Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are waiting for other Members to come to the floor. It is interesting. I have listened to the outpouring of grief following the tragic events in Southern California, the shooting in the high school. As a parent, I obviously look at that and can only begin to imagine the terror that was in the hearts of the parents of all the children there--not knowing from the initial reports whether their child was alive or injured. And then, of course, it had to be the worst grief any parent could feel to find out their children had been killed. I could not help but think of my own son, who teaches high school in that area. But one has to think of anybody, whether they know them, are related to them or not, in such a case because the whole country is involved. It is almost a John Donne reference in this case, and I think of this body having intense debate a couple of years ago after the tragedy at Columbine. It was actually one of our better debates. We discussed--both Republicans and Democrats--the fact that there are a number of different causes--no one magic thing, no one cause that sends a young person out to do such a terrible, almost inexplicable deed; and in each of these instances when they have happened, and in those instances where the police have caught somebody prior to it happening, there is not a common denominator. If there was some matrix that you could apply to each one of these, it would be, I suppose, easy enough to stop them. But there isn't. It is not just a question of stricter laws, not just a question of more teachers, not just a question of more security; it is not just a question of gun laws. But there are parts of each of those. What was so good about the debate on the juvenile justice bill, which became the Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice bill, is that we referred to each aspect and we debated and voted on everything from counseling for juveniles to stricter laws on juveniles, closing the gun show loophole, providing tools for teachers and communities. We passed the bill by overwhelming margin. It got 73 votes. I think we can all feel that we had done something for the country. But the bill never came back. It was never voted on again. It went into a conference committee and never came out. There was never a vote there. Yet I wonder, if you are a parent, and you see a child killed, and you think that at least some things could be done to stop this from happening somewhere else, if you would not think that would be a top priority. We obviously thought it was at a time when this Senate was probably embroiled in the most partisan divisions that I have seen in 25 years. You would think that it would because we had 73 votes. This was a case where Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives, came together and we passed this bill. But then a decision was made somewhere, and it never came back. It was never voted on again and was never signed into law because the Congress decided never to act on it again. It was a hollow promise to the parents and the teachers and the children of America. We lost any sense of urgency on this bill that got 73 votes. But we passed the bankruptcy law--a flawed bankruptcy law, in my view--last year. That got 70 votes, less votes than juvenile justice and, by God, we have to bring it right back up here again--not because the owners of the credit card companies are being shot at or their children are being shot at, not because they are all going out of business. In fact, they have record profits and will have greater ones under this bill because the commercial interests have been heard rather than the interests of parents, children, and teachers. I mention this in passing. I know there are others on the floor seeking recognition, and I will yield in a moment. If the Senate is to be the conscience of this Nation, don't we have to sometimes ask ourselves what are our priorities? How can any parent, how can any Senator, how can any American, with the carnage in our schools or on our streets, look at some of the terrible things happening with our youth and ask, Why are we in such a hurry to pass a piece of commercial special interest legislation and we cannot bring ourselves to take the final step across the finish line on the juvenile justice bill? I cannot accept that, and, frankly, it is not that sense of priority that brought me from my State of Vermont to serve in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of the amendment by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin. I am advised that this modification has been cleared with Senator Hatch and his side.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Utah. We will now know anytime the Democrats are told they are not doing their job it will be coming straight from the Senator from Utah. Senator Abraham is very fortunate to have her there. Senator Abraham is a good friend to all of us here, and she has been a good friend to all of us here. He is fortunate. I will do my best to fill in and help the chairman on some of these issues, especially as I know we can finish this bill in 2, 2\1/2\ days, so long as the leadership does not interrupt us for anything else.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, bankruptcy is a complex area of the law. It has competing public policy interests between debtors and creditors and among competing creditors. The complex and competing interests involved in achieving fair and balanced reforms of our bankruptcy system demand we work in a bipartisan manner throughout the legislative process. Actually, that is the lesson we learned from failed attempts of past reform measures, and it is all the more relevant with an evenly divided Senate. The Republican leadership in the Senate and of the Judiciary Committee I felt did not want the Judiciary Committee involved in shaping bankruptcy reform legislation this year, but over the last couple of weeks the committee was able to hold an informative hearing and a markup that began the process of improving the bill. In fact, when we finally started talking about amendments to greatly improve the bill, we spent less than 4 or 5 hours. Eight amendments were adopted by the Judiciary Committee during a couple hours of work on Tuesday and a couple hours of work on Wednesday, and we improved it. I am pleased to learn of the majority leader's remarks on Wednesday when he congratulated the committee for its positive action and for completing its work on an expedited basis last week. The point being: Just put us in a room, actually have us all there, and give us a little time. We usually work these things out. We can do the same thing on the floor. If the leadership wants us to complete this bill, we can do it expeditiously. The bill the Senate begins considering today is the bill that originated in the Judiciary Committee, S. 420, with those important committee amendments already incorporated. The committee held an informative hearing and markup which has improved the bill in several key areas. I commend the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee for their amendments and for their willingness to expedite committee action on this measure. I will give an example. Senator Feinstein pointed out a number of aspects of the bill need further refinement and our attention with respect to the harshness of the means test and the need for balance with regard to consumer credit disclosures and solicitations. In addition, she coauthored with Senator Feingold an amendment that the committee debated and adopted by a 10-8 vote to provide balance and fairness to the bill's landlord-tenant provisions. I know the Senator from California will continue her good work so that the bill considered by the Senate is further improved. During the markup, the committee adopted a number of improvements to the bill. We also showed what happens when we work in a bipartisan fashion. I commend the chairman and Senator Schumer for reaching agreement on one of the most contentious issues in the bankruptcy debate in the last Congress: the discharge of penalties for violence against family planning clinics. I believe the compromise Senator Hatch and Senator Schumer worked out, along with help from my staff, was possible in part because of the powerful testimony at our committee hearing on the need to end this abusive practice. During our hearing on bankruptcy reform legislation, Maria Vullo, a top-rate attorney, testified about the need to amend the bankruptcy code to stop wasteful litigation and end abusive bankruptcy filings that are used only to avoid the legal consequences of violence, vandalism, and harassment to deny access to legal health services. I believe she impressed all members of the committee. I think she made all members of the committee realize we have to move on this issue. As a result of the amendment adopted by the committee last week, perpetrators of clinic violence will no longer be able to seek shelter in the Nation's bankruptcy courts. In addition, the committee adopted a Leahy-Hatch amendment to protect the personal privacy of consumers whose information is held by firms in bankruptcy. The amendment of the Senator from Utah and I permits bankruptcy courts to honor the privacy policy of business debtors and creates a consumer privacy ombudsman to protect personal privacy in bankruptcy proceedings. I appreciate the chairman's effort in joining me on this amendment to add important consumer privacy protections to the bankruptcy code. The irony is, the Leahy-Hatch amendment would not even be needed if everybody was doing what they should. The Leahy-Hatch amendment is needed because the customer list and databases of failed firms can now be put up for sale in bankruptcy without any privacy considerations, and even in violation of the failed firm's own public privacy policy against the sale of personal customer information to third parties. Let me explain what happens. You have an online company and they have a privacy policy that guarantees privacy of your family's information: You can give us all the details about your children, you