Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator DeWine, and I have been able to work together to develop a version of this bill that can pass today as the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act. Technical standards help to promote safety, increase efficiency, and allow for interoperability in a variety of products Americans use every day. Despite the fact that they go largely unnoticed, we would be markedly less safe without airbags that deploy properly in serious automobile collisions, more vulnerable were there not technical standards for fire retardant materials in homes. And consumers would be less likely to make the purchases that drive our economy without the technical standards that ensure a light bulb will fit in its socket or allow DVDs to function properly regardless of the manufacturer. In the United States, most technical standards are developed by private, not-for-profit Standards Development Organizations, which often possess superior knowledge and adaptability in highly technical matters. Rather than Government overregulation of technical standards, SDOs promulgate guidelines that frequently are then adopted by State and Federal governments. Like many conveniences we take for granted, technical standards are so deeply infused in our lives that they may attract little or no individual attention. While standards serve this vital societal role, there exists a natural tension between the antitrust laws that prohibit businesses from colluding and the development of technical standards, which require competitors to reach agreement on basic design elements. The Standards Development Organization Advancement Act reduces this tension, providing relief for SDOs under current law while preserving the trademark features of antitrust enforcement that benefit consumers. Without creating an antitrust exemption, the Standards Development Organization Act allows SDOs to seek review of their standards by the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission prior to implementation. If these agencies do not object to the standard during this ``screening'' phase, but the organization is later sued by a private plaintiff, the SDO would be limited to single damages, rather than the treble damages levied under existing law. Additionally, this bill amends the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, by directing courts to apply a ``rule of reason'' standard to SDOs and the guidelines they produce. Under existing law, standards may be deemed anticompetitive by a court even if they have the effect of better serving consumers. Courts should be able to balance the competing interests of safety and efficiency against any anticompetitive effect, making certain that the law is doing everything possible to meet the needs of the one constituent we all share--the American consumer. The Standards Development Organization Advancement Act gives our courts the authority to do so. We may fail to notice the technical standards that provide dependability, security, and convenience in our lives, but they serve an increasingly vital role in a country driven by technological change but devoted to safety and reliability. Title II of the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act also addresses several areas of our antitrust laws that merit updating, as our experience with the actual practice in the world has shown. First, the act strives to eliminate the disparity between the treatment of criminal white collar offenses and antitrust criminal violations. Without this legislation, offenders who violated the criminal provisions of the antitrust laws would face much less significant penalties than would their wire fraud or mail fraud counterparts. The act increases the maximum penalty for a criminal antitrust violation from 3 years to 10 years and raises the maximum fines to corporations from $10 million to $100 million per violation. Senator Hatch and I had introduced this provision in S. 1080, the Antitrust Improvements Act of 2003, and I am pleased that this useful update to the penalties for criminal violations of the antitrust laws can be made as part of this bill. Title II will also update the Justice Department's amnesty program in the criminal antitrust context. We have worked with the antitrust division of the Department of Justice and our States' attorneys general to give prosecutors the maximum leverage against participants in criminal antitrust activity. The Department has long had an ``amnesty'' or ``leniency'' policy that is generally available to the first conspirator involved in a criminal cartel that offers to cooperate with the authorities. But under the current policy, the Department may only agree to not bring criminal charges against a corporation, and its officers and directors, in exchange for cooperation in providing evidence and testimony against other members in the cartel. Under this bill, to qualify for amnesty, a party must provide substantial cooperation not only in any criminal case brought against the other cartel members, but also in any civil case brought by private parties that is based on the same unlawful conduct. This bill would then give our prosecutors the authority to effectively limit a cooperating party's potential civil liability as well, and to limit that liability to single damages in any subsequent civil lawsuit brought by a private plaintiff. And while a party that receives leniency would only be liable for the portion of the damages actually caused by its own actions, the rest of its non-cooperating co- conspirators would remain jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of damages, which would then be trebled, to ensure that no injured party will fail to enjoy financial redress. Finally, the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act makes some useful adjustments to the Tunney Act. That law provides that consent decrees in civil antitrust cases brought by the United States must be reviewed and approved by the District Court in which the case was brought. Under the Tunney Act, before entering a consent decree, the court must determine that ``the entry of such judgment is in the public interest.'' In making this determination, the court may, but is not required to, consider a variety of enumerated factors. As currently drafted, the court has discretion in making this public interest determination, and some have expressed concerns that this lack of guidance results in courts that are overly deferential to prosecutors' judgments. Thus, this bill intends to explicitly restate the original and intended role of District courts in this process by mandating that the court make an independent judgment based on a series of enumerated factors. In addition, the legislation makes clear that this amendment to the Tunney Act will not change the law regarding whether a court may be required, in a particular instance, to permit intervention or to hold a hearing in a Tunney Act proceeding. A final and important technical change would allow a judge to order publication of the comments received in a Tunney Act proceeding by electronic or other means. Currently, the Tunney Act requires the Antitrust Division to publish in the Federal Register the public comments received on its proposed consent judgments, along with the Division's response to those comments. This can be very expensive--it cost almost $3 million in the Microsoft case--with little benefit, because those materials are, if anything, more accessible on the Web than in a library. Of course, interested people who lack Internet access will need to go to a library, but they would have had to do that for a paper copy as well. This is an important bill that makes necessary, well-conceived, and bipartisan reforms.