Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today at the World Summit on the Information Society, an agreement was announced to maintain the current structure for managing the Internet. This agreement marks a critical step toward ensuring the stability and security of the Internet and preserving its benefits not only for the United States, but for countries across the globe. In late October I joined with the other cochairs of the Internet Caucus in a letter to the White House urging the administration to stand firm in its position to protect the Internet and resist efforts to undo the structure that has worked so well so far. I also joined Senator Burns in offering a resolution to maintain the currently effective status quo on Internet governance. The agreement that now has been reached in Tunis to maintain the current structure for managing domain names and the Internet is consistent with our efforts. The value of the Internet is incalculable. The Internet has brought an unprecedented level of commercial exchanges in both the consumer and business-to-business realms. It has spawned and prompted the development of new ideas, businesses and relationships. It has empowered people who have never had access to power and otherwise would likely never have an opportunity to be heard, much less challenge or influence public policy and institutional power. It has introduced and cemented friendships across the globe, and it has distributed information and fostered greater understanding and awareness of others' ideas and others' cultures. Becoming part of a global Internet environment has also shown us we are part of the wider world in which all of us live. It is values like these that no doubt our world partners are seeking to preserve in their proposals, yet would unwittingly undermine. The United States developed and nourished the Internet. The open economy and constitutional liberties that are the foundations of our Nation allowed us the privilege and extraordinary responsibility to serve as the great incubator that has unleashed these spectacular developments and benefits. No doubt we can do even better. Some have benefited substantially more than others. We have further strides to make before eradicating the digital divide and narrowing the gaps between the haves and have- nots. We also need to be vigilant in maintaining the essential freedom and influences that have kept the Internet flourishing. We should work closely with other countries to address challenges and concerns as they arise. By proceeding prudently and knowledgeably, taking care not to jeopardize the innovations and openness that have allowed the Internet to thrive, we can foster progress and continue to enjoy the benefits the Internet continues to bring to the world. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from the Internet Caucus cochairs to the White House and today's Associated Press article ``Deal Reached on Managing the Internet'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues across the aisle who are attempting to address the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody, despite resistance from members of their own party and the strong opposition of the White House. I know Senator Graham has worked closely with Senator McCain and others to give our troops the clear guidance they need to effectively detain and interrogate enemy prisoners, and I commend him for that. The legislative branch has not met its obligation of oversight and policymaking in this area. For months, Senator Graham has been prodding the Congress to take action. He is one of the few members of his party to forcefully speak out on the need to change the administration's policies. While I support Senator Graham's efforts on these issues, I cannot support his amendment to strip Federal courts of the authority to consider a habeas petition from detainees being held in U.S. custody as enemy combatants. The Graham amendment would deny prisoners who the administration claims are unlawful combatants the right to challenge their detention. At no time in the history of this Nation have habeas rights been permanently cut off from a group of prisoners. Even President Lincoln's suspension of habeas was temporary. The Supreme Court has held numerous times that enemy combatants can challenge their detention. Many of my colleagues across the aisle argue that terrorists do not deserve access to our Federal courts. This argument would be far more persuasive if all of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay were terrorists. Unfortunately, many of them are almost certainly not. Numerous press accounts have quoted unnamed officials who believe that a significant percentage of those detained at Guantanamo do not have a connection to terrorism. And yet they have been held for years without the right to challenge their detention in a fair and impartial hearing, a situation that does significant harm to our Nation's reputation as a leader in human rights and which puts our own soldiers at risk. Filing a writ of habeas corpus is often the detainee's only opportunity to openly challenge the basis for his detention. Providing detainees this right is not about coddling terrorists--it is about showing the world that we are a nation of laws and that we are willing to uphold the values that we urge other nations to follow. It is about honoring and respecting the principles that are part of our heritage as Americans and that have been a beacon to the rest of the world. Allowing a detainee to file a habeas petition provides legitimacy to our detention system and quells speculation that we are holding innocent people in secret prisons without any right to due process. Some Members of the Senate have argued that these prisoners should be tried in the military justice system. I think that we could all agree on such a course if the administration had worked with Congress from the start and established with our approval procedures that are fair and consistent with our tradition of military justice. I introduced a bill in the 107th Congress to do just that. So did Senator Specter. The fact is, that the system that has been established by the administration to try individuals held at Guantanamo is not a system that reflects our values. It does not give due process or independent review. Everyone in Congress agrees that we must capture and detain terrorist suspects, but it can and should be done in accord with the laws of war and in a manner that upholds our commitment to the rule of law. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on detainee issues in June. At that hearing, Senator Graham said that once enemy combatant status has been conferred upon someone, ``it is almost impossible not to envision that some form of prosecution would follow.'' He continued, ``We can do this and be a rule of law nation. We can prove to the world that even among the worst people in the world, the rule of law is not an inconsistent concept.'' I agree with Senator Graham, but I strongly believe that in order to uphold our commitment to the rule of law, we must allow detainees the right to challenge their detention in Federal court. As Chairman Specter noted on the floor last week, there are existing procedures under habeas corpus that have been upheld by the Supreme Court that do not invite frivolous claims, and that are appropriate. Senator Graham's amendment would not only restrict habeas in a manner never done before in our Nation, but, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said last week, it would open a Pandora's box. The chairman is right. He spoke forcefully again this morning about the danger of such court stripping efforts. We must not rush to change a legal right that predates our Constitution. Creating one exemption to the ``great writ'' only invites more. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over habeas corpus and it should have the first opportunity to review any proposed changed carefully and thoroughly. Although congressional action on the issue of foreign detainees is long overdue, we must not act hastily when the ``great writ''--something that protects us all--is at stake. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the deans of four of our Nation's most prestigious law schools that articulates the dangers of adopting the Graham amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. The Senator should be heard.