Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Utah. He and I have worked very hard, and, as he mentioned, we worked closely with Chairman Sensenbrenner, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. LaHood in the other body. Yesterday was an extremely busy day as we met over and over again, well into last evening and again early this morning, to make it possible. I think this is also a day to rejoice on the part of courageous people like Debbie Smith and Kirk Bloodsworth. Debbie waited years to see this day, but she remained steadfast in her commitment to help other people. Kirk Bloodsworth faced an ordeal that nobody should have to face. That is why parts of this bill are named for each of them. I hope this achievement brings some kind of closure for them. Mr. President, on February 1, 2000, I came to the floor to call attention to the growing national crisis in the administration of capital punishment. I noted that since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the 1970s, 85 people had been found innocent and released from death row. And I urged Senators on both sides of the aisle, both those who supported the death penalty and those who opposed it, to join in seeking ways to minimize the risk that innocent persons will be put to death. A few days later, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act of 2000. That was more than 4 years ago. During that time, many more innocent people have been freed from death row--the total is now 117, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. During that time, the Republican Governor of Illinois commuted all the death sentences in his State to life in prison, having lost confidence in a system that exonerated more death row inmates than it executed. During that time, we learned about problems at the Houston crime lab so serious that the city's top police official called for a moratorium on executions of the inmates who were convicted based on evidence that the lab handled or analyzed. And during that time, the bipartisan, bicameral coalition supporting the Innocence Protection Act has continued to grow. Earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed the Justice For All Act of 2004, a wide-ranging criminal justice package that includes the Innocence Protection Act. The House bill also includes the Debbie Smith Act and the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act, which together authorize more than $1 billion over the next 5 years to eliminate the DNA backlog crisis in the Nation's crime labs and fund other DNA- related programs. Finally, the House bill includes crime victims' rights provisions that I sponsored with Senators Feinstein and Kyl, and which already passed the Senate earlier this year. Today, at long last, the Senate is poised to pass the Justice For All Act and to send this important legislation to the President. I hope he will sign it, despite his Justice Department's continued efforts to kill this bill. 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. This bill has been many years in the making, and there are many people to acknowledge and thank. Let me begin by thanking Kirk Bloodsworth, Debbie Smith, the Justice Project, and through them all the crime victims and the victims of a flawed criminal justice system who have made these changes possible. Without their commitment and dedication, these straightforward reforms simply would not have happened. Kirk and Debbie sat patiently, hour after hour, through our committee's work on this bill, and their presence was strong and eloquent testimony of the need for this legislation. Part of this legislation is appropriately named for Kirk Bloodsworth. Kirk was a young man, just out of the Marines, when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. DNA evidence ultimately freed him and identified the real killer. He became the first person in the United States to be freed from a death row crime through use of DNA evidence. The years he spent in prison were hard years, and he was treated horribly even after he was released. He could have become embittered by all he has endured. But instead, he has chosen to turn his experience into something constructive, to help others, and one way he has chosen to help is by being part of the effort to enact this bill. Kirk and his wife, Brenda, are remarkable people, and I thank them both. I am proud to have come to know them through our work together on this constructive cause. I want to commend the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who spearheaded this effort in the House. Chairman Sensenbrenner deserves high praise for steering this bill through some very rough patches to final passage. We would not be where we are today without his leadership, tenacity, and steadfast commitment to getting this done. I also want to thank my longtime colleagues in this endeavor, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts and Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois. They have worked tirelessly over many years to pass the Innocence Protection Act, and they deserve much of the credit for building the strong support for the bill in the House. I also want to acknowledge Senator Hatch, the chairman of our Committee, with whom I have debated these issues for years and with whom I have cosponsored many measures over the last 10 years. Had he continued to oppose these efforts we could never have been successful. Over the last couple of weeks he has focused on this bill, and the Judiciary Committee reported the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act under his leadership just a few weeks ago. I am grateful for his help in overcoming objections to the bill from his side of the aisle. I know how hard he has worked to do that. Thanks, too, to the many Members on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate and in the House, who have supported this legislation over this long struggle for reform. Working together, we have finally begun to address the many problems facing our capital punishment system. Here in the Senate, Senator Biden has championed additional funding for rape kit testing. Senators Kennedy, Kohl, Feingold, and Durbin have been longtime and steadfast proponents of sensible reform. Senators Feinstein and Specter were strong supporters of the Innocence Protection Act in the 107th Congress, and have been constructive partners in the effort in this Congress. Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Collins were early cosponsors of the Innocence Protection Act as well. Senator DeWine was a lead sponsor of the Senate DNA bill, and has made many important contributions. I have spoken to the majority leader a number of times over the last year having learned of his interest in these matters and thank him for allowing the Senate to turn to this important matter even as we approach adjournment of this session. Many people have been generous with their time and expertise and experience over the years. Steve Bright, Bryan Stevenson, George Kendall, Jim Liebman, Larry Yackle, Scott Wallace, and Kyl O'Dowd have offered useful and important suggestions on how to improve State indigent defense systems. Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck have been invaluable resources on the intricacies of post-conviction DNA testing. Ron Weich has offered superb legal counsel to both Republican and Democratic Senators and their staffs as we have worked on this bill. Pat Griffin's masterful advice has also been invaluable. I have already mentioned the Justice Project, a nonprofit organization dedicated to criminal justice reform, which has been a staunch supporter of this bill from the beginning. I particularly want to recognize the contributions of my good friend Bobby Muller, as well as John Terzano, Cheryl Feeley, Laura Burstein, Cynthia Thomet, and Peter Loge. Finally, I want to thank several staff members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees who worked tirelessly, some for years, to accomplish this goal. I commend the Chief Counsel to Chairman Sensenbrenner, Phil Kiko. He was instrumental in keeping the process moving over the past year. His hard work, fairness and judgment helped fulfill his chairman's dogged determination to get this done and make these needed changes. Also on the chairman's staff, I acknowledge the efforts of Jay Apperson and Katy Crooks. I want to express my deep gratitude to Mark Agrast, former counsel for Representative Delahunt, and his successor, Christine Leonard. In the Senate, I want to acknowledge several Judiciary Committee staff members who made immeasurable contributions during this long and challenging effort. On Chairman Hatch's staff, I want to thank Bruce Artim, Brett Tolman, and Michael Volkov, a former detailee, for investing so much of their time and expertise in helping us to arrive at this moment. My staff and I appreciate the contributions of Neil MacBride, Jonathan Meyer, and Louisa Terrell on Senator Biden's staff, David Hantman on Senator Feinstein's staff, and Robert Steinbuch with Senator DeWine. On my own staff, I want to express my appreciation to an entire team of talented and dedicated attorneys and staff who have devoted themselves so long to this effort and to this commitment to justice. Julie Katzman, a senior counsel on my staff, has devoted innumerable hours over the past 4\1/2\ years to accomplishing this goal, and I want to extend my deeply felt gratitude to her. Tara Magner began as a law clerk, and later as my counsel has dedicated herself to this effort with superb results. Beryl Howell, my former general counsel, guided this effort for years, and Bruce Cohen, my Chief Counsel, guided all of their efforts. Tim Rieser, Luke Albee, David Carle, and more all supported and contributed to this extraordinary effort. I also want personally to thank the Senate Legislative Counsel, in particular Bill Jensen and Matt McGhie, who labor in obscurity to produce the legislative text that is being constantly revised to reflect the understanding reached during this arduous process. This bill is a rare example of bipartisan cooperation for a good cause. It reflects many years of work and intense negotiation. No one who has worked on this bill is entirely satisfied with everything in it, but that is what the legislative process is all about finding the substantive, meaningful, middle ground that a broad majority can support. The Justice For All Act is the most significant step we have taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country. DNA is the miracle forensic tool of our lifetimes. It has the power to convict the guilty and to exonerate the innocent. And as DNA has become more and more available, it also has opened a window on the flaws of the death penalty process. This is a bill to put this powerful tool into greater use in our police departments and our courtrooms. It also takes a modest step toward addressing one of the most frequent causes of wrongful convictions in capital cases, the lack of adequate legal counsel. These reforms, to put it simply, will mean better, faster, fairer criminal justice. I thank each one of my colleagues in both bodies who worked hard to resolve conflicts and congratulate them on this legislative achievement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the managers of the resolution adopting this amendment. It achieves the goals of an amendment filed by my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Texas, that I cosponsored. The language in the managers' amendment will make explicit that the shared jurisdiction over ``government information'' that is provided by rule 25 to the Judiciary Committee is not adversely affected by this resolution. I thank the Senator from Texas for his leadership on this matter and the managers for working with us to clarify the resolution. Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, I said at the beginning of this debate that after reforming the executive branch's intelligence and homeland security agencies, we needed to put our own house in order. We can now say that after years of demanding that other institutions reorganize and improve their performance, we have demanded the same of ourselves. And we succeeded. This is no small achievement for the Senate, the cooling saucer of American politics. We are very averse to change here. We respect history in this institution. But today we avoided making the mistake of falling victim to it. Learning from our mistakes prior to 9/11, we have changed the way we do business. This is a great accomplishment. We recognized the need to reform the way we conduct oversight over the most important issues of our day: intelligence and homeland security. I want to thank my good friend, Senator Reid. I have greatly enjoyed working with him, and have marveled at his prodigious talents in resolving particularly contentious conflicts. We have accomplished this difficult task thanks in large part to his honest brokering and commitment to respecting the concerns of each and every Senator. He is fair-minded, and he is effective. I look forward to working with him more often. Let me also take a minute to thank his capable staff. Rich Verma, Gregg Jaczko, and Gary Myrick, who worked on a truly bipartisan basis with my staff. Their expertise on these issues, and their patience with Harry and me, are truly commendable. They deserve a great deal of credit for managing the Working Group and cobbling together for us the many suggestions made by our Members. I would also like to thank my staff: Kyle Simmons and Robert Karem. Both of these outstanding gentlemen were with me from the beginning of this process and we would not be at this point without them. I would also like to thank Mike Solo. He jumped right in to masterfully produce this product and also helped steer it to passage on the floor. Finally, my thanks to John Abegg and Brian Lewis for their counsel and able assistance. I want to thank the members of the Congressional Oversight Working Group themselves for their many good ideas, and for their patience and willingness to work on a bipartisan basis to do something that is very difficult, but also very worthwhile. Not every Senator will be happy with the result of the Senate working its will on this resolution. Some Members will complain this reform goes too far. Others will complain it does not go far enough. I believe we have struck an appropriate balance of reform that improves our ability to conduct oversight of intelligence and homeland security during a very serious time for our country. On intelligence oversight, I am pleased the Senate not only accepted our suggested reforms of the Select Committee on Intelligence, but also improved upon them by agreeing to modify the sequential referral of defense-related intelligence legislation to the Armed Services Committee so the process is more cooperative. The working group wanted to improve the structure of the Committee to allow Members more time to become experts and give them many tools to do their jobs. And we have done that. Let me briefly summarize just a couple of our reforms: Improved and enhanced the Intelligence Committee; Included 9 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; Members now have a stronger Committee; Without term limits, Members can better develop the expertise needed to conduct effective oversight; Clarified jurisdictional lines and improves the coordination of military intelligence matters between the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. Appropriations jurisdiction over oversight is currently dispersed throughout multiple subcommittees. We have created an Intelligence Subcommittee of Appropriations to consolidate the roughly 80 percent of the intelligence budget that will come under the jurisdiction of the national intelligence director. This subcommittee will help the Appropriations