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to discuss an issue concerning U.S. efforts to rebuild Iraq. Before I begin, however, I want to again recognize the bravery and sacrifices that are being made every day by Americans and Iraqis, and especially those who have been killed or wounded. There have been, almost daily, horrific, cowardly acts of terrorism, increasingly aimed at citizens. The appalling attacks this week, where the bodies of Americans were dragged through the streets, disgust and deeply sadden us all. My deepest condolences go out to the families and friends of those who have died. Yesterday, the Inspector General of the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA-IG, issued his first report on the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I want to remind people that it was Senator Feingold, and later in the process, Senator Stevens, not the Bush administration, who worked hard to establish the CPA-IG office during the debate on the Iraq supplemental. I had the privilege of working with Senator Feingold to help draft some of the provisions of his amendment, and he, along with Senators Stevens, are to be commended for their leadership on this issue. Page 33 of the CPA-IG's report contains a table, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. The information it contains concerns me, as it should every Senator. It shows that, as of February 29, 2004, nearly 4 months after President Bush signed the Iraq supplemental into law, only $900 million of the $18.4 billion appropriated for reconstruction programs has been obligated, less than 5 percent. At a time when security is the most critical issue in Iraq, sadly demonstrated by this week's tragic attacks in which nine Americans were killed, the administration has obligated only $292 million of the $3.24 billion for ``security and law enforcement,'' less than 10 percent of the total appropriated. This is money that is supposed to go for training a new Iraqi army and police force to reduce the risks to American soldiers and civilians working in Iraq. On top of this, only $25 million for ``justice, public safety, and civil society'' has been obligated. This is less than 3 percent of the $1 billion appropriated. Not one dime of the $1.85 billion appropriated in the supplemental has been obligated for ``health care,'' ``private sector development,'' ``roads, bridges and construction,'' and ``transportation and telecommunications.'' It would be one thing if the administration had warned us they were going to have trouble spending the $18 billion, but they said the opposite. They told us these funds were urgent. It was ``an emergency.'' The money had to be appropriated immediately, and not one dime less than the amount requested. There was no time for Congress to carefully consider this legislation. It had to be rammed through as fast as possible. The administration resisted accountability for how it would spend these billions and billions of dollars, and that fact was, and is, a major concern that many in the Senate have had about that supplemental appropriations bill. In a letter to Congress on September 17, 2003, the President stated: ``This request reflects urgent and essential requirements. I ask the Congress to appropriate the funds as requested, and promptly return the bill to me for signature.'' Ambassador Bremer testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 24, 2003: ``No one part of this $87 billion supplemental is dispensable, and no part is more important than the others . . . This is a carefully considered, integrated request. This request is urgent. The urgency of military operations is self-evident. The funds for nonmilitary action in Iraq are equally urgent. Unless this supplemental passes quickly, Iraqis face an indefinite period with blackouts eight hours a day. The link to the safety of our troops is indirect but no less real.'' I would point out to Ambassador Bremer, who I respect a great deal, that less than 8 percent of the funds for ``electricity'' have been obligated. That is $428 million out of $5.6 billion. I could go on, but by now the point is clear: If every dime of the $18 billion was so necessary, as a lump sum, to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq this year, why then has so little been obligated nearly 4 months after the President signed the bill? I did not vote for the $18 billion and at the time I discussed my reasons in detail. But one of the reasons was that it was obvious that the White House was asking for far more than they could effectively use this year because they did not want to revisit this issue in an election year. They did not want to have to defend this controversial program again in the court of public opinion. They did not want the accountability that should accompany the spending of such large sums. This is one Senator who does not believe we should spend billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money without proper accountability. We all knew we would have to spend billions to help rebuild Iraq. But the issue was how many billions, over what period of time, and how to pay for it in a time of rising deficits. Back when we were asked to vote on the supplemental, I urged, as did others, that because the situation in Iraq was, and is, so unpredictable, that we appropriate only as much as could be effectively used. I said that we should then revisit the issue this year, see how the funds were being used, make any necessary adjustments to the reconstruction program, count what other nations were contributing, and then decide how much additional U.S. funding this year would be needed to fill gaps in resources. But the White House would have none of that. The President insisted on getting every dime up front, paid for by increasing the deficit rather than reducing the President's tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, even though, as the CPA-IG and OMB reports clearly show, they cannot possibly spend it all this year. They probably will not be able to spend half of it. All that talk about how this had to be done in the blink of an eye and without adequate checks and balances was baloney. Congress received some of the first indications that the administration was going to have trouble handling all of this money when the Office of Management and Budget published a plan, on January 5, 2004, that projected CPA spending at a modest $1.4 billion by the end of the first quarter. The CPA-IG report confirms that the administration is having difficulty handling all of this money, as many of us predicted. We all want this money spent wisely, and no one wants any administration to spend money for the sake of spending money. Also, this is not to take anything away from the brave men and women who are working so hard, under extremely difficult conditions, to rebuild Iraq. But the issue exposed by this report is not the administration's spending rate in Iraq. The issue it exposes is the administration's credibility. It seems self-evident that a large portion of the money was not as urgently needed as administration officials insisted at the time, or the CPA, as press reports have suggested, is tied up in bureaucratic knots and is not able to move fast enough to rebuild Iraq. I submit that the answer is both of the above, but I will let the numbers speak for themselves. Perhaps we will see a large ramping up of spending in the second quarter, as the administration suggests it will do according to OMB's spending plan. Perhaps the administration can provide a good explanation for why these projects have proceeded so slowly. But regardless, it is clear that Congress could, and I believe should, have appropriated only a portion of the money last year. There is plenty of opportunity to act on another supplemental this year, instead of frittering away the Senate's time on hot-button political issues designed to score points in an election year. I believe the Congress can encourage the administration to do better in Iraq, shaping a more effective strategy in the process. This Vermonter believes that more debate, more transparency, and even a dose of frugality, especially when it comes to spending $18 billion of the taxpayers' money would be a good thing. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 The CPA has allocated $7.9 billion of the $18.4 billion. Additionally, the CPA has established a $4 billion reserve. Table 8 below contains more detail on program status.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, recently I heard about CAPT John Lawrence From, Jr. in McLean, VA, a retired Navy nuclear submarine captain, who lived next door to Jim Rosser and his wife, Nicki Watts. They told me that he had died of pneumonia at Arlington Hospital at the age of 82. Retired Air Force Colonel Watts sent me material about him, and I would like to include it in the Record. Sometimes obituaries are so cold and give so little about somebody's life that I wanted the Senate to pause and think of Captain From. Captain From not only served in the Pacific during World War II, but also commanded the first Polaris missile nuclear submarine. The Pacific Theater tours were dangerous, extraordinarily uncomfortable, and extremely necessary to our efforts to win World War II. People get mentioned on this floor for many things, but I agree with Colonel Watts that Captain From should receive recognition here. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some material I have about him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, March 31, is the deadline in our law for the Secretary of State to certify that the Federal Government of Yugoslavia--now the Government of Serbia and Montenegro--is meeting three conditions enumerated in Section 572 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 2004. The first of those conditions is that the Government of Serbia and Montenegro is ``cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia including access for investigators, the provision of documents, and the surrender and transfer of indictees or assistance in the apprehension, including making all practicable efforts to apprehend and transfer Ratko Mladic.'' I am informed by the State Department that the Secretary declined to certify that Serbia has met this condition. I applaud his decision. This law, first enacted in 2000, was instrumental in pressuring Serbian authorities to apprehend Slobodan Milosovic and transfer him to the ICTY. It has also been the impetus for further arrests of other indictees. But over the years, Serbia's cooperation with The Hague has been inconsistent, often grudging, and usually only on the eve of a cut-off of U.S. assistance. President Kostunica has made no secret of his disdain for the tribunal. This is unfortunate, because unless the Serbian Government, and the Serbian people, support efforts by the ICTY to bring individuals accused of war crimes to justice, Serbia's political and economic development will continue to suffer. The fact that Ratko Mladic, who was responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the Balkans war, remains at large, is unacceptable. Senator McConnell, the Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and I have worked together to maintain U.S. assistance to Serbia in the Foreign Operations budget, subject to the conditions. I join him in commending the Secretary for declining to make the certification. I also agree with Senator McConnell that if Mr. Mladic is turned over to the ICTY, we should review the certification law. While it is necessary that the other indictees be apprehended and surrendered, the capture of Mladic would be a very important, positive step.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week Dr. Dorothy Height was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in a ceremony in the Capital rotunda, on her 92nd birthday. Dr. Height is a living legend. She is widely recognized as one of the preeminent civil rights leaders of modern history. Dr. Height has been a tireless advocate for equal rights for women, African Americans, and others for more than 65 years. From 1944 and until 1977, Dr. Height served on the National Board of the Young Women's Christian Association YWCA. In 1965, she launched the Center for Racial Justice at the YWCA, and she served as its director until 1977. Currently the Chair and President Emerita of the National Council of Negro Women, Dr. Height became its fourth president in 1957. Under her leadership, the NCNW made substantial contributions and advances--both for the greater community of African American women and as an organization. Dr. Height led the NCNW to establish the first institution devoted to Black women's history, secure the Mary Bethune Council House designation as a national historic sited, achieve tax exempt status for the NCNW, and bring the NCNW to national prominence. Dr. Height played an active leadership role in virtually every major civil and human rights cause since the 1960s. She was the only woman at the table when Dr. Martin Luther King and the ``Big Six'' civil rights leaders made plans for he civil rights movement. Her life of distinguished service has been recognized with over 50 awards, including the National Council of Jewish Women's John F. Kennedy Memorial Award, the Congressional Black Caucus's William L. Dawson Award, the Ladies Home Journal's `Women of Year,'' the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Clinton, and now the Congressional Gold Medal. It is rare that Congress comes together to grant this award, but Dr. Height's life's work epitomizes the distinguished commitment to serve for which it was created to recognize. I congratulate Dr. Dorothy Height for nearly a century of remarkable leadership.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the advent of the digital age promises the efficient distribution of music, films, books, and software on the Internet, and an easily-accessed, unprecedented variety of content online. Unfortunately, to see this promise realized, we must overcome some of the challenges presented by digital content distribution. Today I am pleased that Senator Hatch is joining me in sponsoring the ``Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act of 2004,'' which will respond to one such challenge. It will bring the resources and expertise of the United States Attorneys' Offices to bear on wholesale copyright infringers. The very ease of duplication and distribution that is the hallmark of digital content has meant that piracy of that content is just as easy. The very real--and often realized--threat that creative works will simply be duplicated and distributed freely online has restricted, rather than enhanced, the amount and variety of creative works one can receive over the Internet. Part of combating piracy includes offering a legal alternative to it. Another important part is enforcing the rights of copyright owners. Senator Hatch and I have been working with artists, authors, and software developers to create an environment in which copyright is protected, so that we can all enjoy American creativity, and so that copyright owners can be paid for their work. 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. Some steps have already been taken. The Allen-Leahy Amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, on Combating Piracy of U.S. Intellectual Property in Foreign Countries, provided $2.5 million for the Department of State to assist foreign countries in combating piracy of U.S. copyright works. By providing equipment and training to law enforcement officers, it will help those countries that are not members of OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development) to enforce intellectual property protections. 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. The challenges presented by digital content are multifaceted, and no single response will resolve all of them. We must, and we will, offer a broad array of solutions that taken together will help ensure the protection of intellectual property, encourage the deployment of digital content, and allow technology to develop unimpeded. This bill is just one step in this process. I am working with colleagues, members of the private sector, and officials from the Executive Branch, to craft careful and effective responses to other such challenges in the intellectual property arenas. I hope that my colleagues support the ``Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act of 2004,'' and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, acts of violence against women are always abhorrent, but they are especially disturbing when committed against pregnant women. When a violent crime causes injury to a pregnant woman that results in a miscarriage or other damage to the fetus, we all share the desire to ensure that our criminal justice system responds decisively and firmly to exact appropriate punishment. This is not an issue on which you will find any disagreement among Members of Congress, no matter their party affiliation or whether they are pro- choice or anti-abortion. Protecting pregnant women and their families from violence is a serious and compelling problem that deserves to be elevated above political agendas and partisan politics. Today we consider a bill that proposes a new Federal crime to punish conduct that violates a list of over 60 existing federal crimes and ``causes the death of, or bodily injury to, a child, who is in utero.'' The terms ``a child, who is in utero'' and ``unborn child'' are defined in this proposal to be ``a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development.'' Through this proposal, we will be forced to revisit the divisive political debate about when human life begins and what is meant by these terms--whether, for example, the term ``any stage of development'' is intended to cover an unfertilized human egg