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, ten years ago today, in what was by all accounts a barbaric miscarriage of justice, Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight of his Ogoni colleagues from the delta region of Nigeria were hanged after being convicted by a biased military tribunal. Those of us who knew Mr. Saro-Wiwa remember him as a thoughtful, passionate, nonviolent advocate for the rights of the Ogoni people. His arrest, conviction and hanging by the corrupt and brutal Abacha government outraged the world and resulted in Nigeria's suspension from the British Commonwealth, and a United Nations investigation which concluded that Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues had been denied due process in violation of international and Nigerian law. The UN recommended financial relief for their families and improvements in the living conditions of the Ogoni people and the other minorities in the delta region. Unfortunately, none of the UN's recommendations have been carried out, the environmental, economic and social conditions there have gotten worse, and ten year's later the Ogoni Nine remain convicted of a crime for which they were unfairly tried. Today, I am honored to submit, on behalf of myself and Senators Kennedy, Obama, Feingold, Durbin, and Dodd a resolution calling on the Government of Nigeria to conduct a thorough judicial review of this travesty. By this resolution we remember Ken Saro-Wiwa and the others who were executed, and we honor their courage and their nonviolent commitment to social justice. In addition to calling for a judicial review and just compensation to the survivors if a miscarriage of justice is found, we urge the Nigerian government, international donors, and international oil companies operating in the Niger delta to increase assistance significantly to improve the lives of the people who live there. It is unconscionable that after all the billions of dollars in oil that have been extracted from that area, these people continue to suffer daily from the polluted water and soil and the gas flaring and are living in squalor. And we call on the Nigerian Government to ensure that its security forces receive the necessary training and discipline to prevent the violations of human rights that the Ogoni have suffered for so many years. The volatile situation in the Niger delta has been ignored for far too long. It cannot be resolved by force. It cannot be resolved by lip service. There are serious environmental issues and urgent economic and social needs. Ken Saro-Wiwa's example of nonviolence stands today as it did a decade ago as a model for the Nigerian government, the people of the Niger delta, and the international community to join together to finally address them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Some of our most important legislation is produced not only when we reach across the aisle in the name of bipartisanship, but, when we work across chambers and reach true consensus. I would also like to thank Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow and Voinovich for their cosponsorship. Counterfeiting is a serious problem that does not lend itself to a quick and easy solution. This legislation is an important step towards fighting counterfeiting. I hope we can build on the success of this law.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been very heartening to see such overwhelming support for this important bill. Counterfeiting is a threat to America. It wreaks real harm on our economy, our workers, and our consumers. This bill is a tough bill that will give law enforcement improved tools to fight this form of theft. The bill is short and straight-forward, but its impact should be profound and far-reaching.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank Senator Specter for that clarification. As he is aware, we have received over a dozen letters in support of S. 1699, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent to have several of these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree with the Senator. Section 2(b)(1)(B) authorizes U.S. Attorneys to pursue civil in rem forfeiture proceedings against ``any property used, in any manner or part, to commit or to facilitate the commission of a violation of subsection (a).'' The intent of this language is to provide attorneys and prosecutors with the authority to bring a civil forfeiture action against the property of bad actors who are facilitating trafficking or attempts to traffic in counterfeit marks. The forfeiture authority in Section 2(b)(1)(B) cannot be used to pursue forfeiture and seizure proceedings against the computer equipment, website or network of responsible Internet marketplace companies, who serve solely as a third-party to transactions and do not tailor their services or their facilities to the furtherance of trafficking or attempts to traffic in counterfeit marks. However, these Internet marketplace companies must make demonstrable good faith efforts to combat the use of their systems and services to traffic in counterfeit marks. Companies must establish and implement procedures to take down postings that contain or offer to sell goods, services, labels, and the like in violation of this act upon being made aware of the illegal nature of these items or services. It is the irresponsible culprits that must be held accountable. Those who profit from another's innovation have proved their creativity only at escaping responsibility for their actions. As legislators it is important that we provide law enforcement with the tools needed to capture these thieves. It is also my understanding that the U.S. Sentencing Commission recently promulgated new Federal sentencing guidelines to count for the changes in how intellectual property crimes are committed. Could the Senator from Pennsylvania clarify for the Record why we have authorized the U.S. Sentencing Commission to further amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements for crimes committed in violation of Title 18, section 2318 or 2320, of the United States Code?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, counterfeiting threatens the American economy, our workers, and our consumers. I am pleased that the Senate has today taken an important step towards beating back that threat, by passing S. 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.'' Senator Specter is the principal cosponsor, and I know that he shares with me the conviction that this bill that will give law enforcement improved tools to fight counterfeit trademarks, and that it could work a significant change in the efforts to combat this type of theft. So are all our cosponsors, and I thank them: Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow, and Voinovich. It is all too easy to think of counterfeiting as a victimless crime, a means of buying sunglasses or a purse that would otherwise strain a monthly budget. The reality, however, is far different. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, counterfeiting costs the U.S. between $200 billion and $250 billion annually. In Vermont, companies like Burton Snowboards, Vermont Tubbs, SB Electronics, and Hubbardton Forge--all of which have cultivated their good names through pure hard work and creativity--have felt keenly the damage of intellectual property theft on their businesses. This is wrong. It is simply not fair to the businesses who innovate and to the people whose economic livelihoods depend on these companies. The threat posed by counterfeiting is more than a matter of economics. Inferior products can threaten the safety of those who use them. When a driver taps a car's brake pedals there should be no uncertainty about whether the brake linings are made of compressed grass, sawdust, or cardboard. Sick patients should not have to that they will ingest counterfeit prescription drugs and, at best, have no effect. The World Health Organization estimates that the market for counterfeit drugs is about $32 billion each year. Knock-off parts have even been found in NATO helicopters. What's more, according to Interpol, there is an identifiable link between counterfeit goods and the financing of terrorist operations. S. 1699 makes several improvements to the U.S. Code. The bill strengthens 18 U.S.C. 2318, the part of the criminal code that deals with counterfeit goods and services, to make it a crime to traffic in counterfeit labels or packaging, even when counterfeit labels or packaging are shipped separately from the goods to which they will ultimately be attached. Savvy counterfeiters have exploited this loophole to escape liability. This bill closes that loophole. The bill will also make counterfeit labels and goods, and any equipment used in facilitating a crime under this part of the code, subject to forfeiture upon conviction. Any forfeited goods or machinery would then be destroyed, and the convicted infringer would have to pay restitution to the lawful owner of the trademark. Finally, although the bill is tough, it is also fair. It states that nothing ``shall entitle the United States to bring a cause of action under this section for the repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended to deceive or confuse.'' It is truly just the bad actors we want to punish. Those who profit from another's innovation have proved their creativity only at escaping responsibility for their actions. As legislators it is important that we provide law enforcement with the tools needed to capture these thieves. I am committed to this effort, and will continue to sponsor legislation that will support law enforcement in the protection of the intellectual property rights that are so important to the American economy and its creative culture.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today, I am pleased that the Senate is passing S. 1095, the Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005, which is the latest of the bipartisan efforts that Senator Cornyn and I have made to improve the lives of Americans through effective and efficient government. The Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005 will strengthen our ability to combat the escalating problem of counterfeiting worldwide. In order to effectively fight intellectual property theft, we need stiff penalties for counterfeiters and those who are caught with counterfeit goods with the intent to traffic their false wares. Ours is a short bill--indeed, it is only two pages long-- but it will have powerful global implications in the fight against piracy. Counterfeiting is a growing problem that costs our economy hundreds of billions of dollars every year and has been linked to organized crime, including terrorist organizations. According to the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition, counterfeit parts have been discovered in helicopters sold to NATO, in jet engines, bridge joints, brake pads, and fasteners in equipment designed to prevent nuclear reactor meltdowns. The World Health Organization estimates that the market for counterfeit drugs is about $32 billion each year. Several years ago, Senator Hatch joined me in sponsoring the Anti- counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996, which addressed counterfeiting by amending several sections of our criminal and tariff codes. That law made important