can give us all this information because we promise you we will never sell it to anybody else; we will never give it to anybody else. They keep their word, but they go into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court looks at the file and says the only thing you have left worth any money is this list of names of these children, their parents, whomever. It is valuable. The trustee in the bankruptcy says: I have sworn an oath; I have to uphold the law. I have to sell that list. Suddenly the list you thought was sacrosanct is sold. I will give an example. Toysmart.com. is a failed online toy store. It filed for bankruptcy last year. Its databases and customer lists were put up for sale as part of the bankruptcy proceeding. It went on the auction block even though they promised that all the information would never be allowed out. The Leahy-Hatch amendment that we adopted in committee adds privacy protections and a consumer privacy ombudsman to the bankruptcy code to prevent future cases such as Toysmart.com. We adopted several amendments by Senator Feingold to strengthen chapter 12 to help our family farmers with the difficulties they face. I offered another amendment that added a number of temporary bankruptcy judgeships to the bill, actually in line with the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States. All in all, the eight amendments the committee adopted to the initial proposal began the process of improving the bill during this Congress. We worked expeditiously in the Judiciary Committee to accommodate the interests of the majority leader in having prompt action on this measure. We did so in spite of the fact that this committee has not taken the organizational actions necessary to adopt a budget and to create subcommittees. I thank the Members on my side of the aisle who have been willing to make quorums and move forward even though we have yet to organize the committee. Last Wednesday, the majority leader said on the Senate floor: I think the committee needs to be congratulated because the committee worked yesterday, it worked again today, and it completed its work. I do not know how many amendments actually were considered, but they dealt in some way with as many as 30 amendments and I guess voted on a whole lot of them. I thank the majority leader for his kind words about the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this bill. The majority leader also stated on the Senate floor last week that he hoped ``for a full and free debate--amendments will be offered, considered, and voted on.'' I agree we should have such a full and free debate. It is actually the best way to proceed. The irony is we have a lot of discussion about should the Judiciary Committee mark this bill up or not mark it up? Should we meet on this bill or not meet on this bill? We spent more time talking about meeting on the bill than we actually did when we sat down. When we sat down and followed the normal process, we considered the amendments, we voted them up or down and sent the bill to the floor. The Senate works best when it can openly and freely work its will on major legislation. Senators will return tomorrow. If we start voting on this early, bring up amendments, vote on this early tomorrow, go into the early evening, do the same on Wednesday, probably into Thursday morning, we can easily finish this bill so long as we don't interrupt it for other work. We made a good start in the Judiciary Committee, but there are some issues that have to be held to the floor. We did not address the homestead exemption cap. Certainly that is a huge loophole where somebody could dump a whole lot of money in a few States into multimillion-dollar mansions and then declare bankruptcy and hide it from creditors. We didn't talk about consumer credit card disclosures. Chairman Hatch asked that a number of these amendments be reserved for floor action. I agreed so as to help move this out of committee. But now we are ready to offer those amendments. I believe we can craft a balanced bankruptcy reform law that corrects abuses by debtors and creditors in the current bankruptcy system. For example, we should provide for more disclosure of information so consumers may better manage their debts and avoid bankruptcy altogether. They must have a better idea what it means when they sign up for a credit card. They ought to have some idea when they are told, here is the minimum payment for the month. They also ought to have something saying, if you carry the minimum payment, here is what you will owe in the end, which may be many times what was paid for the item in the first place. I know Senators Levin, Durbin, Schumer, Dodd, and others share a commitment to include credit industry reforms in a fair and balanced bankruptcy bill. Billions of credit card solicitations made to American consumers in the past few years have contributed to the rise in consumer debt and bankruptcies, including a 7 or 8 year old receiving a credit card with a long line of credit, or a dog gets a credit card. Somebody puts their dog's name on an answer to a letter, and suddenly the dog is getting a credit card with an approval letter: Dear Mr. Rover Leahy: We are so impressed with your past credit card we are now giving you a $2,000 credit line. When it comes to kids in school who can barely get enough money to go to the movies, credit card companies say: Dear Student: With your great credit card, here is $2,000, $3,000. The idea is if you start using it, you get hooked on using that one credit card. On one side we have people trying to hook kids on drugs; on the other side, we have credit card companies trying to hook them on credit cards. In fact, it is estimated that last year credit card companies mailed 3.3 billion solicitations. In case you wonder why your mail is late, it is because of the credit card solicitations. Many of the most controversial proposals for changing this bill are to benefit the credit card industry. A lot of what is driving the consideration of this bill is that the credit card industry is going to get some real big gifts. The biggest gift is to give to the credit card industry the taxpayer pays for bankruptcy courts and the authority of the Federal law to help them with the collection practices of these companies after they have given the credit card to your pet dog or your kids in school or your aging parent in a nursing home. Business Week recently reported Dean Witter estimated this bill would boost the earnings of credit card companies by 5 percent a year. Want to know about a gift? This bill at present would give credit card companies alone a 5-percent increase. I would like to become the CEO of one of those credit card companies, hope the bill passes, and I could say: Look, our earnings went up. One credit card company, MBNA, would make in profit--not in earnings, but in profit--$75 million a year, according to the Business Week article, if we pass this bill the way it is. They will make a lot of money. If some of their lobbyists are outside singing jingle bells, it is not just the snow that shut down the Washington area this morning that encouraged them; it is this bill. In fact, it is only fair if the credit card industry is going to get the profits, they ought to be involved in bankruptcy reform. They ought to be asked to show how the changes they seek will benefit consumers. If they are going to make the extra profits, if they are going around saying it will benefit consumers, let me see the lower interest rates. Let me see the lower fees. If this bill passes and gets signed into law, let us all ask the credit cards, where are the lower fees? Where are the lower interest rates? Who wants to bet we will see them? There is no guarantee the billions in credit industry profits are going to be passed along to the consumers. I happen to agree with President Bush. He underlined the importance of examining credit industry practices when discussing the state of America's economy. President Bush said he will ``remind Members of both the Senate and the House that there is a lot of debt at the Federal level, but there is a lot of debt at the private level. We've got a lot of people struggling to pay off credit card consumer debt.'' I am one Democrat who says President Bush is absolutely right. I agree with him. I think we ought to tell the credit card companies if you are going to get a big windfall from the Senate and the House, give something back to the consumers, and stop trying to hook kids on credit and credit cards that they can never pay off in their lifetime. Stop trying to hook them when they are in college, stop trying to hook parents who are strapped already with more credit cards without telling them what it will really cost them if they get behind. Another improvement we should make is to address the problem of wealthy debtors who use overly broad homestead exemptions to shield assets from their creditors. Senator Kohl has been a leader on this issue and a champion for closing down the loophole for the rich. In some States, wealthy debtors have million-dollar mansions that are protected from bankruptcy. There has been an abuse of the bankruptcy fresh start protection. In the last Congress, the Senate overwhelmingly, Republicans and Democrats, voted to close this loophole of the bankruptcy code. By a vote of 76-22, the Senate adopted a bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Kohl and Sessions to cap homestead exemption at $100,000. But the giveaway bill this year guts that provision. We have to put it back in. We want to make this law have a sense of being balanced. At our hearing in the committee, Brady Williamson, the former chair of the National Bankruptcy Reform Commission, testified that ending homestead abuse was a key consensus recommendation of the Bankruptcy Reform Commission. I think we should remember as we go through this week what purpose bankruptcy serves. It is a safety net for many Americans. That is why it has been here since the beginning of this country. Those who use bankruptcy are usually the most vulnerable of the American middle class. They are older