal substances ever to be widely used in the workplace. Between 1940 and 1980, more than 27.5 million workers were exposed to asbestos on the job, and nearly 19 million of them had high levels of exposure over long periods of time. We even know of family members who have suffered asbestos-related disease from washing the clothes of loved ones. The ravages of disease caused by asbestos have affected tens of thousands of American families. Given what we know about asbestos, we should not permit the immense suffering its use has caused to continue any longer. Senator Murray's bill is a step in the right direction toward a more comprehensive solution to this problem. I am glad this bill contains provisions for increased research and education concerning asbestos. Preventing future exposure is a good thing, but we must do more to address the terrible suffering that continues in the United States and we owe it to those who have been affected to enact an effective system for their care and compensation. Although I would have preferred to have retained the more extensive provisions contained in the comprehensive bipartisan bill then- Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter and I proposed in the 109th Congress, I believe that if enacted, this legislation will save many lives in the future. We owe it to all Americans to do everything we can to end the use of asbestos and to confront the terrible legacy this deadly substance has left behind.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass S. 1640, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2007, after the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send it to the floor. This is a small but important piece of legislation, and I thank my cosponsors, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kohl, and Senator Whitehouse, for all their hard work. Last year, this bill was passed by the Judiciary Committee and by the full Senate, but unfortunately the House held it hostage to an unrelated bill at the end of the session. I don't want that to happen again this year. In 1998, Congress passed the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act to recognize the significant time, effort, and innovation that figure into ship design. Recent courtroom experience has made it clear that in order to be effective, this law needs to be clarified and refined. Our bill does exactly this, and no more, by clarifying the definition of ``hull'' and ``deck.'' This ensures that the intellectual property rights of vessel hull designers will be protected. I look forward to this bill becoming law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I spoke last week in this Chamber about the political crisis in Burma where thousands of Buddhist monks, joined by an estimated 100,000 other Burmese citizens, peacefully protested for an end to military dictatorship. Despite appeals for restraint by governments around the world, as well as the U.N. Secretary General, they were met with brute force. Soldiers firing live bullets and wielding clubs killed and injured an undetermined number of unarmed civilians, including at least one foreign journalist, and there are reports that hundreds, and possibly thousands, of monks have been beaten, killed or jailed. The atrocities perpetrated by the Burmese generals are crimes against humanity. They should be indicted and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. Sooner or later they will be made to pay for the appalling brutality that has been witnessed on television by hundreds of millions of people around the world. The United States has imposed economic sanctions on the Burmese government for many years, thanks in large measure to the tireless efforts of Senator McConnell who, for the better part of two decades, has called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's rightful leader. Additional sanctions were announced, belatedly, by President Bush last week. But far more pressure is needed, particularly to convince Burma's trading partners, like China, India and Thailand, to cut their economic ties to Burma. It is thanks in large part to them that the Burmese generals owe their power and wealth. The crisis in Burma today tarnishes any government that values its financial interests over freedom for the Burmese people. For two decades, they have chafed under the iron grip of a clique of corrupt generals who have shown, year after year, that they belong in the category of ruthless despots who will stop at nothing, including mass murder, to perpetuate their control. Lasting economic, social and political stability in Burma can only begin once the Burmese generals relinquish power. How that comes about is their choice. We have seen the results of peaceful protest. Not even civil disobedience, just peaceful protest. Time and again it has been met with deadly force. Those Nations that continue to do business with Burma make a mockery of their own professed commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is no truer test of their commitment to those fundamental principles than how they respond to the slaughter of unarmed monks and civilians by a regime that is apparently unconcerned that their crimes are being televised to the world. Whether this year, next year, or thereafter, the Burmese junta's days are numbered. Where do Burma's trading partners want to be then--on the right side of history, or having propped up an illegitimate regime until its last gasps? No government can claim perfection in its respect for human rights, including my own government. We have made mistakes, and it has damaged our credibility as a nation that was instrumental in the creation of the Universal Declaration. But our own shortcomings are no excuse for other governments' actions to block U.N. resolutions condemning the crackdown in Burma or their refusal to join us in imposing economic sanctions that could deal a death blow to a tyrannical regime. And it is certainly no excuse for continuing to do lucrative business deals with a government whose officials pocket the profits for themselves while they starve, imprison and murder their people. It is a testament to the spirit of the Burmese people, and to the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi, that despite so many years of repression, they remain as defiant and as dedicated to the ideals of democracy as ever. Our moral responsibility, the world's responsibility, is to support them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3198.

Mr. LEAHY. I make a point of order that it is legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. LEAHY. I want to make sure: The Senator would have been within his rights to have made a point of order against the Graham amendment had he wanted to; is that correct?