changes, particularly by expanding RICO, the Federal antiracketeering law, to cover crimes involving counterfeiting and copyright and trademark infringement. Then, as now, trafficking in counterfeit goods hurts purchasers, State and Federal Governments, and economies at every level. Perhaps most disturbingly, the U.S. Customs Service reports that terrorists have used transnational counterfeiting operations to fund their activities: The sale of counterfeit and pirated music, movies, software, T-shirts, clothing, and fake drugs ``accounts for much of the money the international terrorist network depends on to feed its operations.'' Last year, as in years past, I worked with Senator Allen on an amendment to the Foreign Operations bill that provides the State Department with vital resources to combat piracy of U.S. goods abroad. The bill we ultimately passed included $3 million for this important purpose. Yet more work both at home and abroad remains. When you consider that the economic impact of tangible piracy in counterfeit goods is estimated to be roughly $350 billion a year and to constitute between 5 percent and 7 percent of worldwide trade, a few million dollars is a worthwhile investment. We have certainly seen how this form of theft touches the lives of hard-working Vermonters. Burton Snowboards is a small company, whose innovation has made it an industry leader in snowboarding equipment and apparel. Unfortunately, knockoff products carrying Burton's name have been found across the globe. Vanessa Price, a representative of Burton, testified about counterfeiting at the Judiciary Committee's March 23, 2004, hearing on this topic. In addition to learning about the economic costs of counterfeiting, I asked her after the hearing about the risks posed to consumers by these goods. Her answer was chilling: ``In the weeks since my Senate testimony, I discovered a shipment of counterfeit Burton boots for sale through a discount sports outfit . . . After examining the poor quality of the counterfeit boots, we determined that anyone using the boots for snowboarding risks injury due to a lack of reinforcement and support in the product's construction.'' Customers and businesses lose out to counterfeiters in other ways, too. SB Electronics in Barre, VT has seen its capacitors reverse engineered and its customers lost to inferior copycat models. Vermont Tubbs, a furniture manufacturer in Rutland, has seen its designs copied, produced offshore with inferior craftsmanship and materials, and then reimported, so that the company is competing against cheaper versions of its own products. And Hubbardton Forge in Castleton, VT has seen its beautiful and original lamps counterfeited and then sold within the United States at prices--and quality--far below their own. This is wrong. It is unfair to consumers who deserve the high quality goods they think they are paying for, and it is unfair to innovators who play by the rules and deserve to profit from their labor. The Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005 will help to combat this growing scourge. It amends the definition of trafficking in the counterfeit law to criminalize the possession of counterfeit goods with the intent to sell or traffic in those goods, as well as to include any distribution of counterfeits with the expectation of gaining something of value--criminals should not be able to skirt the law simply because they barter illegal goods and services in exchange for their illicit wares. Finally, the bill's new definition will criminalize the importation and exportation of counterfeit goods, as well as of bootleg copies of copyrighted works into and out of the United States. By tying off these loopholes and improving U.S. laws on counterfeiting, we will be sending a powerful message to the criminals who belong in jail, and to our innovators.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I have introduced a comprehensive court security measure, S. 1968, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005, CSIA. Our bill responds to requests by the judiciary for a greater voice in working with the United States Marshals Service to determine their security needs. It enacts new criminal penalties for the misuse of restricted personal information to harm or threaten to seriously harm judges, their families or other individuals performing official duties. It also enacts criminal penalties for threatening judges and Federal law enforcement officials by the malicious filing of false liens, provides increased protections for witnesses, and makes available new resources for State courts to improve security for State and local court systems. Finally, it extends life insurance benefits to bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges, and health insurance to surviving spouses and families of Federal judges. One of the provisions of CSIA extends the ``sunset'' of a provision first enacted in the ``Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998'' that grants the Judicial Conference of the United States the authority to redact information from a judge's mandatory financial disclosure in circumstances in which it is determined that the release of the information could endanger the filer or the filer's family. The Specter-Leahy bill also extends the protections of this provision to the family members of filers. The misuse of this redaction authority has been a matter of some concern to me. I appreciate that the Judicial Conference is seeking to improve its practices. I offer this amendment to S. 1558, which is drawn from CSIA, because none of us wants to see judges or their families endangered. The redaction authority need not expire if there is agreement that it should be continued by reauthorization for another 4-year period before another sunset. Instead, if the Senate adopts our amendment and the House accepts the Senate bill, the authority will be extended without interruption. I hope that the House will join us without delay both in extending the redaction authority and in expanding the scope of its protections to include family members. I also hope that we will move quickly to pass the other important provisions of CSIA so that we can better protect the dedicated women and men throughout the judiciary in this country who do a tremendous job under challenging circumstances.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Sexton of my staff be granted privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am always concerned that when they speak of terrorism we are constantly adding new things to our laws to show how we are opposed to terrorists. Maybe it would be easier to just to pass a resolution 100 to 0 saying we are all opposed to terrorists. Of course, we are. I also remember when it was written and attributed to Benjamin Franklin at a time when he and other Founders of this great Nation faced the hangman's noose. Had they failed in their efforts to create a democracy instead of trade, their liberties for security deserve neither. We should go very slowly when we want to make changes on the great rift. The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee is absolutely right. We should oppose this amendment. We made a major change in the habeas corpus laws a few years ago when we were looking at that to see how that works. This is not the time nor the place nor the bill to willy-nilly--that is really what it is--make this change in the habeas corpus law. There are just too many things going on--whether it is the reports in the press about us using secret prisons that had been abandoned by the old Soviet Union following criticism of every President, Republican or Democrat, in my lifetime, that we are now using that, to questions that are raised and appropriately raised about Guantanamo. I have heard it said here that the Red Cross has available to them all prisoners, that the press has available to them all prisoners--we have found that isn't so--and prisoners are spirited out in the middle of the night to these secret prisons. Let us stand as a country that believes in the rule of law. I hope we stand with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania in opposing this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to mention one other item in the Foreign Operations conference report. It does not earmark Foreign Military Financing funds for Timor-Leste, formerly East Timor, the world's newest democracy and a friend of the United States. However, we do not earmark funding for many of the countries for which FMF was requested, but we provide $241.7 million in FMF assistance to cover these needs, including for Timor-Leste. The administration's budget request included $1.5 million in FMF for East Timor. The fact that we did not earmark these funds for Timor-Leste should not be misinterpreted as an indication of any disagreement on the part of the conferees with the administration's request.