Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I also ask, for purposes of debate on the Gonzales nomination, unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Matthew Nelson.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. This bill completes the ambitious package of intellectual property legislation that we undertook, along with our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to enact at the end of the 108th Congress. This is a bipartisan bill that makes important changes to our copyright laws and that will help ensure the preservation of America's cultural heritage. Today's passage of this bill is testimony to the efforts of several in this Chamber to ensure we make good law, capable of swift enactment, and for that I thank in particular the bill's cosponsors, Senators Hatch, Feinstein, Alexander, and Cornyn. The FECA bill is made up of four important provisions. Title I of the bill contains the ART Act, which will criminalize the use of camcorders to steal movies surreptitiously from the big screen. The second title of the bill is the Family Movie Act, which was designed to allow consumers to view only those portions of movies, in their own homes, that they want to. Title III of the bill contains the Film Preservation Act, legislation that I sponsored in the last Congress. The Film Preservation Act will allow the Library of Congress to continue its important work in preserving America's fading film treasures. What is more, the bill will assist libraries, museums, and archives in preserving films, and in making those works available to researchers and the public. Finally, the bill contains the Preservation of Orphan Works Act, which will correct a drafting error in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and will allow libraries to create copies of orphan works--copyrighted materials that are in the last 20 years of their copyright term, are no longer commercially exploited, and are not available at a reasonable price. I thank the cosponsors of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, and I hope the House of Representatives will move with dispatch to pass and send to the President this consensus legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad that we have had a few more days to consider and hours to discuss this nomination. Some have suggested that we should have simply ``voice voted'' Dr. Rice's nomination so she could be confirmed in time for the inauguration. Senators are here to advise and consent, not rubber stamp for the White House's convenience. We needed this extra time for debate. The Secretary of State is the chief foreign policy adviser to the President and fourth in the line of Presidential succession. And, like some other Senators, I was disappointed by Dr. Rice's testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee last week. I had hoped that her testimony would demonstrate the kind of forthright, objective analysis that I believe we need in a Secretary of State. Unfortunately, it did not. I share the serious concerns expressed by Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry, and I commend them and other Senators for voicing them. I have not been impressed with Dr. Rice's performance as National Security Adviser. Strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment have been far less evident at the National Security Council during her tenure than I would have liked. I also believe that she has not always been forthright with Congress or the American people. She contributed to the exaggerated public statements, false information in the President's State of the Union speech about Iraq's supposed attempts to acquire nuclear material, and the selective declassification of intelligence, which helped to create an atmosphere of hysteria that led us into war in Iraq. She and others created the false--the false--impression that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. These were serious failures, made worse by Dr. Rice's unwavering advocacy and support for the administration's policies that have cost the lives of over 1,300 American soldiers and an estimated 100,000 Iraqis, many of them noncombatants. It has alienated our friends and allies and convinced many of the world's Muslims that we are at war with Islam itself. It led to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. It has added $200 billion to the Federal deficit and at the rate we are going that is only a down payment. There are now 150,000 American troops, many of them National Guard and Reserve, bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iraq that has become a haven for terrorists. Yet Dr. Rice refuses to own up to the Administration's failures. When confronted with her own glaringly inconsistent statements regarding weapons of mass destruction which were the primary justification for the war, she responded that the question unfairly impugned her integrity. She had an opportunity to reassure her detractors, and believe me there are many in my State of Vermont, when she testified last week. She declined to do so, and that was disappointing and frustrating to those of us who want her to succeed in her new position. My vote in favor of Dr. Rice is difficult to explain. It is more the product of a belief than a cold analysis of her record. I believe that Dr. Rice is capable of learning from her mistakes and changing her ways. That she will rise to this new challenge. That she can be a good Secretary of State. The other major reason I am voting in favor of Dr. Rice's nomination is that I am the ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. In this capacity, I have a responsibility to work with the Secretary of State, on a daily basis, to tackle a full range of international issues critical to the United States and the rest of the world: AIDS and other global health issues, human rights, the United Nations, terrorism, the environment, women's rights, poverty, corruption, to name just a few. By voting for Dr. Rice's nomination, I am sending a clear message: I want to get this important working relationship started on the right track. I hope that my vote will be a step towards a more constructive U.S. foreign policy. After all, it is these policies that ultimately impact the lives of billions of people around the world. During the first term, the Bush administration dug a deep hole: relationships with our oldest allies are badly strained, Iraq is a mess, and our own country is badly divided. We need to come together as a Nation to deal with these and many other problems. But coming together does not mean ignoring valid criticism, embarking on a policy that pleases only one side of the aisle, and accusing those opposed of being un-American or unpatriotic. Criticism and dissent are the essence of democracy, the essence of patriotism. Coming together means genuine consultations with members of both political parties, and policies which reflect a range of views even if they do not fit into preconceived ideologies. As I said, I hope that my vote here today will, in some small way, help begin this process. I hope it will allow us to get back to the real practice of the Vandenberg rule--that politics end at the water's edge--and away from the slash and burn politics practiced during the first term of the Bush administration. I hope that Dr. Rice will meet me half way. I want to work with her on the many pressing issues that concern both Democrats and Republicans, including the issues of freedom and human rights that the President spoke of in his inaugural address that are so important not only to Americans, but to people everywhere.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I normally do not do movie reviews, but for this Thursday's premiere of ``The Exonerated'' on CourtTV, I feel compelled to make an exception. ``The Exonerated'' tells the harrowing true stories of six innocent people who were convicted and sentenced to death. Since February 2000, I have worked to prevent more innocents from meeting the same fate, and last year the Innocence Protection Act was finally passed and signed into law. The reforms it enacts will create a fairer system of justice, where the problems that have sent innocent people to death row are less likely to occur, where the American people can be more certain that violent criminals are caught and convicted instead of the innocent people who have been wrongly put behind bars for their crimes, and where victims and their families can be more certain of the accuracy, and finality, of the results. The film of ``The Exonerated'' was adapted from a play of the same title by Jessica Blank and Erik Jensen, which was performed last year at the Kennedy Center. Those who were unable to see the play will have the chance to watch the movie on CourtTV this Thursday, January 27, at 9 p.m. Since 1973, some 117 innocent people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. Six of these stories are told in ``The Exonerated.'' While the Innocence Protection Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, the task before us remains getting the new law funded. Watching these true-life accounts will help explain why funding the Innocence Protection Act should be a high priority that Congress and the administration must not ignore.