Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California how much more time she requires.

Mr. LEAHY. I withdraw that request and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains for the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and how much time does the Senator from Vermont have following the discussion the Senators from Pennsylvania and Oregon had?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 2 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield an additional minute.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time charged equally to both sides.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from California for her involvement. Nobody wants to kill the PATRIOT Act by this action. I know our distinguished majority leader has said he would oppose the extension. We will see what happens in that vote. Many of us say we will oppose things, and they happen. I am talking about the 3- month extension. Even if the other body has left, they always leave back a couple of people who can do things by unanimous consent. The Senator from New Hampshire is in the Chamber. How much time does he wish?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, while this discussion is going on, if I could also make a parliamentary inquiry. Once we begin on the PATRIOT Act, is it my understanding the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania is in control of an hour and the Senator from Vermont is in control of an hour?

Mr. LEAHY. Thank you. I appreciate that, Madam President.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one concern I have is, the Senator from New Hampshire is correct, you have an extraordinarily high bar in trying to overturn a gag order. It is extraordinarily high and raises in my mind some significant first amendment questions. As to the 30,000, it is difficult to get an answer to this because the Justice Department has been remarkably tightlipped. They have not answered questions. Many times in the normal course of oversight they would not answer the questions. I don't know how many of my letters that have gone down there have been unanswered on these issues. It is extremely difficult to get an accurate and complete answer from this Department of Justice. That is one of the reasons we are so concerned. I might say, the idea that we have to have a classified briefing which can't be questioned and is totally in the hands of the Department of Justice is one of the things that concerns Americans in the PATRIOT Act. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oregon.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for his willingness to allow me to go forward at this time. I know he has been sitting here patiently. I thank him, and I yield the remainder of time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection. I add to that consent that I would then follow the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire on the same subject.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, if I might, I wish to compliment my colleague and neighbor from across the Connecticut River, Senator Sununu of New Hampshire. He has laid out very clearly and eloquently the reasons we should not be rushed into a bad bill. It is not because any of us here have any love of terrorists. Of course none of us do; no Americans do. On a September morning 4 years ago, nearly 3,000 lives, American lives, were lost--not in a foreign nation but on our own soil. Our lives as Americans changed in an instant. There is not a person within this Chamber who does not remember exactly where he or she was when they heard the news of the attacks of 9/11. In the aftermath of those attacks, Congress moved swiftly to pass antiterterrorism legislation. We moved as a Congress, as a Senate, as a House--not as Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans, united in our efforts. The fires were still smoldering at Ground Zero in New York City when the USA PATRIOT Act became law on October 30, 2001, just 6 weeks after the attacks. I know how hard we worked. I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. Many of us here in the Senate today worked together in that spirit of bipartisan unity. We resolved to craft a bill that would make us safer as a nation. Freedom and security are always in tension in our society, especially so in those somber weeks after the attacks. We tried our best to strike the right balance between freedom and security. The Senator from New Hampshire quoted Benjamin Franklin. As one reads the history of the founding of this Nation and what the Founders went through, his quote stands out so much. Benjamin Franklin, like the other Founders, knew that had our new country not worked, had the Revolution not worked, most of them would have been hanged for trying to break away from our mother country. When he spoke of a people who would give up their liberties for security deserving neither, he knew of what he spoke. And he set a key idea for the fledgling democracy of America, and it is one that I like to think through the generations we have strengthened. During my years in the Senate, I have done everything possible to strengthen that balance to maintain our liberties because if we do not maintain our liberties, at the best we have a false security. It is not a real security. One of the fruits of the bipartisanship of the PATRIOT Act, in trying to work out this balance, was the sunset provisions. Those key provisions set an expiration date of December 31, 2005, on certain Government powers that had great potential to affect the civil liberties of the American people. We are just weeks away from that date now. Some may wonder how these sunset provisions worked their way into the PATRIOT Act. They were put there by the Republican leader of the House, Dick Armey of Texas, and myself. We have entirely different political philosophies, but we agreed on one thing: If you are giving great powers to our Government, you want to make sure there are some