Americans who have lost their jobs or are unable to pay their medical debts. They are women attempting to raise their families or secure alimony and child support after a divorce. They are individuals struggling to recover from unemployment. As we move forward with reforms that are appropriate to eliminating abuses in the system, we need to remember the people that use the system, both the debtor and the creditor. We need to balance the interests of creditors with those of middle-class Americans who need the opportunity to resolve overwhelming financial burdens. The last two Congresses proved there are many competing interests in the bankruptcy reform debate that make it difficult to enact a balanced and bipartisan bill. By working in a bipartisan fashion from the beginning of the amendment process to the end, we can craft reforms and ensure our bankruptcy laws better serve the intended goals and correct abuses of the bankruptcy system by debtors and creditors. That is why I say let the process work through. Bring up amendments. Some will be adopted; some will not. Nobody is out here to delay it. We are just trying to make a better bill. Let's do something about the homestead exemption. Let's do something about appropriate disclosure to consumers. Let us make this a better bill and then send something to the President that he can be proud to sign, knowing it is consistent with what he said about a lot of people struggling to pay off credit card debt. The President will know that we have done something consistent with what he said just in the last couple of days. I will work with Senator Hatch and my good friend, Senator Grassley from Iowa, to make more improvements on the Senate floor. Let's reach a bipartisan consensus that can be enacted into law. Let's do it in the next couple of days. Let's work on this. Let's start voting early tomorrow on it and let's wrap it up. Let's not go off this until we finish. If we do that, we can complete our work. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have become increasingly concerned about some of the recent actions of the U.S. Supreme Court. As a member of the bar of the Court, as a U.S. Senator, as an American, I, of course, respect the decisions of the Supreme Court as being the ultimate decisions of law for our country. As an American, I accept any of its decisions as the ultimate interpretation of our Constitution, whether I agree or disagree. I have probably supported the Supreme Court and our judicial system more than anybody else on this floor. Having said that, I think we can at least still have in this country a discussion of some of the things the Court has done. Recently, we have seen another assault by the Court on the legislative powers of Congress. My concern may be more in sadness than in anger over what has happened. It is very easy to give talks about activist Supreme Courts, but it is hard to think of a time, certainly in my lifetime, with a more activist Supreme Court than the current one. Last week, the Court held that State employees are not protected by the Federal law banning discrimination against the disabled. The case was decided by the same 5-4 majority that brought us Bush v. Gore and other examples of judicial activism, the so-called ``conservative'' wing of the Rehnquist Court. I accept they are indeed ``conservative'' in the sense that they greatly restrict the role of the Federal Government in protecting the individual rights and liberties of ordinary Americans. They are very conservative in the sense they have decided that the unelected five- member majority can go against the overwhelming bipartisan position of the elected Members of the House and the Senate, Republican and Democrat. The case I speak of involved two Alabama State employees. Patricia Garrett sued the University of Alabama for demoting her when she returned to work after undergoing treatment for breast cancer. Milton Ash sued the State Department of Youth Services for refusing to modify his duties and work environment to accommodate his medical problems, which included chronic asthma. These are precisely the sorts of grievances Congress set out to remedy when it passed a landmark civil rights law called the Americans with Disabilities Act, commonly known as the ADA. I was proud to be part of the overwhelming bipartisan consensus that passed the ADA-- proud because of the principles the ADA stands for. It stands for the principle that America does not tolerate discrimination against those in our society who suffer misfortune and illness. It stands for the principle that every disabled person in America is entitled to be treated fairly in the workplace. And it stands for the principle that all employers, whether government or private employers, should be held accountable in a court of law when they violate the rights of the disabled. Nondiscrimination, fairness in employment, and government accountability are each important core values in our society. They are principles that the American people know well and hold dear. They are the values that the first President Bush upheld when he signed the ADA into law. I remember it very well, that day at the White House when he signed the law. He reminded the Supreme Court of these principles when he took the unusual step of writing an eloquent brief to the Supreme Court in support of the ADA and in support of Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash's right to their day in court. I applaud him for that. Sadly, last week the activist wing of the Supreme Court paid little heed to the view of either democratic branch of our government--the Congress that enacted the ADA or former President Bush who signed it into law. These five activist Justices gave short shrift to the core values of the American people that the ADA embodies. Instead of protecting the disabled from discrimination, they denied the disabled their day in court. Instead of requiring fair treatment for all American workers, they created a special exception limiting the rights of government workers. Instead of promoting government accountability, they championed, above all else, the obscure doctrine of State sovereign immunity. That is legalese for saying the government gets a special exemption, preventing it from being held accountable in a court of law. We hear a lot of rhetoric, complaining about so-called ``activist'' judges. I have heard it used by my friends on the other side of the aisle to describe Democratic judicial appointees who say they will uphold settled law, such as Roe v. Wade, or those who have been associated with public interest organizations that have fought to defend individual civil liberties. It is sometimes applied even to conservative Republican appointees such as Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, when it is felt that they are not being conservative enough. When he served on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, our new Attorney General gave a speech on what he called ``judicial despotism.'' He complained about ``the alarming increase in activism'' on the Supreme Court. He referred to the majority of the Court, including Justice Kennedy, as ``ruffians in robes.'' I do not use such language. That kind of name calling does no good for the mutually respectful relationship among the three branches of government, the relationship that our Constitution and the American people call for. I have refrained from using such language, even when I strongly disagree with a decision, such as the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore, when the Supreme Court, in effect, decided a Presidential election. But I mention the question of activism because the American people should know that activism does not come in just one flavor. Some would say judicial activism and liberal activism are one and the same. Of course they are not. Judicial activism can work both ways. It can work to expand protections for all our rights or it can be used to limit our rights. As one of the Nation's leading constitutional scholars, Professor Cass Sunstein, pointed out in an article last month, history teaches that for most of the 20th century, judicial activism was predominantly conservative, and the unelected judicial branch was far to the right of the democratic branches of our Government. Actually, that is where we are today at the start of the 21st century. The reality today in courts such as the U.S. Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit that are dominated by ideologically conservative Republican appointees is that the dominant flavor of judicial activism is right wing. In fact, I do not think we have seen such right-wing activism in the courts since the ultra conservative Supreme Court of the 1920s and the 1930s. There is also, as some commentators have pointed out, an almost arrogant disregard of the Congress by the Supreme Court. There is a feeling that the Congress is somehow unable, even in those cases where Republicans and Democrats join hands in an overwhelming majority--that somehow we are unable to express the will of the people or uphold the Constitution. In statements that the Court has made, it acts as though the Congress is almost unnecessary; that we are not competent to do anything; that we are irrelevant. Well, not totally irrelevant. I have heard from the Justices that they do want a pay raise. Last year, of course, they were asking for permission to give high-paying speeches to special interest groups. I am glad the Court believes we are good for something. Last week's ruling is really just the latest in a long and ever growing line of 5-4 decisions that second-guess congressional policy judgment to strike down Federal statutes and generally treat Congress as a least favored administrative agency rather than a coequal branch of the Federal Government. Last year the Court took aim at the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Violence Against Women Act. Before that, it was our laws on intellectual property and workplace standards. Before that, it was our gun control laws. Now the Court's ``federalism'' crusade adds workers with disabilities to its