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support the Foreign Operations Conference Report for fiscal year 2006 and urge all Senators to vote its passage. Like every appropriations bill, there are things in this conference report that I disagree with. There are programs which I, as do many here, believe need substantially more funding than we were able to provide. A good example is our migration and refugee programs. This conference report provides less than the President requested and far less than the Senate bill. The suffering of refugees and displaced people that we are able to relieve but will not because of the scant resources in this bill is shameful and inexcusable. We and other industrialized nations could and should do far more to help them. Another problem is HIV/AIDS, although we were able to provide $268 million more than the President requested. I am disappointed that the amount of our contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was $50 million less than in the Senate bill. There are few more compelling needs for those funds than fighting these insidious diseases. I had hoped we would have enough to fully fund the Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs account. It is a mistake to cut funding for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty International Monitoring System, for which the President did not request sufficient funds. The amount in this conference report represents a cut of $4.498 million below the fiscal year 2005 level, and is at least $6 million less than the amount of the U.S. share for this vitally important monitoring system. The fact is, despite the help we got from Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd with our allocation, for which we are very grateful, this conference report does not provide nearly enough resources to respond adequately to the multitude of threats we face across the globe. We had to make the kind of peevish choices that the world's wealthiest, most powerful country should not be making. There are other funding problems in this conference report, but on the whole it strikes the right balance for the bipartisan support it needs, and for that I commend Chairman McConnell, Chairman Kolbe, and Congresswoman Lowey. We have worked very cooperatively as is our practice, and I think we did about the best we could with an allocation that was almost $2 billion below the President's budget request. I want to mention a few other issues. First, Colombia. I was pleased that the conferees agreed to my request to provide an additional $6 million for economic and social programs. Despite assurances by the administration that they would increase funding for these programs as the security situation in Colombia improves, they have done the opposite. Military programs have consistency received a larger share of the budget. I was pleased that the conferees included report language I requested, directing that $500,000 of our military aid for Colombia be used to pay incidental costs relating to the treatment at U.S. hospitals of seriously injured Colombian soldiers. Due to the tireless work of the nonprofit organization ``United for Colombia,'' these hospitals have generously offered to perform this surgery--which requires sophisticated technology and expertise that is unavailable in Colombia--free of charge. But there are additional expenses such as transportation, lodging and medicines. The conferees also included my recommendation that additional assistance from the Leahy War Victims Fund be made available for civilians who have been injured by landmines and other causes relating to the conflict. The conference report also includes language concerning the demobilization of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in Colombia. We would like to support this process, but it has been flawed from the beginning and the ``Peace and Justice'' law has been widely criticized by human rights experts in Colombia, the United States, Europe, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States. There is considerable skepticism that the paramilitary leaders will in fact give up narco- trafficking, surrender their illegally acquired land and other assets, or be brought to justice. We want to be sure that the law is being implemented in a manner that lives up to its promise of peace and justice, that these organizations are dismantled, and that their leaders receive the severe punishment they deserve. We provide up to $20 million in fiscal year 2006 for the demobilization. These are mostly funds that were already requested by the Administration for other purposes. We require the Secretary of State to first certify that certain conditions have been met and to notify the Congress. This reflects the serious concerns that Members of Congress have with the demobilization process. Among those conditions is that the Government of Colombia is ``providing full cooperation to the Government of the United States to extradite the leaders and members of [Foreign Terrorist Organizations] who have been indicted in the United States.'' This is very important, and it was included at the insistence of both Republican and Democrat Members. When we say ``full cooperation'' we mean nothing less. We want to see these people in handcuffs and on an airplane to the United States as soon as possible. We do not want anything to happen that would interfere with the extradition of the leaders of these narcoterrorist organizations--organized crime syndicates is what they are--for major crimes for which they have been indicted here. These are not ordinary criminals. Some of them make Pablo Escobar look like an amateur. They are responsible for creating and arming their own death squads, for killing thousands of civilians, for shipping billions of dollars worth of cocaine into the United States, and they have infiltrated many sectors of Colombian society including, we learned recently, the police intelligence service. We also know they have sway with some members of the Colombian Congress. Impunity has been the norm throughout Colombia's history. Nothing would be worse for the cause of justice, or for democracy in Colombia, than for people who are among the most notorious criminals in this hemisphere to escape punishment that is proportional to their crimes. If that happens, you can be sure that their criminal enterprises will not be dismantled, the cocaine will keep flowing across our borders, the Colombian people will continue to be plagued by narcotics related violence and corruption, and peace and justice will remain out of reach. Another item in this conference report deals with Indonesia. President Yudhoyono, who was democratically elected, has been advancing reformist policies that we support, including reducing the army's role in the political process. He has also been a reliable ally in fighting terrorism in the world's largest Muslim country. The conference report provides assistance to the Indonesian Navy in the amount requested by the Administration, and it also provides IMET assistance for Indonesia without restriction. In addition, our largest counterterrorism training program is with Indonesia, and the Defense Department regularly conducts joint exercises and other activities with the Indonesian military. But one area where there has been no discernable progress is accountability for crimes by the army. In 1992 the Indonesian army shot to death an estimated 200 unarmed protesters in a cemetery in Dili, East Timor. A few low-ranking soldiers were punished, but in a perversity of justice several of the civilians were sent to jail for far longer sentences. Then in 1999, the Indonesian military armed the militias who laid waste to East Timor after the independence referendum. The U.N. identified the top officers involved and accused them of crimes against humanity, but the army sabotaged the government's halfhearted efforts to bring them to justice. Thousands of innocent people died, and no one has been punished. Some have suggested that because these are ``past'' crimes, we should look forward, not backward. What crime isn't a past crime? Does that make it any less important that justice be done? How do you prevent future atrocities if you let those who order and commit murder get away with it? What is more fundamental to democracy than justice? For many years, the Congress has put conditions on U.S. assistance to the Indonesian army. The conditions in our law require nothing more than that the army respect the law, yet both Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice asked Congress to eliminate the conditions. I understand there are competing concerns and that we and Indonesia have common security interests. I would have supported their request if there were any sign that the Indonesian army is prepared to be accountable to the law for any of these heinous crimes. So far, there is not. The conference agreement also requires a report on the status of the FBI investigation of the August 2002 murders of two American civilians and one Indonesian civilian in Timika, West Papua. Soon after the killings the Indonesian military tried to frame an innocent man. Then, when the police implicated the military in the attack, the investigation abruptly ended. Nothing happened for another year or so because the military actively impeded further efforts to investigate. Since then, the military has been more cooperative and one West Papuan individual has been indicted in the U.S. But he has yet to be indicted in Indonesia and responsibility for this heinous crime does not stop there. It is now more than three years since this tragedy and no one has been brought to justice. Finally, the conference report requires a report on the humanitarian and human rights situation in West Papua. Another item I want to mention is Nepal. We have once again put conditions on our military aid because of the King's undemocratic and repressive actions on February 1, and the army's continuing involvement in human rights violations. We detest the tactics of the Maoists, who forcibly recruit children, who engage in extortion, and brutalize civilians. But the King's actions have only made a political solution to the conflict in Nepal more elusive, and at great cost to democracy and the rule of law. The conference agreement provides $2.5 million for a U.S. contribution to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Office in Nepal, to monitor and report on human rights violations throughout the country. The conference agreement also provides another $10 million for USAID's new Amazon Basin Conservation Strategy. This is a regional initiative that I am personally committed to, and I greatly appreciate the efforts that USAID has made to develop this strategy through an extensive process of consultations with governments and nongovernmental organizations. The Amazon Basin encompasses