strings attached. It makes no difference whether it is a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, you want to make sure there are strings attached. Leader Armey and I insisted on these sunsets to ensure that Congress would revisit the PATRIOT Act within a few years and consider refinements to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans more effectively, and we prevailed on that point. Sadly, the administration and some in the leadership in the House and Senate have squandered key opportunities to improve the PATRIOT Act. The House-Senate conference report filed last week by Republican lawmakers falls short of what the American people expect and deserve from us. The bipartisan Senate bill, which the Senate Judiciary Committee and then the Senate adopted unanimously, struck a better balance. If I might, I wish to compliment the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and those Republicans and Democrats in this body who worked with him, as I did, to put together a fair and balanced bill which was able to go through our committee, which is sometimes heavily divided on issues. Instead, it went through the Judiciary Committee unanimously and passed the Senate unanimously. We worked together on that because we understand that the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act has to have the confidence of the American people. Think for a moment. Governments can limit the rights of the people in their countries really in only two ways: they can do it by force of arms, by oppression and repression, as we have seen with totalitarian governments, or, if they have done it right, they can do it with the consent of the governed. As we are limiting some of these rights, as we are giving greater powers to our Government, we want to do it in a way where the American people--all of the nearly 300 million people in this great country-- would have confidence in what we have done, because we do not enforce our laws in this country by force of arms, by dictatorship; we do it with the consent of the governed. I believe what we passed in the Senate and in the Senate Judiciary Committee would have the confidence of the American people. But now we have pushed forward and changed that to flawed legislation which will not have that confidence and respect of the American people. The Congress should not rush ahead to enact flawed legislation to meet a deadline that is within our power to extend. We owe it to the American people to get this right. America can do better than this flawed legislation. The way forward to a sensible, workable, bipartisan bill is clear. It is very clear, as Senator Sununu said on the floor earlier this morning and as I have suggested. Yesterday, Senator Sununu and I introduced a bill to extend the sunset for the expiring PATRIOT Act powers until March 31, 2006. Give us until March 31 to get this right, give us until March 31 to have a bill that would have not only the respect of the American people but especially the confidence of the American people. Our laws work if we have confidence in them, and they fail if we do not have confidence in them. In offering this bill, Senator Sununu and I have been joined by Senators Craig, Rockefeller, Murkowski, Kennedy, Hagel, Levin, Durbin, Stabenow, Salazar, and others. It is a bipartisan effort to extend this deadline. A deadline which Congress imposed to ensure oversight and accountability should not now become a barrier to achieving bipartisan compromise and the best bill we can forge together. This is a vital debate. It should be. These are vital issues to all Americans. If a brief extension is needed to produce a better bill that would better serve all of our citizen then by all means, let us give ourselves that time. We want to give tools to prosecutors. I spent 8 years of my life as a prosecutor. Some of the finest people on my staff are former prosecutors. We know the needs, especially in the electronic age. But we can do better, and America can do better if given the time. I thank Senator Sununu and all of our cosponsors in coming together in a bipartisan way to advance what is a commonsense solution. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some recent editorials on this matter.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, On a September morning 4 years ago nearly 3,000 lives were lost on American soil, and our lives as Americans changed in an instant. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Congress moved swiftly to pass anti-terrorism legislation. The fires were still smoldering at Ground Zero in New York City when the USA PATRIOT Act became law on October 30, 2001, just 6 weeks after the attacks. Many of us here in the Senate today worked together in a spirit of bipartisan unity and resolve to craft a bill that we had hoped would make us safer as a nation. Freedom and security are always in tension in our society, and especially so in those somber weeks after the attacks, and we tried our best to strike the right balance. One of the fruits of that bipartisanship was the PATRIOT Act's sunset provisions. These key provisions set an expiration date of December 31, 2005, on certain government powers that had great potential to affect the civil liberties of the American people. Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted on these sunsets to ensure that Congress would revisit the PATRIOT Act within a few years and consider refinements to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans more effectively, and we prevailed. Sadly, the Bush administration and the Republican congressional leadership have squandered key opportunities to improve the PATRIOT Act. The House-Senate conference report filed last week by Republican lawmakers falls short of what the American people expect and deserve from us. The bipartisan Senate bill, which the Senate Judiciary Committee and then the Senate adopted unanimously, struck a far better balance. The reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act must have the confidence of the American people. The Congress should not rush ahead to enact flawed legislation to meet a deadline that is within our power to extend. We owe it to the American people to get this right. The way forward to a sensible and workable bipartisan bill is clear. Today I am pleased to join with Senator Sununu and others to introduce a bill to extend the sunsets on the expiring PATRIOT Act powers until March 31, 2006. Our bill also extends for three months the so-called ``lone wolf'' FISA surveillance authority, which Congress enacted last year as part the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. The deadline that Congress imposed to ensure oversight and accountability should not now become a barrier to achieving bipartisan compromise and the best bill we can forge together. This is a vital debate, and these are vital issues to all Americans. If a brief extension is needed to produce a better bill that will better serve all of our citizens, then by all means, let us give ourselves that time. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, On a September morning 4 years ago nearly 3,000 lives were lost on American soil, and our lives as Americans changed in an instant. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Congress moved swiftly to pass anti-terrorism legislation. The fires were still smoldering at Ground Zero in New York City when the USA PATRIOT Act became law on October 30, 2001, just 6 weeks after the attacks. Many of us here in the Senate today worked together in a spirit of bipartisan unity and resolve to craft a bill that we had hoped would make us safer as a nation. Freedom and security are always in tension in our society, and especially so in those somber weeks after the attacks, and we tried our best to strike the right balance. One of the fruits of that bipartisanship was the PATRIOT Act's sunset provisions. These key provisions set an expiration date of December 31, 2005, on certain government powers that had great potential to affect the civil liberties of the American people. Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted on these sunsets to ensure that Congress would revisit the PATRIOT Act within a few years and consider refinements to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans more effectively, and we prevailed. Sadly, the Bush administration and the Republican congressional leadership have squandered key opportunities to improve the PATRIOT Act. The House-Senate conference report filed last week by Republican lawmakers falls short of what the American people expect and deserve from us. The bipartisan Senate bill, which the Senate Judiciary Committee and then the Senate adopted unanimously, struck a far better balance. The reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act must have the confidence of the American people. The Congress should not rush ahead to enact flawed legislation to meet a deadline that is within our power to extend. We owe it to the American people to get this right. The way forward to a sensible and workable bipartisan bill is clear. Today I am pleased to join with Senator Sununu and others to introduce a bill to extend the sunsets on the expiring PATRIOT Act powers until March 31, 2006. Our bill also extends for three months the so-called ``lone wolf'' FISA surveillance authority, which Congress enacted last year as part the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. The deadline that Congress imposed to ensure oversight and accountability should not now become a barrier to achieving bipartisan compromise and the best bill we can forge together. This is a vital debate, and these are vital issues to all Americans. If a brief extension is needed to produce a better bill that will better serve all of our citizens, then by all means, let us give ourselves that time. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Cornyn and I have already worked together on significant Freedom of Information Act legislation and on counterfeiting legislation during the first session of this Congress. Today, we pass yet another bill and take our partnership to the high seas, or at least to our Nation's boat manufacturing industry, with the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2005. Designs of boat vessel hulls are often the result of a great deal of time, effort, and financial investment. They are afforded intellectual property protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that Congress passed in 1998. This law exists for the same reason that other works enjoy intellectual property rights: to encourage continued innovation, to protect the works that emerge from the creative process, and to reward the creators. Recent courtroom experience has made it clear that the protections Congress passed 7 years ago need some statutory refinement to ensure they meet the purposes we envisioned. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments shore up the law, making an important clarification about the scope of the protections available to boat designs. We continue to be fascinated with, and in so many ways dependent on, bodies of water, both for recreation and commerce. More than 50 percent of Americans live on or near the coastline in this country. We seem always to be drawn to the water, whether it is the beautiful Lake Champlain in my home State of Vermont or the world's large oceans. And as anyone who has visited our seaports can attest, much of our commerce involves sea travel. I would like to thank Senators Kohl and Hatch for cosponsoring this legislation. Protecting boat designs and encouraging innovation in those designs are worthy aims, and I am grateful that we have moved to pass this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Hilton Wick, a great Vermonter who was recently honored at a dedication ceremony in Burlington, VT. As a token of thanks for his tireless fundraising efforts on behalf of Fletcher Allen Health Care, the plaza in front of Fletcher Allen's Ambulatory