Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Maine. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the provisions in the Collins- Lieberman bill establishing a privacy and civil liberties oversight board and to respond to some of the disturbing discourse and efforts to undermine those provisions. It is unquestioned that one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was the creation of a civil liberties board to fill a clear void in government structure for addressing these concerns. The Commission discovered that there was ``no office within the government whose job it is to look across the government at the actions we are taking to protect ourselves to ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered.'' In response to this vacuum, the Commission explicitly recommended that ``at this time of increased and consolidated government authority, there should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties.'' The 9/11 Commission concluded: ``We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, since the success of one helps protect the other.'' The Commission was certainly right. There is no doubt that such a board is needed given the heightened civil liberty tensions created by the realities of terrorism and modern warfare. The tools of the information age include precise data-gathering, networked databases, and tracking and sensing technologies impervious to the common eye. The legal tools are similarly powerful, ranging from substantial capabilities under the USA PATRIOT Act and under our immigration laws. As the Commission noted, ``[e]ven without the changes we recommend, the American public has vested enormous authority in the U.S. government.'' In an even more pointed and ominous assessment of these powers, Vice Chairman Hamilton noted, in a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, these developments are ``an astounding intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans that (are) routine today in government.'' One of my colleagues suggested that this bill is solely to strengthen our intelligence tools and ``not a bill regarding our civil liberties.'' But this is a myopic view. You cannot divorce one from the other. Security and liberty are always in tension in a free society, and that is readily apparent today. It is our vigilant duty to work hard at striking the right balance. We must enhance our capabilities, but with such powerful tools comes heightened responsibility, and the Commission has challenged us to take up those reins: ``This shift of power and authority to the government calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.'' We have an obligation to ensure that there are mechanisms in place that will see to it that this power is subject to appropriate checks and balances and congressional oversight. An effective civil liberties board can help provide those checks and contribute to preserving both liberty and security. We need a civil liberties board whose members collectively can think critically and independently about the policies we implement as a nation and about how they affect our fundamental rights. The board must be able to participate in the policymaking process, review technology choices and options, peer into various agencies and assess actions, review classified materials and investigate concerns. This board must have the versatility to work closely with government officials, but at the same time it must be sufficiently independent to assess those government policies without fear, favor or compromise. Given these significant responsibilities, it is equally important that the board be accountable to Congress and the American people. The civil liberties board outlined in the Collins-Lieberman bill makes great strides toward meeting these goals. It represents a true bipartisan effort from conception to introduction. I was pleased to work with these Senators along with Senator Durbin to make this civil liberties board the kind of board that would honor the 9/11 Commission's intent. It should not go without notice that Commissioners Slade Gorton and Richard Ben-Veniste issued a bipartisan statement that, ``A civil liberties board of the kind we recommend can be found in the Collins-Lieberman bill in the Senate.'' This legislation establishes a bipartisan board that would have access to the documents and information needed to assess our counterterrorism policies that affect the vital civil liberties of the American people. It provides a mechanism for them to work closely with administration officials, including working with a network of newly created department-level privacy and civil liberty officers, whose proximity to decision makers will ensure that these concerns are considered from the earliest stages of policy formation. It requires the board to report to Congress on a regular basis, and--without compromising classified information--to inform the public about policies that affect their vital liberties. Unfortunately, Senator Kyl's amendment 3801 attempts to gut the carefully crafted, bipartisan civil liberty and privacy provisions that are the hallmark of the Collins-Lieberman bill. It is inconsistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and would undermine the civil liberties that we cherish. First, Senator Kyl's amendment attempts to cut off the information flow that would ensure that the board could accurately, reliably and effectively advise on the impact of policies on privacy and civil liberties. It would also eliminate the board's ability to subpoena people outside of the government who may have important information, such as private sector data collectors working on behalf of the government. It would also eliminate the privacy officers, as well as public hearings and reports to the public. It is clear that the Commission intended for the board to have access to the information that it needed in order to effectively assess policy. In a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, Vice Chairman Hamilton said, ``The key requirement is that government agencies must be required to respond to the board.'' He went on to note that the Commission itself had subpoena power, and ``if we had not had it, our job would have been much, much more difficult.'' I would note that the Collins-Lieberman bill does not go as far as to mandate subpoena power over government officials, but rather only over relevant non-government persons. Given the secrecy and civil liberty concerns that have been pervasive in this administration, we should be enhancing information flow and dialogue, not eliminating it. It is ironic that at the same time that the administration has been making it more difficult for the public to learn what government agencies are up to, the government and its private sector partners have been quietly building more and more databases to learn and store more information about the American people themselves. Second, Senator Kyl's amendment would eliminate a provision that gives the board important guidance on how to review requests by the government for new and enhanced powers. This is a critical omission. In order to balance liberty and security, we need to ensure that the board will be looking at policies through a prism that would allow for heightened security protection, while also ensuring that intrusions are not disproportionate to benefits, or that they would unduly undermine privacy and civil liberties. This guidance would also keep the board focused on the right priorities and prevent the mission creep that some fear. Contrary to assertions that this would be a ``citizen board'' gone wild that would ``haul any agent in anywhere in the world and grill him,'' this board would consist of highly accomplished members who have the appropriate clearance to access classified information, who have extensive professional expertise on civil liberty and privacy issues, and who have the knowledge of how to view these concerns in the context of important anti-terrorism objectives. Again, its subpoena power would be limited to non-government persons, and so could not used willy-nilly to drag in agents from the field. It simply cannot be that the government can create and implement policies that impinge on our liberties without having to account to anyone. While that may make things convenient or easy, it certainly does not preserve the ideals of the country we are fighting to protect. As the Commission reminded us, ``if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.'' Some have suggested that we leave this responsibility to ``federal agencies that are already equipped and designed for that function.'' But this misses precisely the point raised in the report. There is currently no such suitable entity that can look across government and offer an independent, uncompromised assessment of the impact of government powers on civil liberties. And I emphasize look, because some would suggest that we do not need a board with an affirmative obligation to go out and review policy. To the contrary, what we do not need is passivity. We need to be as vigilant about protecting our fundamental rights as we are in hunting down and capturing terrorists. It is what Commissioner Gorton, a former Republican Senator from Washington, described as a ``watchdog to assure maximum protection of individual rights and liberties in those programs.'' Similarly, Commissioner Hamilton has said that ``it ought to have a very tough investigative staff and it ought to be a very active board and agency.'' Others have suggested that the administration's recent efforts are a suitable substitute. I strongly disagree. Rather, the Executive Order attempted to foist upon us an anemic civil liberties board. I and several of my colleagues noted in a letter to the President that the board was not a bipartisan or independent entity. It had no authority to access information and it had no accountability. It was housed in the Department of Justice, and it was comprised solely of administration officials from the law enforcement and intelligence communities, precisely the communities that the board would have an obligation to oversee. It was the proverbial case of the fox guarding the henhouse. This would not have resulted in a vigorous consideration of policy that the Commission intended. As the Commission noted, the ``burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the Executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the Executive's use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use.'' We should be looking for ways to ensure that this burden of proof will be met, rather than weakening oversight and accountability. As the 9/11 Commission noted, when it comes to security and civil liberties, ``while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right.'' Senator Kyl's amendment fails to ``keep it right,'' and I urge that the Senate honor the spirit of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and reject it. Senators Collins and Lieberman have it right in their bill and we should not allow that to be gutted. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the President from myself and others on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct that we are planning to vote at 11:30 on the Kyl amendment?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to salute the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, better known as ASCAP, on its anniversary of 90 years of successful representation of America's songwriters and music publishers. ASCAP formally began when a group of noted songwriters and their supporters gathered at the Hotel Claridge in New York City on February 13, 1914, at a monumental event that would forever change music history. These visionaries, whose members included some of that era's most active and talented songwriters, such as Irving Berlin, James Weldon Johnson, Jerome Kern and John Philip Sousa, began a tradition of outstanding public advocacy on behalf of songwriters that continues to this very day. Soon after its founding, a prominent member of ASCAP, Victor Herbert, brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant that established the legal basis for songwriters to protect their ``performing right'' in the music they created. In a legal battle that took 2 years to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, ASCAP finally prevailed in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Once their legal authority to protect the musical performing right was secure, ASCAP provided its owner-members with several ways to be compensated for the performances of their copyrighted works. In advancing its members' interests, ASCAP has traditionally welcomed the marketing of new technologies as opportunities to expand the reach of their musical entertainment to new audiences. With the advent of radio, ASCAP began an interdependent relationship that remains one of its most important sources of revenue to this very day. Today, under the leadership of its distinguished chairman and award winning songwriter, Marilyn Bergman, ASCAP licenses over 11,500 local commercial radio stations and 2,000 non-commercial radio stations and ASCAP music is a dominant entertainment feature of our airwaves. With the Internet explosion, ASCAP responded with its own technological innovations. It fielded ACE, the first interactive online song database, and EZ-Seeker software for tracking Internet performances. Most recently, it has developed Mediaguide which is probably the world's most comprehensive and accurate broadcast tracking system. Thus, creative innovation and vigilance on behalf of its members have been an ASCAP hallmark since its formation. While ASCAP has had a deep involvement with the innovative telecommunications technologies and the marvels they have added to our lives, its institutional essence is its people. We have all been admirers of many of the more renowned ASCAP members who now number in the many hundreds over the years. They include such extraordinary talents as: Billy Joel, Hal David, Cy Coleman, Garth Brooks, Irving Berlin, Prince, Lyle Lovett, Henry Mancini, Marvin Hamlisch, Louis Armstrong, Arturo Sandoval, Duke Ellington, Madonna, Jimmy Webb, Cole Porter, and, or course, the late Jerry Garcia and his bandmates in the Grateful Dead. However, as a national organization with international impact ASCAP actually represents an additional 185,000 individual songwriter and music publisher members, who are less well known. They are the critical mass of individual talents that extend into every city, town and hamlet in our country. Its member-owners and the officers and employees who support them are all a part of the traditional ASCAP family. And they are especially deserving of the congratulations we extend on this auspicious event. In addition, those millions of us who appreciate and enjoy the fruits of their creators' talents have become a part of ASCAP's vast extended family of enthusiasts. So I am wishing a very happy ninetieth birthday anniversary to ASCAP's members, officers, and employees on behalf of its huge extended family for its years of music success in America and around the world.