or a zygote, and how far away from viability the proposal is designed to move the federal definition of a ``person.'' Generally, our Federal and State criminal laws only penalize conduct that affects a person who was born alive. That does not mean we cannot or should not go further. I support additional punishment if a violent crime against a pregnant woman causes her to miscarry or otherwise injures the fetus. Senator Feinstein will offer an amendment on this point, which I support, and which I will discuss in a moment. While no other Federal criminal statute identifies a fetus as a distinct victim of crime, this does not mean that a fetus is left unprotected under our criminal laws. The Justice Department pointed out the obvious, in a letter dated September 9, 1999, to then-Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Hyde. That letter states that ``[b]ecause the criminal conduct that would be addressed . . . is already the subject of federal law (since any assault on an `unborn child' cannot occur without an assault on the pregnant woman), [the bill] would not provide for the prosecution of any additional criminals.'' As Ronald Weich, a former prosecutor and former Special Counsel to the Sentencing Commission, noted in his February 2000 testimony, defendants whose violent attacks against pregnant women resulted in harm to a fetus have been prosecuted, and thus ``it is very clear that criminal liability may be imposed under current federal law.'' Moreover, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines already provide a sentencing enhancement of two levels where the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was a ``vulnerable victim,'' a term that is defined as someone who is unusually vulnerable due to age, or physical or mental condition. Guidelines Manual, Sec. 3A1.1(b)(1). This provision has been used to cover violent crimes against pregnant women. Mr. Weich described several cases in which a pregnant woman was treated as a vulnerable victim, resulting in enhancements and upward departures in the applicable guideline sentencing ranges for the defendants. Nevertheless, if there is any question about the application of these enhancements in violent crimes against pregnant women, we should clarify that matter promptly. Respectfully, it seems to me that this bill has not been crafted to find that common ground, nor designed to provide an effective means to prosecute or prevent violence against pregnant women. First, this bill unnecessarily injects the abortion debate into our national struggle against violence towards women. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade held that ``the word `person', as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.'' This bill purposely employs terms designed to undermine a woman's right to choose by recognizing for the first time in Federal law the legal rights of a person as applied to the earliest stages of development of a fetus, an embryo or an egg. Second, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has warned that a consequence of the bill is that battered women who are financially or emotionally reliant on the batterer may be less likely to seek appropriate medical attention if doing so could result in the prosecution of the batterer for an offense as serious as murder. We should pay attention to the experts about the consequences of legislative proposals such as this one, particularly when the experts say this bill could have devastating effects for victims of domestic violence. Finally, the bill ignores the problems of domestic violence, sexual assault and other forms of violence against women; in fact, the UVVA does not even mention the woman. In short, this bill ignores the reality that an attack that harms a pregnancy is inherently an attack on a woman. The senior Senator from California will offer a substitute amendment to S. 1019 that does what the Unborn Victims of Violence Act purports to do without wading into the political waters of the abortion debate. This amendment, commonly referred to as the Motherhood Protection Act, creates a separate, additional Federal criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman. Under this legislation, the prosecutor may (1) charge the defendant with an offense against the woman, and (2) subsequently charge the defendant with the separate offense of interrupting--e.g., causing brain damage to the child--or terminating the normal course of her pregnancy. A defendant would face a maximum of 20 years in prison for interrupting the pregnancy and a maximum of life imprisonment for terminating the pregnancy. Such sentences would be in addition to any penalties for the underlying federal crime. These terms of imprisonment reflect the same sentences included in the UVVA. Senator Feinstein's amendment addresses harm to a pregnant woman, while recognizing the loss she suffers through injury to the fetus. By excluding the language in the UVVA that defines a human to include a fetus, the Feinstein amendment accomplishes the stated goal of the UVVA without undermining reproductive rights or ignoring violence against women. The senior Senator from Washington will offer an amendment in support of domestic violence victims, which I am proud to cosponsor. The Murray amendment would authorize HHS grants to nonprofit agencies to help service providers design and implement intervention programs for children who witness domestic violence. The grants would encourage domestic violence agencies and schools to work together to address the needs of affected children. The amendment would also establish entitlement standards and guidelines for employees to use emergency leave to address domestic and sexual violence. Unlike UVVA, these two amendments address the issue of violence against women. If we are serious about addressing this problem and trying to end the violence, then we should put a stop to the partisan politics surrounding UVVA and vote for these amendments. When it has focused on the real issue of violence against women, Congress has taken aggressive action to address the problem of violence against women. Congress made great strides in the fight against domestic violence by passing the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act as a part of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Senator Biden and Senator Hatch contributed considerable time and leadership to achieve the enactment of VAWA, which marked a turning point in our Nation's effort to address domestic violence and sexual assault. This landmark legislation created federal domestic violence offenses with severe penalties to hold offenders accountable for their destructive and criminal acts of violence. Since the end of 1994, the Department of Justice has brought over 1000 VAWA and VAWA-related indictments and awarded over one billion dollars in VAWA grants to communities working hard to combat violence against women and to help cure the pain and suffering that results from it. I am proud to say that Vermont was the first State in the country to apply for and receive funding under VAWA, and I have seen the way in which groups such as the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault have worked effectively to stem violence against women and children and to assist those who have suffered from it. I am also pleased that the conference report on the AMBER Alert and PROTECT Acts included Leahy-Kennedy-Biden legislation to establish a transitional housing grant program within the Department of Justice to provide victims of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault the necessary means to escape the cycle of violence. It amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 to authorize $30 million for each of fiscal years 2004-2008 for the Attorney General to award grants to organizations, States, units of local government, and Indian tribes. The grants will help victims of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault who need transitional housing or related assistance as a result of fleeing their abusers, and for whom emergency shelter services or other crisis intervention services are unavailable or insufficient. President Bush signed the conference report into law on May 7, 2003. We know that violence against women pervades all areas of our country. It makes no difference if you are from a big city or a rural town; domestic violence and other violence against women can be found anywhere. This is a serious issue. We owe this country a serious response, not a debate on ideological proposals that ignore effective programs designed to help women crime victims. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Feinstein and Murray amendments, and in voting against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the advent of the digital age promises the efficient distribution of music, films, books, and software on the Internet, and an easily-accessed, unprecedented variety of content online. Unfortunately, to see this promise realized, we must overcome some of the challenges presented by digital content distribution. Today I am pleased that Senator Hatch is joining me in sponsoring the ``Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act of 2004,'' which will respond to one such challenge. It will bring the resources and expertise of the United States Attorneys' Offices to bear on wholesale copyright infringers. The very ease of duplication and distribution that is the hallmark of digital content has meant that piracy of that content is just as easy. The very real--and often realized--threat that creative works will simply be duplicated and distributed freely online has restricted, rather than enhanced, the amount and variety of creative works one can receive over the Internet. Part of combating piracy includes offering a legal alternative to it. Another important part is enforcing the rights of copyright owners. Senator Hatch and I have been working with artists, authors, and software developers to create an environment in which copyright is protected, so that we can all enjoy American creativity, and so that copyright owners can be paid for their work. 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. Some steps have already been taken. The Allen-Leahy Amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, on Combating Piracy of U.S. Intellectual Property in Foreign Countries, provided $2.5 million for the Department of State to assist foreign countries in combating piracy of U.S. copyright works. By providing equipment and training to law enforcement officers, it will help those countries that are not members of OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development) to enforce intellectual property protections. 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. The challenges presented by digital content are multifaceted, and no single response will resolve all of them. We must, and we will, offer a broad array of solutions that taken together will help ensure the protection of intellectual property, encourage the deployment of digital content, and allow technology to develop unimpeded. This bill is just one step in this process. I am working with colleagues, members of the private sector, and officials from the Executive Branch, to craft careful and effective responses to other such challenges in the intellectual property arenas. I hope that my colleagues support the ``Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act of 2004,'' and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I outlined some of the privacy challenges we will soon face as new micro monitoring technologies begin to proliferate in our society. I spoke in particular about breakthroughs in Radio Frequency Identification, also known as RFID. My remarks were offered at Georgetown University Law Center, during a conference on the legal and technological challenges of video surveillance. Micro monitoring is a subject that deserves the attention of the Senate and of the American people, and I ask unanimous consent the text of my address be printed in the Record in the interest of advancing this discussion.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this morning, an amendment offered by the senior Senator from Ohio was accepted by voice vote. At the time, I withheld from speaking on this amendment in order to expedite consideration of the budget resolution, but I would now like to take a moment to give my full statement. This amendment addresses a serious shortfall in the President's foreign affairs budget: funding for international health programs. I commend Senator DeWine for his leadership on these key humanitarian issues. Compared to some of the other amendments offered today, it is not a large amount of money. But, it means life and death to literally millions of people. This amendment provides $330 million for the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund. It is fully offset by reducing the amount that the Federal Government spends on administrative expenses by $330 million. This reduction will not be painful. We do not micro-manage the process, and leave it to the administration to determine where to make these cuts. But, I can think of some places that the Administration might want to start. For example, next year the administration plans to spend $5.5 billion on ``transportation of things''; $21.1 billion on ``supplies and materials'' for federal agencies--not including the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security; and about a billion dollars on printing costs. If you want specifics on how to pay for this, one could come up with this scenario. The administration is planning to increase the amount spent on ``supplies and materials'' for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, and Interior and the FDIC. Simply maintaining the FY04 levels for these agencies yields $158 million. Freezing certain non-defense agencies' budgets for printing costs at the FY04 levels, which would otherwise be increased, brings the total amount of offsets to $173 million. To get the remaining $157 million, one can freeze a number of combinations of proposed FY04 increases for ``other services'' of non- defense agencies. This includes, but is not limited to, increases to the Departments of Commerce, Energy, the Judicial Branch, and the FDIC. The portions of the government that I just listed total $365 million so this is more than enough. When added to the ones listed above, this is $538 million in offsets. The use of Function 920 to pay for these offsets, which are spread over a range of different functions, is appropriate in this case. This is the type of offset that Function 920 was established to accommodate. These are not my numbers they are OMB's. I encourage my colleagues to read the Object Class Analysis documents for further information. I could go on, but we get the point. There is enough flexibility in this budget to do a tiny bit of belt tightening in order to save lives overseas, build goodwill towards the United States, and reduce the conditions--poverty, sickness, and despair--that help terrorists gather fresh recruits. It may mean a few less paper clips or a few less glossy brochures, but the savings will be well worth it. The President's national security strategy recognizes the essential role of foreign aid. But while we read about the importance of foreign aid, we don't see it throughout the President's budget request. Most of us have praised the President's budget for significant increases for the Millennium Challenge Account--MCA--and to combat HIV/ AIDS. However, I have serious concerns because a portion of these increases are paid for by robbing other essential programs, like health care and food aid. Our amendment would restore some of these cuts. Putting AIDS aside, the President's budget cuts essential international health programs by 11.4 percent. It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases like measles, which kills 1 million children--not 100,000 or 200,000--but 1 million children each year. Measles can be prevented with a simple vaccine that costs pennies. Yet in many poor countries they cannot get it. The President's budget would cut programs to combat measles and other infectious diseases like SARS, ebola and malaria, by 24 percent. The President's budget would cut programs for vulnerable children by 64 percent. These programs help provide the basic necessities of life to orphans, street children, and children whose lives have been turned upside down by war. Child survival and maternal health programs are also cut. These are the programs that provide lifesaving child immunizations. They also help to reduce needless pregnancy-related deaths each year. Six hundred thousand women die from pregnancy related causes. Almost all of these deaths could be prevented. We should be moving aggressively to increase funding for these successful programs--not reduce funding. This is not a partisan issue. Over the past 6 years, Democrats and Republicans have worked side-by-side to increase funding for international health. Funding for AIDS is going up, but it is going up at the expense of programs to combat other diseases which also cause millions of deaths. Preventable deaths. And curable diseases. This is unacceptable. We cannot save every life. Our international health budget is less than the health budget of my own tiny State of Vermont. The President's budget would cut it even more. Our amendment would at least protect these programs from further cuts. Less than 1 percent of the Federal budget is used to combat the conditions that cause poverty around the world. This is woefully inadequate. It shortchanges America's future. It invites insecurity. One would have thought that if September 11 taught us anything, it was that business as usual is no longer tolerable. As I have said before, the President deserves credit for the Millennium Challenge Account and for increasing funding for HIV/AIDS. But, I ask Senators to look behind the curtain to see these are funded. Some is new money. Sadly, some is from cuts to other essential humanitarian programs. If we are going to lead, and especially if we are going to ask others to do more, we are going to have to stop playing shell games with the foreign aid budget. Leadership is good policy. Leadership means resources. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last night the Senate confirmed two more Federal judicial nominees of President Bush: Judge Louis Guirola to the Southern District of Mississippi and Neil Wake to the District of Arizona. With these confirmations, the Senate has now confirmed 173 judicial nominees of this President. That is more than during the entire four years of the first term of President Reagan, from 1981 through 1984, and just two fewer than were confirmed in all 4 years of President Clinton's second term in office from 1997 through 2000. We have reduced the number of vacancies in the Federal courts to 43, the lowest number in more than 13 years. These two confirmations bring to four the number of judicial nominees confirmed in the first few weeks in session this year. The American people should remember that the Republican Senate leadership in 1996 allowed only 17 judicial nominees of President Clinton to be confirmed all year. I remain confident that with the cooperation of the administration, the Senate this year will be able to match the total from that Presidential election year, the last year of President Clinton's first term. We are well ahead of the pace Republicans achieved in 1996. The four judges confirmed so far this year is four more than were confirmed on this date in 1996. The two nominees confirmed last night had their hearings this year but two others, J. Leon Holmes and Judge Dora Irizarry, had hearings last year, were reported by the Judiciary Committee last year, and still have not been scheduled for a vote by the Republican leadership. Democrats have been ready to debate and vote on these nominees for many months. They have generated some controversy and will need to be debated before the vote, but there is no Democratic ``hold'' on either nomination of which I am aware and no Democratic objection to a full and fair debate on each as far as I know.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on February 27, I spoke on the floor about the administration's new policy on landmines. It is a policy that some in the administration had leaked to the press the day before it was to be announced. And many believed it was being done to give it the most positive spin possible. The reason I want to take some time to discuss it just prior to this recess is some Senator may be asked about it. I want them to know what the policy does and what it does not do. The centerpiece of the policy is the administration's announcement that they will eliminate, in 6 years, all persistent or ``dumb'' landmines that remain lethal indefinitely. First, let me say that any decision by this or any other administration to eliminate any type of landmine is a positive step. I concur with the administration on this. These indiscriminate weapons do not belong in the arsenal of the world's only superpower. Actually, they do not belong in the arsenal of any civilized nation. They do not differentiate between a child and a soldier. They are inhumane. They should be banned. I have traveled to many parts of the world, sometimes in places where we use the Leahy War Victims Fund. I have seen those who have been crippled and disfigured by landmines. My wife is a nurse. Before she retired, she was on a medical surgical unit. She has gone into some of the surgery wards in these countries where a child had a limb blown off, and it had to be reamputated to fit a prosthesis. It is terrible. And while there are military people on either side who are injured or killed, it is usually civilians. The vast number are civilians. So the fact that the administration is pledging to get rid of these so-called dumb mines, including anti-vehicle dumb mines--albeit not until 2010--that is constructive. It sets a good example. But what was not said in the press release, of course, is that the United States has not used this type of landmine for decades. We have not even used them in Korea along the demilitarized zone. We have stockpiles of these mines around the world, but they are widely recognized by our military as posing not only an unacceptable danger to civilians, but also to our own troops. Once these mines are in the ground, they impede the mobility of our own forces. I cannot imagine any combat officer--certainly none trained by the United States--who would support using these indiscriminate weapons in this day and age. So the bottom line is that the administration is saying: Since we do not use these mines, have not used these mines for decades, we will get rid of them, and we want the world to credit us for that. Well, that is sort of like saying we are going to stop using leaded gasoline in the United States to reduce air pollution. Of course, we have not used leaded gasoline for years, so it really is not an issue. What the administration says is that its new policy will ``help reduce humanitarian risk and save the lives of U.S. military personnel and civilians.'' But insofar as we do not use these mines, and have not used them for years, the claim is meaningful only to the extent that we can convince other nations to stop using them. Now, to do that, the administration says it will seek a worldwide ban on the sale or export of dumb landmines. That is a positive announcement. But is it realistic? We tried this back in 1994. We got nowhere because other nations refused to even discuss giving up their mines if we refused to give up ours. I have yet to hear anybody say why they believe the reaction of other nations, such as China, Russia, Pakistan, and India, is going to be any different this time. After 2 years of reviewing the landmine policy, we say we are going to eliminate the mines we no longer use. But what the administration glosses over is that it has abandoned the key pledges the Pentagon made 6 years ago to phase out all antipersonnel mines outside of Korea by 2003, and in Korea by 2006. That would mean all the mines would be gone now, outside of Korea; and in Korea, the year after next. That used to be U.S. policy, until February 27. That commitment included not only dumb mines but also self- destructing mines. And the commitment to find suitable alternatives to replace these self-destructing mines was painstakingly negotiated in 1998 between myself and the White House and the Pentagon. The administration now defends its decision to abandon the pledge to phase out these weapons on the grounds that ``after they are no longer needed on the battle field, [these mines] detonate or turn themselves off, eliminating the threat to civilians.'' They say ``self-destructing landmines have been rigorously tested and have never failed to destroy themselves or become inert within a set time.'' Now, these self-destructing mines, these mines with timers, do pose less of a danger to civilians. If the world only used this type of mine, we would still have casualties of civilians, but there would be far fewer. But it is not that simple. For one thing, the mines are also dumb. Once activated, they cannot distinguish between an enemy soldier and a fleeing refugee or a child trying to get out of harm's way any better than any other dumb mine. If they are touched, they will explode. You could be the farmer trying to get his animals out of harm's way because a war is going on. These mines cannot distinguish between the farmer