nine countries and has global environmental, health and economic importance that dwarfs any other forest or river system in the world. We all have a responsibility to protect it. Brazil and Colombia are examples of countries that already have environmental laws and policies in place and protected areas and indigenous reserves. Coordinating with other donors, governments and civil society organizations, we can help build the capacity to strengthen, enforce, implement, and replicate these laws and policies throughout the region. On a related matter, the conference report requires USAID to establish a new position of ``Advisor for Indigenous Peoples Issues.'' Indigenous peoples, from the Kalahari Desert in Botswana to the forests of Ecuador, are the most vulnerable people on Earth. Their land and traditional ways of life are under siege, and often their own governments are part of the problem, as was the case in our own country a century and a half ago. USAID, which works in these countries on issues that affect indigenous peoples, needs someone who is knowledgeable and has the responsibility to consult with indigenous peoples, advocate on their behalf in relation to USAID policies, programs and activities and coordinate with other federal agencies. I look forward to discussing this with USAID. I want to mention a provision in this conference report that deals with reform at the multilateral development banks. There are several parts to this provision, but one that deserves special mention concerns the rights of whistleblowers. Too often at these institutions, people who complain about waste, fraud or abuse are harassed, threatened, silenced, or demoted. That is the opposite of what should happen, and it is long overdue for whistleblowers to be given the protection and recourse they deserve. This provision, among other things, calls for independent adjudicatory bodies, including ``external arbitration based on consensus selection and shared costs''. I believe that access to external arbitration is long overdue, and I urge the World Bank and the other MDBs to act expeditiously to implement this and the other reforms called for in this provision. The conference report provides $1.77 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC. While this represents a deep cut from the President's request, it reflects the tight budgetary constraints we faced. The conference allocation required us to cut nearly $2 billion from the President's total request and therefore many programs, including the MCC, were not fully funded. I support the goals of the MCC, and I look forward to working with the new CEO Ambassador Danilovich. We know that foreign aid is most effective when governments are committed to fighting corruption and addressing the needs of their people, and when public officials, civil society and the private sector work together to reduce poverty. I am pleased that the conference agreement includes language emphasizing the importance of strong participation from indigenous civil society organizations to help ensure that the MCC is responsive to local people's concerns. It is through the meaningful participation of civil society that democracy is strengthened, good governance is valued, and open discussions of how best to achieve national priorities are accomplished. The conference agreement requires the MCC to submit a report that details how contributions of indigenous civil society have been incorporated in completed compact negotiations. The conference report provides funds above the President's request for both the Inter-American Foundation and the African Development Foundation. The Congress strongly supports the work of these foundations which support local initiatives to increase income for Latin America's and Africa's poorest people. I was very pleased that the conference report provides additional assistance for civilian victims of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We provide $5 million for the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund for assistance for Iraqi families and communities, which is named for Marla Ruzicka, the founder of Campaign for Civilian Victims of Conflict. Ms. Ruzicka died, at the age of 28, along with her colleague Faiz Ali Salim, in a car bombing in Baghdad on April 16, 2005. We also provide $2 million for assistance for Afghan families and communities that have suffered losses as a result of the military operations. By providing this assistance the United States is seeking to alleviate the suffering, as well as the anger and resentment, resulting from tragic mistakes that occur in the military operations. I was also pleased that the conference report includes $15 million to support an initiative I sponsored to combat certain neglected diseases. Lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, intestinal parasites, schistosomiasis, leprosy, and trachoma cause terrible suffering and disfigurement among hundreds of millions of people in mostly tropical countries. In addition to providing additional funds to prevent and treat these diseases, this initiative seeks to develop a multilateral, integrated approach to coordinate and maximize donor contributions to control them. This is important because current efforts are poorly coordinated and underfunded. As with the infectious diseases initiative I sponsored nearly a decade ago, I look forward to working with USAID, other Federal agencies, the World Health Organization, and the relevant international technical and nongovernmental organizations to develop such an approach that has broad support. I was disappointed that the amount provided for the Global Environmental Facility, $80 million, fell $27 million short of the U.S. pledge. I want to emphasize that this cut does not reflect any dissatisfaction on the part of the conferees with the GEF, which had taken steps to adopt management and transparency reforms advocated by the United States, but instead was due to budgetary constraints. As a strong supporter of the GEF I am hopeful that we can make up this shortfall in the fiscal year 2007 budget. The conference report supports the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which aims to improve the capacity of developing countries to sustainably manage the extraction of natural resources and to monitor revenues generated from such extraction so they are used for purposes which benefit their people. This is an anti-corruption, good governance initiative spearheaded by the British Government, which responds to the longstanding practice in many developing countries of exploiting natural resources in a wasteful and environmentally destructive manner that benefits only the elites. The conference agreement provides $1 million for USAID to support EITI implementation and to strengthen the role and capacity of civil society organizations in the EITI process. This is another issue I look forward to discussing with USAID before funds are obligated. Finally, I want to mention the funding in the conference report for USAID Operating Expenses, which was cut by $50 million below the administration's request. Again, this was the result of the budgetary constraints we faced, but it also reflects some concerns with USAID's management of appropriated funds. This cut will force USAID to make difficult choices, which should be the subject of consultations with the Appropriations Committees. There are many other provisions in this conference report that I do not have time here to recount. I want to again thank my friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, who has been a pleasure to work with. I also thank our counterparts in the House, Congressman Kolbe and Congresswoman Lowey, and their capable staffs. I commend the Senate majority staff, Paul Grove, Tom Hawkins, Harry Christy, Bob Lester and LaShawnda Smith. They put in long hours and they held themselves to the highest standards. And for the minority, I thank Tim Rieser, Kate Eltrich and Jennifer Park.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Kentucky. I praise him and his staff.

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the order for debate entered into on this conference report?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that Erica Santo Pietro of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the rest of today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, methamphetamine abuse has increased exponentially in recent years, expanding geographically to reach all corners of the United States. In recent years, the problem has made its way to Vermont. I am concerned about escalating methamphetamine abuse and have worked with other interested Senators to find ways to combat this growing problem. With Senator Feinstein taking the lead, on July 28, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported out the Combat Meth Act, S. 103, with a committee amendment. I worked with Senator Feinstein and the other members of the committee to reach this result. In September, I worked with Chairman Shelby and Senator Mikulski to take the unusual action of including the Combat Meth Act as an amendment to the Commerce Justice Science appropriations bill. I did this to accommodate Senator Feinstein's request and to try to make progress on this measure. By that action the Senate approved the Combat Meth Act, S. 103, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, as an amendment and then in passage of the bill. House conferees would not agree to the Senate bill. Without agreement on such an authorization, it was not retained in the appropriations conference report. Last Thursday, I honored the request of Senator Feinstein and worked to clear the Combat Meth Act, S. 103, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, for passage by the Senate as a freestanding bill. It is clear on the Democratic side. It has been clear for days. All Senate Democrats