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Feinstein, and Cornyn, introducing an important piece of bipartisan intellectual property legislation. The provisions of the ``Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005'' are virtually identical to those in the bill we passed in the waning days of the 108th Congress. Unfortunately, that package of intellectual property bills was hijacked in an effort to use it as a vehicle to pass unrelated legislation. The effort failed, and in the end so did Congress: we were not able to send to the President the most important package of intellectual property legislation on last year's agenda. The legislation passed in the Senate--several times in fact--but there was simply not enough time for the House of Representatives to act. I am pleased that we were able to salvage two components of last year's bill. As Congress came to a close, the House passed the Senate version of the CREATE Act, legislation I cosponsored with Senator Hatch. The new law will continue to encourage collaborative research partnerships between private industry and not-for-profits, such as universities. We were also able to send to the President the Anti- counterfeiting Amendments Act, a version of Senator Biden's legislation that my friend from Delaware has championed for several years. Both laws are important, but our task remains incomplete. It is time to enact the remaining components of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, to finish off the work of the 108th Congress as we begin the 109th. Title I of the bill contains the ``Artists'' Rights and Theft Prevention Act,'' better known as the ART Act. This provision passed the Senate as a standalone bill in June of 2004, and again as part of the FECA bill at the end of the last Congress. The bill will make important inroads in the fight against movie piracy by criminalizing the use of camcorders to pilfer movies from the big screen. It will also direct the Register of Copyrights to create a registry of pre- release works in order to better address the problem of movie-theft before these works are offered for legal distribution. The next title of the bill is the Family Movie Act, which will preserve the rights of families to watch motion pictures in the manner they see fit. At the same time, the Act protects the rights of directors and copyright holders to maintain the artistic vision and integrity of their works. A version of this legislation passed the other chamber in September of 2004, and it passed the Senate as part of the FECA bill at the end of the 108th Congress. Title III of the bill is the Film Preservation Act, legislation that I sponsored in the last Congress. A version of this bill, too, was part of the FECA bill that passed the Senate last Congress. The Film Preservation Act will allow the Library of Congress to continue its important work in preserving America's fading film treasures. The works preserved by this important program include silent-era films, avant- garde works, ethnic films, newsreels, and home movies that are in many ways more illuminating on the question of who we are as a society than the Hollywood sound features kept and preserved by major studios. What's more, the bill will assist libraries, museums, and archives in preserving films, and in making those works available to researchers and the public. Finally, the bill contains the Preservation of Orphan Works Act. This provision corrects for a drafting error in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Correction of this error will allow libraries to create copies of certain copyrighted works, such as films and musical compositions that are in the last 20 years of their copyright term, are no longer commercially exploited, and are not available at a reasonable price. Again, this provision ensures that copies of culturally- illuminating works are not lost to history. Anytime we enact a package of legislation as large as the ``Family Entertainment and Copyright Act,'' building consensus is difficult. However, this is a chamber built on collegiality and compromise, and while I may have crafted specific components of this package differently, I believe that the final result we have achieved is one worthy of enactment. The components of this package have already passed the Senate at least once, and I have received assurances from the other chamber that the bill will receive swift consideration once it is approved in this body. The legislative process is functioning well when we work with our colleagues across the aisle, and it is at its best when we work on a bipartisan basis with our friends in the other chamber. This bill has benefited from both. The agenda of the 109th Congress promises many issues that divide us, but this is not such a bill: It has garnered broad consensus, and I hope that we can finally move to swiftly enact it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Feinstein, and Cornyn, introducing an important piece of bipartisan intellectual property legislation. The provisions of the ``Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005'' are virtually identical to those in the bill we passed in the waning days of the 108th Congress. Unfortunately, that package of intellectual property bills was hijacked in an effort to use it as a vehicle to pass unrelated legislation. The effort failed, and in the end so did Congress: we were not able to send to the President the most important package of intellectual property legislation on last year's agenda. The legislation passed in the Senate--several times in fact--but there was simply not enough time for the House of Representatives to act. I am pleased that we were able to salvage two components of last year's bill. As Congress came to a close, the House passed the Senate version of the CREATE Act, legislation I cosponsored with Senator Hatch. The new law will continue to encourage collaborative research partnerships between private industry and not-for-profits, such as universities. We were also able to send to the President the Anti- counterfeiting Amendments Act, a version of Senator Biden's legislation that my friend from Delaware has championed for several years. Both laws are important, but our task remains incomplete. It is time to enact the remaining components of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, to finish off the work of the 108th Congress as we begin the 109th. Title I of the bill contains the ``Artists'' Rights and Theft Prevention Act,'' better known as the ART Act. This provision passed the Senate as a standalone bill in June of 2004, and again as part of the FECA bill at the end of the last Congress. The bill will make important inroads in the fight against movie piracy by criminalizing the use of camcorders to pilfer movies from the big screen. It will also direct the Register of Copyrights to create a registry of pre- release works in order to better address the problem of movie-theft before these works are offered for legal distribution. The next title of the bill is the Family Movie Act, which will preserve the rights of families to watch motion pictures in the manner they see fit. At the same time, the Act protects the rights of directors and copyright holders to maintain the artistic vision and integrity of their works. A version of this legislation passed the other chamber in September of 2004, and it passed the Senate as part of the FECA bill at the end of the 108th Congress. Title III of the bill is the Film Preservation Act, legislation that I sponsored in the last Congress. A version of this bill, too, was part of the FECA bill that passed the Senate last Congress. The Film Preservation Act will allow the Library of Congress to continue its important work in preserving America's fading film treasures. The works preserved by this important program include silent-era films, avant- garde works, ethnic films, newsreels, and home movies that are in many ways more illuminating on the question of who we are as a society than the Hollywood sound features kept and preserved by major studios. What's more, the bill will assist libraries, museums, and archives in preserving films, and in making those works available to researchers and the public. Finally, the bill contains the Preservation of Orphan Works Act. This provision corrects for a drafting error in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Correction of this error will allow libraries to create copies of certain