Committee to live up to its responsibility to exercise oversight over the national intelligence budget. This legislation consolidates widely dispersed appropriations for non-military intelligence under a single Subcommittee. Allows the National Intelligence Director to work with only one Subcommittee to approve his budget. Improves intelligence oversight by creating two sets of eyes on the budget and activities of the assets under the National Intelligence Director. Jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security was too dispersed. Roughly 25 Congressional Committees or Subcommittees claimed jurisdiction over Homeland Security yesterday. We have cut that number down significantly. The Senate worked its will on this Resolution, and in the end it significantly consolidated jurisdiction over Homeland Security. Some will think the Senate went too far. Others will think the Senate hasn't gone far enough. We introduced a Resolution that dramatically consolidated jurisdiction in the new Committee. In an open process, the Senate worked its will and decided that the overlapping functions of certain agencies required exceptions. While there have been some changes to our proposal, we have not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have taken great strides towards a level of consolidation many of us would have thought impossible only weeks ago. This reform puts the Homeland Security Committee in charge of those who prepare to defend against terrorist attacks and those who respond to terrorist attacks. This is the most important work the Department does. Protecting the Homeland is the core function of the Department, and the Homeland Security Committee will acquire jurisdiction over the core entities of the Department that do just that. Among other programs, the Homeland Security Committee will acquire jurisdiction over the following Directorates: Office of the Secretary--Responsible for integration of terrorist threat warning, preparedness, and response. This alone is a huge responsibility. Undersecretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. Undersecretary for Science and Technology--Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear defense research; and Homeland Security technology development. Undersecretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response--FEMA; National Domestic Preparedness Office; Integrated Hazard Information System; and Domestic Emergency Support Teams. Undersecretary for Management. We have consolidated all of this on top of the existing jurisdiction of the Government Reform Committee, including the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Mr. President, I believe the Senate has accomplished a great deal today. We have strengthened our Intelligence oversight, created a Homeland Security Committee under the new Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, and stood up a new Intelligence Appropriations Subcommittee. I hope our Colleagues will pay attention to the reform we have enacted as they consider their Committee assignments for the 109th Congress. The American people will be better served by these reforms. And the Senate as a whole will benefit from their improved expertise and authorities over these critical policy matters. We have no more important charge than keeping the American people safe, and today we have improved our ability to do just that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have seen the television reports and the newspaper articles, and I have spoken with people who recently returned from Iraq. I have seen the escalating violence and the chaos that has engulfed parts of that country. And like all Americans I have watched the death toll of our young men and women in uniform pass 1000. It is now more than 1050, with many thousands more who have been grievously wounded. Yet to hear the President and Vice President talk, one would think that everything is going well. The President uses words like ``freedom is winning'' and ``we're making steady progress.'' There is no question that all of us here wish that were true, but unfortunately the rosy picture that the President paints on the campaign trail is misleading and wildly off base. Even worse, the President's statements are contradicted by knowledgeable officials in his Administration, by leading Republicans in the Senate, and by a growing number of national security experts within his own administration. Here are a few examples: Secretary of State Powell said that the situation in Iraq is ``getting worse.'' General Abizaid, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, said ``[w]e're going to have to fight our way all the way through elections,'' he said, ``and there'll be a lot of violence between now and then.'' Senator Hagel said ``The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq.'' And, according to a recent article in the Washington Post, a lengthening list of career military, intelligence and State Department officials believe that Iraq is a mess and things are getting even worse, raising the specter of civil war. Faced with mounting evidence that things are going from bad to worse in Iraq, what does the President do? First, he attacks the messenger of the bad news by calling the National Intelligence Estimate ``just guessing.'' Next, he ignores the problem by repeating the same old platitudes and wildly-optimistic rhetoric. Then he and his political allies accuse those who dare to disagree of giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. When all else fails, the President engages in a time-honored tradition here in Washington: He changes the subject and deflects attention. This President and Vice-President are masters at changing the subject. They have attacked John Kerry's distinguished military record, even though neither of them saw combat and many others in the administration used family connections or deferments to avoid military service altogether. In fact, when asked about serving in Vietnam Vice President Cheney said that he ``had other priorities in the military service.'' Imagine what the President's campaign would be saying if John Kerry had said that. Why do the President and Vice-President constantly change the subject when asked to explain why things are going so badly in Iraq? The answer is simple. They have been consistently wrong about Iraq, and the results speak for themselves. The President was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, which cut short the U.N. weapons inspections and got us into Iraq in the first place. The Duelfer report found that Iraq got rid of its weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago, that Saddam Hussein did not have the means to develop a nuclear weapon, and that the U.N. inspections were working. Yet the White House insists that this devastating report by its own export somehow supports the President's decision to go to war. The Vice President was wrong about our being greeted as liberators. Think about that statement, and compare it to the daily--actually, hourly--attacks against our troops in Iraq today. The President was wrong about ``mission accomplished.'' More than 900 Americans have died since that famous photo op on the aircraft carrier. The President was not only wrong, but it is hard to imagine what he was thinking, when he told the insurgents in Iraq to ``bring it on.'' The President was wrong about Iraqi oil revenues paying for the reconstruction. It is American taxpayers who are paying most of the costs. And the President acts as if everything is on track for Iraqi elections in January even as the insurgency grows steadily worse and Secretary Rumsfeld is talking about holding elections in only parts of the country. Despite being consistently wrong, the President's strategy stays the same--put the best face on it, insist that everything is going according to plan even though there is no plan, and attack the patriotism of anyone who dares to