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will accept a bipartisan amendment, No. 3705, to the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, S. 2845, offered by Senator Collins, for myself and eight other cosponsors, that will revise the formula for the allocation of State and local homeland security grant funding. Homeland security is a national responsibility shared by all States, regardless of size. Each State has basic terrorism preparedness needs and, therefore, a minimum amount of domestic terrorism preparedness funds is necessary for each State. Our first responders in each and every State are on the front lines in defending against and preparing for terrorist attacks. We need to ensure that they receive the funding they need to prepare for and respond to such attacks. Recognizing that every State and community should have helped to meet those needs, I authored a minimum formula for State and local basic formula grants to emergency responders that are distributed to States by the Department of Homeland Security Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. That formula guarantees that each State--regardless of size--receives at least 0.75 percent of the national allotment to help meet their national domestic security needs. Congress continues to recognize that every State and community--rural or urban, small or large--has basic domestic security needs and merits the Federal help to meet those needs. Both the Senate and House Homeland Security appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2005 keep the all-State minimum formula for first responder grants that are distributed to the States. Representatives and officials from urban States and cities have argued that Federal money to fight terrorism is sent to areas that do not need it and it is ``wasted'' in small towns. However, Congress has shown that it recognizes these highly populated, highly threatened and highly vulnerable areas have terrorism preparedness needs beyond those basic needs for each State. That is why we in the Senate last month included $1.2 billion for discretionary grants to high-threat urban areas for the coming fiscal year. The House-passed Homeland Security appropriations bill included $1 billion for the Urban Areas Security Initiative. Not all those who are leaders in urban areas believe that every cent of State and local homeland security funding should go solely to first responders in our cities. I recall this past August, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani brought a warning to emergency first responders in my home State of Vermont that should serve as a notice to all Americans. He said there was no doubt in his mind that another serious attack on the United States would be attempted, and he said it could just as easily be small town America rather than another large city. ``The risk of another attack is a very great one. . . . The biggest city and the smallest towns, both had to be prepared,'' he was quoted by The Rutland Herald. While in Vermont, Mr. Giuliani publicly lauded the value of the work that first responders in small local communities do day after day. I join him in that praise. I remind my colleagues that the town of Shanksville, PA, where the fourth hijacked airliner, United flight 93, crashed on September 11, 2001, is a tiny town of 245 residents with only one fire truck in a small fire station. On that day, Shanksville's police officers, fire fighters, and EMS officers who raced to the crash site of flight 93 were on the front lines of terrorism response. It is a threat we cannot always predict but one that we must always try to be prepared to meet. Officials in the current administration hold the same view. In an interview published in the 2004 edition of The Year in Homeland Security, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, Sue Mencer, stated the following: . . . `` there should be some base level funding to each state and territory regardless of size or population density. There are infrastructures everywhere, although they may not be so dramatic as a Brooklyn Bridge or Golden Gate. There are critical underground pipelines, highways, bridges that we don't think of automatically but still need to be protected.'' Critics of the all-State minimum seem to forget that since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we have asked all-State and local first responders to defend us as never before on the front lines in the war against terrorism. Emergency responders in a rural State have the same responsibilities as those in any urban State to provide enhanced protection, preparedness and response against terrorists. Fostering divisions between States ignores the real problem: We should be looking to increase the funds to our Nation's first responders. The Hart-Rudman report on domestic preparedness argues that the U.S. will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs over the next 5 years if current funding levels are maintained. Clearly, the domestic preparedness funds available are still not enough to protect from, prepare for, and respond to future domestic terrorist attacks anywhere on American soil. I am proud to join Senator Collins and my eight colleagues in cosponsoring her bipartisan amendment to revise the formula for the allocation of State and local homeland security grant funding. This amendment maintains the 0.75 percent minimum that each State currently receives under the USA PATRIOT Act to help ensure that every State can respond to its preparedness needs, but it also clarifies and recognizes the fact that some States indeed have high-threat areas. I will continue to oppose any efforts to reduce adequate support and resources for our police, fire, and EMS services in each State and community as they continue to protect us from terrorists or respond to terrorist attacks, as well as carry out their other preparedness responsibilities. We should adequately meet the needs of all of our dedicated first responders and resist efforts that would pit them against each other. We must continue our efforts to ensure the readiness of our States and communities. Should the United States experience terrorist attacks like those we endured over 3 years ago, I want to make sure that each police officer, firefighter, or rescue worker who responds to those attacks has the best training and equipment available to get the job done. I applaud all the hard work of all our State and local emergency first responders who not only continue to carry out the day-to-day responsibilities they have always had, but also find themselves serving on the front lines in the war on terrorism. Amendment No. 3705, As Amended

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I understand there may be a question regarding my amendment. While this is being worked on by counsel, let me proceed to discuss it and we can go back to the amendment if there is no objection. Mr. President, three years after thousands of Americans were killed in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, there have been some troubling doubts about the effectiveness of a major investigative tool in our antiterrorism arsenal. On Monday, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Justice released an unclassified version of its audit of the FBI's Foreign Language Program and the Translation of Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Foreign Language Material. The results were unsettling. They deserve our immediate attention and action. The report shows that despite concerns expressed for years by those in Congress and by former FBI contractors, among others, and despite an influx of tens of millions of dollars Congress has appropriated in a bipartisan effort to hire new linguists, the FBI foreign language translation unit is saddled with problems across the board, including growing backlogs, systemic difficulties, security problems, too few qualified staff, and an astounding lack of organization. It is almost as though the Department of Justice does not take this question of translation seriously. The question the Department of Justice must be asked is: What is the use of taping thousands of hours of conversations of intelligence targets in foreign languages if, after we have taped it all, we cannot translate it promptly, securely, accurately, and efficiently? The translation mess at the Department of Justice is a chronic problem that has obvious and severe implications for our national security. We all want America to be secure, Republicans and Democrats alike. But the administration has shirked its responsibility to resolve these problems. It has dodged its own accountability to the public and to Congress for this enormous failure. I believe the administration owes Congress and the American public an explanation as to why it has repeatedly failed to take the necessary steps to fix these serious intelligence failings. We need to know, once and for all--and sooner rather than later--what steps will be taken to get this job done. Now, to expedite this process, I will offer the Translator Reports Act of 2004. I am proud to be joined in this effort by Senator Grassley, my friend from Iowa. He has been ever-vigilant on FBI oversight issues, whether it has been a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. Our act clarifies and expands upon an important reporting requirement currently in law that has yet to be implemented by the Department of Justice. The Attorney General is required by law--by law--to report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees about the number of translators employed by the FBI; the legal and practical impediments to using translators employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared basis; and the needs of the FBI for specific translation services in certain languages and recommendations for meeting those needs. We saw this as such a high priority that we included this requirement in law. The President signed it into law. You would think if anybody is going to follow the law, it would be the Attorney General. To date, he has not. He has not made the report required by this law. Now, maybe he needs another deadline. We thought it was pretty clear already. The President thought it was pretty clear. Republicans and Democrats thought it was pretty clear. But this amendment provides an ironclad deadline. I believe we have to prod the Department of Justice to get this information on a timely basis. It is somewhat like pulling teeth. This amendment is the extraction tool for the teeth of the foreign translation program. It fills the gap in current law by legally requiring the Attorney General to report ``not later than 30 days after the date of enactment'' and ``annually thereafter.'' The bill also expands that reporting requirement in several critical ways and in direct response to the Office of Inspector General's Audit. This is in keeping with the 9/11 Commission's directive that Congress exercise greater oversight over the counterintelligence and counterterrorism needs of the executive branch. In its report, the 9/11 Commission noted that, ``Even as the FBI has increased its language services cadre, the demand for translation services has also greatly increased. Thus, the FBI must not only continue to bring on board more linguists, it must also continue to take advantage of technology and best practices to prioritize its workflow, enhance its capabilities and ensure compliance with its quality control program.'' Well, I could not agree more. The FBI in the past has drawn a distinction between contract linguists and full-time employees when discussing hiring issues. But for the purpose of getting the job done, this is a distinction without a difference. We in Congress want to know the status of hiring overall because it is the entire picture that we are concerned with. The amendment makes clear that the Department of Justice must report on linguists employed by and contracted for by the FBI. Our amendment adds further reporting requirements that will be crucial to understanding whether or not the FBI is capable of fixing, and has fixed, the problems outlined by the Inspector General. If enacted into law, the Attorney General will have to provide Congress with current information regarding: (1) the status of any automated statistical reporting system so that we can ensure the FBI is monitoring workflow properly; (2) the storage capabilities of the digital collection system or systems utilized so that important data is not lost for technological reasons; (3) a description of the FBI's establishment and compliance with audio retention policies that satisfy the investigative and intelligence goals of the FBI; (4) a description of the implementation of quality control procedures and mechanisms for monitoring compliance with quality control procedures; and (5) the current counterterrorism and counterintelligence audio backlog and recommendations for alleviating any such backlog. These reporting requirements are in addition to what is currently required: hiring numbers and recommendations regarding the FBI's future needs and the viability of using translators from other agencies and sources. This more detailed information will give Congress a better view and ultimately greater insight into how the FBI is handling this critical investigative tool. With FISA wiretaps at an annual figure of more than 1,700, the FBI has a lot of catching up to do. And so does Congress in its oversight of this translation program. With this amendment, the information we will need to most effectively employ this important investigative tool will be at our fingertips. We know our intelligence services have the ability to pick up conversations throughout the world. But you have to translate what you pick up. On September 10, according to press reports, the Administration picked up a very clear warning that we were going to be hit on September 11. They did not translate the warning until sometime after September 11. This is like being warned that a bomb is going off in 5 minutes, and responding that we will translate and look at that warning in 5 months. For my security and the security of all of us, I want our law enforcement and intelligence services to know immediately. As a former prosecutor, I know that if you are using a wiretap or an intercept, it is valuable if you have the information immediately, especially if they are talking about a terrible act or a crime that is going to take place very soon. It does you very little good to finally look at it long after the fact. The only reason we do these intercepts, the only reason we do these wiretaps, the only reason we do this electronic information gathering is so we will know where we are. Mr. President, I understand my amendment is at the desk and I request it be reported.

Mr. LEAHY. Of course. The distinguished chairman and ranking Member have always been very courteous. I know, having managed a lot of bills, how it is. It is a reasonable request. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask it be in order for me to send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Grassley.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished chairman of the committee and the distinguished ranking member of the committee want to look at this amendment. Because I am suppose to be at several places, I am not shackled to my desk on the floor as they are. I did want to get the amendment offered. I thank them for their courtesy in giving me time to do so. I urge the Senate to support this important oversight and reporting amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, almost five months after learning of the atrocities that occurred at Abu Ghraib, several of the investigations into U.S. detention policies are now complete. I commend Chairman Warner for his efforts to investigate this scandal, but he remains hampered by the leadership of his own party and an administration that does not want the full truth revealed. While the investigations provide new insight into how the abuses occurred, they frequently raise as many new questions as they answer. Despite calls from a small handful of us who want to find the truth, Congress and this administration have failed to seriously investigate acts that bring dishonor upon our great Nation and endanger our soldiers overseas. The Bush administration circled the wagons long ago and has continually maintained that the abuses were the work of `a few bad apples.' 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 that the responsibility for abuse runs high up into the chain of command. To put this matter behind us, first we need to understand what happened at all levels of government. It is the responsibility of the Senate to investigate the facts, from genesis to final approval to implementation and abuse. However, this Senate, and in particular the Judiciary Committee, continues to fall short in its oversight responsibilities. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee attempted in June to force the disclosure of policy memos on the treatment of detainees, but were defeated by a party-line vote. Recently, a Federal judge, recognizing the importance of public examination of such documents, ordered the Bush administration to comply with freedom of information laws and release a list of all documents on the detentions at Abu Ghraib prison by October 15. I commend this decision, but even that list would not tell the entire story. A recent Washington Post column addressed the administration's attempt to whitewash this scandal. Jackson Diehl wrote: Cynics will not be surprised to learn that senior military commanders and Bush administration officials are on the verge of avoiding any accountability for the scandal of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan--despite the enormous damage done by that affair to U.S. standing in Iraq and around the world; despite the well-documented malfeasance and possible criminal wrongdoing by those officials; despite the contrasting prosecution of low-ranking soldiers. Allowing senior officials to avoid accountability sets a dangerous precedent. It is time for Congress, even this Republican Congress, to do its job and take action. We must send a message that no one in the chain of command--from an enlisted private at Abu Ghraib to the Commander-in-Chief--is above the laws of our Nation. The investigations completed thus far provide additional insight into how the prison abuses occurred, but their narrow mandates prevented them from addressing critical issues. The reports by the Army Inspector General, Maj. Gen. George Fay, and Lt. Gen. Anthony Jones all suffered from structural limitations. The Army IG report was designed as ``a functional analysis'' of operations, not an investigation into any specific incidents. The Fay and Jones reports, tasked with reviewing the role of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib, were limited in scope to the military itself despite acknowledging that relationships between military intelligence, military police, and outside agencies were significant to the breakdown in order. Overall, these investigations collectively suffered from a lack of scope and authority, leaving key inquiries into issues like contractor abuses and ``ghost detainees'' unexplored. The panel led by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger was similarly limited to the role of the military and could not investigate the role of the CIA. The Schlesinger panel had no subpoena power and lacked true independence. Its loyalty to the Secretary of Defense is betrayed by its acceptance of a policy that is proving to be one of the root causes of this scandal. In August 2002, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee wrote in a memo to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales that, ``While many of these techniques may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, they do not produce pain or suffering of the necessary intensity to meet the definition of torture.'' Alarmingly, in his recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Dr. Schlesinger sounded more like an administration official than an independent investigator. His statement to the committee that, ``What constitutes humane treatment lies in the eye of the beholder'' is something I would have expected to read in a memo from Jay Bybee, not the head of an ``independent'' commission. I could not disagree more with the statements of Dr. Schlesinger and Mr. Bybee. The Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture define humane treatment of prisoners, setting standards that protect our own soldiers when they are captured. A number of State Department lawyers fought to protect these standards in early 2002, when the President broke with decades of policy and decided against providing the Geneva protections to terrorist suspects. Military lawyers fought the same battle after Secretary Rumsfeld approved techniques for use at Guantanamo that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions. The recently released reports illustrate why an independent investigation is still necessary. They brought us closer to the truth, but questions remain unanswered. Despite its failings, the Schlesinger report refuted the administration's efforts to avoid responsibility and to minimize this scandal as the misdeeds of `a few bad apples.' The report documents a failure of leadership by some at higher levels in the chain of command, as well as poor planning from the top and a great deal of confusion about which interrogation and detention practices were acceptable. But the confusion was not caused solely by a lack of leadership. In recent months we have learned that senior officials in the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort and even ignore our laws, policies and agreements on torture and the treatment of prisoners. The Schlesinger panel failed to follow the investigation to the highest levels of the administration. Ultimately, what emerges from these reports is a striking contradiction. The reports state that there was no official policy of abuse and they do not recommend punishment for high-ranking officials. And yet, the reports show that decisions that were made by top officials, including the President himself, led to the abuses that occurred in the fields of battle. Piecing together the facts and findings of these reports with information contained in other official documents and press accounts, a timeline emerges that shows how edicts from Washington trickled down, crossed oceans, and migrated from the front lines on one continent to the next. In February 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to members of al-Qaida and the Taliban. That decision was taken at the recommendation of the Attorney General and White House counsel, and over the objection of the Secretary of State. Eight months later, in October 2002, with hundreds of prisoners captured in Afghanistan then being held at Guantanamo Bay, the Schlesinger report states that authorities at the base ``requested approval of strengthened counter-interrogation techniques.'' In December of that year, according to the Fay report, Secretary Rumsfeld approved for use at Guantanamo techniques such as ``stress positions, isolation for up to thirty days, removal of clothing and the use of detainees' phobias (such as the use of dogs).'' Lawyers in the military reacted negatively, strenuously arguing that the use of such techniques was anathema to military tradition and would ultimately come back to haunt the armed services. In January 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld rescinded his approval of the extreme interrogation techniques; new guidelines were issued in April 2003 from a Defense Department working group. The Fay report reveals, however, that despite the Secretary's shift in policy, the methods he had authorized in December 2002 for use only at Guantanamo Bay quickly migrated to Afghanistan and other locations where our military is active. As early as December 2002, reports General Fay, ``interrogators in Afghanistan were removing clothing, isolating people for long periods of time, using stress positions, exploiting fear of dogs and implementing sleep and light deprivation.'' It was also in December 2002 that two prisoners in U.S. custody were killed. Both deaths were ruled homicides by pathologists, but, at the time, the Army publicly attributed them to natural causes. It was not until journalists saw copies of the death certificates, which had been given to the non-English speaking families of the deceased, that the truth about the fatalities came out. In September, criminal charges were finally filed, 20 months after the deaths occurred. These deaths are deeply disturbing, but at least we know some of the details of the cases and can seek justice against the perpetrators. A recent report by the Crimes of War Project uncovered an Afghan detainee's death that was never reported up the military chain of command. The detainee, Jamal Naseer, died in March 2003, allegedly after weeks of torture by American soldiers. Because the Special Forces unit that reportedly controlled the detention facility failed to report the death, it was never investigated. This incident is very troubling on its own, but, like so many other incidents we have discovered, it points to a much larger problem. The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command received a tip about Naseer's death earlier this year, but could not investigate the matter due to a lack of information. Christopher Coffey, an Army detective based at Bagram air base, told the L.A. Times: We're trying to figure out who was running the base. We don't know what unit was there. There are no records. The reporting system is broke across the board. Units are transferred in and out. There are no SOPs [standard operating procedures] and each unit acts differently. The L.A. Times article illustrates a serious failure of leadership by the Department of Defense and the obvious shortcomings of allowing the Pentagon to investigate itself. The Army Inspector General's report, released in July, stated that the investigation's team ``that visited Iraq and Afghanistan discovered no incidents of abuse that had not been reported through command channels; all incidents were already under investigation.'' We now know this cannot be accurate. What we don't know is how many more deaths and cases of torture have gone unreported. As I stated before, the Schlesinger report agreed with administration policy that detainees did not merit Geneva protections, a position with which I and many of those in uniform disagree. The panel acknowledged, however, that the President's policy of treating al-Qaida and Taliban detainees ``consistent with the principles of Geneva,'' was ``vague and lacking.'' Even a government treating prisoners ``consistent'' with the Conventions would not rely on interrogation practices like the ones we have witnessed. The techniques I just described, ones that were used in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq are clearly illegal under the Geneva Conventions. Secretary Rumsfeld and, later, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, authorized the use of techniques that were contrary to both U.S. military manuals and international law. Given this incredible overstepping of bounds, I find it incredible that the reports generated thus far have not recommended punishment of any kind for high level officials. Meanwhile, the CIA conducted its own set of interrogations. The Fay and Schlesinger reports state that the CIA operated under a different set of rules, sometimes including the military and sometimes not. The Fay report states that ``the CIA's detention and interrogation practices contributed to a loss of accountability and abuse at Abu Ghraib.'' The result: further confusion among soldiers in the field over appropriate standards of treatment and the application of the Geneva Conventions. How did these techniques, which were rescinded by Secretary Rumsfeld in January 2003 become so prevalent in Iraq? The Fay report states it flatly: ``Concepts for the non-doctrinal, in-field manual approaches and practices clearly came from documents and personnel in Afghanistan and Guantanamo.'' Ultimately, the ``non-doctrinal'' approaches used at Abu Ghraib included nakedness and humiliation, the use of dogs to ``fear up'' detainees, and sexual and physical assaults. These approaches migrated to Iraq a number of ways, any of which might have been prevented by clear statements of policy from the top. Members of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion served at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan in 2002. Some of these soldiers have been implicated in the deaths of the two prisoners at Bagram. A number of soldiers from the 519th were sent to Iraq, and some of those have been implicated in the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. As we all know, military intelligence played a major role in directing and carrying out the abuses at Abu Ghraib. In addition, as the Fay report cites, ``Interrogators in Iraq, already familiar with the practice of some of these new ideas, implemented them even prior to any policy guidelines.'' Before long, as the Schlesinger report states, policy guidance backed up the interrogators' actions. In August 2003, Maj. Gen. Miller ``brought the Secretary of Defense's April 16, 2003, policy guidelines for Guantanamo with him,'' and gave this policy to Lt. Gen. Sanchez, who was, at the time, the highest level commander in Iraq. On September 14 of last year, according to the Schlesinger report, Lt. Gen. Sanchez approved a policy on interrogation that included techniques that, up to that point, had only been officially applied to so-called enemy combatants-- those who, in the minds of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, were not protected by the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration has steadfastly claimed that the Geneva Conventions apply to the war in Iraq. And yet, Lt. Gen. Sanchez determined, with no authorization to do so, that some of the detainees held in Iraq were to be categorized as unlawful combatants. How did Lt. Gen. Sanchez justify his authority to approve such techniques? The Schlesinger report found that Lt. Gen. Sanchez relied on the President's February 2002 memorandum and the Department of Justice's notorious August 1, 2002 memo twisting the definition of torture. It is deeply troubling, given this evidence, that the Bush administration has held fast to the contention that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were committed by ``a few bad apples.'' And it is extremely disconcerting that the very outcome that military lawyers warned of when they fought against the administration's desire to suspend the Geneva Conventions--the undermining of the military's tradition of upholding the rule of law--came to fruition. Our armed forces have been tainted by this scandal and our soldiers in the field placed at greater risk. The Sanchez policy guidelines were technically in effect for only a month before being revised. But, as in Afghanistan, these illegal techniques were put to use almost immediately. Interrogators in Iraq relied upon the guidelines and may have done so believing that they were appropriate. The Jones report states that, ``Some of these incidents involved conduct which, in retrospect, violated international law. However, at the time some of the soldiers or contractors committed the acts, they may have honestly believed the techniques were condoned.'' I find it deeply disturbing that American soldiers would have acted on such guidelines. I have stated many times that those who violated the laws by assaulting and humiliating prisoners should be prosecuted. The buck should not stop there, however. The reports have shown that there was a serious breakdown in training and operations. There was one MP for every 75 prisoners at Abu Ghraib when the abuses occurred. And as the Army Inspector General found, interrogation facilities lacked oversight processes and control mechanisms. Even routine inspections were lacking. What these reports show--and, unfortunately, it is an unstated revelation one discovers by reading between the lines--is that once President Bush and his top advisors let the genie out of the bottle by denying the protections of the Geneva Conventions and rewriting the definition of torture, they set off a chain reaction that spanned the globe. By changing the rules of treatment and interrogation for one group of detainees, by tossing away decades of military protocol, by writing and rescinding and rewriting guidelines so often that soldiers had no clear understanding of policy or practice, and by allowing the CIA to operate in the shadows, the leaders of the Bush administration lost control. What was initiated for one group of detainees in one location spilled over into other countries and to very different types of prisoners. A day or two after the release of the Schlesinger and Fay-Jones reports, Secretary Rumsfeld still claimed that there was no evidence that prisoners had been abused during interrogations. I wonder if he took the time to read or to request a briefing on these investigations. He made the same statement twice before his handlers corrected him, in the middle of a press conference. Incredibly, he again misstated the facts, ``correcting'' himself to say that only two or three cases of abuse took place during interrogation. In fact, 13 of 44 instances of abuse involved interrogation. It leaves me to wonder. Meanwhile, President Bush has kept quiet about the findings of the reports. His silence is deafening. As I have said before, there needs to be a thorough, independent investigation of the actions of those involved, from the people who committed abuses, to the officials who set these policies in motion. An independent commission, structured on the model of the 9/11 Commission, will allow us begin to heal the damage that has been done. I am not alone in calling for an independent commission. Several organizations, including the American Bar Association, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, have urged the creation of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the prisoner abuses. A recent letter from eight retired generals and admirals to President Bush asked him to appoint a prisoner abuse commission modeled on the 9/11 Commission. In that letter, the flag officers stated, ``internal investigations by their nature . . . suffer from a critical lack of independence. Americans have never thought it wise or fair for one branch of government to police itself.'' The 9/11 Commission provides more than a structural model for a new commission; it also provides a lesson in how perseverance can overcome the administration's refusal to seek the truth. The Bush administration initially opposed the formation of the 9/11 Commission, just as it now opposes a prisoner abuse commission. The administration used the same argument against both commissions. It asserts that the numerous internal investigations are sufficient to uncover the truth. Dr. James Schlesinger, the head of the panel established by Secretary Rumsfeld to investigate the prisoner abuses, addressed this issue in his testimony to the Senate Government Affairs Committee in February 2002, as it debated the need for the 9/11 Commission. He argued for the creation of the Commission because, ``to this point many questions have been addressed piecemeal--or not at all. The purpose of the National Commission would be systematically and comprehensively to address such questions--and to give a complete accounting of the events leading up to 9/11. In my judgment, such a Commission would serve a high, indeed indispensable, national purpose.'' This is exactly the same reason we need an independent commission to investigate the prisoner abuse scandal. The Governmental Affairs Committee report on the bill to establish the 9/11 Commission stated that it ``is a bipartisan initiative to help answer the many remaining questions in a constructive, methodical, and non-partisan way. The commission would complement investigations being undertaken by Congress and the Executive Branch.'' A prisoner abuse commission would fulfill a similar need--to fill the gaps that inevitably occur when an investigation is addressed in a piecemeal fashion. We already know some gaps exist--such as the ghost detainee problem and