growing list of victims: older workers, children in gun-infested schools, intellectual property owners, and victims of violence motivated by gender, to name just a few. If you accept the common theme of this 5-4 majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress ought to just close up shop and leave town because they will do everything for the American people. The elected representatives of the American people are unnecessary with, as I said, the possible exception of voting for the pay raise that the courts have asked for. Now it is up to another President Bush and another Congress to seek new ways to protect the rights of disabled Americans and the rights of the other groups sacrificed on the Court's altar of federalism. I believe Congress needs to reassert its Democratic prerogatives-- respectfully but firmly. Congress needs to reassert, in fact remind, the Supreme Court of the Constitution, that we are a coequal branch of government whose policy determinations deserve respect just as they ask respect for their legal determinations. It is time for the people's elected representatives, Democratic and Republican, to reengage the bipartisan consensus of principle that produced the ADA, and to work together to restore the rights of ordinary Americans that have been taken away by an increasingly activist U.S. Supreme Court. Again, as I have said, I have stood on the floor of the Senate defending the Supreme Court as much or more than anybody I know in my 26 years here. I have defended the Supreme Court on decisions even when I disagreed with the Court. I did that even with respect to the 5-4 decision on the Florida election--actually the national election. While I felt the Court was wrong, I stated that its decision was the law and that we must all abide by it. But I am disturbed by this increasingly dismissive tone of the Court, in which it acts as though the Congress, Republicans and Democrats together, do not have the ability to represent the American people. The fact that we were elected by people all over this great Nation is almost irrelevant. In the ADA case, the fact that we had spent years on this, and that a Republican President had strongly supported our position, was irrelevant. I think it is a dangerous path, just as it would be a dangerous path for us to be dismissive of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is equally dangerous for the Court to be dismissive of the Congress because ultimately the American people suffer. We as a Nation have maintained our democracy and fostered our wonderful growth because of our separation of powers--because of the way we have sustained the three equal branches of Government. What a shame it would be if one branch, the only unelected branch, continued to be so dismissive of the other two branches, both elected. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, February is Black History Month. For the last several years I have worked with other Senators and the Administration to help make history by breaking down the remaining vestiges of barriers to African-Americans and other minorities and women on the Federal courts around the country. We have had a number of successes in that regard over the last few years. I recall, in particular, the confirmations of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Second Circuit, Judge Julio Fuentes to the Third Circuit, Judge Eric Clay to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Ann Williams to the Seventh Circuit, Judges Richard Paez, Marsha Berzon, Johnnie Rawlinson, Kim Wardlaw and Margaret McKeown to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Charles Wilson to the Eleventh Circuit and a number of others. Many took too long. Many were delayed by anonymous holds. Many other outstanding nominees were never accorded a hearing, a Committee vote or a vote by the United States Senate. One of my greatest regrets during my service in the Senate was the Republican caucus vote against Judge Ronnie White in 1999. I was glad to be able to provide him with the opportunity to testify and correct the record and clear his reputation and good name in the course of confirmation hearings on the Attorney General nomination in January. As important as it is to remember our history, it is also important to make progress and add to that history. We continue to have the opportunity to do that here in the United States Senate. On January 3, 2001, President Clinton renominated Roger Gregory to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Even though the Fourth Circuit, covering Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, contains the largest African-American population of any circuit in this country, it had never had an African- American appellate judge. Last December, during an extended congressional recess, the President exercised his constitutional power to make recess appointments and appointed Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit. In early January, when the Senate convened to begin this new season, the President resubmitted Judge Gregory's nomination to us. In the ensuing weeks, the new President has seen fit to leave that nomination before the Senate for our consideration and action. Both Senator Warner and Senator Allen support this nomination. Last year Senator Robb also strongly supported it. Senator Warner, Senator Allen, Senator Robb and Senator Edwards and others have all spoken in the last several months in support of the confirmation of Roger Gregory. Now it is time for the Senate to step up to the challenge and act on Judge Gregory's nomination to a full, lifetime appointment to that important judicial position. Mr. Gregory was not the first African-American nominated to the Fourth Circuit. President Clinton nominated four qualified African- Americans to the Fourth Circuit: Judge James Beatty, of North Carolina was nominated in December 1995, and re-nominated in January 1997; Judge James Wynn, of North Carolina, was nominated in August 1999; Roger Gregory was nominated in June 2000; and Judge Andre Davis was nominated in October 2000. None of these exceptional candidates ever received a Judiciary Committee hearing, let alone a vote on the Senate floor. Senator Allen, in one of his first speeches on the Senate floor, came here to talk about Roger Gregory's qualifications, and the importance of acting in a bipartisan way to confirm him. Here is what Senator Allen said: [I]t is my belief that in Roger Gregory, the Fourth Circuit--and, indeed, America--has a well-respected and honorable jurist who will administer justice with integrity and dignity. He will, in my judgment, decide cases based upon and in adherence to duly adopted laws and the Constitution. I respectfully urge my colleagues and the administration to join me in supporting Judge Gregory. Senator John Warner joined the discussion, rising to say that he agreed with what Senator Allen had said on the need to confirm Roger Gregory. As reflected in letters that Senator Warner shared with the Senate, he and Senator Allen have written to Senator Hatch and to President Bush urging that Judge Gregory receive a hearing and be confirmed. I commend them for their commitment to this nomination. Roger Gregory was an outstanding lawyer, and he will be an exceptionally good judge on the Fourth Circuit. From Richmond, Virginia, Judge Gregory was the first in his family to finish high school. After college and law school, he returned to be a professor at a school where his mother had worked as a maid. He entered private practice, and later founded his own, highly-respected law firm in Richmond, where he handled a wide variety of complex litigation matters in State and Federal court for individual and corporate clients. Roger Gregory built a reputation as a seasoned litigator and widely respected member of his community. Judge Gregory's recess appointment as the first African-American judge on the Fourth Circuit also places him firmly in a tradition of using such appointments to bring diversity to the federal bench. Four of the five first African-American appellate judges were recess appointed to their first positions as Federal judges. That includes the appointment of William Henry Hastie as the first African-American on the Federal bench by President Harry Truman in 1949. Not long after that appointment, a little over 51 years ago, the Senate confirmed Judge Hastie, showing itself to be, as I have said many times, the conscience of the Nation. The roster of trailblazing African-American recess-appointees also includes President John Kennedy's 1961 appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; Spottswood Robinson to the D.C. Circuit; and President Lyndon Johnson's 1964 appointment of Leon Higginbotham to the Third Circuit. Other well-known and well-respected judges to be appointed during a recess are: Judge David Bazelon to the D.C. Circuit; Judge Augustus N. Hand to the Second Circuit; Judge Griffin Bell of the Fifth Circuit; and Supreme Court Justices William Brennan and Earl Warren. Today, during the month of February, Black History Month, I come to the Senate floor to call on my colleagues to once again shine as the conscience of the nation, and move quickly toward making Roger Gregory's lifetime appointment to the Fourth Circuit. He is eminently qualified to sit on the court, he has received praise for his integrity and legal talent, and he has been strongly endorsed by both of his home state Senators. Roger Gregory should be given a hearing before the Judiciary Committee without further delay. In deference to the position that President Bush took during the campaign, the Senate should act on this nomination in the next couple of weeks. The excuse from last year, that his nomination in June came too late in the year for Senate action, is inapplicable now. Let his be the first judicial nomination to come before the Committee and the Senate this year. His papers have long since been submitted to the Committee--we have had them in hand for eight months now. There can be no reason not to commit today, during this month when we honor the achievements and contributions of