question or to criticize. They have tried to keep the media from publishing photographs of the planeloads of flag-draped coffins of Americans who have died in Iraq. They rarely even mention the casualties--American or Iraqi--since that, of course, would mean having to acknowledge the terrible price that is being paid day after day. They treated the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as an aberration--the work of a few rogue recruits. They have done their best to hide the policies to subvert the law that were approved at the highest levels of government, and the fact that Abu Ghraib was only one of several locations where foreign prisoners were humiliated, tortured, denied the most basic human rights, and even murdered. They shut down distribution of a key security report, issued daily by a U.S. contractor--which U.S. personnel in Iraq have relied on for their own safety--because the news of escalating violence in these reports did not square with the spin being put out by the Pentagon and the White House. Just as the President ignored those who predicted the widening anti- American insurgency, he has sugar-coated the rebuilding of Iraq. A year ago, he asked the Congress to appropriate $19 billion immediately, in fact so immediately that he resisted every amendment designed to ensure the aid dollars would be well spent. The President opposed my amendment to put Secretary Powell in charge of the reconstruction in Iraq, causing the Department of Defense to run the biggest nation-building venture since the Marshall Plan. And they bungled it miserably. The President opposed an amendment that would have at least required that the aid be paid for out of the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans--not left for our children and grandchildren. The President opposed an amendment that would have created tough criminal penalties for war profiteering in Iraq. The President refused to consider any alternative approaches. His attitude was ``my way or the highway.'' And look at what a mess it has gotten us into. It has been nearly a year since the Iraq supplemental was signed into law, and only $1 billion of the $19 billion has been spent. Of those funds, it is estimated that only 27 cents of every dollar has gone to benefit the Iraqi people. The rest has ended up in the pockets of high-priced contractors and consultants, and to pay for insurance and security and other overhead costs. There are serious consequences resulting from this administration's handling of the chaos in Iraq. One, which all Senators are increasingly hearing about from our constituents, is the possibility of a return to the draft. If Iraq continues on its downward spiral, there is growing concern that it may be necessary at some point to reinstate military conscription. I oppose returning to a military draft, I do not believe it is necessary, and I believe it would lessen our military effectiveness. Yet the President needs to acknowledge to the American people that our entire military forces, including the active Army, the Reserves, and the National Guard, are stretched very thin right now because of the choices the President has made. The military is finding it difficult to get new recruits and has resorted to a backdoor draft, forcing personnel to remain in the service through so-called stop-loss orders. The Pentagon at some point might decide that the only way to find new recruits--unless we pursue more sensible policies--would be through a draft. I sincerely hope not. This is only one of the many examples of the life-and-death choices that the Nation faces in prudently allocating our resources to combat terrorism. A lot has been said about President Bush's consistency. His campaign advertisements boast that he is a strong leader because he `says what he means and he does what he says.' What good is consistency when it means sending 140,000 Americans into a guerrilla war in a foreign land fueled by religious and ethnic hatred, without justification? What good is consistency when it means spending upwards of $200 billion on a policy that has not made us any safer, and that has turned Iraq into a haven for terrorists eager to kill Americans who they see as foreign invaders out to destroy Islam itself? What good is consistency when it squanders the good will that we need to effectively fight terrorism, to build a real coalition so the United States is not paying 90 percent of the cost and suffering 90 percent of the casualties? What good is consistency, when all it really amounts to is hollow rhetoric that bears no relationship to the facts? The President and Vice-President have been consistent alright-- consistently wrong. There is no value in that. The President and Vice President constantly assert that we need to `stay the course.' My answer to that is that if you are captain of the ship and you are heading for an iceberg, you change course. You want to get to the same destination, but you do not want to plow into the iceberg to get there. It is this President's rigid adherence to a misguided ideology that has gotten us into deep, deep trouble in Iraq. The American people deserve better. They deserve competence and they deserve honesty. They deserve leaders who know the difference between a political decision, and the right decision.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, this does not preclude other matters that might be worked out either by consent or otherwise during that time; is that correct?

Mr. LEAHY. I will not object.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, back in June the Senate took a strong step to support intellectual property on the Internet by updating the Government's most important tool in the fight against piracy: its enforcement authority. Unfortunately, the Bush administration, which likes to talk a good game, is apparently not interested in having the tools it needs to do the job. This administration has done nothing, as far as I know, to help enact important intellectual property legislation. As a consequence, congressional Republicans are holding up and resisting important legislation. The Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act, S. 2237, allows United States Attorneys' Offices to bring a civil action against a large-scale copyright infringer. For some unimaginable reason, the Justice Department, which cannot issue enough press releases about its newly-minted Intellectual Property Task Force, has taken no interest in or action on this legislation. Apparently, the Ashcroft Justice Department rejects having the law enforcement authority to stop large-scale infringers and protect America's intellectual property from piracy. A Justice Department that has reinterpreted treaties and contorted the law to claim vast and unfettered authorities for this executive has little interest in assembling legislatively enacted tools for copyright protection and to stop piracy. For a number of reasons having to do with law enforcement priorities, resources and other considerations, prosecutors rarely decide to bring criminal charges even against flagrant infringers. I have encouraged the Department to be more aggressive both internationally and here at home and have praised them when they have acted against infringers. I have worked hard to provide additional resources to our international efforts. The PIRATE Act is another important effort in this fight. It provides alternative civil enforcement, authority. When a U.S. Attorney's Office sees a need for enforcement, but determines that a criminal case is not justified, the PIRATE Act would afford the Government a civil law route and civil law remedies. There are times when civil proceedings and remedies are more appropriate. Until we enact the PIRATE Act, they are unavailable. Presently, very few criminal cases are brought and no civil cases can be brought by the Government for these violations of Federal law. When you consider that the