Care Center will now bear Hilton's name. For decades, Hilton Wick has committed his talents and energy to improving his community, raising awareness, and inspiring involvement on a wide variety of community development projects. Not only Burlington but all of Vermont can be grateful for his outstanding leadership and enormous generosity. I would like to share with my colleagues an article from the October 29, 2005, edition of the Burlington Free Press which magnificently describes the contributions of Hilton Wick. I ask that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Dr. Allan Goodman, President of the Institute for International Education, recently passed along a speech that Senator Dick Lugar gave at Pembroke College in Oxford, England commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of J. William Fulbright. Senator Lugar is one of the finest statesmen in the Senate, and I have enjoyed working closely with him on a number of issues. His speech at Pembroke College highlights his leadership and insight on U.S. foreign policy. I ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed in the Congressional Record so that all Senators can see these thoughtful remarks.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch in introducing the Assistant United States Attorney Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill was previously introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. A House companion bill, H.R. 3183, has already been introduced and currently has 43 bipartisan cosponsors. Fairness is the driving force behind this legislation. The bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby AUSAs receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would increase the retirement benefits given to AUSAs, as well as other designated attorneys employed by DOJ who act primarily as criminal prosecutors, by including them in the Civil Service Retirement System. This change would bring their retirement benefits inline with thousands of other employees involved in the Federal criminal justice system. Enhanced retirement benefits will allow us to attract and retain the best and the brightest for these vital positions in Government. As a former prosecutor, I know that experienced prosecutors are needed to bring ever more sophisticated cases under increasingly complex federal criminal laws. The Government's success in combating the threats posed by organized crime, drug cartels, terrorist groups, and other sophisticated criminals depends upon representation by skilled, experienced litigators. Because of the lure of higher salaries and benefits, the average assistant U.S. attorney remains with the Department of Justice only 8 years. The hours are long, the pay is low, and they place themselves in harm's way by prosecuting criminals. Surveys of assistant U.S. attorneys have shown that a fair retirement benefit is the foremost incentive that would increase their tenure with the Department of Justice. Creating an enticement for them to remain with the Department of Justice for the length of their careers would be a tremendous victory for the American people. This legislation would improve public safety for us all by ensuring a strong, knowledgeable, and experienced crop of prosecutors at the federal level. I want to thank Senators Hatch, Mikulski, Durbin, DeWine, Biden, Feinstein, Feingold, Smith, Dodd, Chambliss, Rockefeller, Lieberman, Boxer, Wyden, Nelson, and Corzine, for cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch in introducing the Assistant United States Attorney Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill was previously introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. A House companion bill, H.R. 3183, has already been introduced and currently has 43 bipartisan cosponsors. Fairness is the driving force behind this legislation. The bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby AUSAs receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would increase the retirement benefits given to AUSAs, as well as other designated attorneys employed by DOJ who act primarily as criminal prosecutors, by including them in the Civil Service Retirement System. This change would bring their retirement benefits inline with thousands of other employees involved in the Federal criminal justice system. Enhanced retirement benefits will allow us to attract and retain the best and the brightest for these vital positions in Government. As a former prosecutor, I know that experienced prosecutors are needed to bring ever more sophisticated cases under increasingly complex federal criminal laws. The Government's success in combating the threats posed by organized crime, drug cartels, terrorist groups, and other sophisticated criminals depends upon representation by skilled, experienced litigators. Because of the lure of higher salaries and benefits, the average assistant U.S. attorney remains with the Department of Justice only 8 years. The hours are long, the pay is low, and they place themselves in harm's way by prosecuting criminals. Surveys of assistant U.S. attorneys have shown that a fair retirement benefit is the foremost incentive that would increase their tenure with the Department of Justice. Creating an enticement for them to remain with the Department of Justice for the length of their careers would be a tremendous victory for the American people. This legislation would improve public safety for us all by ensuring a strong, knowledgeable, and experienced crop of prosecutors at the federal level. I want to thank Senators Hatch, Mikulski, Durbin, DeWine, Biden, Feinstein, Feingold, Smith, Dodd, Chambliss, Rockefeller, Lieberman, Boxer, Wyden, Nelson, and Corzine, for cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. It may seem strange that on a day when the Congress is debating the budget resolution, I would be asking the Senate to turn its attention for a moment to the remote and tiny nation of Nepal. I do so because for the past several years, a