are ready to pass that measure. It is being prevented from passage by an anonymous objection from the Republican side of the aisle. The Senate's bipartisan bill focuses directly on providing law enforcement and prosecutors the tools they told us they needed. These include putting precursor chemicals behind the pharmacy counters, monitoring and regulating the quantities that can be bought in a 30-day period, and making it harder to smuggle such ingredients into the United States. The Senate bill focuses on prevention, regulation, monitoring, and treatment. Our bill would make it harder for people to enter the nightmarish world of methamphetamine use and abuse, harder for other countries and companies to profit from methamphetamine misery, and easier for law enforcement to combat this problem on the ground. I know that Senator Feinstein has been working tirelessly for years to do something about this important issue. She has been tenacious and dedicated, and I respect her leadership in this area. She and Senator Talent know that I have tried to accommodate them and to facilitate passage of this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. The Bush administration has steadfastly refused to address the black mark on our Nation caused by its interrogation policies and practices and the resulting abuse of detainees. Some of us in Congress strongly believe that oversight and accountability are paramount to restoring America's reputation as a human rights leader. We have been stymied in our efforts to learn the truth about how this administration's policies trickled down from offices in Washington to cellblocks in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan. The administration's effort, led by Vice President Cheney, to block any legislation that would regulate the treatment of detainees is wrong. Also wrong is the Bush administration's refusal to consider an independent commission to investigate the abuses. It would rather rely on internal, piecemeal investigations conducted within the Defense Department, none of which address the significant role of the Central Intelligence Agency in interrogations. Given the failure of the Republican-controlled Congress to conduct effective oversight, I support the Levin amendment to the Defense authorization bill to establish an independent commission on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. I have spoken many times about the need for a comprehensive, independent investigation into the abuse of detainees. Such an investigation may not be without painful, but accountability is a necessary step if we are to recover from all that has transpired during this administration's watch. I am not alone in calling for an independent commission. Several organizations, including the American Bar Association, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, have urged the creation of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the prisoner abuses. A letter from eight retired generals and admirals to President Bush asked him to appoint a prisoner abuse commission modeled on the 9/11 Commission. In that letter, the flag officers stated, ``internal investigations by their nature suffer from a critical lack of independence. Americans have never thought it wise or fair for one branch of government to police itself.'' The 9/11 Commission provides more than a structural model for a new commission; it also provides a lesson in how perseverance can overcome the Bush administration's inclination to secrecy and to refuse to acknowledge the facts. The Bush administration initially opposed the formation of the 9/11 Commission, just as it now opposes a prisoner abuse commission. The administration used the same argument against both commissions. It asserts that its own internal investigations are sufficient. Ironically, Dr. James Schlesinger, the head of a panel established by Secretary Rumsfeld to investigate the prisoner abuses, addressed this issue in his testimony to the Senate Government Affairs Committee in February 2002, as it debated the need for the 9/11 Commission. He argued for the creation of the 9/11 Commission because ``to this point many questions have been addressed piecemeal or not at all. The purpose of the National Commission would be systematically and comprehensively to address such questions and to give a complete accounting of the events leading up to 9/11. In my judgment, such a Commission would serve a high, indeed indispensable, national purpose.'' This is exactly the same reason we need an independent commission to investigate the prisoner abuse scandals. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Delaying the accounting will not solve the problems. Each week brings new allegations that reveal how much we still do not know. Human rights groups and journalists are doing what they can to bring the truth to light. It is past time for Congress to hold a thorough, oversight investigation. The least Congress should finally do is establish an independent commission to investigate these matters. Rather than wait to read about the latest discovery of abuse in tomorrow's paper, let us at least do that. After months of delay from the Republican Senate leadership, the Senate finally had an opportunity last month to vote on clear guidance for treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. When we did, the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 90 to 9, in favor of Senator McCain's amendment to the Defense appropriations bill, which I was glad to cosponsor along with Senator Durbin and others. That same amendment was adopted a second time to the Defense Authorization bill and I, again, cosponsored it. Our credibility and reputation as a world leader in human rights has suffered greatly during the last few years. The scandals have put our own troops at risk and undermined their efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of us have been working on these issues for years. I first wrote to Condoleezza Rice in 2003, after reports of deaths of detainees were reported from the Bagram base in Afghanistan in late 2002. Like so much we have learned, those first reports came from the press and human rights groups, not the Bush administration. The Bush administration has threatened to veto any legislation that would regulate the treatment of detainees. Vice President Cheney is reported to be personally lobbying on this matter. A group of 28 senior military officers, including GEN John Shalikashvili, recently wrote to Senator McCain in support of his amendments addressing detainee treatment. That letter states: The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy, and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations. . . . Our service members were denied clear guidance, and left to take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better than that. I hope the President will consider these words before he vetoes a bill that contains our amendment. Prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel is deeply troubling. It is one aspect of a broader problem. While we must ensure that prisoners are treated humanely by our own personnel, we must also prohibit the use of so-called extraordinary renditions to send people to other countries where they will be subject to torture. The Bush administration says that it does not condone torture, but transferring detainees to other countries where they will be tortured does not absolve our Government of responsibility. By outsourcing torture to these countries, we diminish our own values as a nation and lose our credibility as an advocate of human rights around the world. We have addressed this issue before. Congress implemented article 3 of the Convention Against Torture in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, but this administration has exploited loopholes in that law to transfer detainees to countries where they are subjected to torture. Attorney General Gonzales recently said that U.S. policy is not to send detainees ``to countries where we believe or we know that they're going to be tortured,'' but he acknowledged that we ``can't fully control'' what other nations do, and added that he does not know whether countries have always complied with their promises. In fact, they have not. I introduced legislation in March to close the loophole and to prevent extraordinary renditions. Now that Congress is finally willing to regulate the treatment of detainees--a power that is expressly granted in the Constitution--I hope that the Senate will support my legislation to prohibit renditions.