copyright industry employs over 11 million people in the United States, hamstringing the Federal Government by limiting it to criminal enforcement is unthinkable. The Justice Department has appropriately refocused many resources of the FBI and the Criminal Division on preventing and investigating terrorism cases, leaving even fewer resources for protecting the intellectual property that is such a critical economic engine in this country. The PIRATE Act will enable other resources, outside the Criminal Division of the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney's Offices, to help protect intellectual property. This bill removes legal obstacles to the Justice Department's effective use of the resources it has at its disposal to fight piracy. The Attorney General should be fighting for this initiative. Unfortunately, the Bush administration and its Attorney General are missing in action. The logic of the PIRATE Act and the reasoned approach it takes to Government enforcement of intellectual property rights is compelling. Consider that during this divisive session of Congress in which partisanship was pervasive, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate passed the PIRATE Act without a single dissenting voice. I urge the Bush administration to get with the program. If you want to talk the talk and pretend to support the protection of intellectual property rights, then walk the walk and work to clear the Republican opposition so that Congress can enact the PIRATE Act. Then use that authority as appropriate to help end the theft of intellectual property that is an enormous drag on our economy and so unfair to the artists who created the works by which others illegally profit. The Ashcroft Justice Department issued a veto threat to the SAFE Act before a single hearing and before any markup of that legislative proposal. The PIRATE Act has passed the Senate and we still await the first word from the Justice Department providing its views on this legislation. The lack of support for enactment of civil enforcement tools by the Department of Justice is most revealing.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very upset that the Congress has been unable to pass legislation to prevent the termination of satellite television service to hundreds of thousands households in the United States. In September, I raised these concerns on the Senate floor in the hope of preventing these potential terminations of satellite service. The Senate Judiciary Committee got its job done in June. We reported out a great satellite television bill which would have expanded viewing options for satellite dish owners. The other body has also developed a very good satellite bill which I shall discuss in a moment. However, history may repeat itself because Congress has not completed action on this legislation. I explained my concerns on the Senate floor when I reminded everyone that in ``1998 and 1999 over 2 million families were faced with the prospect of losing the ability to receive one or more of their satellite televisions network stations.'' These terminations of satellite service will begin just after midnight on December 31, 2004. The problem is that the Congress will be out of session during most of the time between now and that termination date. If we are in session for a small portion of that time, it will most likely be during a lame duck session of Congress after the November elections. There will be very little time to enact this satellite bill with the huge press of business yet to be completed. Many Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states have vast areas where satellite dish owners receive network stations, such as ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox, from out-of-state stations because signals from their local stations are blocked by mountains or diminished by distance from TV broadcast towers. Thousands of these families do not have any other way to receive television signals except by satellite. They do not have access to TV stations over-the-air because mountain terrain blocks those signals, and distance from the broadcast towers weakens the signals. Many residents in those states do not have access to cable TV service because of the rough terrain or the low population density which makes it economically difficult for cable companies to invest in the needed cables. Without access to network stations via satellite because the satellite legislation did not pass, and because they do not receive service over-the-air, or via cable, thousands of families in those areas will lose national network service. Since information about subscribers is proprietary it is difficult for me to tell you exactly how many families will be affected by this, but I assure you it is not a small number. The Hatch-Leahy Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. All the Members of the Judiciary Committee supported that bill. Similar legislation in the other body entitled the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, if enacted, would also be a boon to public television, the satellite industry, the movie, music and television industries, and to satellite dish owners throughout America. Unfortunately, the time is rapidly approaching when it will be too late to act. I am especially pleased that both the Senate and the House, H.R. 4518, bills contain a provision which I worked on with my colleagues from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu and Senator Gregg. We, along with Senator Jeffords, introduced legislation to ensure that satellite dish owners in every county in each of our States would be able to receive signals, via satellite, from our respective in-State television stations. While our two States represent a small television market as compared to some of the major population centers, this provision is nonetheless very important to residents in six of our collective counties two in Vermont and four counties in New Hampshire. The Senate bill, S. 2013, as reported in June by the Judiciary Committee also contains this provision, which was just included in H.R. 4518, the House bill. In Vermont this will mean if one of these bills passes--that satellite dish owners in Bennington and Windham Counties will be able to receive all Vermont network stations in addition to the out-of-State network stations they now receive. The Senate bill was introduced on January 21, 2004, by Chairman Hatch and was cosponsored by myself and Senators DeWine and Kohl. When the bill was reported out of committee on June 17, 2004, I noted that the bill does far more than just protect satellite dish owners from losing signals. I pointed out that the new satellite bill ``protects subscribers in every state, expands viewing choices for most dish owners, promotes access to local programming, and increases direct, head-to-head, competition between cable and satellite providers.'' I continued by saying that, ``easily, this bill will benefit 21 million satellite television dish owners throughout the Nation, and I am happy to note that over 85,000 of those subscribers are in Vermont.'' The Senate Judiciary Committee-reported bill, and the recently passed bill H.R. 4518, go far beyond protecting what current subscribers receive. As I mentioned in a September statement on the Senate floor, the bills allow additional programming via satellite through adoption of the so-call ``significantly viewed'' test now used for cable, but not satellite subscribers. That test means that, in general, if a person in a cable service area that historically received over-the-air TV reception from ``nearby'' stations outside that area, those cable operators could offer those station signals in that person's cable service area. In other words, if you were in an area in which most families in the past had received TV signals using a regular rooftop antenna, then you could be offered that same signal TV via cable. By having