ruthless Maoist insurgency and a corrupt, repressive monarchy have brought that impoverished but breathtakingly beautiful country to the brink of disaster. It is important for the Nepalese people to know that while they may live half a world away, the difficulties they are facing have not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Congress. It has been almost 9 months since Nepal's King Gyanendra dismissed the multiparty government, suspended civil liberties, and arrested the prime minister along with other opposition political leaders, human rights defenders, prodemocracy student activists, and journalists. The king's explanation was that democracy had failed to solve the Maoist problem. He said that he would take care of it himself and then restore democracy after 3 years. It is true that Nepal's nascent democracy had not solved the Maoist problem. Neither had the king. In the 4\1/2\ years since King Gyanendra assumed the throne and became commander in chief of the Nepalese army, the Maoists have grown from a minor irritant to a national menace. While the Maoists use threats and violence to extort money and property and they abduct children from poor Nepalese villagers, the army often brutalizes those same people for suspicion of supporting the Maoists. Like most armed conflicts, defenseless civilians are caught in the middle. What the Nepalese people desire most is peace. Despite the king's autocratic maneuvers on February 1, many would have given him the benefit of the doubt if he had a workable plan to quickly end the conflict. Nine months later, it is clear that he does not. One can only wonder why King Gyanendra thought that he could defeat the Maoists by dissolving the government, curtailing civil liberties, and surrounding himself with a clique of elderly advisers from the discredited, feudalistic Panchayat era. The United States, Great Britain, and India criticized the king's actions and have urged him to negotiate with Nepal's political parties to restore democratic government. Unfortunately, although he has released most political prisoners and reinstated some civil liberties, the king has increasingly behaved like a despot who is determined to consolidate his own power. In the meantime, the Maoists declared a ceasefire. The violence has reportedly decreased, although abductions and extortions have continued apace. Whether the ceasefire is a sinister ploy or a sincere overture for peace may never be known, however, because it is due to expire next month and neither the king nor the army has indicated a willingness to reciprocate. Against this disheartening backdrop, the Congress, on November 10, 2005, approved my amendment to impose new restrictions on military aid for Nepal. On November 14, President Bush signed it into law. I want to briefly review what we did, and why. The amendment says that before the Nepalese army can receive U.S. aid, the Secretary of State must certify that the Government of Nepal has ``restored civil liberties, is protecting human rights, and has demonstrated, through dialogue with Nepal's political parties, a commitment to a clear timetable to restore multi-part democratic government consistent with the 1990 Nepalese Constitution.'' This builds on an amendment that was adopted last year, which required the Secretary of State to certify that the Nepalese army was providing unimpeded access to places of detention and cooperating with the National Human Rights Commission, NHRC, to resolve security related cases of people in custody. Unfortunately, the Secretary was not able to make the certification. Not only were the NHRC's members replaced through a process that was contrary to Nepal's constitution, the International Committee of the Red Cross suspended its visits to military detention centers because it was denied the free access it requires. The Nepalese Government objects to any conditions on U.S. aid, arguing that the army needs help to fight the Maoists. The army does need help, but it also needs to respect the law and the rights of the Nepalese people. The Congress took this action only after it could no longer ignore the pattern of arbitrary arrests, disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings by the army. The army's abusive conduct, coupled with the king's repressive actions since February 1, have contributed to a political crisis that threatens not only the future of democracy but the monarchy itself. Economic aid to support health, agriculture, hydropower, and other programs through nongovernmental organizations is not affected by my amendment. If the situation changes and the Secretary of State certifies that the conditions in U.S. law have been met, military aid can resume. But that alone will not solve the Maoist problem. The Maoists are expert at intimidating the civilian population and carrying out surprise attacks and melting back into the mountains. While they do not have the strength to defeat the army, neither can they be defeated militarily. The only feasible solution is through a democratic political process that has the broad support of the Nepalese people. Perhaps seeking to placate his critics, the king, without consulting the political opposition parties, announced municipal elections for February 8, 2006. Not surprisingly, the parties say they will not participate in an electoral process dictated by the palace and when the army and the king's handpicked representatives have taken control of local affairs and are unlikely to relinquish power. The U.S. Embassy is skeptical of the Maoists' intentions and has publicly discouraged the political parties from forging an agreement with the Maoists. This is understandable, since the Maoists have used barbaric tactics that should be universally condemned. But this conflict cannot be won militarily and the king has rejected a political accommodation with the country's democratic forces. He is imposing new restrictions on the media and civil society, and he has spumed offers by the international