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last May, the Judiciary Committee heard the courageous testimony of Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago. She is the Federal judge whose mother and husband were murdered in their home. The tragedy that befell Judge Lefkow and her family is a terrible reminder not only of the vulnerable position of our judges and their families, but of the critical importance of protecting judges where they work and where they and their families live. We cannot tolerate and no one should excuse or justify--violence or the threat of violence against our judges. I was appalled earlier this year when right-wing activists compared judges to terrorists and the KKK and threatened them with punishment for decisions they did not like, even quoting Joseph Stalin's violent answer to anyone who opposed his totalitarianism by urging the formula of ``No man, No problem.'' Stalin killed those with whom he disagreed. This rhetoric can only foster unacceptable violence against Judges and it must stop, for the sake of our Judges and the independence of the judiciary. We ought to be protecting judges physically and institutionally rather than taking rhetorical pot shots that put judges in real danger and that attack the very independence of our federal judiciary. When I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001, one of the first things I did was push for passage of the Judicial Protection Act, which toughened criminal penalties for assaults against judges and their families. We enacted it. We were right to do so. Protecting our judges and Federal law enforcement officers should be a top priority for us. Today, in order to meet the continuing challenges of keeping our judges, our Courts, and the rest of the Federal judiciary safe, Chairman Specter and I are introducing the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005 (``CSIA''). CSIA responds to requests by the judiciary for a greater voice in working with the United States Marshals Service to determine their security needs. It strengthens and expands protections for judges and their families against the misuse of their personal information by those who intend to threaten them. It enacts new criminal penalties for the mis-use of restricted personal information to seriously harm or threaten to seriously harm judges, their families or other individuals performing official duties. It also enacts criminal penalties for threatening judges and federal law enforcement officials by the malicious filing of false liens, provides increased protections for witnesses, and makes available new resources for state courts to improve security for state and local court systems. I appreciate the work of Chairman Specter on this important bill and, in particular, for including an extension of life insurance benefits to bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges, as well as health insurance for surviving spouses and families of federal judges. We must better protect the dedicated women and men throughout the Judiciary in this country who do a tremendous job under challenging circumstances. They are hard-working public servants who are too often maligned and unfairly disparaged. We owe it to them and to our democracy to find ways to make sure that tragedies like those that befell Judge Lefkow are not repeated, and to ensure that Judges and their families have the peace of mind necessary to do their vital and difficult jobs.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last May, the Judiciary Committee heard the courageous testimony of Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago. She is the Federal judge whose mother and husband were murdered in their home. The tragedy that befell Judge Lefkow and her family is a terrible reminder not only of the vulnerable position of our judges and their families, but of the critical importance of protecting judges where they work and where they and their families live. We cannot tolerate and no one should excuse or justify--violence or the threat of violence against our judges. I was appalled earlier this year when right-wing activists compared judges to terrorists and the KKK and threatened them with punishment for decisions they did not like, even quoting Joseph Stalin's violent answer to anyone who opposed his totalitarianism by urging the formula of ``No man, No problem.'' Stalin killed those with whom he disagreed. This rhetoric can only foster unacceptable violence against Judges and it must stop, for the sake of our Judges and the independence of the judiciary. We ought to be protecting judges physically and institutionally rather than taking rhetorical pot shots that put judges in real danger and that attack the very independence of our federal judiciary. When I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001, one of the first things I did was push for passage of the Judicial Protection Act, which toughened criminal penalties for assaults against judges and their families. We enacted it. We were right to do so. Protecting our judges and Federal law enforcement officers should be a top priority for us. Today, in order to meet the continuing challenges of keeping our judges, our Courts, and the rest of the Federal judiciary safe, Chairman Specter and I are introducing the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005 (``CSIA''). CSIA responds to requests by the judiciary for a greater voice in working with the United States Marshals Service to determine their security needs. It strengthens and expands protections for judges and their families against the misuse of their personal information by those who intend to threaten them. It enacts new criminal penalties for the mis-use of restricted personal information to seriously harm or threaten to seriously harm judges, their families or other individuals performing official duties. It also enacts criminal penalties for threatening judges and federal law enforcement officials by the malicious filing of false liens, provides increased protections for witnesses, and makes available new resources for state courts to improve security for state and local court systems. I appreciate the work of Chairman Specter on this important bill and, in particular, for including an extension of life insurance benefits to bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges, as well as health insurance for surviving spouses and families of federal judges. We must better protect the dedicated women and men throughout the Judiciary in this country who do a tremendous job under challenging circumstances. They are hard-working public servants who are too often maligned and unfairly disparaged. We owe it to them and to our democracy to find ways to make sure that tragedies like those that befell Judge Lefkow are not repeated, and to ensure that Judges and their families have the peace of mind necessary to do their vital and difficult jobs.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Molly Barrett of my staff be given the privilege of the floor throughout the day and the votes that occur today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am thrilled that the Senate has agreed to accept by unanimous consent to the Budget Reconciliation Act, S. 1932, a bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Specter and myself to allocate the extra $278,000,000 in revenue provided from the Judiciary Committee markup on reconciliation to supplement funding for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, programs authorized by the Justice For All Act, and the Copyright Royalty Judges Program. I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Specter, for his leadership on and commitment to seeing that these important programs are funded as much as we can during these tough fiscal times. As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter and I have joined forces before to champion funding for these programs. I am privileged to partner with him again in that pursuit. The Judiciary Committee markup on its reconciliation title provided $278,000,000 more in revenue than was mandated by the budget resolution instructions. We now seek to include additional provisions within the jurisdiction of our committee into the Senate reconciliation package. Our bipartisan amendment funds a number of Judiciary programs that enjoyed broad bipartisan support when Congress authorized them. These mandatory spending changes would simply spend some of the additional revenue that we raised through increases in immigration fees during our markup. Our proposal would provide $60,000,000 over the next 5 years for such initiatives as the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program, which helps law enforcement agencies purchase or replace body armor for their rank- and-file officers. Recently, concerns over body armor safety surfaced when a Pennsylvania police officer was shot and critically wounded through his new vest outfitted with a material called Zylon. The Justice Department has since announced that Zylon fails to provide the intended level of ballistic resistance. Unfortunately, an estimated 200,000 vests outfitted with that material have been purchased--many with Bulletproof Vest Partnership funds--and now must be replaced. Law enforcement agencies nationwide are struggling to find the funds necessary to replace defective vests with ones that will actually stop bullets and save lives. Our amendment will help them replace those faulty vests. Our amendment also provides over $216,000,000 for programs authorized by the Justice For All Act of 2004, a landmark law that enhances protections for victims of Federal crimes, increases Federal resources available to State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA technology, and provides safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions. The bipartisan amendment that Senator Specter and I propose will, among other things, allow for training of criminal justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, including evidence for post-conviction DNA testing. It will promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. With these funds, State and local authorities will be better able to implement and enforce crime victims' rights laws, including Federal victim and witness assistance programs. State and locals 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 amendment will also help improve the quality of legal representation provided to both indigent defendants and the public in State capital cases. Last, but certainly not least, our amendment provides $6,500,000 over 5 years for the Copyright Royalty Judges Program at the Library of Congress. The Copyright Royalty Distribution Reform Act of 2004 created a new program in the Library to replace most of the current statutory responsibilities of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels program. The Copyright Royalty Judges Program will determine distributions of royalties that are disputed and will set or adjust royalty rates, terms and conditions, with the exception of satellite carriers' compulsory licenses. Our amendment would help pay the salaries and related expenses of the three royalty judges and three administrative staff required by law to support this program. The Specter-Leahy amendment will give to programs that help protect police officers and victims of violent crime, allow State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA technology, and provide safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions. Chairman Specter and I are proud that the Judiciary Committee was able to agree to a reconciliation package that will provide $278 million more in revenue than was mandated by the Budget Resolution instructions. I thank our colleagues for supporting our amendment and agreeing to use that additional money to fund some of these important priorities that continue to lack adequate Federal resources. amendment no. 2413