and an enemy gunner. Secondly, we have only used this type of mine once and that was in the first Gulf War. We used them there because we had assurances from the Pentagon that they had been well tested and they would self- destruct so we did not have to worry about them. Guess what. After that war, U.S. and British deminers discovered thousands of these mines that had not self-destructed as designed. They still needed to be disarmed. In fact, I had one leader in combat in the first gulf war who said: We did use them. I said: Did you trust them to self-destruct? He said: Heck no. Neither I nor anybody under my command would dare send our troops across a field where we have been told all these mines had self-destructed because we knew that a certain number of them would not. Most importantly, Mr. President, by insisting we will continue to use our more expensive self-destructing mines, which the administration does, we give other nations an excuse to continue to use their cheap dumb mines. I don't know how many times I have talked to officials of other nations. I have said: Why don't you stop using land mines? They have asked me: How can you, the most powerful nation history has ever known, tell us we should give up our land mines when you say you can't give up yours? There is no answer to that. There was strong opposition in the Pentagon when we passed my amendment--finally, in the end, every single Senator voted for it-- which banned the export of anti-personnel land mines. Now the Pentagon and everybody else brags about the step forward we took in banning the export of land mines. It was a good step. But when we had a chance to join the Ottawa process to ban these mines once and for all, we stepped back from it. And because of that, we made it easy for Russia and China, other countries, to do so. In fact, I believe in our hemisphere there are only two countries that don't ban land mines--the United States and Cuba. Everybody else has. In fact, 150 nations, including every member of NATO except the United States, has joined the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. It is arrogance for our country to take such a unilateral attitude, for us to say: We know it is for your own good, get rid of land mines, but we won't. Many times on this floor I have talked about flying in a helicopter along the Honduras-Nicaragua border at the height of the contra war. I stopped at a hospital on the Honduras side, an area carved out of the jungle. It was a very rudimentary hospital, with a small, separate unit for an operating room that was air-conditioned and sterile. The hospital part had a dirt floor, barracks, row after row of cots, in the corner, just some blankets. A young boy stayed there, 12 years old or so. He had been living there for years since he lost his leg. He hobbled around on a homemade crutch. He was a peasant child who could not go to work in the jungle and help his family to get food because he was not up to it. He couldn't climb the steep trails. He had been out looking for food when he stepped on a land mine. I asked him whether it was put there by the Sandinistas or the contras. He didn't know who they were. He didn't even know there was another country just over the mountains called Nicaragua. But he did know his life was changed. Unlike those of us who are privileged to serve in this body where, if we lost a leg we could continue to do our work, be paid the same, there would be some inconveniences, but we would make it. Not he. If he didn't have the floor of the hospital dormitory and if he didn't have the medics to give him some food, he had no place to go. There are thousands of people--thousands of children--like that. After that, we started the Leahy war veterans fund, which to the credit of our Nation, does use $12 million a year to buy artificial limbs, wheelchairs, and other assistance for war victims. We have passed a law to ban the export of land mines. But it is like trying to stop a flood. As long as people continue to make them, continue to use them, they are out there. We can't bring more pressure on China, one of the big makers and exporters of land mines, because they say, rightly so, the U.S. still uses them. It is so frustrating. I come from a beautiful State, as does the Presiding Officer. I have hundreds of acres of my tree farm, wonderful fields and hills and mountain trails on which I can walk. My children and grandchildren do. It is so much fun. All you worry about is that you might trip and skin your knee. You don't have to worry about a land mine. Somebody said to me in one of these countries, when they were asking about land mines and why we didn't do more in the United States to get rid of them: How long would it take you in the United States to ban them if your children had to go to schools where they were told, you walk exactly between these two lines because, if you step over it, you might have your legs blown off? Or if you are like the teenage girl in Bosnia whose family sent her away at the beginning of the war so she would be safe and finally got word to her that it is safe to come back and she was running to her family and stepped on a mine. Her legs were blown off. I saw that young woman and talked with her in a hospital where the Doctors Without Borders and the Leahy War Victims Fund were helping her and other mine victims. If this was happening in Washington down on The Mall, if this was happening on the playgrounds of America, we would be rising up and saying: Get rid of these things. I have talked about this so many times that I am like a broken record. But I will keep talking about it as long as I am in the Senate. I will keep pushing and I will keep traveling around the world working with people who want to get rid of landmines. I will keep raising money for landmine victims, and I will keep trying to get rid of landmines. I hope someday this wonderful country of ours, which I love and every one of us loves so much, will stand up and say: Enough. We will, by our own example--not by unilateral arrogance saying you get rid of them, but we won't--use the moral suasion of our Nation and get rid of landmines. Maybe then others will, too. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday the Judiciary Committee met in public session to discuss how best to proceed with the investigation into the theft and dissemination of confidential Judiciary Committee computer files. Over the last several weeks and months Democratic Senators have shown great patience with the process. Last week, the chairman of our committee made the report of the Sergeant at Arms into this matter publicly available. For days, Senators have been consulting about the follow-up investigation that is now needed. Over the last few weeks a number of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, have acknowledged that these matters, now documented in the report of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, warrant further consideration by law enforcement officials. Along with other Senators, I have reached across the aisle to urge all Senators to now join us in a request for a special counsel to conduct the investigation necessary to complete action and assure accountability for this unprecedented partisan espionage within the Senate. Yesterday I renewed that invitation to join in our request for the appointment of a special counsel of the highest integrity and independence to follow up on this matter. I had hoped that we could move forward together, and yesterday we did achieve a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary, which has now joined in requesting a criminal investigation by an independent prosecutor. On Wednesday, March 10, nine Senators on the committee sent a letter to the Justice Department seeking the appointment of special counsel in this matter. Thursday morning, March 11, nine Republican Senators wrote to Chairman Hatch and noted: [W]e are now certain that only a determination by a professional prosecutor as to whether any laws were violated will bring this matter to a just and timely resolution. Yesterday all members on the Judiciary Committee endorsed having a professional prosecutor free from politics consider these matters without regard to partisanship. Last night Republicans and Democrats joined in another letter to the Justice Department to request ``appointment of a prosecutor of the highest integrity and independence to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute all potential crimes related to the access and dissemination of Judiciary