community to mediate. Nepal's younger generation, who see no role for the monarchy in Nepal's future, are taking to the streets. It may not be long before the army is faced with a fateful choice. Will it continue to side with the palace even if it means turning its weapons on prodemocracy protesters and facing international censure, or will it cast its lot with the people? It is a choice that we may also have to make. For the better part of a year, the United States and others friends of Nepal, as well as many brave Nepalese citizens, have tried to nudge the king back toward democracy. It has not worked. With the king increasingly imperious and isolated and the political parties already making overtures to the Maoists, what is to be lost by calling for the Maoists to extend the ceasefire, for the army to reciprocate, for international monitors to verify compliance, and for representatives of all sectors of society who support a democratic, peaceful Nepal to sit down at the negotiating table? There are no guarantees, but it would test the Maoists' intentions and it might create an opening for agreement on a democratic process, with the support of international mediation, that can finally begin to address the poverty, corruption, discrimination and other social ills that have fueled the conflict. The people of Nepal, who for generations have suffered far more than their share of hardship and injustice, deserve no less.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the current consideration by the Congress of a rewrite of the USA PATRIOT Act is a significant event. These are important issues, and they have become increasingly important to the American people. This bill, more than any other, must have the confidence of the American people. I understand that and Chairman Specter understands that. I commend the chairman for his commitment to work in a bipartisan manner, both during the committee process and throughout the House- Senate conference. He and I agree with the vast majority of Americans that a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act's expiring provisions must be accomplished in a bipartisan process, not in a bitter, partisan battle. The PATRIOT Act suffers from an image problem. This perception problem stems in large measure because of the rhetoric, practices and secrecy of the Bush administration and the Ashcroft Justice Department. The antidote is clear and it is simple--less secrecy, more congressional oversight, more judicial review and an adjusted balance that better protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. That is what we produced here in the Senate when first the Senate Judiciary Committee and then the Senate unanimously adopted our PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. We worked together and we did so in a timely manner, completing our work in July. The Senate appointed conferees immediately. Regrettably, the House did not follow suit. They delayed more than 3 months until November 9, just last week and just a week before Congress was scheduled to recess. We lost 3 months that we could have used to find common ground and create a better bill. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership played games with the PATRIOT Act while the clock was ticking. Even last week, with conferees newly appointed by the House, I was hopeful that in our limited time, we could negotiate in good faith and reach a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. We made some progress over the weekend on important issues, reaching a tentative agreement on improved reporting requirements that would shine some light on the use of certain surveillance techniques. I believed that we were close to striking a reasonable balance on the core civil liberties issues raised by the PATRIOT Act. But on Sunday, the Bush administration stepped in and, with the acquiescence of congressional Republicans, the bipartisan negotiations were abruptly ended. The curtain came down. Democratic participation was excluded from the process. As a result the tentative agreements were scuttled based on Bush administration demands. Further impeding bipartisan progress, the conference report was being loaded up with controversial provisions that had nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act, terrorism, or anything in either the House or Senate- passed bills. The PATRIOT Act suddenly was being used as a vehicle of convenience to pass laws that could not be passed on their own merit. This overreaching by the House Republican conferees caused more time to be lost, and because of the ill-advised choices that were made late in this process, the conference report is not what it should be. The needless and divisive chapter in the late stages of what should have been--can what could have been--an open and bipartisan conference threatens to undermine national consensus on this bill. Sadly, it also threatens national confidence in how we as a Congress can best address these important issues. Before the Bush administration butted in and grabbed the reins, we were close to a compromise that could have been acceptable to almost all members of Congress and to the American public. This is not that conference report. I am not sure that this conference report can win the confidence of the American people. Rather than seek common ground with the Congress and with the American people that we represent, the Bush administration and Republican conferees have taken and abused their power and taken terrible advantage. Just 2 months ago, we observed the fourth anniversary of the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress moved quickly to pass anti-terrorism legislation. The fires were still smoldering at Ground Zero when the USA PATRIOT Act became law on October 30, 2001, just 6 weeks after the attacks. Many of us here today worked together in a spirit of bipartisan unity and resolve to craft a bill that we had hoped would make us safer as a nation. Freedom and security are always in tension