similar rules, satellite carriers will be able to directly compete with cable providers who already operate under the significantly viewed test. This gives home dish owners more choices of programming. In the past, Congress got the job done. Congress worked together in 1998 and 1999 when we developed a major satellite law that transformed the industry by allowing local television stations to be carried by satellite and beamed back down to the local communities served by those stations. This marked the first time that thousands of TV owners were able to get the full complement of local network stations. In 1997 we found a way to avoid cutoffs of satellite TV service to millions of homes and to protect the local affiliate broadcast system. The following year we forged an alliance behind a strong satellite bill to permit local stations to be offered by satellite, thus increasing competition between cable and satellite providers. Because of those efforts, in Vermont and most other States, dish owners are able to watch their local stations instead of getting signals from distant stations. Such a service allows television watchers to be more easily connected to their communities as well as providing access to necessary emergency signals, news and broadcasts. Mr. President, I hope we are able to work together to finish this important satellite television bill in the few remaining days of this Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as in years past, I am offering today two pieces of legislation that would close a loophole in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and as in years past I am pleased that I am joined by Senators Jeffords and Dodd. The catalog of complaints about the 1996 act continues to grow, and as it becomes more apparent that this flawed statute is in need of repair, I grow ever more proud that I was one of five Senators to have voted against that law. In the coming Congress, we will be revisiting the 1996 Act. While we should rightly examine the various provisions related to telephone competition, broadband, and subscriber television rates, there are other important issues that we need to address. The 1996 Telecommunications Act contained a provision that allowed the Federal Communications Commission to preempt the decisions of local authorities as to the placement of cell phone towers. In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission seized on the legislative loophole, proposing an expansive new rule that prevented State and local zoning laws from regulating the placement of cellular and broadcast towers based on environmental considerations, aviation safety, or other locally determined matters. Local and State governments were no longer empowered to shape the appearance of their communities. I fought this proposed rule and was joined by many Vermonters, including former-Governor Dean, the Vermont Environmental Board, mayors, zoning officials, and numerous others. We took our case to the Supreme Court and filed an amicus brief, arguing that the preemption of that local power to regulate land use was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. It is unfortunate that the Court would not hear that case. It is time to give that control back to the local governments by enacting my legislation. The two bills that we are reintroducing today will not tip the scales, but they will even them out a bit. They will allow local officials to use State and local regulations to work with the Federal Government in order to develop the best solutions for the placement of cell phone and broadcast towers. Communities across the country understand the growing demand for cellular services will result in new towers, and they welcome the improvement in service that this increased infrastructure will bring. However, they also want to make sure that their towns do not become little more than pincushions for new cellular towers. These goals are not mutually exclusive. I thank again Senator Jeffords and Senator Dodd, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been in a lot of discussions today by phone, with my staff, and elsewhere, on H.R. 5107, something referred to as the innocent protection act and by others as the DNA act. I think we are close. In some ways, it is like the perils of Pauline, you are up the hill, down the hill, if we can excuse, at 10 minutes of 8 in the evening, mixed metaphors. But this is a bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the other body, from the most conservative to the most liberal Members of the other body. Then there is just a little difference, or at the last moment the Department of Justice comes up with some little thing they just thought of. After a while, one wonders if even with the proven, overwhelming support--polls show overwhelming support for it; the other body has passed it overwhelmingly. I would guess if we actually had a vote in this body, 80 to 90 Members would vote for it. There are always a couple of Members who have some reason for holding it up. I hope we get rid of that. I hope we are coming closer. I only wanted to say this for my colleagues both in the House and in the Senate who have been working with me and my staff today and working with people everywhere, from church groups to prosecutors' groups throughout yesterday and late last night and throughout today, I am hoping we can settle. That is why I asked the question of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, to make sure we reach such an agreement at some point and we can move forward. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the expressions of the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Georgia, and the Senator from Massachusetts. I am a strong supporter of the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment. It would retain the majority of immigration jurisdiction for the Judiciary Committee, not just because we like that but because that is where the experience is and that is where it ties in the best. As Senator Chambliss pointed out this morning, just as the Commerce Committee retained the Coast Guard because of the long tradition of the Coast Guard being there and the expertise for it, and EPW is retaining the Transportation Security Administration, by the same token, the Judiciary Committee should retain core immigration issues. We should not burden the Homeland Security Committee with immigration and citizen refugee matters. That is not the purpose of the new committee. There are some aspects of immigration law and policy that will raise homeland security issues--some--but we have to note that immigration is an extraordinarily broad area. It is an important economic issue and, as President after President has said, in one way or the other, it is often a moral issue. This is the country that has the Statue of Liberty beckoning us all. This is the country that brought my grandparents here not speaking any English but making a new life. The Judiciary Committee has decades of experience in business immigration issues, refugee policy, and naturalization. As written, the resolution before us would take those issues, which are not homeland security issues, and give them to the Governmental Affairs Committee. I ask: Does it make sense for the Governmental Affairs Committee to oversee and legislate on the H-1B visa program which employers use to bring in highly skilled foreign workers? That is not a homeland security issue. Does it make sense for that committee to be responsible for the refugee program? That is something Judiciary and Foreign Relations oversee and do a very good job of. I don't think it is in the interest of the Senate or, for that matter, of immigrants for sole jurisdiction over immigration matters to be transferred to a committee with a homeland security mandate. We should be conscious of the security aspects of immigration policy, of course, but we also need to retain our national commitment to legal immigration--the thing that brought my grandparents to this country. Immigrants like my grandfather and grandmother enrich our economy and our culture. It is important for us not to see immigration solely through the prism of national security. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remaining time be allocated equally to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is reserved for the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. I assure the Senator from Kentucky I wish to speak on the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. I would like to have 10 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak on the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment. So far as we were eviscerating the Judiciary Committee, I thought possibly I might say a word or two.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier we discussed Judiciary Committee jurisdiction. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I totally agree with the Senior Senator from Utah in this battle. Senator Hatch and I have worked very closely on this issue. This is an amendment cosponsored principally by Senator Hatch and myself and Senators Sessions, Specter, and Biden. It is not a partisan amendment by any means. It is not ideological. It just makes good sense. In the resolution before the Senate we look at the new committee, the homeland committee and governmental affairs committee, but we have four exceptions for good reasons. Section 101, we take the Coast Guard out of that. We take the Transportation Security Administration, we take the Federal law enforcement training sector, and we take the revenue functions of the Customs Service. But we have to make one other exception, and that exception is the U.S. Secret Service. The Secret Service operates under Title 18 of the United States Code, that title of the United States Code of criminal law. Every one of these yellow tabs in the criminal code is one more area under criminal law, criminal code, where the Secret Service operates. The distinguished Senator from Utah said it is not just the protection service by any means, even though that is what we see in the news. They enforce many of the criminal laws, many of the laws related to the counterfeiting of U.S. currency and other financial instruments. They carry out criminal investigations. Criminal law enforcement function is the cornerstone of what the Secret Service does. I first got involved with the Secret Service when I was a State's attorney of Chittenden County in Vermont. That was over 38 years ago. We had a counterfeiting case we were prosecuting under State law. For the expertise, for help in the investigation, we called in the Secret Service. The Secret Service was involved immediately. Even though it was a State case, a State prosecutor, the Vermont State police, the Burlington City Police, the expertise came at a moment's notice from the U.S. Secret Service. They stayed throughout that case. They made sure we had the expertise. They made sure they gave us all their knowledge of how one of these cases would be tried. Incidentally, we won that case. Years later, when I was a new Member of the Senate, I was walking down the hall and I see the Secretary of State coming down the hall, people from the State Department, and also a couple of Secret Service agents. There was the Secret Service agent, David Lee--I remember his name--standing right there doing the dual things they do. His primary role had been in counterfeiting cases. We talked briefly about the number of counterfeiting cases he went to. I told him how much it meant to my little State of Vermont, which could not handle counterfeiting cases. A lot of crimes had been committed, and the Secret Service came in. Now, they enforce criminal law. They have full Federal arrest authority, full authority to carry any needed firearms, full authority to use deadly force. We should continue our oversight, and the Judiciary Committee should continue its role. Their dual criminal law enforcement of financial institution investigations and protective operations is inseparable from the proper jurisdictional oversight of the Judiciary Committee. Again, I point to the Federal criminal code rules. Now, the Coast Guard has been made exempt. It, like the Secret Service, is a distinct entity. Both should be exempted, not just the Coast Guard. The Secret Service has even more reason to be exempt. The success of the Secret Service mission depends on the criminal laws of the United States. An example of that is that all the criminal fraud law enforcement investigations which the Secret Service handles are within Title 18. Where do they handle it? Within the Department of Justice through the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney--under, obviously, the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I will give another example. The Secret Service is authorized at the request of any State or law enforcement agency or at the request of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to provide forensic and investigative assistance in support of investigations involving missing or exploited children. Let me tell you right now, if you have a missing child, we want everybody involved. All the local authorities will tell you that, especially if they are anywhere near a State line. They want everybody. Again, it comes under our committee. So I agree, as I said, with the Senator from Utah. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a liberal issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is just good, plain sense. Mr. President, I would hope my colleagues would be willing to accept the amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Specter, Mr. Biden, and others.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that point? The fact is, they are a distinct entity within homeland security. We have carved out that distinct entity for the Secret Service because of their law enforcement role. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut had no problem with carving out the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard-- --

Mr. LEAHY. But it has been done. It has been accepted.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. The Judiciary Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee have a shared history of working together to preserve privacy and civil liberties, and to promote open and accountable government. Our committee members have developed substantial expertise and experience in these areas, and we have a duty to continue to oversee these concerns. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee for working with us to ensure that the Board's work on privacy and civil liberties matters be under the jurisdiction of both these committees so that we can continue to provide effective oversight.