copyrighted works, such as films and musical compositions that are in the last 20 years of their copyright term, are no longer commercially exploited, and are not available at a reasonable price. Again, this provision ensures that copies of culturally- illuminating works are not lost to history. Anytime we enact a package of legislation as large as the ``Family Entertainment and Copyright Act,'' building consensus is difficult. However, this is a chamber built on collegiality and compromise, and while I may have crafted specific components of this package differently, I believe that the final result we have achieved is one worthy of enactment. The components of this package have already passed the Senate at least once, and I have received assurances from the other chamber that the bill will receive swift consideration once it is approved in this body. The legislative process is functioning well when we work with our colleagues across the aisle, and it is at its best when we work on a bipartisan basis with our friends in the other chamber. This bill has benefited from both. The agenda of the 109th Congress promises many issues that divide us, but this is not such a bill: It has garnered broad consensus, and I hope that we can finally move to swiftly enact it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to express my support for the nomination of Carlos Gutierrez to be the next Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Gutierrez's personal history is remarkable. Born in Havana, Cuba, Mr. Gutierrez came to the United States at the age of six. He learned to speak English from a hotel bellhop and at the age of 20, he began working for the Kellogg Company as a truck driver in Mexico City. A little less than 25 years later, Mr. Gutierrez was in charge of the entire company as the chief executive officer and chairman of the board. As CEO, he quickly turned the battered and declining Kellogg into a strong, stable and increasingly profitable company. While the next Secretary of Commerce will face serious challenges in coming years from a surging trade deficit to a depleted domestic manufacturing base to a weakened dollar--I am confident that Mr. Gutierrez is more than capable to do his agency's part in taking on these challenges. I believe that Mr. Gutierrez will bring the same type of leadership and determination to the Department of Commerce that he has shown throughout his career in the private sector. I commend the President for making this nomination. Although Mr. Gutierrez and I may not agree on all economic issues, there is every indication that he will serve our country effectively and fairly as the Secretary of Commerce. I am proud to support his nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while I was pleased at the large number of Americans who turned out to vote in last year's Presidential election, I am deeply concerned about the many credible allegations of voting irregularities that surfaced in the weeks following the election. I cannot, however, support an objection to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes. Although I believe this debate is worthwhile, I am not persuaded that the alleged fraud was sufficient to change the outcome of either the Electoral College or the popular vote. Senator Kerry conceded the election more than 2 months ago, and he does not support a challenge. Moreover, the practical effect of discounting Ohio's electoral votes would simply be to allow the election to be decided by the House of Representatives. In the months leading up to Election Day, I joined with Senator Kennedy in writing with great frequency to Attorney General Ashcroft about our concerns about voter suppression and possible partisan activity by the Department of Justice. It is with dismay, then, that I have learned about the secret counting of votes in Warren County, OH, allegedly prompted by an FBI terrorism warning that the FBI denied making. I have read also of the nearly 4,000 votes President Bush was mistakenly awarded in a Franklin County precinct with only 800 voters. Although this mistake was corrected, such a malfunction suggests the possibility that other problems with the vote count may have been missed. Finally, I would point to the shocking misdistribution of voting machines in Ohio. Voters from minority and urban communities frequently waited in line for four to five hours to cast their votes, while suburban voters faced far more manageable waiting times. We cannot know the effect this may have had on vote totals, but we can and should work with State and local officials to prevent this from happening in future Presidential and other Federal elections. I commend Representative Conyers and many of his Democratic colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee for their tireless pursuit of a goal that all of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--should desire: a free and fair election in which every vote counts. I look forward to the results of the Government Accountability Office's investigation of election irregularities called for by Representative Conyers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the waning days, weeks and months of the 108th Congress, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were working hard to pass important bipartisan legislation that would have protected America's innovators and artists, made more spectrum available for broadband services, enhanced 911 services, and fixed a technical glitch that was threatening the Universal Service Fund. Unfortunately, others were apparently working just as hard to obstruct these measures. This obstruction was intended only to force the Senate into passing legislation that everyone knew was doomed in the House. It was a flawed plan that was destined to fail. And fail it did, but not before it also prevented enactment of critically important and bipartisan intellectual property legislation. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act will go down as a victim of this obstructionism. This was an uncontroversial intellectual property bill that would have protected the rights of those who lead the United States' intellectual property industry. That industry makes the United States the global leader in innovation, and it deserves our support. Protecting these individuals from the theft of their work appeared to mean little to some of my colleagues. A Republican plan to hijack this important legislation, which lasted until the very last moment of the 108th Congress, ensured that it would not pass in time for the House to take it up and pass it. They succeeded in preventing the bicameral passage of the most important intellectual property legislation before the Congress this year. This was wrong. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2004 contained important and uncontroversial measures. The ART Act, a bill that passed the Judiciary Committee and then the full Senate by unanimous consent, would have provided new tools in the fight against bootleg copies of movies snatched from the big screen by camcorders smuggled into theaters. And it would have adopted a creative solution developed by the Copyright Office to address the growing problem of piracy of pre- release works. The Film Preservation Act would have helped ensure that the Library of Congress is able to continue its important work in archiving our nation's fading film heritage. Some of America's oldest films--works that document who we were as a people in the beginning of the 20th Century--are literally disintegrating faster than they can be saved. The Preservation of Orphan Works bill would have allowed greater access to certain works in the last years of their copyright term. The Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act would have protected against online trademark infringement by prohibiting the use of fraudulent Internet addresses to commit such infringement. Finally, FECA would have clarified that services allowing home viewers of prerecorded movies to skip objectionable content does not violate the copyright laws. Obstructionism from certain Republicans has ensured that all of these problems are left unresolved by the 108th Congress. Thankfully, two provisions of this bill were able to pass as stand alone bills. Thanks to the hard work of Senator Biden, the House version of critical anti-counterfeiting legislation passed. Unfortunately, additional language on which Senator Biden worked tirelessly was passed too late for House action. Again, the Republican obstruction was at work and to blame. The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act also passed both houses, largely because a Senate version had passed earlier in the year, and the Republican obstructionists in the Senate could not subvert that bill. There is other legislation that has fallen to this ill-conceived plan to hijack popular