the role of contractors--others are sure to arise in the course of an independent investigation. International law, as well as the Defense Department's own policies, requires the registration and accounting of all detainees. Detainees kept off of the official rolls--so called 'ghost detainees'--are held in violation of the law. The Fay-Jones report revealed that the ghost detainee problem was far more pervasive than the Defense Department had previously acknowledged. General Kern, the investigation's appointing officer, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that there could be as many as 100 ghost detainees, but his panel could not thoroughly investigate the matter because the CIA refused to cooperate in the inquiry. These revelations should not come as a surprise--human rights groups have been calling for an investigation into the ghost detainee issue for months. I first wrote to the National Security Advisor about mistreatment of detainees in June 2003, including a request for information on prisoners transferred in secret by the United States to other nations for interrogation. A report on secret detentions was released on June 17, 2004, by Human Rights First. The report, titled, Ending Secret Detentions, describes a number of officially undisclosed locations that sources--typically unnamed government sources quoted in the press--have described as detention centers for terrorism suspects. These sources have discussed facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Diego Garcia, and on U.S. war ships. The ICRC has not been allowed access to these facilities. It issued a public statement in March expressing its growing concern over ``the fate of an unknown number of people captured . . . and held in undisclosed locations.'' To date, its requests have been denied. After being rebuffed by the CIA, the Fay-Jones panel asked two offices to conduct further investigations into the ghost detainee issue: the Department of Defense Inspector General and the CIA Inspector General. Once again, this would result in one branch of government to policing itself. Like the Fay-Jones panel, the Inspectors General lack the authority to follow such investigations beyond their own departments--again allowing many questions to remain unanswered. We need to know what role senior administration officials in the White House, Justice Department, Defense Department, and CIA played in formulating the policies that allowed the illegal detention of ghost detainees. We know this problem emanated from senior officials-- Secretary Rumsfeld admitted in June that he approved the secret detention of one detainee at the request of CIA Director Tenet. Only an independent commission with significant authority will be able to fully investigate this matter. The Fay-Jones report also found that civilian contractors were complicit in the abuse of detainees. We already knew this, but the panel's findings raise new questions about whether the contractors will be held accountable for their actions. Thus far, one contractor has been charged for abuse in Afghanistan, but no charges have been filed against contractors in Iraq. As P.W. Singer points out in his recent Washington Post op-ed, ``Army investigators are at a loss over how to hold the contractors accountable. The Army referred individual employees' names to the Justice Department more than three months ago, but Attorney General Ashcroft has yet to take action.'' As these cases are referred to the Justice Department, the Judiciary Committee must fulfill its oversight responsibility to ensure these crimes do not go unpunished. Given the reports and allegations of abuses of Iraqi prisoners that involved civilian contractors, I am deeply troubled at the passivity being displayed by the Department of Justice. If loopholes exist in the law, the Department should be working with Congress to fill them. Some argue that another investigation will prevent us from putting the scandal behind us, but ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Each week brings new allegations that reveal how much we still don't know. Human rights groups and journalists have been unrelenting in their efforts to uncover this scandal, and I applaud their contributions. The report released recently by the War Crimes Project revealed unreported deaths in Afghanistan. Veteran journalist Seymour Hersh claims in his new book that senior military and national security officials were repeatedly warned in 2002 and 2003 that prisoners were being abused. Mr. Hersh writes that FBI agents notified their superiors about abuses at Guantanamo and that these reports were passed along to officials at the Pentagon. The ACLU continues to fight in Federal courts to compel the administration to release documents related to torture. Even without further Government action, this scandal is not going to go away. It is time for us to lead the investigation, rather than wait to read about the latest discovery of abuse in tomorrow's paper. We must establish an independent commission. In the coming months, the remaining Pentagon investigations will come to an end. It will be like finding an old jigsaw puzzle in the back of the closet--it looks complete, but you can never tell if there are pieces missing until you try to put it together. An independent commission can take on this important task; it will ensure that no pieces are missing and that we have a complete, unbiased assessment of a sad chapter in our Nation's history. The 9/11 Commission showed us that it can be painful to dredge up the past, but it is also a necessary step to moving forward.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering and passing the ``Missing Child Cold Case Review Act of 2004,'' S. 2435, which will allow an Inspector General to authorize his or her staff to provide assistance on and conduct reviews of the inactive case files involving children, or ``cold cases,'' stored at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) and to develop recommendations for further investigations. I thank Senators Grassley, Lincoln and Hatch for joining me as cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation. I thank them for their leadership in this area. Speed is everything in homicide investigations. As a former prosecutor in Vermont, I know firsthand that speed is of the essence when trying to solve a homicide. This focus on speed, however, has led the law enforcement community to generally believe that any case not solved within the first 72 hours or lacking significant leads and witness participation has little likelihood of being solved, regardless of the expertise and resources deployed. With time, such unsolved cases become ``cold,'' and these are among the most difficult and frustrating cases detectives face because they are, in effect, cases that other investigators, for whatever reason, failed to solve. Our Nation's law enforcement agencies, regardless of size, are not immune to rising crime rates, staff shortages and budget restrictions. Such obstacles have strained the investigative and administrative resources of all agencies. More crime often means that fewer cases are vigorously pursued, fewer opportunities arise for follow-up and individual caseloads increase for already overworked detectives. All the obstacles that hamper homicide investigations in their early phases contribute to cold cases. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children--our Nation's top resource center for child protection--presently retains a backlog of cold cases involving children that law enforcement departments nationwide have stopped investigating primarily due to all those obstacles. NCMEC serves as a clearinghouse for all cold cases in which a child has not been found and/or the suspect has not been identified. The bill that we pass today will allow an inspector general to provide staff support to NCMEC for the purpose of conducting reviews of inactive case files to develop recommendations for further investigation and similar activities. The inspector general community has one of the most diverse and talented criminal investigative cadres in the Federal Government. A vast majority of these special agents have come from traditional law enforcement agencies, and are highly-trained and extremely capable of dealing with complex, criminal cases. Under current law, an inspector general's duties are limited to activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. Our bill would allow an inspector general to permit criminal investigators under his or her supervision to review cold case files, so long as doing so would not interfere with normal duties. An inspector general would not conduct actual investigations, and any inspector general would only commit staff when the office's mission-related workloads permitted. At no time would these activities be allowed to conflict with or delay the stated missions of an inspector general. From time to time a criminal investigator employed by an inspector general may be between investigations or otherwise available for brief periods of time. This act would also allow those resources to be provided to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Commitment of resources would be at a minimum and would not materially affect the budget of any office. We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should move easily through the House once it passes the Senate. It is supported by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. I applaud the ongoing work of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and hope the House will follow the Senate's leadership and promptly pass this bill to provide NCMEC with the resources it requires to solve cold cases involving missing children.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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 television network stations. Back then, Congress acted and not only protected access to those stations but also expanded consumer opportunities to receive more programming options. This time around the story may not have such a happy ending. As we near the end of the session, I grow more concerned that Congress will not have time to pass a reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. This is especially disappointing because many members of the other body and many Senators have worked diligently to craft legislative language that would be a boon to public television, the satellite industry, the movie, music and television industries, and to satellite dish owners throughout America. Indeed, families who own satellite dishes may end up being the big losers if provisions of that act are not extended. Many midwestern and Rocky Mountain States have vast areas where satellite dish owners receive imported network stations such as ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox. Thousands of these families do not have any other choices. They do not have access to TV stations over-the-air because of mountain terrain or distance from the broadcast towers. They do not have access to cable because of the rough terrain or the lack of population density which makes it economically impossible for cable companies to invest. Without access to network stations via satellite, over-the-air, or cable those families will no longer be able to receive national news programming or other network TV programming. If Congress does not reauthorize provisions of current law by December 31, 2004, hundreds of thousands of households will lose satellite access to network TV stations. 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 Senate Judiciary Committee got its job done in June. We reported a great bill out of Committee without a single amendment and without a single nay vote. That bill does far more than just protect satellite dish owners from losing signals. At the time 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 and House Judiciary Committee-reported bills go far beyond protecting what current subscribers receive. 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 roof-top 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 well 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. We also worked with the Public Broadcasting System so they could offer a national feed as they transitioned to having their local programming beamed up to satellites and then beamed back down to much larger audiences. 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. 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, I am pleased the Senate will take up the Leahy-Hatch amendment to reauthorize the highly successful Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. I thank the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for joining me on this amendment. This amendment contains the same legislative language as the Campbell-Leahy-Hatch Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, S. 764. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 15, 2003, and has been awaiting consideration by the House of Representatives since then. This measure marks the third time that I have had the privilege of teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998, which responded to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two state troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the state and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost. Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and I hope we will go 3-for-3 this time around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable experience in this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a leader in the area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff, he knows the dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. I am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by 12 other Senate cosponsors, including Senator Hatch. Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by providing more help to State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. 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. In Vermont, 60 municipalities have been fortunate to receive to receive funding for the purchase of 1,905 vests. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by re- authorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation would continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50 million per year for matching grants to State and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body armor. We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. I rise today to address one of the most timely and sensitive recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the creation of a civil liberties board to provide checks and balances against the ``enormous authority'' granted the government by the people. Critically, the 9/11 Commission concluded: ``We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, since the success of one helps protect the other.'' There is no doubt that such a board is needed given the heightened civil liberty tensions created by the realities of terrorism and modern warfare. The tools of the information age include precise data- gathering, networked databases, and tracking and sensing technologies impervious to the common eye. As Vice Chairman Hamilton noted, in a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, as he commented about the security steps and the technology that are quickly becoming ubiquitous in our post-9/11 world, these developments are ``an astounding intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans that (are) routine today in government.'' With such powerful tools come heightened responsibility. We have an obligation to ensure that there are mechanisms in place that will see to it that this power is subject to appropriate checks and balances and Congressional oversight. An effective civil liberties board can provide those checks and contribute to preserving both liberty and security. We need a civil liberties board that can think critically and independently about the policies we implement as a nation and about how they affect our fundamental rights. The board must be able to participate in the policymaking process, review technology choices and options, peer into various agencies and assess actions, review classified materials and investigate concerns. This board must have the versatility to work closely with government officials, but at the same time it must be sufficiently independent to assess those government policies without fear, favor or compromise. Given these significant responsibilities, it is equally important that the board be accountable to Congress and the American people. The civil liberties board outlined in the Collins-Lieberman bill makes great strides in meeting these goals. It represents a true bipartisan effort from conception to introduction. I was pleased to work with these Senators along with Senator Durbin to make this civil liberties board the kind of board that would honor the 9/11 Commission's intent. It establishes a bipartisan board that would have access to the documents and information needed to assess our counterterrorism policies that affect the vital civil liberties of the American people. It provides a mechanism for them to work closely with