African-Americans, to move Roger Gregory swiftly to a hearing, through the Committee and then on to the Senate floor for a full Senate vote. After all of the delays meted out to the previous African-American nominees to the Fourth Circuit, the Senate has another chance to make history. As history has been made in so many other occasions for African-American judges, let us not squander this opportunity to make Roger Gregory the first African-American to be confirmed by the United States Senate to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce implementing legislation for the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, Protocol. I have introduced identical bills in the last two Congresses, but the Senate unfortunately did not consider those bills. Chairman Hatch has joined me in introducing this legislation, and I thank him for his leadership on this and other intellectual property matters of such critical importance to the economy and industry of our country. This bill is part of my ongoing effort to update American intellectual property law to ensure that it serves to advance and protect American interests both here and abroad. The Protocol would help American businesses, and especially small and medium-sized companies, protect their trademarks as they expand into international markets. Specifically, this legislation will conform American trademark application procedures to the terms of the Protocol in anticipation of the U.S.'s eventual ratification of the treaty. Ratification by the United States of this treaty would help create a ``one stop'' international trademark registration process, which would be an enormous benefit for American businesses. This bill is one of many measures I have introduced and supported over the past few years to ensure that American trademark holders receive strong protection in today's world of changing technology and complex international markets. Over the past few years, Senator Hatch and I have worked together successfully on a number of initiatives to bolster trademark protection and keep our trademark laws up-to-date. For example, in the 104th Congress, we supported the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, enacted to provide intellectual property rights holders with the power to enjoin another person's commercial use of famous marks that would cause dilution of the mark's distinctive quality. In the 105th Congress, we introduced legislation, S. 2193, to implement the Trademark Law Treaty. S. 2193 simplified trademark registration requirements around the world by establishing a list of maximum requirements which Treaty member countries can impose on trademark applicants. The bill passed the Senate on September 17, 1998, and was signed by the President on October 30, 1998. I am proud of this legislation since all American businesses, and particularly small American businesses, will benefit as a result. Also, in the 105th Congress, I introduced S. 1727 to authorize a comprehensive study of the effects of adding new generic Top Level Domains on trademark and other intellectual property rights. This bill became law as part of the Next Generation Internet Research Act, S. 1609, which was signed into law on October 28, 1998. In the 106th Congress, Senator Hatch and I worked together for enactment of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which protects against the registration, in bad faith with intent to profit, as a domain name of another person's trademark or the name of a living person. This bill was passed as part of the FY 2000 Omnibus Appropriations bill on November 29, 1999. Also in the 106th Congress, we worked to pass the Trademark Amendments Act, which enhanced protection for trademark owners and consumers by making it possible to prevent trademark dilution before it occurs, by clarifying the remedies available under the Federal trademark dilution statute, by providing recourse against the Federal Government for its infringement of others' trademarks, and by creating greater certainty and uniformity in the area of trade dress protection. The bill passed the Senate on July 1, 1999, and was enacted on August 5, 1999. Together, these measures represent significant steps in our efforts to ensure that American trademark law adequately serves and promote American interests. The legislation I introduce today with Senator Hatch would ease the trademark registration burden on small and medium-sized businesses by enabling them to obtain trademark protection in all signatory countries with a single trademark application filed with the Patent and Trademark Office. Currently, in order for American companies to protect their trademarks abroad, they must register their trademarks in each and every country in which protection is sought. Registering in multiple countries is a time-consuming, complicated and expensive process--a process which places a disproportionate burden on smaller American companies seeking international trademark protection. I first introduced the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act in the 105th Congress as S. 2191, then again in the 106th Congress as S. 671. The Judiciary Committee reported S. 671 favorably and unanimously, on February 10, 2000. In the House of Representatives, Congressmen Coble and Berman sponsored and passed an identical bill, H.R. 769, on April 13, 1999. Since 1891, the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, Agreement has provided an international trademark registration system. However, prior to adoption of the Protocol, the U.S. declined to join the Agreement because it contained terms deemed inimical to American intellectual property interests. In 1989, the terms of the Agreement were modified by the Protocol, which corrected the objectionable terms of the Agreement and made American participation a possibility. For example, under the Protocol, applications for international trademark extension can be completed in English; formerly, applications were required to be completed in French. Another stumbling block to the United States joining the Protocol was resolved last year. Specifically, the European Community, EC, had taken the position that under the Protocol, the EC, as an intergovernmental member of the Protocol, received a separate vote in the Assembly established by the agreement in addition to the votes of its member states. The State Department opposed this position as a contravention of the democratic concept of one-vote-per-country. On February 2, 2000, the Assembly of the Madrid Protocol expressed its intent ``to use their voting rights in such a way as to ensure that the number of votes cast by the European Community and its member States does not exceed the number of the European Community's Member States.'' In short, this letter appeared to resolve differences between the Administration and the European Community, EC, regarding the voting rights of intergovernmental members of the Protocol in the Assembly established by the agreement. Shortly after this letter was forwarded by the Assembly, I wrote to then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright requesting information on the Administration's position in light of the resolution of the voting dispute. At a hearing of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on April 14, 2000, I further inquired of Secretary Albright about the progress the Administration was making on this matter, particularly in light of the fact that differences over the voting rights of the European Union and participation of intergovernmental organizations in this intellectual property treaty were resolved in accordance with the U.S. position. Subsequently, President Clinton transmitted Treaty Document 106-41, the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement to the Senate for ratification on September 5, 2000. Shortly after transmittal, on September 13, 2000, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing to consider Protocol. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on the Protocol or the implementing legislation before the Congress adjourned. United States membership in the Protocol would greatly enhance the ability of any U.S. business, whether large or small, to protect its trademarks in other countries more quickly, cheaply and easily. That, in turn, will make it easier for American businesses to enter foreign markets and to protect their trademarks in those markets. The Protocol would not require substantive changes to American trademark law, but merely to certain procedures for registering trademarks. Passage of this implementing legislation will help to ensure timely accession to and implementation of the Madrid Protocol, and it will send a clear signal to the international community, U.S. businesses, and trademark owners that Congress is serious about our Nation becoming part of a low-cost, efficient system to promote the international registration of marks. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch and my other colleagues for ratification of the Protocol and passage of the implementing legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and the sectional analysis be placed in the RECORD after my statement, as well as any additional statements regarding this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce implementing legislation for the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, Protocol. I have introduced identical bills in the last two Congresses, but the Senate unfortunately did not consider those bills. Chairman Hatch has joined me in introducing this legislation, and I thank him for his leadership on this and other intellectual property matters of such critical importance to the economy and industry of our country. This bill is part of my ongoing effort to update American intellectual property law to ensure that it serves to advance and protect American interests both here and abroad. The Protocol would help American businesses, and especially small and medium-sized companies, protect their trademarks as they expand into international markets. Specifically, this legislation will conform American trademark application procedures to the terms of the Protocol in anticipation of the U.S.'s eventual ratification of the treaty. Ratification by the United States of this treaty would help create a ``one stop'' international trademark registration process, which would be an enormous benefit for American businesses. This bill is one of many measures I have introduced and supported over the past few years to ensure that American trademark holders receive strong protection in today's world of changing technology and complex international markets. Over the past few years, Senator Hatch and I have worked together successfully on a number of initiatives to bolster trademark protection and keep our trademark laws up-to-date. For example, in the 104th Congress, we supported the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, enacted to provide intellectual property rights holders with the power to enjoin another person's commercial use of famous marks that would cause dilution of the mark's distinctive quality. In the 105th Congress, we introduced legislation, S. 2193, to implement the Trademark Law Treaty. S. 2193 simplified trademark registration requirements around the world by establishing a list of maximum requirements which Treaty member countries can impose on trademark applicants. The bill passed the Senate on September 17, 1998, and was signed by the President on October 30, 1998. I am proud of this legislation since all American businesses, and particularly small American businesses, will benefit as a result. Also, in the 105th Congress, I introduced S. 1727 to authorize a comprehensive study of the effects of adding new generic Top Level Domains on trademark and other intellectual property rights. This bill became law as part of the Next Generation Internet Research Act, S. 1609, which was signed into law on October 28, 1998. In the 106th Congress, Senator Hatch and I worked together for enactment of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which protects against the registration, in bad faith with intent to profit, as a domain name of another person's trademark or the name of a living person. This bill was passed as part of the FY 2000 Omnibus Appropriations bill on November 29, 1999. Also in the 106th Congress, we worked to pass the Trademark Amendments Act, which enhanced protection for trademark owners and consumers by making it possible to prevent trademark dilution before it occurs, by clarifying the remedies available under the Federal trademark dilution statute, by providing recourse against the Federal Government for its infringement of others' trademarks, and by creating greater certainty and uniformity in the area of trade dress protection. The bill passed the Senate on July 1, 1999, and was enacted on August 5, 1999. Together, these measures represent significant steps in our efforts to ensure that American trademark law adequately serves and promote American interests. The legislation I introduce today with Senator Hatch would ease the trademark registration burden on small and medium-sized businesses by enabling them to obtain trademark protection in all signatory countries with a single trademark application filed with the Patent and Trademark Office. Currently, in order for American companies to protect their trademarks abroad, they must register their trademarks in each and every country in which protection is sought. Registering in multiple countries is a time-consuming, complicated and expensive process--a process which places a disproportionate burden on smaller American companies seeking international trademark protection. I first introduced the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act in the 105th Congress as S. 2191, then again in the 106th Congress as S. 671. The Judiciary Committee reported S. 671 favorably and unanimously, on February 10, 2000. In the House of Representatives, Congressmen Coble and Berman sponsored and passed an identical bill, H.R. 769, on April 13, 1999. Since 1891, the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, Agreement has provided an international trademark registration system. However, prior to adoption of the Protocol, the U.S. declined to join the Agreement because it contained terms deemed inimical to American intellectual property interests. In 1989, the terms of the Agreement were modified by the Protocol, which corrected the objectionable terms of the Agreement and made American participation a possibility. For example, under the Protocol, applications for international trademark extension can be completed in English; formerly, applications were required to be completed in French. Another stumbling block to the United States joining the Protocol was resolved last year. Specifically, the European Community, EC, had taken the position that under the Protocol, the EC, as an intergovernmental member of the Protocol, received a separate vote in the Assembly established by the agreement in addition to the votes of its member states. The State Department opposed this position as a contravention of the democratic concept of one-vote-per-country. On February 2, 2000, the Assembly of the Madrid Protocol expressed its intent ``to use their voting rights in such a way as to ensure that the number of votes cast by the European Community and its member States does not exceed the number of the European Community's Member States.'' In short, this letter appeared to resolve differences between the Administration and the European Community, EC, regarding the voting rights of intergovernmental members of the Protocol in the Assembly established by the agreement. Shortly after this letter was forwarded by the Assembly, I wrote to then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright requesting information on the Administration's position in light of the resolution of the voting dispute. At a hearing of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on April 14, 2000, I further inquired of Secretary Albright about the progress the Administration was making on this matter, particularly in light of the fact that differences over the voting rights of the European Union and participation of intergovernmental organizations in this intellectual property treaty were resolved in accordance with the U.S. position. Subsequently, President Clinton transmitted Treaty Document 106-41, the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement to the Senate for ratification on September 5, 2000. Shortly after transmittal, on September 13, 2000, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing to consider Protocol. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on the Protocol or the implementing legislation before the Congress adjourned. United States membership in the Protocol would greatly enhance the ability of any U.S. business, whether large or small, to protect its trademarks in other countries more quickly, cheaply and easily. That, in turn, will make it easier for American businesses to enter foreign markets and to protect their trademarks in those markets. The Protocol would not require substantive changes to American trademark law, but merely to certain procedures for registering trademarks. Passage of this implementing legislation will help to ensure timely accession to and implementation of the Madrid Protocol, and it will send a clear signal to the international community, U.S. businesses, and trademark owners that Congress is serious about our Nation becoming part of a low-cost, efficient system to promote the international registration of marks. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch and my other colleagues for ratification of the Protocol and passage of the implementing legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and the sectional analysis be placed in the RECORD after my statement, as well as any additional statements regarding this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act, S. 39, which was introduced by Senator Stevens. I thank him for his hard work on this important piece of legislation. I supported and cosponsored the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act in the last Congress as well. I was disappointed that this legislation did not become law then. In April and May, 1999, I made sure that the Senate acted on this bill. On April 22, 1999, the Senate Judiciary Committee took up that measure in regular order and reported it unanimously. At that time I congratulated Senator Stevens for introducing the measure and thanked him for his leadership. I noted that we had worked together on a number of law enforcement matters and that the senior Senator from Alaska is a stalwart supporter of the men and women who put themselves at risk to protect us all. I said that I looked forward to enactment of this measure and to seeing the extraordinary heroism of our police, firefighters and correctional officers recognized with the Medal of Valor. On May 18, 1999, I was privileged to be on the floor of the Senate when we proceeded to consider S. 39 and passed it unanimously. I took that occasion to commend Senator Stevens and all who had worked so hard to move this measure in a timely way. That was during National Police Week nearly two years ago. The measure was sent to the House of Representatives where it lay dormant for the remainder of the 106th Congress. Instead, the House, in the last Congress, insisted that the Senate take up, fix and pass the House-passed version of this measure, H.R. 46, if it were to become law. House members indicated that they were prepared to accept most of the Senate-passed text, but insisted that it be enacted under the House bill number. In order to get this important measure to the President, we did that on December 15, 2000. We discharged the House-passed version of that bill from the Judiciary Committee, adopting a complete substitute, and sent it back to the House. Unfortunately, the House failed to act on our good faith effort last year, and the Public Medal of Valor was never enacted. This year, I have again worked with Senator Stevens, Senator Hatch, and others to get this important bill passed. I urge my colleagues to work towards improvements to ensure that the Medal of Valor Board will work effectively and efficiently with the National Medal of Valor Office within the Department of Justice. Our legislation should establish both of these entities. It is essential that they work well together to design the Medal of Valor and to create the criteria and procedures for recommendations of nominees for the award. The men and women who will be honored by the Medal of Valor for their brave deeds deserve nothing less. I hope the Senate will quickly act on these changes to this important measure.