legislation. The bipartisan Junk Fax bill would have protected both consumers and many industries, by placing reasonable limits on senders of unsolicited faxes. That bill, too, was passed too late for House action on account of the Republican roadblock. Thankfully, at the last minute, another important and bipartisan piece of legislation was allowed through the roadblock. The telecommunications package contained critically important provisions that will enhance 911 service, allow spectrum reallocation, and preserve the ability of the Universal Service Fund to do its important work. These are not controversial or partisan provisions. E911 will ensure that first responders can provide an essential public service. The spectrum reallocation trust fund will free more space for wireless broadband services. This will help the American economy by promoting jobs and education. The Universal Service Fund provision will fix an accounting glitch that if left unattended will seriously impede the USF as it goes about its critical work. Again, these uncontroversial provisions were held up and almost failed because of this obstructionism. All of these bills were hijacked and sidetracked, in order to coerce the passage of a bill that everyone knew would not pass the House. I am thankful that the telecommunications legislation was eventually able to pass, but what does it mean that the telecommunications bill became law, while the intellectual property bill is left unfinished? It seems those responsible for this obstruction do not take the needs of America's innovative leaders very seriously. That attitude will undermine the American economy, and threaten America's leadership in the creative industries. So, because of this Republican roadblock, America's innovators and artists will have to struggle through more uncertainty, without the tools they need to defend their rights. That is a shame.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ralph Jackman of Vergennes, VT. Mr. Jackman has been reporting for duty as chief of the Vergennes Fire Department for 50 years--since December 1, 1954. Chief Jackman started with the fire department 8 years before he took over as chief. During his tenure a new station was built, the number of firefighters doubled, the number of vehicles tripled, and the budget more than quadrupled. Though at 80 years of age Chief Jackman has given up fighting the fires himself, he continues to respond to calls and manage the volunteer department's paperwork and affairs. I congratulate Chief Jackman and his family for over 50 years of service to the City of Vergennes and the State of Vermont. He has selflessly given so much to his community. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial that appeared in today's Burlington Free Press be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during the final days of this session, which have stretched over weeks and months, we have been struggling to pass a number of important and uncontroversial bills, but we have met with what some would call obstructionism from the Republican side of the aisle. Enactment of legislation needed for e-911 provisions to provide critical resources to our first responders, the Universal Service Administrative Corporation, a spectrum relocation trust fund, junk fax legislation, as well as the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, anticounterfeiting legislation, film preservation legislation and many other measures have been sidetracked and hijacked. The Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell has spoken out urging enactment of these needed telecommunications bills. The telecommunications package contains critically important provisions that will enhance 911 service, allow spectrum relocation, and preserve the ability of the universal service fund to do its important work. These are not controversial or partisan provisions. We should do all we can to ensure that first responders can provide their essential public services and that includes e-911. The spectrum relocation trust fund will free more space for wireless broadband services. This will help the American economy by promoting jobs and education. The Universal Service Fund provision will fix an accounting glitch that if left unattended will seriously impede the USF as it goes about its critical work. If we do not make this fix, rural communities and schools will suffer, and in the end everyone will pay, with higher fees. I echo the FCC's concern and add my own with respect to the intellectual property legislation. Thanks to the ingenuity, the inspiration and the hard work of America's creators, the United States is the world leader in the creation of intellectual property. Protecting intellectual property matters. It matters to our creators, to our economy and to our future. Affording intellectual property straightforward and reasonable protections, and giving law enforcement officials the resources to give those protections genuine power should be bipartisan, noncontroversial goals. In the United States, copyright industries account for at least 12 percent of our gross domestic product and employ more than 11 million people. Copyright industries have been adding workers at an annual rate that exceeds that of the economy as a whole by 27 percent, and those industries have achieved annual foreign sales and exports of almost $90 billion. Republican objection has prevented the Senate from passing important intellectual property legislation, in an apparent effort to pressure the House to accept unrelated legislation. Along with Senator Hatch, Senator Cornyn, Senator Biden, Senator Feinstein, and many others, I have been working on a package of key intellectual property legislation for some time. Our staffs have worked late into the night and through weekends to accomplish all that we can this year. We have a package of strong and significant measures that would bolster protection of the intellectual property that helps drive our Nation's economy and that would ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to do its job in this regard. There was no good reason not to have sent this package to the House so that it could be enacted without delay. Instead, it has been blocked and the reason has nothing to do with the merits of the bill. It is merely being misused as leverage in an attempt to pass unrelated legislation that the Senate has already sent to the House and that the House finds objectionable. Apparently some are willing to sacrifice important intellectual property legislation for their own narrow purposes. That is unfortunate. Our economy loses billions of dollars every year to various forms of piracy. Instead of making inroads in this fight, we face a Republican roadblock. It is a barrier that stands in the way of the ART Act, a bill that passed the Judiciary Committee and then the full Senate by unanimous consent. Senators Cornyn and Feinstein introduced the bill, and I was pleased to work with them on it and to include it in our intellectual property legislation. These provisions would provide new tools in the fight against bootleg copies of movies snatched from the big screen by camcorders smuggled into theaters. Our bill would adopt a creative solution developed by the Copyright Office to address the growing problem of piracy of pre-release works. Republican obstruction is ensuring that these problems will be left unaddressed by this Senate and this Congress. Our anticounterfeiting legislation would mark a step forward in the fight against software piracy. I was glad to work with Senator Biden on this provision, which we included in the intellectual property package. The Republican-led Congress can tell our software companies that they will have to wait at least another year for the remedies promised by this legislation. The Business Software Alliance tells us that $29 billion in software was stolen in 2003 alone. We are risking a higher number and more harm as we proceed into 2005. There are other noncontroversial provisions in this legislation, as well, such as language that would help ensure that the Library of Congress is able to continue its important work in archiving our Nation's fading film heritage. Some of America's oldest films--works that document who we were as a people in the beginning of the 20th Century--are literally disintegrating faster than they can be saved. It now appears an expanse of important, bipartisan legislation may fall victim to yet another Republican roadblock. Our copyright holders will suffer, our patent holders will suffer, our economy will suffer, emergency services and broadband deployment will suffer, our rural communities and rural schools will suffer. The Senate will have failed to respond to the needs of the American people. That is a shame.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are in morning business, are we not?