Mr. LEAHY. We all recognized that we were giving this Board substantial responsibility. Given the enormous powers we were granting the government, we needed a Board capable of counter-balancing these powers. But we also know that this does not end our duty.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday, we passed an important bill granting enormous additional authority and tools to the government to fight terrorism. We authorized the creation of a vast information sharing network that will allow officials throughout the U.S. government to search databases containing extensive data about American citizens. We also gave broad authority to implement new technologies, standardize identification documents and enhance border security. These are great powers that, as the Commission noted, will have substantial implications for privacy and civil liberties. This bill was also notable because it balanced this grant of power with the creation of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. I thank Senator Lieberman for including this Board as part of the National Intelligence Reform Act, and for working with Senator Durbin, me and others to make sure the Board had the necessary authority, mandate and tools to ensure that civil liberties and privacy are safeguarded as we enhance our antiterrorism policies and tools.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a year ago this month, I stood with a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives to announce the introduction of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003. This is landmark legislation. It provides law enforcement with the training and equipment required to effectively and accurately fight crime in the 21st century. It enacts the President's DNA initiative, as the Chair probably knows, authorizing more than $1 billion over the next 5 years to eliminate the backlog crisis in the Nation's crime labs and fund other DNA-related programs. It also includes the Innocence Protection Act, a death penalty reform effort I launched more than 4 years ago. We introduced our bill on October 1, 2003. One month later, the House passed it with overwhelming support, 357 to 57. Among those supporting the bill were the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman James Sensenbrenner, and virtually the entire Republican leadership, including Majority Leader DeLay. Clearly there was a broad consensus for action. The House vote marked a major breakthrough in finding solutions to these serious flaws in our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, while the other body acted, we did not. Despite Chairman Hatch's sponsorship of the bill and strong support of it, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not begin work on the bill until September, almost a year after the House had passed it. At that point we were slowed by resistance from some Republican members of the panel, but after many hours we succeeded in working through the 20-plus amendments that were offered. All of them were rejected. Then the bill was approved by a strong bipartisan majority. That was 3 weeks ago. Since then, this critical legislation has been blocked by the same Senators who tried blocking it in committee, and unfortunately they have been buttressed by opposition from President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Undeterred by the fact that the Senate has not moved on this very important legislation, the House acted again. Yesterday it voted on the Justice For All Act of 2004, H.R. 5107. This is a criminal justice package that bundles the Senate DNA bill with another bill, already passed in the Senate, that would increase protection for victims of Federal crimes. Yesterday's House margin, 393 to 14, was even larger than it was a year ago. In these times you rarely see such bipartisan support--393 to 14. I believe it sends a loud message to us here in this body of: What are we waiting for? Let's pass this bill. I want to take a moment to commend the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, who spearheaded this effort in the House. The chairman deserves high praise for his leadership. We could never have come as far as we have without his steadfast commitment, and the hard work of his impressive staff. I also thank my long-term colleagues in this effort, Representative Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts--I was honored to serve overlapping time as prosecutors, me in Vermont, Mr. Delahunt in Massachusetts--and Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. They worked tirelessly over many years to pass the Innocence Protection Act. They deserve much of the credit for building the strong bipartisan support for the bill in the House. The House has spoken, not once but twice. I believe Senate action is long overdue. It should not be threatened by a few holdouts in the Senate, even if they are emboldened by continuing help from the Department of Justice. I remind everybody, none of us here works for the administration--I don't care whether it is a Republican administration or a Democratic administration. We are elected as individual Senators, independent of the executive branch or the judicial branch. The Bush administration's role in the effort to kill this bill is significant and it is a matter of public record. On April 28 of this year we received a 22-page letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, presenting ``the views of the Department of Justice and the administration'' regarding the bill the House of Representatives had earlier passed by a vote of 357 to 67. They expressed the Administration's strong opposition to virtually every aspect of the bill. I have rarely seen a letter--in fact, I cannot remember a time I have seen a letter from an executive branch agency so hostile to a bipartisan legislative effort that had already passed one House of Congress. I was shocked the Department would write such a scathing letter about a bill that had been carefully negotiated by Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Hatch, working very closely together. In light of the support of the congressional leadership, I thought the President would have supported the bill and worked to make the capital punishment system more fair. Instead, his Administration chose to stonewall the reforms and defend the injustices in current law. The new House bill contains additional concessions to the Department of Justice and to the handful of Republican opponents in the Senate. But despite these concessions, despite the urgent need for reform, the Bush administration has obstinately refused to support the bill or even to withdraw its formal opposition to the bill. In particular, the Department has pressed its unreasonable demand for an arbitrary 3-year time limit on obtaining a DNA test after conviction. If the White House kills this bill that has passed so overwhelmingly in the House, it will be a travesty. It has, after all, been supported by key members of the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate; it has passed by an overwhelming margin in the House. To put this off another year may seem fine to the President and the Attorney General, but another year is a long time if you are a crime victim and you are hoping they may find the person who committed the crime, or if you are wrongly accused and you are waiting on death row for the chance to prove your innocence. Another year will pile more untested rape kits on to the thousands already piled up in labs across the country. This bill is a rare example of bipartisan cooperation for a good cause, and instead of helping, the White House has actively hindered. They have been unwilling to lead. They have been unwilling to follow. Now, when all it would take is for them to get out of the way, they are even unwilling to stand aside. I think it is time for them to understand what is happening here, and to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. An overwhelming bipartisan coalition in both the House and the Senate supports this bill because it will mean more fair and effective criminal justice in this country. If Congress fails to enact this much-needed law this year, I do not lay the blame on leadership in the House or the Senate, because the leadership in both parties has supported it, just as Senator Hatch and Chairman Sensenbrenner have. If the Congress fails to enact this law this year, then I lay the responsibility directly at the feet of President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft. They deserve to be held accountable, and will be if their stubborn opposition to the bill causes it to die. The leaders of their own party support it, as the leaders of my party do. They ought to stand aside. For all those victims' groups, all those church groups, all the others who have supported this bill--as you know, if it doesn't go forward, it is not the fault of Congress. You should look down toward the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a longer statement in the Record.