administration officials, including working with a network of newly created department-level privacy and civil liberty officers, whose proximity to decision makers will ensure that these concerns are considered from the earliest stages of policy formation. It requires the board to report to Congress on a regular basis, and without compromising classified information, inform the public about policies that impact their vital liberties. Unfortunately, Senator Kyl's amendment No. 3801 attempts to gut the carefully crafted, bipartisan civil liberty and privacy provisions that are the hallmark of the Collins-Lieberman bill. It is inconsistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and would undermine the civil liberties that we cherish. First, Senator Kyl's amendment attempts to cut off the information flow that would ensure that the board could accurately, reliably and effectively advise on the impact of policies on privacy and civil liberties. It would also eliminate the board's ability to subpoena people outside of the government who may have important information, such as private sector data collectors working on behalf of the government. It would also eliminate the privacy officers, as well as public hearings and reports to the public. It is clear that the commission intended for the board to have access to the information that it needed in order to effectively assess policy. In a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, Vice Chairman Hamilton said, ``The key requirement is that government agencies must be required to respond to the board.'' He went on to note that the commission itself had subpoena power, and ``if we had not had it, our job would have been much, much more difficult.'' I would note that the Collins-Lieberman bill does not go as far as to mandate subpoena power over government officials, but rather only over relevant non-government persons. Given the secrecy and civil liberty concerns that have been pervasive in this administration, we should be enhancing information flow and dialogue, not eliminating it. It is ironic that at the same time that the administration has been making it more difficult for the public to learn what government agencies are up to, the government and its private sector partners have been quietly building more and more databases to learn and store more information about the American people. Second, Senator Kyl's amendment would eliminate a provision that gives the board important guidance on how to review requests by the government for new and enhanced powers. This is a critical omission. In order to balance liberty and security, we need to ensure that the board will be looking at policies through a prism that would allow for heightened security protection, while also ensuring that intrusions are not disproportionate to benefits, or that they would unduly undermine privacy and civil liberties. Contrary to assertions that this would be a ``citizen board'' gone wild that would ``haul any agent in anywhere in the world and grill him,'' this board would consist of highly accomplished members who have the appropriate clearance to access classified information, who have extensive professional expertise on civil liberty and privacy issues, and who have the knowledge of how to view these concerns in the context of important anti-terrorism objectives. It simply cannot be that the government can create and implement policies that impinge on our liberties without having to account to anyone. While that may make things convenient or easy, it certainly does not preserve the ideals of the country we are fighting to protect. Senator Kyl's amendment is just the latest of recent attempts to undermine the 9/11 Commission's clear recommendations for an effective board. The administration recently issued an executive order that attempted to foist upon us an anemic civil liberties board. I and several of my colleagues noted in a letter to the President that the board was not a bipartisan or independent entity. It had no authority to access information and no accountability. It was housed in the Department of Justice, and comprised solely of administration officials from the law enforcement and intelligence communities, precisely the communities that the board would have an obligation to oversee. It was the proverbial case of the fox guarding the henhouse. This would not have resulted in a vigorous consideration of policy that the Commission intended. As the Commission noted, the ``burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the Executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the Executive's use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use.'' We should be looking for ways to ensure that this burden of proof will be met, rather than weakening oversight and accountability. As the 9/11 Commission noted, when it comes to security and civil liberties, ``while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right.'' Senator Kyl's amendment fails to ``keep it right,'' and I urge that the Senate honor the spirit of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and reject it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, is that 5 minutes on the amendment or on another matter?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senator Hatch the ``Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, fiscal years 2005 through 2007.'' I thank Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for support of this legislation. In the 107th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives properly authorized spending for the entire Department of Justice, ``DOJ'' or the ``Department'', for the first time since 1979. Congress extended that authorization in 1980 and 1981. Until 2002 Congress had not passed nor had the President signed an authorization bill for the Department. In fact, there were a number of years where Congress failed to consider any Department authorization bill. This 23-year failure to properly reauthorize the Department forced the appropriations committees in both houses to reauthorize and appropriate money. We ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long, but in the 107th Congress Senator Hatch and I joined forces with House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers to create and pass bipartisan legislation that reaffirmed the authorizing authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees--the ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,'' Public Law 107-273. A new era of oversight began with that new charter for the Justice Department, with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees taking active new roles in setting the priorities and monitoring the operations of the Department of Justice, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and that bill helped our oversight duties in many ways. And, as we have learned in the past three years, the fight against terrorism makes constructive oversight more important than ever before. Already this Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers have authored and shepherded through the House of Representatives a new Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006, H.R. 3036. I commend both Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for working in a bipartisan manner to pass that legislation in the House of Representatives. The ``Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007,'' is a comprehensive authorization of the Department based on H.R. 3036 as passed by the House of Representatives on March 30, 2004. Our bipartisan legislation would authorize appropriations for the Department for fiscal years 2005 through 2007, provide permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department to efficiently carry out its mission, clarify and harmonize existing statutory authority, and repeal obsolete statutory authorities. The bill also establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms intended to better enable the Congress and the Department to oversee the operations of the Department. Finally, our bill incorporates numerous other pieces of legislation on such issues as preventing--and recovering missing children, cigarette trafficking, intellectual property, going after terrorists who commit violent acts against American citizens overseas, among others--currently pending before Congress that enjoy strong bipartisan support. I will now highlight a number of the provisions that make up this authorization bill. Title I of our bill authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. With minor exceptions, these authorizations generally reflect the President's budget request. Title II makes numerous improvements and upgrades to the Department's grant programs that assist law enforcement and criminal justice agencies; build community capacity to prevent, reduce and control crime; assist victims of crime; and prevent crime. We decided to combine the current Byrne formula grant, Byrne discretionary grant and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, (LLEBG), programs into one Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program with an authorization of $1.075 billion and a list of 35 uses-- a combination of the traditional Byrne and LLEBG grants regulations-- for which these grants may be used. I am a longtime supporter of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the LLEBG, both of which have been continuously targeted for elimination by the Bush Administration. LLEBG, which received $225 million this year, provide local governments with the means to underwrite projects that reduce crime and improve public safety, and allow communities to craft their own responses to local crime and drug problems. The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which Congress funded at $659,117,000 in fiscal year 2004, makes grants to States to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent crimes and serious offenders, and to enforce State and local drug laws. As a senator from a rural State that relies on LLEBG and Byrne grants to combat crime, I have been concerned with the President's proposals for funding and program eliminations of these well-established grant programs; our legislation makes it clear that the same authorized funding levels and uses will be available under the new consolidated grant program as under the previous two grant programs. I am pleased that Title II also extends the authorization of appropriations for the Regional Information Sharing System, RISS, at $100 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. RISS serves as an invaluable tool to Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies by providing much-needed criminal intelligence and investigative support services. It has built a reputation as one of the most effective and efficient means developed to combat multi-jurisdictional criminal activity, such as narcotics trafficking and gang activity. Without RISS, most law enforcement officers would not have access to newly developed crime-fighting technologies and would be hindered in their intelligence-gathering efforts. By providing State and local law enforcement agencies with rapid access to its secure, state-of-the-art, nationwide information sharing system, RISS gives law enforcement officers the resources they need to identify and apprehend potential terrorists before they strike. With this in mind, I authored Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56, to increase information sharing for critical infrastructure protection. The law expanded RISS to facilitate information sharing among Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities, and increased authorized funding to $100 million. Proper funding provides RISS with the means to maintain six regionally-based information sharing centers that allow for information and intelligence services to be disseminated nationwide addressing major, multi-jurisdictional crimes. In addition, as the September 11 terrorist attacks and calls for increased vigilance against future attacks demonstrated, RISS requires additional support to intensify anti-terrorism measures. Each RISS center has up to 1,600 member agencies, the vast majority of which are at the municipal and county levels. Over 400 State agencies and over 850 Federal agencies, however, are also members. The Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, Customs, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are among the Federal agencies that participate in the RISS Program. Unfortunately, the Consolidated Appropriations law for FY 2004 did not provide full funding for RISS, instead including $30 million for the program. For the coming fiscal year, the President has proposed $45 million. We must ensure that RISS can continue current services, meet increased membership support needs for terrorism investigations and prosecutions, increase intelligence analysis capabilities and add staff to support the increasing numbers of RISS members. This title also contains a reauthorization of the Crime Free Rural States program that we created in the DOJ Authorization bill in the last Congress. This program authorizes $10 million annually for rural states to address specific crime problems plaguing their areas. In Vermont, for example, this funding could be used to battle heroin abuse and its consequences. This authorization bill contains a number of provisions of great interest to victim service organizations and those who administer federal grants for victim assistance and compensation. In particular, I am pleased that we have responded to repeated requests from the field to increase the amount that State assistance and compensation programs may retain for administrative purposes. I have been proposing such an increase for many years, without success. Under current law, not more than five percent of victim assistance and compensation grants may be used for the administration of the State program receiving the grant. The House bill effectively decreases this already-low apportionment by combining administrative costs with training costs--currently one percent under guidelines promulgated by the Office for Victims of Crime, OVC. By contrast, we propose raising the amount that can be used for both worthwhile purposes to 7.5 percent of the grants. While this is still less than 10 percent retention permitted, for example, by the Violence Against Women Act, it will help States to accommodate the addition of training purposes in their costs. Our bill will also amend the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, to clarify the provisions establishing the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve in various ways. The original H.R. 3036 permits replenishments of the Emergency Reserve based upon amounts obligated rather than amounts actually expended in any given fiscal year. Our bill includes two additional clarifications that I proposed. First, it makes explicit that the Emergency Reserve may be replenished only once each fiscal year, and may not be continually replenished as amounts are obligated or expended. Allowing continual replenishments could result in the obligations or expenditures exceeding the $50 million Emergency Reserve maximum. Second, we have ensured that all Emergency Reserve funds-- whether carried over, used to replenish the Reserve, obligated or expended--fall above the cap on spending from the Crime Victim Fund as set by appropriations legislation. Section 242 of the House-passed bill authorized the Assistant Attorney General for the Office for Justice Programs (OJP) to impose special conditions and determine priorities for formula grants. It was unclear to me why the authority to determine formula grant priorities was necessary and what its real impact would be on local victim services. Could it be read to authorize OJP to infringe on the discretion of each State to meet its own needs, as for example by mandating that State VOCA programs give priority to public agencies over nonprofit community organizations, or fund faith-based programs before secular programs? Priorities are already set out by Congress in the authorizing statutes, as is the requirement that programs coordinate public and private victim services in their communities, and the Justice Department should not be allowed to override those congressional directives. Moreover, VOCA already has extensive reporting requirements that enable the Department to monitor how States are distributing these funds. We have therefore deleted the authority to determine formula grant priorities, while retaining the special conditions provision. Subtitle D of Title II deals with approaches to prevent crime. I am especially pleased that we included provisions that will specifically aid in preventing rural crime because rural States and communities face a number of unique law enforcement challenges. We added these provisions from Senator Daschle's ``Rural Safety Act,'' S. 1907, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I commend our Democratic Leader for his commitment to providing real and meaningful investments to address the unique set of challenges facing rural law enforcement agencies. Rural law enforcement officers patrol larger areas, operate under tighter budgets and with smaller staffs than their urban and suburban counterparts. This legislation creates programs specifically designed to meet the many complex needs of rural law enforcement agencies and officers. Methamphetamine production and use, for example, is a growing concern for Vermonters. Because the ingredients and the equipment used to produce methamphetamines are so inexpensive and readily available, the drug can be manufactured or ``cooked'' in homemade labs. This has become one of the major problems facing law enforcement agencies nationwide. Last month, the Vermont State Police busted the first known methamphetamine lab in the State. We must help our law enforcement agencies as they struggle to keep up with its troubling growth. To help law enforcement combat the spread of methamphetamine and other challenges, we authorize in this bill $20 million in grants for fiscal year 2005 to provide for the cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of local government and tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; and the improvement of contract-related response time for cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of local establish methamphetamine prevention and treatment pilot programs in rural areas, and provide additional financial support to local law enforcement. We also establish a rural 9-1-1 service program to provide access to, and improve a communications infrastructure that will ensure a reliable and seamless communication between, law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service providers in units of local government and tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and in States. Grants authorized at $25 million for fiscal year 2005 under this program will be used to establish or improve 9-1-1 service in rural communities. Priority in making grants under this program will be given to communities that do not have 9-1-1 service. I am pleased that our bill includes the Campbell-Leahy-Hatch Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. This bill was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent a year ago this month and it awaits consideration by the House of Representatives. This measure marks the third time that I have had the privilege of teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on this legislation. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost. Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and I hope we will go 3-for-3 this time around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable experience in this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a leader in the area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff, he knows the dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. I am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by 12 other Senate cosponsors. Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by providing more help to State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. 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. In Vermont, 148 municipalities have been fortunate to receive funding for the purchase of almost 1200 vests. Without the Federal funding given by this program, I daresay that there would be close to that number of police officers without vests in Vermont today. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by re- authorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation would continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50 million per year for matching grants to State and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body armor. We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. We also included in this authorization bill the ``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, PACT, Act,'' as passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on December 9, 2003, but which has yet to be taken up and passed by the House. I commend Senators Hatch and Kohl for their leadership on this measure and thank them for working with me, among others, to craft the compromise language that we include in this bill to crack down on the growing problem of cigarette smuggling, both interstate and international, as well as to address the connection between cigarette smuggling activities and terrorist funding. I am proud to join Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl and 10 others as a cosponsor of the standalone bill. I also thank the National Association of Attorneys General and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, for working with us and contributing to this language. I want to say a special thanks to Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who also serves as the current Chair of the NAAG Tobacco Committee, for his valuable input on the problems with cigarette smuggling that states are facing and his support for this compromise measure. I also want to thank the Vermont Grocers Association, the Vermont Retail Association, the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures for their support for this measure. The movement of cigarettes from low-tax areas to high-tax areas in order to avoid the payment of taxes when the cigarettes are resold has become a public health problem in recent years. As State after State chooses to raise its tobacco excise taxes as a means of reducing tobacco use and as a source of revenue, many smokers have sought cheaper means by which to purchase cigarettes. Smokers can often purchase cigarettes and tobacco from remote sellers, Internet or mail order at substantial discounts due to avoidance of State taxes. These sellers, however, are evading their tax obligations because they neither collect nor pay the proper State and local excise taxes for cigarette and other tobacco product sales. We have the ability to dramatically reduce smuggling without imposing undue burdens on manufacturers or law abiding citizens. By reducing smuggling we will also increase government revenues by minimizing tax avoidance. My friend General Sorrell has told me that this has become a rapidly growing problem in Vermont as more and more tobacco product manufacturers fail to collect and pay cigarette taxes. Criminals are getting away with smuggling and not paying tobacco taxes because of weak punishments, products that are often poorly labeled, the lack of tax stamps and the inability of the current distribution system to track sales from State-to-State. These lapses point to a need for uniform rules governing group sales to individuals. The PACT Act will give States the authority to collect millions of dollars in lost State tax revenue resulting from online and other remote sales of cigarette and smokeless tobacco. It also ensures that every tobacco retailer, whether a brick-and-mortar or remote retailer of tobacco products, play by the same rules by equalizing the tax burdens. Moreover, the PACT Act gives States the authority necessary to enforce the Jenkins Act, a law passed in 1949, which requires cigarette vendors to report interstate sales of cigarettes. This legislation enhances States' abilities to collect all excise taxes and verify the deposit of all required escrow payments for cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales in interstate commerce, including internet sales. In addition, it provides Federal and State law enforcement with additional resources to enforce state tobacco excise tax laws. Finally, at the request of the National Association of Attorneys General and many State Attorneys General, we have added a new section to provide the States with authority to enforce the Imported Cigarette Compliance Act to crack down on international tobacco smuggling. This additional authority should further reduce tax evasion and eliminate a lucrative funding source for terrorist organizations. We must not turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal tobacco smuggling. Those who smuggle cigarettes are criminals and we must close the loopholes that allow cigarette smuggling to continue. The United States has from its inception recognized the importance of intellectual property laws in fostering innovation, and vested in Congress the responsibility of crafting laws that ensure that those who produce inventions are able to reap economic rewards for their efforts. I am pleased that we can today include, as part of the Department of Justice Authorization Act, the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004,'' the CREATE Act, legislation that I cosponsored along with Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, Senator Schumer, Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator Cochran. This bill will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our Nation's patent laws. On June 25, 2004, the CREATE Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent. When Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, the law encouraged private entities and not-for-profits such as universities to form collaborative partnerships in order to spur innovation. Prior to the enactment of this law, universities were issued fewer than 250 patents each year. That this number has in recent years surpassed two thousand is owed in large measure to the Bayh-Dole Act. The innovation this law encouraged has contributed billions of dollars annually to the United States economy and has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, one component of the Bayh-Dole Act, when read literally, runs contrary to the intent of that legislation. In 1999, the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled, in Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., that non-public information may in certain cases be considered ``prior art''--a standard which generally prevents an inventor from obtaining a patent. Thus some collaborative teams that the Bayh-Dole Act was intended to encourage have been unable to obtain patents for their efforts. The result is a disincentive to form this type of partnership, which could have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and hamper the development of new creations. However, the Federal Circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the legislation. The ``CREATE Act'' does exactly that by ensuring that non- public information is not considered ``prior art'' when the information is used in a collaborative partnership under the Bayh-Dole Act. The bill also includes strict evidentiary burdens to ensure that the legislation is tailored narrowly in order to solely fulfill the intent of the Bayh-Dole Act. I am pleased that the PIRATE Act, which I cosponsored with Senator Hatch, will be included as part of this bipartisan bill. Like the overall bill, the PIRATE Act is a consensus bill that will give the Justice Department new and needed tools--in this case, these tools are specific to the fight against piracy. This bill was unanimously passed by the Senate on June 25, 2004. By including this measure in the Department of Justice Authorization Bill, we hope to muster more forces to combat the growing problem of digital piracy. For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof. In the world of copyright, a criminal charge is unusually difficult to prove because the defendant must have known that his conduct was illegal and he must have willfully engaged in the conduct anyway. For this reason prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament. The PIRATE Act will give the Attorney General civil enforcement authority for copyright infringement. It also calls on the Justice Department to initiate training and pilot programs to ensure that Federal prosecutors across the country are aware of the many difficult technical and strategic problems posed by enforcing copyright law in the digital age. This new authority does not supplant either the criminal provisions of the Copyright Act, or the remedies available to the copyright owner in a private suit. Rather, it allows the government to bring its resources to bear on this immense problem, and to ensure that more creative works are made available online, that those works are more affordable, and that the people who work to bring them to us are paid for their efforts. I am pleased that the Koby Mandell Act of 2003 was included in this legislation. I am a proud cosponsor of the stand-alone bill. The Act would establish an office within the Department of Justice with a mandate to ensure equal treatment of all victims of terrorist acts committed overseas. Its primary role would be to guarantee that vigorous efforts are made to pursue, prosecute, and punish each and every terrorist who harms Americans overseas, no matter where attacks occur. It would also take steps to inform victims of important developments in international cases, such as status reports on efforts to capture terrorists and monitoring the incarceration of those terrorists who are imprisoned overseas. This is important legislation that would send a strong message of resolve that we are committed to finding and punishing every terrorist who harms Americans overseas. I am pleased that we have included part of S. 1286, the Seniors Safety Act, which I introduced last year. This bill would create an enhanced sentencing penalty for those who commit crimes against the elderly, create new civil and criminal penalties for pension fraud, and create a centralized service to log complaints of telemarketing fraud. We would also provide the Attorney General with a new and substantial tool to prevent telemarketing fraud--the power to block or terminate service to telephone facilities that are being used to defraud innocent people. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals acquire a new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors from being victimized. We have agreed to incorporate a slightly revised version of the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2004, which was originally introduced as a stand-alone bill with my good friends Senator Hatch, Senator Mikulski and Senator Durbin. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system including pretrial services officers, probation officers, accountants, cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Indeed the benefits incorporated in this bill are comparable not only to those received by traditional ``law enforcement officers'' such as Federal agents, but also the Capitol Police, Supreme Court police, air traffic controllers and firefighters. The bill would essentially allow, but not mandate, AUSAs to retire at age 50 with 20 years of service. Currently, Assistant United States Attorneys, AUSAs, and other Federal prosecutors are not eligible for these enhanced benefits even though they are enjoyed by the vast majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. Once a defendant is brought to into the criminal justice system, the person with whom they have the most face- to-face contact, and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal prosecutor. AUSAs and other Federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations, interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting, debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements and representing the government at trials and sentencings. Each of these responsibilities encompass ``the investigation, apprehension, or detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal law which is just one justification for granting extended benefits to law enforcement officers. AUSAs are an integral part of the criminal justice system and their unique position and demanding jobs has rightfully earned them the benefits set forth in this important bill. I am pleased that S. 710, the Leahy-Hatch Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act, was included in this legislation. This measure would expand the grounds for removing alien human rights violators from the United States, or for denying them entry in the first place. We have heard many accounts of abusers who have taken advantage of America's freedoms after committing horrifying violations of their fellow citizens in their native lands. We need to stop that from happening again. This bill passed the Judiciary Committee last November but has been subject to an anonymous hold on the floor. A similar version of it passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 106th Congress. It is long past time to make it law. I would note that on May 12, a Rwandan man wanted on international charges of genocide and crimes against humanity was arrested at his suburban Chicago home by agents from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. Before I and others began to raise the issue of the war criminals among us, it was my impression that the former INS paid little attention to rooting out these thugs. I am pleased that the issue has taken on greater importance at ICE, and urge the Senate to pass this bill so that we can expand the grounds of inadmissibility and removability for human rights violators. I am proud that we include Schumer-Specter legislation to honor the sacrifice of the September 11, 2001, terrorist victims by creating Congressional medals that would be awarded to their families and loved ones by the President. I am proud to have joined my friends as a cosponsor of