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we pass this resolution to name the Washington headquarters of one of President Kennedy's greatest legacies, the Peace Corps, after Paul Coverdell, Senators should recall that we already honored our departed friend and colleague last year. In addition to the programs that were named for Senator Coverdell last year that have already been identified by Senator Dodd, we honored Senator Coverdell by placing his name on another major Government program and to the legislation that established it--the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000. We were all shocked and saddened last July by the untimely passing of our friend, Paul Coverdell. As I said at the time, he was one of the kindest people to grace this floor, and there was a certain peacefulness about him that was always pleasantly contagious. In a sometimes very divisive Senate, that peacefulness was so respected. All of us who worked with Paul liked him; we missed him, and we wanted to honor his memory in an appropriate way. I think we did that. On October 26, 2000--just a few months after his sudden passing--the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000 sailed through the Senate by unanimous consent. The House passed the bill a few months later, and President Clinton signed it into law on December 21. I worked closely with Senator Sessions to ensure passage of that legislation last year. The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act calls for an infusion of Federal funds to improve the quality of State and local crime labs. Passage of this important legislation was a fitting tribute to the former senior Senator from Georgia, who had been a leader on similar legislation in the past. Paul Coverdell was committed to ensuring that justice in this country is neither delayed nor denied, and he understood that existing backlogs in our Nation's crime labs were denying the swift administration of justice. In his last years in the Senate, Paul Coverdell made the improvement of forensic science services one of his highest priorities. Rather than renaming more programs or buildings in Paul's honor, we should be funding the important legislation that he championed, and that we already passed in his memory. Let me say a few words about this legislation, which I strongly supported. The use of quality forensic science services is widely accepted as a key to effective crime-fighting, especially with advanced technologies such as DNA testing. Over the past decade, DNA testing has emerged as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying criminals when biological material is left at a crime scene. Because of its scientific precision, DNA testing can, in some cases, conclusively establish a suspect's guilt or innocence. In other cases, DNA testing may not conclusively establish guilt or innocence, but may have significant probative value for investigators. While DNA's power to root out the truth has been a boon to law enforcement, it has also been the salvation of law enforcement's mistakes--those who for one reason or another, are prosecuted and convicted of crimes that they did not commit. In more than 80 cases in this country, DNA evidence has led to the exoneration of innocent men and women who were wrongfully convicted. This number includes at least 10 individuals sentenced to death, some of whom came within days of being executed. In more than a dozen cases, moreover, post-conviction DNA testing that has exonerated an innocent person has also enhanced public safety by providing evidence that led to the apprehension of the real perpetrator. Clearly, forensic science services like DNA testing are critical to the effective administration of justice in 21st century America. Forensic science workloads have increased significantly over the past 5 years, both in number and complexity. Since Congress established the Combined DNA Index System in the mid-1990s, States have been busy collecting DNA samples from convicted offenders for analysis and indexing. Increased Federal funding for State and local law enforcement programs has resulted in more and better trained police officers who are collecting immense amounts of evidence that can and should be subjected to crime laboratory analysis. Funding has simply not kept pace with this increasing demand, and State crime laboratories are now seriously bottlenecked. Backlogs have impeded the use of new technologies like DNA testing in solving cases without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong claims of innocence--as laboratories are required to give priority status to those cases in which a suspect is known. In some parts of the country, investigators must wait several months--and sometimes more than a year--to get DNA test results from rape and other violent crime evidence. Solely for lack of funding, critical evidence remains untested while rapists and killers remain at large, victims continue to anguish, and statutes of limitations on prosecution expire. Let me describe the situation in my home State. The Vermont Forensics Laboratory is currently operating in an old Vermont State Hospital building in Waterbury, VT. Though it is proudly one of only two fully- accredited forensics labs in New England, it is trying to do 21st century science in a 1940's building. The lab has very limited space and no central climate control--both essential conditions for precise forensic science. It also has a large storage freezer full of untested DNA evidence from unsolved cases, for which there are no other leads besides the untested evidence. The evidence is not being processed because the lab does not have the space, equipment or manpower. I commend the scientists and lab personnel at the Vermont Forensics Laboratory for the fine work they do everyday under difficult circumstances. But the people of the State of Vermont deserve better. The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act--if and when it is fully funded--will give States like Vermont the help they desperately need to handle the increased workloads placed upon their forensic science systems. It allocates $738 million over the next 6 years for grants to qualified forensic science laboratories and medical examiner's offices for laboratory accreditation, automated equipment, supplies, training, facility improvements, and staff enhancements. We do not honor our colleague's memory by establishing a program in his name and then leaving it unfunded. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support full and immediate funding of the Paul Coverdell National Sciences Improvement Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before leaving office, Attorney General Reno ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider its decision to reject the asylum claim of a Guatemalan domestic violence victim. I applaud the former Attorney General for her actions in this case, entitled Matter of R.A., and I encourage the Bush Administration to continue with her efforts to provide a safe harbor for victims of severe domestic abuse. The facts of the R.A. case are chilling. Ms. Rodi Alvarado Pena sought asylum after suffering from unthinkable abuse at the hands of her husband in her native Guatemala, abuse that ended only when she escaped to the United States in 1995. She said that her husband raped and pistol-whipped her, and beat her unconscious in front of her children. She said that law enforcement authorities in Guatemala told her that they would not protect her from violent crimes committed against her by her husband. And she believed that her husband would kill her if she returned to Guatemala. The INS did not dispute what Ms. Pena said, and in 1996, an immigration judge determined that she was entitled to asylum. But in 1999, the Board of Immigration Appeals (``BIA'') reversed that decision on the grounds that even if everything Ms. Pena said were true, she did not qualify for asylum because victims of domestic abuse do not constitute a ``social group'' under existing law. This decision seemed to me and a number of other Senators and Representatives to be inconsistent with previous decisions extending asylum to victims of sexual abuse. I wrote Doris Meissner, then the Commissioner of the INS, in August 1999 to express my concerns about the case. I joined a group of Senators writing Attorney General Reno about this matter in November 1999, and raised those concerns again in letters to the Attorney General in February and September 2000. Finally, I reiterated my concerns to Ms. Meissner in August 2000. The Justice Department released a proposed rule in December that would make it easier for women to base asylum petitions on gender-based persecution. Then-Attorney General Reno's January 19 order stays the R.A. case until a final version of that rule is approved, at which time the BIA will reconsider the case in light of that rule. I urge the Bush Administration to approve a final rule that provides strong protections for victims of domestic violence and other forms of gender-based oppression. And I urge the BIA to apply that rule in a way that provides the maximum protection for such women. The United States should have--and I believe does have--a bipartisan commitment to refugees. I have been joined by Republicans such as Senators Brownback and Jeffords in my attempts to draw attention to this case. And I am optimistic that the Bush Administration will share our concerns. No one wants to see a victim of domestic violence returned to face further abuse, especially where her government does not have the will or ability to protect her. Working together, and building on the foundation laid by Attorney General Reno, we can prevent that from happening.