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

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. While I have the floor, I understand my good friend, the Senator from New Jersey, is concerned. There appears not to be parity between the northern border and the southern border. I share his concern about some of the issues of racism that have been floated into the debate regarding our southern border. I think he would admit that there are differences between the northern border and the southern border. We are blessed to have friends on both our northern and southern borders. The failure of the administration to take a truly bipartisan approach to comprehensive immigration reform and the failure of this body to go forward and work its way all the way through to a final immigration bill reflects some of the problems we have. The way to solve them is not to close the border to a historic neighbor on the longest unguarded frontier in the world, one of our largest trading partners. We already have policies of this administration that are about to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in jobs in the United States, which do nothing to enhance our security, with the cockamamie idea from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security requiring passports to cross between Canada and the United States. This will do very little to improve our security. Instead of working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to find a way where we could have safe, easy transfer between the two countries, keep commerce going, especially after this administration has so badly handled our economy that our dollar has slipped dramatically, the administration wants to hastily implement ill- conceived barriers to cross-border travel. We seem to want to poke our thumb in the eye of a good neighbor. I do not fault the Senator from New Jersey for his amendment. I understand the reason he does it. As he can well understand, I disagree with the idea of a fence along the Canadian border, just as I voted against erecting a fence along the southern border last year. I wish we could show some sense in real immigration policy with our southern border. It is a fault in this country to pretend we don't have illegal immigrants looking for a better life and to think that we are going to solve the problem by denying them access to social programs, deny their children access to our schools, deny them access to assistance with food, deny them access to health care, and to threaten prosecution of our churches if they show their respect for the commandments and actually want to help the least among us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I had heard about an hour before the vote that we were having it.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 6 years ago, just days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle came together to pass comprehensive legislation entitled ``the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act,'' which provided victims of the terrorist attack the option of filing a claim with a national compensation program or seeking limited damages in one Federal district court--the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This Federal cause of action was designed to give victims and their families a choice in the aftermath of September 11. I supported giving the victims and their families a Federal cause of action in court to pursue civil damages, but it has come to my attention that an important procedural protection was left out of the bipartisan legislation we passed 6 years ago. The 9-11 victims' case currently being litigated in the Southern District of New York includes parties and witnesses from across the country. However, the existing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure restricts the reach of trial subpoenas to a 100-mile radius of the place of trial. This procedural rule effectively prevents subpoenas from being served in the very cities where the flights originated and where two of them crashed on the morning of September 11. The bipartisan solution to the problem that Congress created is the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act, S. 2106. It provides for nationwide service of subpoenas for the September 11 victims. Congress has repeatedly provided for nationwide subpoena power in other instances such as the False Claims Act, the Veterans' Benefits Act, and the Civil RICO statute. I call on my colleagues to pass this procedural fix that will allow the victims to have a chance to have their claims fairly and thoroughly heard in court. The heart of every American aches for those who died or were injured because of the tragic attacks in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on September 11. Although no amount of compensation can replace a lost loved one, the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act offers a technical fix that is crucial to assisting the September 11 victims and their families.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this joint resolution reflects the best traditions of international cooperation between our nation and our Canadian neighbors to the north. Formally, this joint resolution would grant the consent of Congress to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding, which allows emergency responders from the United States and Canada to help each other across our shared border during natural disasters and other serious emergencies. But beyond this legal formality, this agreement reflects our longstanding cooperative partnership with Canada, and how, in times of emergency or natural disaster, we respond together, as neighbors across a largely unguarded border. When our communities need help, we must join together and come to their aid, whether or not a border is drawn between us. This agreement allows us to honor the extraordinary tradition of international cooperation and good will between our nations, and will make the citizens of both the United States and Canada more secure and safer. We must all do our best to prepare for the most serious emergencies that can harm our communities. These crises may arise from natural or manmade disasters, from technological hazards, civil emergencies, or even terrorist events. As those who live in the Northeast know, extreme weather is not uncommon in New England, or in the eastern Provinces of Canada, and we have endured catastrophic blizzards and ice storms as recently as this winter that have closed roads and highways, shut down power for extended periods, and stranded travelers and rural residents for days, or longer. Under this agreement, first responders and emergency management professionals from the United States and Canada can work together to provide the necessary assistance to secure public safety. This compact works well for New England and the eastern Canadian Provinces, and it stands as a model for emergency management planning and cooperation. It has the support of all the emergency management directors in the New England States, and the bipartisan support of all of the New England Senators who have joined me and Senator Snowe to cosponsor this resolution. It is a crucial element of the security and safety planning for all communities in New England and eastern Canada.