Mr. LEAHY. Of course I yield for that purpose.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is poised to pass S. 1301, the DeWine-Schumer-Leahy Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004. This bill targets the pernicious practice of invading a person's privacy through the surreptitious use of hidden surveillance equipment. Specifically, the bill makes it a crime to capture an improper, naked, or near-naked image of a person without his or her consent, and in such a way as to violate his or her privacy. Any person found guilty of video voyeurism as outlined in the bill may be fined or imprisoned for up to 1 year or both. In recent years, the explosion of microcamera technology has fed the growing phenomenon of video voyeurism. Hidden cameras have been discovered in bedrooms, bathrooms, public showers, changing rooms, locker rooms, and tanning salons, all aimed at filming unsuspecting victims in various states of undress. Often, the invasion of privacy is exacerbated when captured images are posted on the Internet for all the world to see. I commend Senators DeWine and Schumer for bringing this invasive practice to the attention of the Judiciary Committee and for crafting a bill that addresses it in a thoughtful and measured manner. In addition, I thank them for addressing a concern I raised during the committee's consideration of the bill. As introduced, the bill did not expressly prohibit ``cyber-peeping''--a particularly offensive form of video voyeurism involving the contemporaneous transmission of improper images of a non-consenting person over the Internet through Web cameras and other means. As reported by the Judiciary Committee, the ``cyber- peeping'' loophole has been closed: The bill before the Senate today covers the simultaneous Web casting of images or any other transmissions that may not be recorded so that defendants who use this means of violating people's privacy cannot escape punishment. The National Center for Victims of Crime has dubbed video voyeurism ``the new frontier of stalking.'' The States are already responding to this ``new frontier'' in many different ways. Some have passed video voyeurism laws; others have addressed the conduct within the context of their laws against stalking. The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act brings the Federal criminal laws to bear on those who commit this offense within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It should be enacted without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, in the waning hours of this Congress, the Senate has passed legislation that will improve important parts of our intellectual property law. Sponsored by myself, as well as by Senators Hatch, Cornyn, Biden, and Feinstein, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2004 is the product of many months of bipartisan effort. Many of its provisions have passed the Senate before, others have passed the House, and the package enjoys the well- justified support of the many stakeholders. I am especially grateful for the assistance and support of our colleagues in the House of Representatives as we have tried to craft a broad, consensus bill. Intellectual property is one of the driving forces in our Nation's economy, but if we do not continue to protect it, we will lose our place as the global leader in its production. Just as importantly, the United States enjoys the fruits of the labors of a multitude of creative and talented artists and inventors. Our arts and sciences bring not only monetary revenue to the country, but deep artistic satisfaction and rewards on a cultural level. The Digital Age has great potential to bring more of each. Digital technology has allowed producers of intellectual property to find new and innovative ways to create and distribute their products, and it has enhanced our position as a global leader in the creation of cultural and intellectual works. However, the ease of duplication and nearly instantaneous communication that make these technologies so wonderful has also been used by some to undermine intellectual property rights; as a result, many of our copyright-holders are reluctant to embrace the very tools that offer so much to consumers and, if used legally, to our innovators. Thus, we face a key challenge: to preserve intellectual property rights while at the same time promoting the growth of new technologies. This act responds to the challenge. It bolsters our intellectual property protections while preserving the freedom necessary to make full use of music, movies, and other entertainment. The act also takes important steps to preserve our Nation's rich cultural heritage, and to ensure that this heritage remains available to our children. The act includes the version of the CREATE Act that has passed both the House and Senate. That bill corrects for a provision in the Bayh- Dole Act which, when read literally by the Court of Appeals for the Federal, runs counter to the intent of that legislation. The correction will encourage more of the joint efforts between private industry and research universities that have proved so fruitful to the U.S. economy, our research universities, and the many Americans who work in the patent industries. It also includes a version of the National Film Preservation Act and the Preservation of Orphan Works Act. These two provisions each play an important role in preserving our national heritage. The National Film Preservation Act, which I first introduced on November 21, 2003, reauthorizes a Library of Congress program dedicated to saving rare and significant films. The Preservation of Orphan Works Act corrects a drafting error in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Correction of this error will allow libraries to create copies of certain copyrighted works, such as films and musical compositions that are in the last 20 years of their copyright term, are no longer commercially exploited, and are not available at a reasonable price. The act also includes the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act, which protects filmmakers from an increasingly common threat: the theft of their work by individuals who record films as they are played in theaters. Part of that provision directs the Register of Copyrights to create a registry of pre-release works in order to better address the problems associated with piracy of creative works before they are offered for legal distribution and provides improved remedies for such piracy. It also includes the Anticounterfeiting Act of 2004, an important piece of legislation that Senator Biden has championed for several years. This provision adds much-needed protections to those who create records, films, and computer programs, by expanding the prohibition on affixing counterfeit labels to such products. Another provision, the Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act, enhances the integrity of the Internet by creating a rebuttable presumption that a trademark or copyright infringer acted willfully if that infringer used false information to register a domain name used in connection with the infringement. It also increases penalties for crimes committed using fraudulently-acquired domain names. Finally, the act includes the Family Movie Act, which will preserve the right of home viewers to watch motion pictures in the manner they see fit. At the same time, the act protects the rights of directors and copyright holders to maintain the artistic vision and integrity of their works. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and in both houses of Congress, for their hard work on this bill. Our efforts here should be a model for achieving legislative consensus in this area, and others, in the future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I recently learned that Nancy Earle of South Conway, NH, was presented with the New Hampshire Lakes Association John F. Morton Annual Award for Exemplary Service, 2004. I mention this for two reasons. First, although Nancy is not a Vermonter, she and her husband Rink Earle once lived in Putney, VT where three sons and two granddaughters later attended the Putney School, her husband has a niece who lives in Norwich, VT, and they both have close friends in Vermont. Second, this award honors Nancy for her tireless work to protect New Hampshire's many beautiful lakes, lakes which not only citizens of New Hampshire, but Vermonters and people from around the country, as well as from other countries, enjoy particularly in the summer months. Protecting the environment is a global challenge, but much if not most of the work is done at the local level. New Hampshire's lakes, like Vermont's and every State's, are threatened by rapid development along their shores, by pollutants caused from marine craft and by over- fishing. It is concerned individuals like Nancy Earle, motivated by nothing more than their sense of responsibility to protect these fragile aquatic ecosystems for the use and enjoyment of future generations to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. I want to congratulate Nancy for this award, and to commend the New Hampshire Lakes Association for paying tribute to such a fine and deserving person. Nancy was the president of the Walker's Pond Association in Conway for over 30 years. She will be 86 years old this December 24, and despite a recent bout with cancer I suspect that, health permitting, Nancy Earle will continue to do what she can to protect New Hampshire's lakes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the distinguished Senator from North Dakota now seeking the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, soon after we return in January, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin consideration of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for the position of Attorney General of the United States. I met with Judge Gonzales on November 17, soon after his designation as the President's nominee. I had that meeting in preparation for our hearings. I look forward to working with Senator Specter and the other members of the Judiciary Committee to assure a prompt and fair and thorough hearing on this important nomination in early January. There is no secret that Judge Gonzales will be called upon to explain not only his vision of what the role of the Attorney General should be, but also how he would distinguish it from that of the White House Counsel. And he is also going to be asked about the role he has played in formulating the administration's policy on the treatment and interrogation of prisoners in U.S. custody overseas. The scandal of Abu Ghraib, allegations of mistreatment in Guantanamo, investigations and charges from cases in Iraq and Afghanistan are serious matters. There are lingering questions. There is unresolved accountability left in their wake. The Bush administration circled the wagons long ago. It has continually maintained that the abuses were simply the work of a few bad apples. But we know that the photos from Abu Ghraib do not depict an isolated incident. Abuses have occurred in many locations, including Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and in a number of other facilities within Iraq. I have long said that somewhere in the upper reaches of the executive branch, a process was set in motion that rolled forward until it produced this scandal. Even without a truly independent investigation, we now know the responsibility for abuse runs very high into the chain of command. Senior officials in the White House, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort, and even ignore laws, policies, and agreements on torture and the treatment of prisoners. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and later LTG Ricardo Sanchez authorized the use of techniques that were contrary to both U.S. military manuals and international law. Former CIA Director Tenet requested, and Secretary Rumsfeld approved, the secret detention of a ghost detainee in Iraq so he could be hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross. These issues, especially when they involve the greatest democracy history has known, are a significant concern. But there are also issues in which the administration has been far less than forthcoming. In letters dated May 17 and June 15 of this year, long before the fall elections, long before the resignation of John Ashcroft, and long before he was designated by the President as nominee, I asked Judge Gonzales to describe his role in both the interpretation of the law and the development of policies that led to what I and many others considered to have been a disregard for the rule of law. Those letters of May 17 and June 15 remain unanswered as of today. I have repeatedly emphasized to Judge Gonzales the need for responsiveness and accountability in these matters. Last Friday, I sent Judge Gonzales a letter reiterating my concerns. I emphasized the importance of full disclosure during this confirmation process. I urge him to cooperate, to cooperate now with all members of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle on the full range of issues of oversight and accountability that come before us. That is something his predecessor did not do. That lack of oversight on the part of the Senate, the lack of accountability and lack of responsiveness on the part of the administration, should not continue. I ask unanimous consent to have my December 3, 2004, letter to Judge Gonzales printed in the Record. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does that mean--it just boggles the mind-- this goes way beyond the wildest dreams, for example, of J. Edgar Hoover. Does that mean, for example, if somebody in the press criticizes the chairman or if a constituent wrote in and criticized some action of the chairman or, let us say, that some Member of Congress dared to vote against a bill of the chairman, their staff could just go and grab all their tax returns and then just give it to anybody and have no penalty? I realize this is not the old former Soviet Union, but this could possibly happen in America?

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question without losing his right to floor?