Committee staff files'' outlined in the report by the Senate Sergeant at Arms. Someone who is removed from politics is essential. As we outline in our March 10 letter, many of us are concerned that it be special counsel and that the Attorney General recuse himself from the process for a number of reasons. In the March 12 letter from Senators Schumer, Graham, Durbin, Chambliss, Kennedy and DeWine, they likewise note that the prosecutor handling the matter must be ``free from all conflicts and appearances of conflict.'' They suggest that Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been given responsibility for the investigation of the lead of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, would be an ``ideal candidate'' and that his mandate is a good model for that of the prosecutor to whom is assigned responsibility for investigation of the matter of the Judiciary Committee computer files. With respect to the Sergeant at Arms' report, I, again, thank him and his staff for operating in a nonpartisan way and in the best tradition of the Senate. The report shows, without question, that the secret surveillance and stealing of confidential computer files was calculated, systematic and sweeping in its scope. After reading the report, there is a lot more that we do know: We know that more than 4,000 computer files were stolen. We know that the stealing of Democratic computer files occurred over an extended period of time, from at least 2001 into 2003. We know that numerous staff members of Republican Senators and Republican Senate leadership were aware of this activity. We know that what was done was improper, unethical and likely criminal. However, after reading the report, there is still a lot that we do not know. We do not know how the computer files and the information contained therein were exploited. We do not know whether the stolen computer files or the information in them were shared with the Department of Justice directly or indirectly. We do not know whether they were shared with the White House directly or indirectly. We do not know whether they were shared with any of the nominees. We do not know what stolen files or information contained therein was shared with partisan advocacy groups on the right. Those are among the questions that a special counsel with the tools to conduct a criminal investigation and compel testimony and information may discern. Indeed, the Sergeant-at-Arms report acknowledges many of its limitations and those on the authority of that office to get all the facts. I hope Senators who care about accountability and the rule of law, and those interested in repairing the damage by this unprecedented spying campaign will support our request for the prompt appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct the criminal investigation into the theft of our computer files that is still needed. I hope the Justice Department will move quickly, properly assign this matter, and conduct an investigation to get to the bottom of the unprecedented wrongdoing that we have suffered. I ask unanimous consent that copies of the letters of March 10, March 11 and March 12 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask the Senator from Illinois if he was aware of the fact the committee in conference, even though there was bipartisan support for the war profiteering amendment that was based word for word on what we used after World War II, after the Korean war, I was told the leadership in the House said they were under orders from the White House to remove the war profiteering. Did the Senator from Illinois know the White House came in and said what was generally called the Halliburton amendment had to be taken out of the committee of conference?

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I ask the distinguished leader if he would amend his unanimous consent request for it to be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this point.

Mr. LEAHY. May I ask the Senator from Illinois a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the budget resolution that the Senate is voting on today. We have been presented a fiscally irresponsible budget that calls for record budget deficits and deep cuts in programs for education, first responders, veterans, and the environment. I find it difficult to pin point exactly how this budget benefits the hard working Americans who are being asked to pay for this reckless fiscal plan. This budget plan does nothing to address the growing Federal debt that we are preparing to pass onto our children and grandchildren. In fact, this budget calls for a record $477 billion deficit this year, on top of the record $450 billion deficit last year. We have a responsibility to bring accountability back to the budget process. The $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that we have enacted over the past three years have not fulfilled any of their promise--they have not done anything to curb our growing economic problems; they have not continued the budget surpluses we reached under the previous administration; and they have not restored confidence in the fiscal decisions of our Government. Perhaps even more disturbing, this budget fails to reflect the spending realities that face our country in the coming years. The endemic long-term deficits forecast in this budget will significantly add to the Federal debt that is expected to top $15 trillion by 2014. This five-year budget plan also contains no funds for our continuing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The costs for these operations are so excessive--an estimated $280 billion over ten years--that including them in the budget would produce an unfathomably large national budget. Where will the money come from for future requests? The hope to cut the deficit continues to move farther and farther from reality. Once again, this Congress is poised to enact a fiscally irresponsible budget plan offered by this administration. Time after time the President and many of my Republican colleagues have shown that they do not care about the long-term effects his policies have on our financial future. After record budget surpluses during the final years of the Clinton administration, the Bush administration has sent Congress three budgets in a row that have turned record surpluses into record deficits. The President's own budget predictions call for the Government to be a record $521 billion in the hole in 2004. This budget resolution is full of red ink for as far as the eye can see. With the retirement of the first of the baby boom generation just four years away, we can no longer afford to continue on the President's path of fiscal irresponsibility.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, there will be a request for a rollcall vote, and I assume the leader would join in that, that there would be a request for a rollcall vote on the two judges, 10-minute rollcall votes so we are only here for 11 minutes, and everybody will be out on the second one. I only ask to protect my rights to ask for those rollcall votes.

Mr. LEAHY. If I could respond.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I tell my distinguished friend from Tennessee, I have talked with the Senator from Arizona and he has no objection to that. I will ask for the yeas and nays on the first one. I am perfectly content to have a voice vote on the second one.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 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. Today, Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, and I introduce the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement, CREATE, Act of 2004,'' legislation that will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our nation's patent laws. 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 that my colleagues and I are today offering 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 ask that my colleagues support the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 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. Today, Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, and I introduce the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement, CREATE, Act of 2004,'' legislation that will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our nation's patent laws. 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 that my colleagues and I are today offering 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 ask that my colleagues support the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004.''