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Friday, the President formally withdrew from the Senate his nomination of Harriet Miers to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, he announced his intention to nominate Judge Samuel Alito to that same position. To those who are keeping count, this will be the third nomination to fill the seat vacated by the future retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made by the President. Justice O'Connor is still there. Three people have been nominated to fill her seat. I am concerned that the nomination may be a needlessly provocative nomination. Obviously, I will do as I have always done on nominees of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I will make up my mind based on the hearings. But the President had before him a number of names of people who would have gotten probably 95 or 100 votes out of this Chamber, virtually every Republican and virtually every Democrat. Such a nomination would have united, not divided, the country. It appears that instead of uniting the country through his choice, the President chose to reward one small faction of the party and risked dividing the country. Instead of rewarding a small faction, which has put him under a great deal of pressure, I wish he would have rewarded the American people, all 280 million of us. There were many conservative Republican candidates who could have easily been confirmed. Just last week, the President succumbed to partisan pressure from the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party to withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers. The pressure did not come from the Democrats. Actually, the pressure did not come from the majority of Republicans. It came from one small, vocal wing of the Republican Party. I believe the President abdicated his own role in the Constitution's process of selecting Supreme Court Justices and allowed his own choice to be vetoed by extremists within his party without hearings by the Judiciary Committee or a vote by the Senate. Both the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, and myself said, Why do we not have hearings and then make up our mind? The Miers nomination became an eye-opening experience for the country, exposing for all to see what a vocal and virulent wing of the Republican Party really wants. These are not the mainstream Republicans I know in my own State of Vermont, the party that has done so much for our green mountain State. This wing did not want an independent Federal judiciary. They want a rightwing litmus test, not the selection of Justices and judges who will be fair and impartial in applying the law. They, in fact, demand judges who will guarantee the results they want. With turmoil engulfing the White House, with no exit from the disastrous and deadly occupation of Iraq, with an escalating Federal debt, and with obscenely high profits that continue to pile up for the administration's oil company friends, catering to an extreme wing of one political party jeopardizes the vital checks and balances that protect ordinary Americans. It is a pity that the President thought his position was so weak that he had to bend to a narrow but strident faction of his political base. The Supreme Court is the ultimate safeguard of our system to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans. I hope the White House is not using this announcement today to try to distract the public from the scandals and failures that are mounting by the day for this administration. Nor will the press be fooled into assuming this is the only issue before America. With the announcement of Judge Samuel Alito to fill the position to be vacated by Justice O'Connor, the White House failed to follow through with its initial discussions and engage in meaningful consultation. I regret the President has not chosen a clear path of a consensus candidate to unite the American people and the Senate. Actually, the Nation and the Senate would have overwhelmingly welcomed his choice if he had. Now, as I said, I am not forming a final judgment as to the merits of this nomination, just as I did with now Chief Justice Roberts when he was initially nominated to fill the Sandra Day O'Connor seat, a seat not yet vacated. I said I would not make up my mind until after the hearing, and I will do that, but an initial review of Judge Alito's record suggests areas of significant concern for all of us. His opinions from the Federal bench demonstrate that he would go to great lengths to restrict the authority of Congress to enact protective legislation to protect people in the areas of civil rights, consumer protection, and the rights of workers, consumers, and women. Judge Alito has also set unreasonably high standards for ordinary Americans who are victims of discrimination to meet before being allowed to proceed with their cases. The Democratic leader of the Senate and I wrote to the President last week. We urged him to pick one of the many qualified, mainstream women and minority candidates who could win widespread bipartisan support in the Senate. Even more importantly, they would get the same widespread public support in America. We noted the unique circumstances that now attend this nomination and that make it essential that Justice O'Connor be replaced by a mainstream nominee, not by an activist who would bring an ideological agenda to the Court. The Court that serves America should reflect all America, but although President Bush declared in reference to filling Justice O'Connor's seat on the Court that he is ``mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country,'' with the nomination of Judge Alito, of course, he weakens that strength. Should Judge Alito ultimately be confirmed, the Court will lose some of that diversity. There were a lot of highly qualified women, highly qualified African Americans, highly qualified Hispanics, and other individuals who could well have served as unifying nominees while adding to the diversity of the Supreme Court. I am one Senator who looks forward to the time when the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court is more reflective of the country it serves. As the grandson of Italian and Irish immigrants, I know that Italian Americans, like all of my mother's family, and President Bush's guest, the Italian Prime Minister, will be feeling pride today, but this nomination does not add to the diversity of the Supreme Court any more than I add to the diversity of the Senate. I imagine this announcement is a disappointment to many Hispanic Americans who had expected the President to seize this historic opportunity given to him for a third time by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. I also imagine that all of the women in our Nation's Capital today to honor Rosa Parks, the first woman to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda for her work in bringing racial justice to our Nation, are somewhat saddened that the seat of the first woman to serve on our Highest Court is not going to be filled by another woman. I do not expect Democrats to engage in the kinds of personal attacks on this nominee that the rightwing used to force the President to withdraw his nomination of Ms. Miers, whom he described as the best qualified person in the country to replace Justice O'Connor. I do believe we need to take the time necessary to examine the record of the nominee in the Reagan Justice Department and on the bench before we proceed with full and thorough hearings. The stakes for the American people could not be higher with this new nomination. Justice O'Connor brought an open mind to the cases she reviewed. She served especially as a moderating influence on the Court. The person who replaces her replaces a pivotal vote on our most powerful Court. That person has the potential to dramatically tilt the Court's balance. Maintaining the stability of the Court is crucial for the Nation, and that is going to be an important factor for me as I consider this nomination. At this critical moment and in light of the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of the Miers nomination, all Senators should perform our constitutional advice and consent responsibility, but we should do it with heightened vigilance. The Supreme Court is the guarantor of the rights of all Americans. I look forward to the hearings. I will, as I did before, work with Senator Specter, the chairman, to make sure they are open and fair as they were for Chief Justice Roberts. Those were open and fair hearings because we had the time to prepare for them. I urge the President and even the leadership of this august body to allow the Judiciary Committee to take the time to do it right. It is far more important to do it right than to do it fast. The appointment must be made in the Nation's interest, not to serve the special interests of any partisan faction, even though today we have one that is claiming credit for destroying the chances of Harriet Miers but for also in effect telling the President of the United States who to appoint as his third nominee for this one seat. I yield the floor.