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a legend of a man who has spent his career dedicated to working for the great people of South Carolina. There is nothing small about Senator Hollings. From his height, to his storied career, to his large booming voice and southern drawl you can always hear calling ``yea'' or ``nay'' during rollcall votes, Senator Hollings is a giant. A reporter once said that if you sent to central casting for a Senator, you got Fritz Hollings. I have had the pleasure of serving with Senator Hollings for all 30 of my years in the Senate and during that time he, and his wife Peatsy, have been dear friends. Before setting foot in this Chamber, Senator Hollings had amassed a career that any man would be proud of. He attended the Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, and upon his graduation in 1942 accepted a commission in the U.S. Army. He served our country honorably in the campaigns in North Africa and Europe during World War II, and received a Bronze Star for his valor. Senator Hollings began his political career when he was 26 as he was elected to the South Carolina House of Represenatives. During his second term he was voted Speaker pro tempore and a short 4 years later he was elected lieutenant governor. In 1958 at age 36 was elected as Governor, the youngest Governor of South Carolina in the 20th Century. Senator Hollings was first elected to Senate in 1966 and has subsequently been re-elected to six additional terms, making him the ninth longest serving Member of this body. Throughout his entire career the Senator has been a leader, fighting to protect our ports, our neighborhoods and American manufacturing jobs. He has been an outspoken advocate for fiscal responsibility, civil rights and against hunger. In 1974, he led the creation of the Women, Infants and Children-- WIC--nutritional assistance program. In 1978, he sponsored legislation and helped secure funding for South Carolina's first National Park, Congaree Swamp. He has stood tall in protecting our oceans and coasts, he authored the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Oceans Act of 2000, which created the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Since 1967 Senator Hollings has been a member of the Commerce Committee and from his coauthorship of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that deregulated the telecom industry to his work on the FTC ``Do Not Call List,'' he has consistently looked out for the best interest of consumers. In 2000, Senator Hollings and I, along with Senators Sarbanes and Wyden, were successful in beating back the wholesale federal preemptions of State consumer protection laws during negotiations of the E-Commerce bill which I sponsored. Senator Hollings is the longest serving Democrat on the Budget Committee, and is the only Democrat to have served on the committee every year since its creation. In 1984 Senator Hollings collaborated with Senators Phil Gramm and Warren Rudman to establish the Gramm- Hollings-Rudman deficit reduction legislation that helped reduce the deficit by $70 billion in its first year of enactment. I have had the pleasure to serve with Senator Hollings on the Appropriations Committee, where he has served since 1971, and is currently 3rd highest ranking member. From this position he has helped important initiatives both in South Carolina and nationally, such as a cause I have always strongly supported, the battle against cancer. Senator Hollings helped create a nationwide program to screen women for breast and cervical cancer and worked to establish a cancer center at the Medical University of South Carolina that bears his name. Earlier this fall more than 600 friends came together to celebrate Senator Hollings's career in the Senate, an event that raised $2 million for the Hollings Cancer Center. We toasted his accomplishments and his incredible career of public service that has spanned more than five decades in State and national politics. I joined this body in 1974 and I immediately learned that Senator Hollings is a man that always speaks his mind. His straightforward manner, dynamic personality and unwavering integrity are qualities that make me proud to call him my friend. I have valued his friendship and his camaraderie over these past 30 years, and I wish Fritz and his wife Peatsy the best of lives in their beloved South Carolina. john breaux Mr. President, the State of Louisiana has a proud history of sending remarkable public figures to serve in the Senate. Louisiana has elected leaders that have been influential in guiding the direction of our country. Our colleague John Breaux is a man from this same mold. For more than 30 years the senior Senator from Louisiana has represented his State in Washington, with 18 years as a Member of this body, and 14 years of service in the House of Representatives. In that time, he has always been willing to reach across the aisle to bring our colleagues together and his leadership has produced a list of impressive legislative accomplishments. As chairman and then as ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, Senator Breaux has fought tirelessly for the rights of older Americans, working to reform and protect both Social Security and Medicare. The senior Senator from Louisiana has also provided strong leadership within the Senate during his 8-year tenure as deputy chief whip. His repeated election to this position speaks to the respect that our colleagues have for Senator Breaux's ability to routinely bring together Members with differing opinions to build a consensus. One of Senator Breaux's lasting legacies will be the leading role he has taken with regard to environmental conservation. In 1990, the Senator authored the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, which provides for the restoration of the vital coastal wetlands of Louisiana and has since become known as the Breaux Act. This legislation was passed during his first term in the Senate and has since been renewed. More recently, Senator Breaux has supported legislation that would help protect coastal regions from the impact of offshore oil and gas exploration. In our many years of service together, Senator Breaux and I have had the opportunity to work closely on a wide range of issues. We both have been actively involved in telecommunications legislation, and collaborated on legislation that authorized reform of the telephone industry. I am particularly appreciative of Senator Breaux's unwavering support for legislation opposing the use of antipersonnel landmines, an issue of great significance to me personally and to the safety of millions of people around the world. I am proud of the body of legislation that Senator Breaux and I advanced together throughout our shared time in the Senate. I commend Senator Breaux for his dedication to being a watchdog for American seniors, for his legacy of environmental protection in Louisiana, and for his record of public service on behalf of his fellow Louisianans. The Senate and the people of Louisiana are losing a dedicated public servant and exceptional leader. I congratulate the Senator on a remarkable congressional career and wish him continued success in his future endeavors. On a personal level, John and Lois Breaux are good friends. Marcelle and I share the joy of telling grandchildren stories--and even of borrowing Mardi Gras costumes. I quickly realized in wearing one that you needed the special Cajun flavor of Louisiana to carry it off. John can do that one day at a Mardi Gras party and the next day handle on the floor the most complex issue facing the Finance Committee. He is a Senator's Senator. Bob Graham