in our society, and especially so in those somber weeks after the attacks, but we tried our best to strike the right balance. One of the fruits of that bipartisanship was the sunset provisions contained in the PATRIOT Act. These sunsets have allowed us some opportunity to obtain key information Americans have a right to know, and to revisit these matters to add more sunshine and oversight. Those sunsets were supported by Dick Armey, the Republican House majority leader and by me in the Senate an unlikely duo I concede, but in this case, a successful and productive alliance that proved to benefit the American people. We prevailed, thank goodness. Sadly, the Bush administration and Republican congressional leadership has largely squandered this opportunity to refine the PATRIOT Act. Instead, they are insisting on a continuing assault on habeas corpus rights and adding other extraneous matters. Working with Chairman Specter, we are insisting on modifications to the conference report that will make it more protective of civil liberties and increase opportunities for oversight, including a 4-year sunset. I thank Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller and Levin for their efforts to improve the draft circulated to us this week. I know that some Senate Republican conferees were not satisfied that the draft fully protected Americans' civil liberties and thank them for working to improve this important measure. I hope that the other conferees will work with us to arrive at a conference report that we all can support and that we can take to the American people together. If the Bush administration would cooperate with us--the people's representatives--we will be better able to refine the authorities and uses of national security letters and the other tools provided in the law. Without that cooperation, with the veil of secrecy cloaking so much activity, neither Congress nor the American people will know or trust what the government is doing.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I want to speak about a matter that I suspect few Senators are aware of, but which should concern each of us. On February 21, 2005, in the small Colombian community of San Jose de Apartado, eight people, including three children, were brutally murdered. Several of the bodies were mutilated and left to be eaten by wild animals. This, unfortunately, was not unusual, as some 150 people, overwhelmingly civilians caught in the midst of Colombia's conflict, have been killed by paramilitaries, rebels, and Colombian soldiers in that same community since 1997. None of those crimes has resulted in effective investigations or prosecutions. No one has been punished. That is an astonishing fact. Think of 150 murders, including massacres of groups of people, in a single rural community, and no one punished. This latest atrocity occurred in a remote area frequented by rebels and paramilitaries. As a result, the presence of the Colombian army has also grown significantly there. Yet the army, which was sent to that area to protect civilians from attacks by illegal armed groups, is now suspected by some of having committed this massacre. Residents of San Jose de Apartado have blamed the army, and international observers who went with community members to locate the bodies witnessed disturbing behavior by soldiers who reportedly laughed while body parts were being exhumed, who took pictures of themselves making victory signs, and who mishandled evidence from the massacre sites. There is also the possibility that paramilitaries acted in collusion with the army. And some have speculated that there were two separate groups of perpetrators, perhaps including the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the country's oldest rebel group. Even before an investigation began, top Colombian officials publicly declared that the FARC was responsible. The Minister of Defense, who has since resigned, insisted that the army could not have done this because on February 21 they were more than 2 days' walking distance from the crime scene. It was soon determined, however, that there were soldiers only half a day's walk away, and army helicopters had recently been seen in the vicinity. While it has not been proven who is responsible for this horrific crime, the government's rush to judgment was only its first mistake. That was quickly followed by the decision, against the wishes of the community, to send armed police officers into their midst. While I do not doubt the authority of Colombian police to enter that territory, it caused the majority of its inhabitants to flee their homes out of fear that the police would become a target of illegal groups and that the villagers could once again be harmed. In fact, such an attack took place on June 26, when three policemen were wounded in an attack by the FARC and community members were caught in the crossfire. Later, on July 18, an old man was found beaten to death. There were two more killings by the FARC, one in August and another in September, and verbal threats and acts of intimidation by soldiers and police officers towards members of the community have reportedly steadily increased. Then last month, there were three incidents in which armed paramilitaries and soldiers reportedly threatened members of the community and destroyed property. It appears that the community may be no safer today than it was on February 21. One of the consequences of the government's tactless approach to this and previous cases is that several witnesses from the community have refused to come forward and give testimony, and this has hindered the investigation. After a massacre of 6 members of this same community 5 years ago when over 100 people gave testimony to judicial authorities, no one was convicted and no report on the investigation was ever issued. Convincing witnesses to come forward this time will require a degree of sensitivity by the government that has, to date, been sorely lacking. We are told by the Colombian Government