this legislation, as have 18 other Senators. The tragedy of September 11, 2001, demanded unprecedented sacrifices of everyday American civilians and rescue workers--3,000 of whom lost their lives in the attacks. In recognition of their heroic actions on that day, the bipartisan Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act would create a medal to be awarded posthumously to the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The medal would be designed by the Department of Treasury and awarded to representatives of the deceased by the President. The production of the medals would be paid for by the sale of duplicate medals to the public. Those of us who lost loved ones almost three years ago can never have them back, but a medal of honor could recognizes the sacrifices and heroic efforts of our fallen citizens. We also incorporated language similar to the Leahy-Grassley-Lincoln ``Missing Child Cold Case Review Act of 2004,'' S. 2435, which will allow an Inspector General to authorize his or her staff to provide assistance on and conduct reviews of the inactive case files, or ``cold cases,'' involving children stored at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, and to develop recommendations for further investigations. The only alteration we made to the original bill was to include language to also allow the Inspector General of the Government Printing Office to authorize his or her staff to work on cold cases. Speed is everything in homicide investigations. As a former prosecutor in Vermont, I know firsthand that speed is of the essence when trying to solve a homicide. This focus on speed, however, has led the law enforcement community to generally believe that any case not solved within the first 72 hours or lacking significant leads and witness participation has little likelihood of being solved, regardless of the expertise and resources deployed. With time, such unsolved cases become ``cold,'' and these are among the most difficult and frustrating cases detectives face because they are, in effect, cases that other investigators, for whatever reason, failed to solve. Our Nation's law enforcement agencies, regardless of size, are not immune to rising crime rates, staff shortages and budget restrictions. Such obstacles have strained the investigative and administrative resources of all agencies. More crime often means that fewer cases are vigorously pursued, fewer opportunities arise for follow-up and individual caseloads increase for already overworked detectives. All the obstacles that hamper homicide investigations in their early phases contribute to cold cases. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children--our Nation's top resource center for child protection--presently retains a backlog of cold cases involving children that law enforcement departments nationwide have stopped investigating primarily due to all these obstacles. NCMEC serves as a clearinghouse for all cold cases in which a child has not been found and/or the suspect has not been identified. This provision will allow an Inspector General to provide staff support to NCMEC for the purpose of conducting reviews of inactive case files to develop recommendations for further investigation and similar activities. The Inspector General community has one of the most diverse and talented criminal investigative cadres in the Federal Government. A vast majority of these special agents have come from traditional law enforcement agencies, and are highly trained and extremely capable of dealing with complex criminal cases. Under current law, an Inspector General's duties are limited to activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. This measure would allow an Inspector General to permit criminal investigators under his or her supervision to review cold case files, so long as doing so would not interfere with normal duties. An Inspector General would not conduct actual investigations, and any Inspector General would only commit staff when the office's mission- related workloads permitted. At no time would these activities be allowed to conflict with or delay the stated missions of an Inspector General. From time to time a criminal investigator employed by an Inspector General may be between investigations or otherwise available for brief periods of time. This act would also allow those resources to be provided to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Commitment of resources would be at a minimum and would not materially affect the budget of any office. We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be moved easily through the Senate and House. It is supported by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. I applaud the ongoing work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and hope that we can soon provide NCMEC with the resources it requires to solve cold cases involving missing children. This authorization bill includes a provision that would help colleges and universities in Vermont and across the Nation. It would allow foreigners who are pursuing ``distance learning'' opportunities at American schools to enter the country for up to 30 days to fulfill academic requirements. Under current law, these students do not fall under any visa category, and many are being denied entry and are thus unable to complete their educations. This is a loophole that harms both those students and the institutions that serve them. In recent months, serious questions have been raised in the media and in several congressional hearings about deficiencies within the translation program at the FBI. Nearly 2 years ago I began asking questions in Judiciary Committee hearings about the FBI's translation program. Most of these remain unanswered. As a result, members of our Committee are no closer to determining the scope of the issue, including the pervasiveness and seriousness of FBI shortcomings in this area, or what the FBI intends to do to rectify personnel shortages, security issues, translation inaccuracies and other problems that have plagued the translator program for years. Section 205 of the USA PATRIOT Act included an important reporting requirement by the Attorney General to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees about 1. the number of translators employed by the FBI, 2. legal and practical impediments to using translators employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared basis, and 3. the needs of the FBI for specific translation services in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those needs. To date, the Attorney General has not made the report required by Section 205--most likely because there is no date certain written in the law by which the report must be made. This provision fills that gap by requiring the report ``not later than 30 days after the date of enactment . . . and annually thereafter . . . with respect to the preceding 12 month period.'' It also expands the reporting requirement to include translators ``contracted'' by the government in addition to those ``employed.'' I have worked my entire professional life to protect children from those who would prey on them. Preventing child exploitation through the use of the Internet is one concrete and important way to help this important cause. In this regard, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Public Law 105-314, remote computing and electronic communication service providers are mandated to report all instances of child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I respect and applaud the work of NCMEC and its tireless efforts in this important national priority. In March 1998, Congress mandated that NCMEC initiate the CyberTipline for citizens to report online sexual crimes against children. In December 1999, Congress passed Public Law 106-113 to modify 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13032(b)(1) to set forth a ``duty to report'' by ISPs. According to NCMEC, many U.S. electronic communications service providers are not complying with the requirement that they register and use the CyberTipline to report child porn found on their services because supporting regulations required to be promulgated by the Department of Justice on matters such as the contents of the report were never done so. In this authorization bill we propose language that amends the ``duty to report'' language by providing specific guidance on what information is required to be included in the ISP reports. The information required includes the content and images of the apparent violation, the Internet Protocol Address, the date and time associated with the violation, and specific contact information for the sender. America's film heritage is an important part of the American experience, an inheritance from previous generations that help tell us who we are--and who we were--as a society. They offer insight into our history, our dreams, and our aspirations. Yet sadly, this part of American heritage is literally disintegrating faster than can be saved. Today, I am delighted that with the help of Senator Hatch, the ``National Film Preservation Act'' can be included in our Department of Justice Reauthorization bill. I introduced the ``National Film Preservation Act'' last November, a bill that will reauthorize and extend the ``National Film Preservation Act of 1996.'' We first acted in 1988 in order to recognize the educational, cultural, and historical importance of our film heritage, and its inherently fragile nature. In doing so, Congress created the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation both of which operate under the auspices of the Library of Congress in order to help save America's film heritage. The ``National Film Preservation Act'' will allow the Library of Congress to continue its important work in preserving America's fading treasures, as well as providing grants that will help libraries, museums, and archives preserve films and make those works available for study and research. These continued efforts are more critical today than ever before. While a wide range of works have been saved, with every passing day we lose the opportunity to save more. Fewer than 20 percent of the features of the 1920s exist in complete form and less than 10 percent of the features of the 1910s have survived into the new millennium. The films saved by the National Film Preservation Board are precisely those types of works that would be unlikely to survive without public support. At-risk documentaries, silent-era films, avant-garde works, ethnic films, newsreels, and home movies frequently provide more insight into the American experience than the Hollywood sound features kept and preserved by major studios. What is more, in many cases only one copy of these ``orphaned'' works exists. As the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, has noted, ``Our film heritage is America's living past.'' I would like to thank Senator Hatch again for working with me to include the ``National Film Preservation Act'' in the bill we are introducing today. I am pleased that the DREAM Act has been included in this bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill, which Senators Hatch and Durbin introduced last year and was passed last fall by the Judiciary Committee. It would benefit undocumented alien children who were brought to the United States by their parents as young children, by restoring States' ability to offer them in-state tuition and offering them a path to legal residency. It has been distressing that a bill with Committee approval and 48 sponsors has been unable to get a vote on the floor of the Senate, and I hope that including the DREAM Act in this legislation will give it added momentum. Status Reports on Enemy Combatants: The House-passed bill included an important reporting requirement authored by Representative Adam Schiff and adopted by the House Judiciary Committee. Specifically, this provision required the Department of Justice to submit an annual report to Congress specifying the number of U.S. persons or residents detained on suspicion of terrorism, and describing Department standards for recommending or determining that a person should be tried as a criminal defendant or designated as an enemy combatant. A Washington Post editorial dated April 3, 2004, praised this provision, while noting that ``If more members of the House took their duty to legislate in this critical area seriously, Congress would craft a bill that actually imposed standards rather than simply inquired what they were.'' I agree, and regret that was unable to persuade Chairman Hatch to retain this modest oversight tool. Privacy Officer: I am disappointed that we will not be including the privacy officer provision referred to us by the House. It is critical that the Department have a designated leader who is consistently mindful of the impact of the Department's activities on privacy rights. While there has been some history of a privacy official at the Department, these positions have been non-statutory, and thus there has been no guarantee of consistent vigor and accountability on these issues. Given that the Department's mission increasingly involves gathering and assessing personal information, we simply can't afford to have a lapse in accountability on privacy. Moreover, this is not an untested idea. Congress created a privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, and it has been recognized as a successful example of how this role can be helpful in assessing and addressing privacy concerns. We need to follow this lead, and the privacy officer provision would have been a good opportunity to do so. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers to continue the important business of re-authorizing the Department of Justice. Clearly, regular reauthorization of the Department should be part and parcel of the Committees' traditional role in overseeing the Department's activities. Swift passage into law of the ``Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007'' will be a significant step toward enhancing our oversight role.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that this evening the House of Representatives has considered and passed legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced together to reauthorize and expand the Department of Justice grant program for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. I thank Senator Hatch for his longtime commitment to our bipartisan legislation and thank the 46 Senators from both sides of the aisle who are cosponsors of our legislation to support the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. I pay special thanks to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their leadership and commitment to shepherding this bill through the House and sending it to the President's desk for enactment into law. Too often the public sees Republicans and Democrats disagreeing. But when it comes to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America there is no doubt that we see eye to eye: This bill shows the unified support of Republicans and Democrats for the good works of Boys & Girls Clubs across the Nation. Children are the future of our country, and we have a responsibility to make sure they are safe and secure. I know firsthand how well Boys & Girls Clubs work and what topnotch organizations they are. When I was a prosecutor in Vermont, I was convinced of the great need for Boys & Girls Clubs because we rarely encountered children from these kinds of programs. In fact, after I became a U.S. Senator, a police chief was such a big fan that he asked me to help fund a Boys & Girls Club in his district rather than helping him get a couple more police officers. In Vermont, Boys & Girls Clubs have succeeded in preventing crime and supporting our children. The first club was established in Burlington 62 years go. Now we have 20 club sites operating throughout the State in Addison, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington, Windham and Windsor Counties. There are also four new Boys & Girls Clubs in the works in Winooski, Brattleboro, Barre and Vergennnes. These clubs will serve well over 10,000 kids statewide. As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have pushed for more Federal funding for Boys & Girls Clubs. Since 1998, Congress has increased Federal support for Boys & Girls Clubs from $20 million to $80 million in this year. Due in large part to this increase in funding, there now exist 3,300 Boys & Girls Clubs in all 50 States serving more than 3.6 million young people. Because of these successes, I was both surprised and disappointed to see that the President requested a reduction of $20 million for fiscal year 2005. That request will leave thousands of children and their clubs behind and we cannot allow such a thing to happen. In the 107th Congress, Senator Hatch and I worked together to pass the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which included a provision to reauthorize Justice Department grants to establish new Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. By authorizing $80 million in DOJ grants for each of the fiscal years through 2005, we sought to establish 1,200 