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the end of this Congress we will bid farewell to distinguished members of this body who have served their States and their country with honor. I rise today to pay tribute to the Senior Senator from Florida, a man who has been a leader in the Senate on national intelligence issues, prescription drugs and the environment and has been a strong voice in this body on behalf of the interests of his fellow Floridians. For more than four decades Senator Graham has been a leader in Florida politics, serving his State as a State representative and Senator, as Governor and as a United States Senator. For 18 years Senator Graham has compiled an impressive record of leadership while serving as chairman and ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee. Since 1974, Senator Graham has completed more than 400 ``Workdays,'' with Floridians around his State. During these workdays the Senator spends working alongside his constituents, the personal interaction helps him understand the challenges that Floridians face. These visits clearly have provided Senator Graham with an opportunity to recognize the community values and hard work that are exhibited and shared by his constituents. These jobs have gone everywhere from garbage loader to short order cook. No Senator has done anything similar. From his position on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Graham has picked up the torch for causes supported by another respected Floridian Claude Pepper, the former Senator and Congressman. He has supported providing affordable prescription drugs to Americans and has advocated for a common sense approach to Medicare that focuses on wellness and preventative health. Senator Graham has increased access to the Children's Health Insurance Program and has pushed Congress to live up to its commitment to support social services. Both as Governor and Senator, Bob Graham has been dedicated to protecting the environment. He has helped direct millions of dollars to protect the Everglades, restore wetlands and promote responsible development. In the Senate, Bob Graham has voiced opposition to drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and for an end to the harmful practice of dredging in the Apalachicola River. For those of us that have served with Senator Graham in the Senate we have admired his hard work and dedication to his constituents. We join him now in celebrating his eighteen successful years in this body, a period of time that is one part of a career of service to the State of Florida. As Senator Graham moves out of the public eye, he leaves behind a legacy of accomplishment that will be forever remembered by his fellow Americans and Floridians. He also leaves a reputation of integrity and insight. History will show that this country should have listened to his warnings about the failed intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. John Edwards Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the service of Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Because of his time on the campaign trail, Senator Edwards' biography is well known to most Americans. He is the son of a mill worker and was the first in his family to attend college. Before coming to the Senate, John fought for victims' rights against insurance companies for more than 20 years in North Carolina. He enjoyed great success in that career, but seeking to do more for the people of his State, he decided to run for the Senate in 1998. John ran against, and defeated, an incumbent Senator, Senator Faircloth. Immediately upon arriving in the Senate, Senator Edwards began to make an impact. Only a few days after Senator Edwards was sworn in, I asked him to help depose witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. I wanted to make sure we had the best, and I thought he was. It was John's career experience that made him an ideal choice to assist in the depositions, and he had recent experience working in the trenches. In that pressure filled situation John won the respect of all of his colleagues, both on this side of the aisle and the other. From his seat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Edwards advocated for lowering the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans by improving access to generic medications. In 2001, he authored the Patients' Bill of Rights which would have guaranteed that people in HMOs and other insurance plans get the health care they pay for. Unfortunately, this was passed in the Senate but blocked by the White House. In addition to serving on the HELP Committee, Senator Edwards served on the Intelligence, Small Business, and Judiciary Committees. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Edwards worked closely with me on a number of legislative efforts. He was a cosponsor of the Innocence Protection Act, the National Amber Alert Network, and a strong voice on judicial nominations. Senator Edwards has stood up to efforts by this President to pack the courts with people whose records do not demonstrate that they will be fair judges to all who come before them, rich or poor, Democrats or Republicans, or any race or background. In September of 2003, Senator Edwards announced that he was running for President. John ran a great campaign, raising issues important to the American people. He frequently referred to the division of America into two halves, that of the haves and that of the have-nots. John focused on the struggles of the middle class and many of the same issues that he was a leader on during his time in the Senate. Throughout the campaign, John was a positive voice for our party, and he was an excellent choice as a running mate for John Kerry. In an interview, John once said that he had an ideal image of what a U.S. Senator should be. He said that ``I think about a fiery advocate, someone who works passionately for his constituents.'' For the past 6 years, John has been exactly that. Be it health or education reform, supporting farmers or North Carolina's economic interests, John Edwards has been an incredible leader and advocate for his State. I will miss John's friendship here in the Senate. I know that he has a wonderful wife and three beautiful children, and that whatever steps he takes next that he will be just fine as long as he has their support. Ben Nighthorse Campbell

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the past 12 years, the Senator from Colorado has served his State with distinction as a member of this body. Throughout that time, I have been pleased to join my friend and colleague in a number of legislative efforts. He has been a tireless advocate on behalf of Native Americans, for the protection of police officers, and for preserving public lands and natural resources. It is because of his leadership on these, and many other issues, that the presence of the senior Senator from Colorado will be missed in this Chamber. In 1989, Senator Campbell, then Congressman Campbell, sponsored legislation to create a new museum that would ensure the recognition and celebration of Native American culture and history. I am thrilled that earlier this summer we were able to join in the celebration with Senator Campbell as the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian opened in Washington, DC. I know that none of us will ever forget the sight of our colleague in full chief's regalia speaking on the Senate floor on the day the new museum opened. Before serving his State in Washington, Senator Campbell represented his country as the captain of the U.S.-Olympic Judo team, competing in the 1964 Tokyo Summer Olympics. While I have never had to witness him use these skills on a fellow member of the Senate, he once helped subdue a suspect that had shoved Senator Thurmond until the Capitol Police arrived. One of Senator Campbell's most noted passions is his enthusiasm for motor vehicles. Senator Campbell has a well documented love of Harley- Davidson motorcycles, and Washingtonians have occasionally caught a glimpse of the Senator riding around town on his motorcycle. As the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill noted in April of 2003, the Senator added to his vehicle collection last spring when he replaced his 20- year-old Dodge Plymouth last spring with a brand new Mini Cooper. While most Americans may know how the Senator gets around town when he is in Washington, far fewer probably know that Senator Campbell was behind the wheel for most of the trip when the 2000 National Holiday Tree was transported from Colorado to Washington, DC on a Mack truck. Senator Campbell and I share a background in law enforcement, he as a former Sacramento County sheriff's deputy in California, and I as a State's attorney in Vermont. This background helped bring us together to develop the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Acts of 1998 that has since been reauthorized in both 2000 and 2004. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. Earlier this year, Senator Campbell and I collaborated to produce the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which will allow qualified active- duty law enforcement officers to travel interstate with a firearm, provided that officers are carrying their official badges and photographic identification. I was proud to team up with Senator Campbell in writing and introducing the Senate version of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act that will enable law enforcement officers nationwide to be prepared to answer a call to duty no matter where, when, or in what form it comes. Senator Campbell has a long and distinguished legislative history as a Member of the United States Congress. I am proud to have served with him on the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees, and I am proud of our partnerships to protect police officers, fight against landmines, and to provide funding for the WIC and Head Start programs. I applaud the Senator for his 12 years of service in the Senate and 6 years of service in the House of Representatives, and I congratulate him on a remarkable career.