that an investigation of the massacre is ongoing. That, unfortunately, is the story of most heinous crimes in Colombia. Investigations often continue without end, and often the perpetrators avoid punishment. I am concerned that this case may be no different. According to information I have received, neither the soldiers who were in the area at the time of the February 21 killings nor hospital workers who treated a girl who was wounded by soldiers there the previous day have been interviewed by investigators. I find this hard to believe, but if it is correct the government has much to answer for. For 5 years, the United States has provided significant military aid to Colombia despite ongoing concerns about human rights. Several months ago, the Secretary of State certified that the Colombian Government had met the human rights conditions in our law, and recommended the release of additional military aid. However, the report accompanying her certification also noted that ``[w]hile the human rights performance of many of the Army's units is improving, an exception is evidenced by continued accusations of human rights violations and collusion with paramilitaries against the Army's 17th Brigade, which operates in northern Colombia. These reportedly include some 200 allegations involving the peace community of San Jose de Apartado in 2000-2001 and, most recently, of involvement in the killings near San Jose de Apartado in February 2005. . . As a result of these allegations, the United States has informed the Government of Colombia that it will not consider providing assistance to the 17th Brigade until all significant human rights allegations involving the unit have been credibly addressed.'' While I might differ with the Secretary's decision to make the certification at the time she did, which coincidently occurred just hours before President Uribe's arrival at President Bush's ranch in Texas, I commend her decision to withhold aid to the 17th Brigade. It is noteworthy, however, that concerns about the 17th Brigade had been conveyed to the State Department well before this incident, including reports that its members were openly colluding with paramilitaries. Yet there is reason to believe that U.S. aid continued despite those reports. This case presents the Bush administration with an important challenge. It shows that despite billions of dollars from the United States and lofty rhetoric about human rights, the Colombian Government's initial reaction to this despicable crime was not appreciably different from what we saw years ago. They denied responsibility and blamed the victims even before an investigation began, and some of the key witnesses may not even have been interviewed 8 months later. This is unfortunate because there has been progress on human rights under President Uribe's government. Parts of the country are noticeably safer. The government reports a significant decline in violent crime. But labor leaders and human rights defenders are still threatened and killed, the judicial system remains sluggish, and impunity is more the rule than the exception. Clearly, much more needs to be done to protect human rights. This case also presents a challenge for the Colombian Government to demonstrate, albeit belatedly, that it can respond with sympathy, with impartiality, and effectively to bring justice to the victims of a crime that epitomizes the worst of Colombia's conflict. I am also told that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights conducted its own investigation of the massacre, but that the Colombian Government has not requested a copy of the report of that investigation. If this is correct I urge the government to do so immediately and to release as much of the report to the public as possible without compromising the investigation. This conflict has brought nothing but suffering to the Colombian people. It has caused the deaths of countless innocent civilians, uprooted millions from their homes, and perpetuated the trade in illegal drugs that has corrupted many sectors of society. The people of San Jose de Apartado, with the conflict raging around them, sought to insolate themselves from this danger by declaring themselves a peace community. That strategy failed, as one after another of their members was brutally murdered. Before February 21, I was not aware of the many tragedies this community had already suffered. While I do know, as a former prosecutor, that some crimes are harder to solve than others, in Colombia, as in so many countries, political will is often what really matters. It is imperative that this case not be added to the long list of unsolved, unpunished crimes in San Jose de Apartado, or become part of the history of impunity in Colombia. Who ever was responsible must be brought to justice. Mr. President, I also want to mention the demobilization of paramilitaries that is underway in Colombia. We all want these narco- terrorist organizations to be dismantled, their commanders punished, their illegally acquired assets seized, and their victims compensated. The Colombian Government is asking the United States for millions of dollars to help finance the demobilization, and we want to help. I am concerned, however, because if the demobilization of the paramilitary unit located in the area of San Jose de Apartado is indicative of the way this process is unfolding, there are serious problems that need to be addressed. According to reports I have received, paramilitaries are engaging in the same threatening and violent behavior, they continue to collude with the army, and some have joined the army. Little has changed for the people in that area who continue to live in fear of losing their property and their lives. I hope the Colombian authorities who have been touting the success of the demobilization process will investigate these reports.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Priya Narasimhan be granted the privilege of the floor during votes and throughout the debate today.