additional Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. This was to bring the number of Boys & Girls Clubs to 4,000, serving no less than 5 million young people. The bill the House will pass today builds upon this: We authorize Justice Department grants at $80 million for fiscal year 2006, $85 million for fiscal year 2007, $90 million for fiscal year 2008, $95 million for fiscal year 2009 and $100 million for fiscal year 2010 to Boys & Girls Clubs to help establish 1,500 additional Boys & Girls Clubs across the Nation with the goal of having 5,000 Boys & Girls Clubs in operation by December 31, 2010. If we had a Boys & Girls Club in every community, prosecutors in our country would have a lot less work to do because of the values that are being instilled in children from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Each time I visit a club in Vermont, I am approached by parents, educators, teachers, grandparents and law enforcement officers who tell me ``Keep doing this! These clubs give our children the chance to grow up free of drugs, gangs and crime.'' You cannot argue that these are just Democratic or Republican ideas, or conservative or liberal ideas--they are simply good sense ideas. We need safe havens where our youth--the future of our country--can learn and grow up free from the influences of drugs, gangs and crime. That is why Boys & Girls Clubs are so important to our children. I look forward to the President signing into law as soon as possible our bipartisan bill to expand Federal support for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Our country's strength and ultimate success lies with our children. Our greatest responsibility is to help them inhabit this century the best way possible and we can help do that by supporting the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 2742, which is a short but important piece of legislation that Senator Hatch and I have cosponsored at the request of the Supreme Court. This legislation would renew authority to provide security for the Justices when they leave the Supreme Court. Recent reports of the assault of Justice Souter when he was outside of the Supreme Court highlight the importance of security for Justices. If no congressional action is taken, the authority of Supreme Court police to protect Justices off court grounds will expire at the end of this year. Another provision in this legislation allows the Supreme Court to accept gifts ``pertaining to the history of the Supreme Court of the United States or its justices.'' The Administrative Office of the Courts currently has statutory authority to accept gifts on behalf of the judiciary. This provision would grant the Supreme Court authority to accept gifts but it would narrow the types of gifts that can be received to historical items. I think this provision strikes the proper balance. Finally, this legislation also would provide an additional venue for the prosecution of offenses that occur on the Supreme Court grounds. Currently, the DC Superior Court is the only place of proper venue despite the uniquely Federal interest at stake. This legislation would allow suit to be brought in United States District Court in the District of Columbia.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 2742, which is a short but important piece of legislation that Senator Hatch and I have cosponsored at the request of the Supreme Court. This legislation would renew authority to provide security for the Justices when they leave the Supreme Court. Recent reports of the assault of Justice Souter when he was outside of the Supreme Court highlight the importance of security for Justices. If no congressional action is taken, the authority of Supreme Court police to protect Justices off court grounds will expire at the end of this year. Another provision in this legislation allows the Supreme Court to accept gifts ``pertaining to the history of the Supreme Court of the United States or its justices.'' The administrative offices of the Courts currently has statutory authority to accept gifts on behalf of the judiciary. This provision would grant the Supreme Court authority to accept gifts but it would narrow the types of gifts that can be received to historical items. I think this provision strikes the proper balance. Finally, this legislation also would provide an additional venue for the prosecution of offenses that occur on the Supreme Court grounds. Currently, the DC Superior Court is the only place of proper venue despite the uniquely Federal interest at stake. This legislation would allow suit to be brought in United States District Court in the District of Columbia.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at a hearing Wednesday before the Judiciary Committee, I asked some tough questions about the record of the Department of Justice in prosecuting terrorism cases. Later that day, the Department announced the imminent release of Yaser Esam Hamdi, the so-called ``enemy combatant'' who has been held for nearly 3 years without being formally charged with any crime. During this period, the Bush administration argued that it could deny Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, due process and detain him indefinitely. In June, the Supreme Court struck down the administration's assertion of unchecked executive power, ruling that Hamdi had the right to challenge his detention. Rather than proceed in court, the Justice Department now says that it will release Hamdi, who will renounce his U.S. citizenship and join his family in Saudi Arabia. The Justice Department has claimed that Hamdi fought with the Taliban and posed a threat to our national security. Hamdi claimed that he was an innocent captured in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance. We simply do not know the truth. But, as the Rutland Herald correctly points out in its editorial Thursday, that is what trials are for. If Hamdi was a combatant, or a civilian caught up in a combat zone, he should have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which provide for the treatment of soldiers and civilians in wartime. If Hamdi committed a crime, he should have been charged and tried. The timing of his release is curious. Three months after the Supreme Court rejected the administration's refusal to grant Hamdi due process, the Justice Department suddenly determined that Hamdi no longer posed a threat. Now it will release a person it previously claimed was so dangerous that he had to be held for years in a military brig, mainly in solitary confinement. The Attorney General relied on powerful rhetoric to defend the Department's record. He liked to say that no one had successfully challenged the Government's use of authority under the PATRIOT Act and that no court had found the Government had overreached. Since the Supreme Court decisions on Hamdi and related cases last summer, it has become harder for him to make such claims. Those Court decisions do not stand alone in defining the Department's level of success, however. The list of reversals of this Administration's policies and practices has become extensive. From the Department's involvement in rewriting our country's adherence to the Geneva Convention and the Convention Against Torture, which contributed to the breakdown at the Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere, to the Supreme Court's rejection of the administration's Guantanamo practices, there is much that needs attention and correction. Indeed, the Justice Department has accumulated one loss after another in terrorism cases. In recent weeks, we have witnessed the unraveling of the Department's first post-September 11 prosecution of a terrorist sleeper cell in Detroit. This followed on the heels of a growing list of losses and questionable cases, including the wrongful arrest of a Portland attorney based on a fingerprint mismatch; the acquittal of a Saudi college student who was charged with providing material support to terrorists; the release on bail of two defendants in Albany, NY, after the Government admitted having mistranslated a key piece of evidence--the evidence referred to one defendant as ``brother,'' not ``commander,'' as originally represented; the collapse of all charges against Muslim chaplain, James Yee, an Army Captain who served at Guantanamo and was originally accused of espionage; and the Supreme Court's repudiation of the administration's claim that it can hold citizens indefinitely as ``unlawful combatants,'' without access to counsel or family. In addition to announcing its decision to release Hamdi 2 days ago, the Government also folded its case against Ahmad al Halabi, a Senior Airman who served as a translator at Guantanamo Bay. Al Halabi once faced the death penalty for spying. He ultimately pled guilty to four minor charges, such as photographing a guard tower and taking a classified document to his quarters; other charges were dropped. The fact is, there have been only a few real victories in cases that have brought terrorism charges since 9/11, and these have been overshadowed by seemingly half-hearted prosecutions. We all remember the antiterrorism sweeps that occurred after 9/11. The Justice Department detained over 5,000 foreign nationals in those sweeps, but, as law professor David Cole points out in an article in the October 4, 2004, edition of The Nation, not a single one of them was charged with terrorism. Department officials say their record since the 2001 attacks reflects a successful strategy of catching suspected terrorists before they can launch deadly plots, even if that involves charging them with lesser crimes. I certainly will not contest that lesser crimes are being charged. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), of the approximately 184 cases disclosed as ``international terrorism'' matters, 171 received a sentence of one year or less. But is that making us safer? What exactly happens to a suspected terrorist who spends 6 months in prison and then is deported to his country of origin in the midst of a war that has no end in sight? Does it really squelch deadly plots? The administration has yet to answer pointed questions about the deportation of Nabil al-Marabh to Syria, a nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism. Al-Marabh was at one time Number 27 on the FBI's list of Most Wanted Terrorists, and experienced prosecutors wanted to indict him. Why was he released? According to court records, Al-Marabh shared an address with defendants in the Detroit case who are now facing only document fraud charges. What is going on here? We still await the resolution of the case against Jose Padilla. The Attorney General made a frightening announcement from Moscow when Jose Padilla was arrested--as if the Government had miraculously averted a radioactive ``dirty bomb'' from being detonated in our heartland. As Deputy Attorney General James Comey represented to the Federal courts a few months ago, the Government no longer even contends that Mr. Padilla was engaged in a ``dirty bomb'' plot. We have yet to see criminal charges against him, but I hope that we will. The Attorney General always finds time to announce allegations and dangers to frighten the American people but never seems to have time to be accountable when those specters prove false, when criminal cases can not be made, or when the Government has overreached or when innocent Americans have been unfairly accused. We will soon be asked to give the Government more tools, more powers, and even greater authorities. I hope that we will not be asked to add PATRIOT Act-related powers to legislation to implement 9/11 Commission recommendations. The families of 9/11 victims have asked us to focus only on those actions endorsed by the Commission. We should honor this request. Before Congress considers granting the Government more powers to add to the Federal arsenal, we must determine which tools are actually being used, and how are they working? Which tools are subject to abuse, and which need to be modified? I hope that we can start getting some of those answers. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the Rutland Herald editorial and The Nation article I mentioned earlier.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the advice of my colleagues, I have been notified that the majority leader wishes to go soon to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. The floor manager for the majority will be Senator McConnell of Kentucky. I will floor manage for the Democratic side. Obviously, it will be up to the distinguished majority leader when the bill will actually be laid down. I just wanted to notify colleagues, I have been informed we are about to go to it. I would hope as most of the issues on it have been worked out on a bipartisan fashion that we could move quickly. I know Senators may have amendments, but if we do soon go on this bill and allow Members to bring forward their amendments on this side, I would urge them to let us know what, if any, there are so we could seek time agreements once the bill is laid down. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio on the floor. I wanted to make the observation that once the leader turns to this bill, I would hope Members, certainly on our side of the aisle--I would use the privilege of having been here 30 years to urge Members of the other side of the aisle--would speak to the appropriate leaders if they have amendments and see if there are things that can be worked out without a rollcall or can be worked out with a time agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, a number of us during the quorum call were complimenting each other on both sides of the aisle for working through a complex piece of legislation on which we still have some paperwork to do, but it will pass this body unanimously. If any piece of legislation should, it is this one. I alluded to the fact that our responsibility in other parts of the world goes beyond just a sense of altruism. Obviously, to the extent that we alleviate hunger, suffering, and disease in parts of the world, we make those parts of the world able to have stability and become less of a threat to themselves, their neighbors, and also to the United States. We also have to ask ourselves this question as Americans: When you live in the wealthiest, most powerful Nation history has ever known, with a standard of living for most Americans so substantially above that of billions of other people, when you look at nations where they don't even list the birth of babies until they make sure they survive for a year, or get the kind of normal things my grandchildren get, such as inoculations, vaccinations, and so on, it is almost unheard of-- there is either no money for it or no way to bring it to them. And people starve by the thousands in some countries, every month, suffering genocide, slaughter, and some of the worst conditions that exist. We have a moral responsibility, to the extent that this country can help. Obviously, I am not suggesting America can solve every problem throughout the world. We cannot. But there are areas where we can help--medical help, fighting AIDS, combating polio, measles, diphtheria, dysentery, diseases that kill thousands of people. If every one of us were handed a picture and it said this child is going to starve or die of an easily preventable disease, would you pay 6 cents, or 7 cents, or a dime, or 20 cents to make sure they don't have those childhood diseases, we would say, of course; in fact, we can do that for hundreds more if it would help. Basically, that is what we are talking about here. The foreign aid budget is a fraction of 1 percent of our total budget--a fraction of 1 percent. A lot of countries give a much larger percentage of their budget. But in many parts of the world, people say America is their hope because we have helped. That is why I commend those on both sides of the aisle who have joined us in carrying that out, because it is not a political issue, it is not a military issue, it is not a partisan issue; it is a truly moral issue. If we are truly people of God, if we care, this is what we will do. So I commend those Senators who are making it possible. I ask my friend from Kentucky, are we close to having the final agreement on the managers' package?

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Kentucky and I have been working very closely for the last week to get rid of as many amendments as we could. I think we have done a lot of that. As I said on the floor earlier this afternoon, if people have amendments, come and let me know. We have one, possibly two, and we are working diligently on those. I say to the distinguished leaders, the best they can do might be to go forward. I am willing to move quickly. I would be delighted to go to final passage in the next 5 minutes, but we do not want to preclude Senators from offering amendments. So if Senators are not serious about an amendment, then they should make that clear. Senator McConnell and I have tried to reflect the interests of both parties. As I recall, we passed this bill out from the Appropriations Committee unanimously. Republicans and Democrats alike strongly supported it. So this is very carefully crafted legislation.