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to discuss the case of Earl Washington. Mr. Washington was released from custody Monday after more than 17 years in prison. In fact, of the 17 years in prison, 10 years of that were on death row. Virginia Governor James Gilmore pardoned Earl Washington on October 2, 2000, after some new DNA tests confirmed what earlier DNA tests had already shown--he was the wrong guy. They had the wrong person in prison on death row. I mention this case as probably the most recent that we have seen in the press, but we have seen a shocking number of cases in the past 2 years in which inmates have been exonerated after long stays in prison, including more than 90 cases involving people who had been sentenced to death. Let me repeat that: more than 90 cases where people had been sentenced to death and they then found they had the wrong person. Since Earl Washington was pardoned 4 months ago, six more condemned prisoners in four different States have had their convictions vacated through exonerating evidence: William Nieves, sentenced to death in Pennsylvania in 1994; Michael Graham and Albert Burrell, sentenced to death in Louisiana in 1987; Peter Limone and Joseph Salvati, sentenced to death in Massachusetts in 1968; and Frank Lee Smith, sentenced to death in Florida in 1986. There have also been other recent exonerations of inmates who were not sentenced to death, but were serving long terms of imprisonment. Just last month, the State of Texas released Chris Ochoa from prison at the request of the local prosecutors. The prosecutors themselves asked that he be released. In 1989, Ochoa pled guilty to a rape-murder he did not commit. Somebody may ask: Why would you plead guilty to a rape and murder that you did not commit? Because the authorities said they were going to make sure he got a death sentence if he did not plead guilty to the crime. DNA tests that were not available when he was arrested cleared Ochoa and his codefendant and implicated another man, who had previously confessed to the crime on several occasions. Here is how bad this case was. Chris Ochoa was arrested. He knew he did not commit the crime, this rape-murder. But the police basically told him: We are going to have you executed if we go to trial. We are going to prove it. We will have you executed. Of course, you can plead guilty and we will spare you the death penalty. He did. But then, even though they had the man who actually committed this heinous crime, who kept confessing to it, they did not pay any attention to him because it was easier to just keep the wrong guy locked up. Of course, when the DNA evidence came out--it was there in front of everybody--they said: Look, we have the wrong guy. This other person, the person who had confessed to it, is the right guy after all. Whoops, sorry about that. Well, we have only had you locked up for over a decade for a crime you did not commit. We must identify the cracks in the system that allowed these injustices to occur. DNA is a central tool in this pursuit. It has already led to the exoneration of more than 80 people in this country, including Earl Washington and others who had been sentenced to death. DNA testing has opened a window to give us a disturbing view of the defects of our criminal justice system. When DNA evidence exonerates a person such as Earl Washington, there is a unique opportunity to evaluate how the system failed that person, and perhaps even more importantly, to identify broader patterns of error and abuse. If a plane falls from the sky and crashes, we investigate the causes. We try to learn from the tragedy so we can avoid similar tragedies in the future. We should do no less when a wrongfully convicted person walks off death row. The justice system did not just fail Earl Washington; it crashed and burned. We have a lot to learn from this case. It highlights many of the problems we see over and over again in cases of wrongful conviction. These are the basic facts of the Earl Washington case. In June of 1982, a young woman named Rebecca Williams was raped and murdered in Culpeper, VA. Nearly a year later, Earl Washington was arrested on an unrelated charge. Earlier that day, Washington had broken into the home of an elderly woman named Helen Weeks. But she surprised him. He hit her over the head with a chair and fled. At the time he was arrested, he was drunk and running wild through the woods. Earl Washington suffers from mental retardation. He has an IQ of 69, which puts him in the bottom 2 percent of the population. Like a child, he tends to answer questions in whatever way he thinks will please his questioners. After his arrest, he ``confessed'' to pretty much every unsolved crime the police asked him about. A police sergeant named Alan Cubbage later described the scene to the Washington Post. He got a call that day from the officers who were interrogating Earl Washington. He told the Post: ``It was almost like a big party. `Come on down,' '' they said, ``This guy is confessing to everything.'' He was confessing to crimes he could not possibly have committed. But whatever it was, when they asked him if he committed the crime, he said: ``Yes, sir.'' First, he confessed to the crime he had actually committed--breaking into Helen Weeks' home and hitting her over the head with a chair. That he did do. Then he confessed to raping her. Without any reason to suspect that Weeks had been raped, the officers interrogating Washington asked if he had raped her, and he gave the standard response, ``Yes, sir.'' On that basis alone, they charged him with rape. Well, then Helen Weeks came forward and said, ``Nobody raped me. I never told the police I had been raped. Nobody tried to rape me.'' And they kind of tiptoed into court and dropped the rape charge. During that same interrogation session, Earl Washington went on to confess to four other unrelated crimes. Investigators later concluded that he could not have committed three of the crimes in other words, that his confessions were wholly unreliable. Yet with virtually no evidence other than the remaining confession, he was charged and brought to trial for the fourth crime the rape and murder of Rebecca Williams. Earl Washington almost immediately retracted his confession to the Williams murder, and there were no fingerprints or blood linking him to the crime scene. But he was convicted, and the jury recommended execution. He was sentenced to death, his appeals were rejected, and he came within a few days of being electrocuted. The whole justice system failed him. But science eventually came to his rescue. Mr. President, everybody who has been in law enforcement knows you get some people like Earl Washington, who are ready to confess to everything. When I was prosecuting cases, we had a man--he is no longer alive--who would read something in the paper, a horrendous crime, and he would immediately confess. Especially if it was cold weather, he would come to a warm police station and he would confess to everything. We could make up cases and he would confess. Obviously, that is one level. But with Earl Washington it was entirely different. He had committed a crime. He had broken into a woman's house, and he had hit her with a chair. But he did not rape her. Nobody did. She said so herself. He certainly did not murder and rape the woman he was charged with murdering and raping. Somebody else did. But with no evidence at all, except for his confession, he was found guilty. When Earl Washington was convicted in 1984, DNA testing was not available. By the early 1990s, DNA testing was available, although the technology has since improved, and tests done in 1993 and 1993--seven years ago--showed that Earl Washington did not rape Rebecca Williams. Despite these test results, the state officials still thought he might be guilty. Maybe there was somebody else involved. Maybe there were two people--notwithstanding the fact that the woman who was murdered, who had lived for a period of time after she was attacked, said very clearly that there was only one person. So Earl Washington remained in prison. There was so much doubt--at least they did not execute him--they commuted his sentence to life in January of 1994. But he was not pardoned. He was given life in prison, but still for a crime that he did not commit and more and more of the authorities in the State knew he did not commit and DNA tests proved he did not commit. One would think the courts would be interested in scientific evidence, especially of a prisoner's innocence. Normally you do not have to prove your innocence, but this was a case where he could prove his innocence. One might ask, couldn't he go to court with the new DNA evidence and ask for a new trial? The answer is no; Virginia has the shortest deadline in the country for going back to court with new evidence. It has to be submitted within 21 days of conviction. After that, the defendant is out of luck. Earl Washington could not submit the evidence within 21 days of conviction for a very simple reason: The technology for DNA testing, at the time of his conviction, was not available. And of course by the time it became available a few years later, he was in a catch-22: I've got DNA evidence that proves I'm innocent. Sorry, 21 days went by a long time ago. But they didn't have DNA evidence within 21 days of my conviction. I know, it is a crying shame. Stay on death row. Last year, a new and more precise DNA test reconfirmed what the earlier tests had shown: Earl Washington did not commit the crime for which he was sentenced to death. The tests pointed to another person who was already in prison for rape. So, 7 years after the initial DNA tests and more than 16 years after he was sentenced to be executed, Earl Washington was granted an absolute pardon for the rape and murder of Rebecca Williams, a rape and murder he never committed. After science had twice proven his innocence, the Commonwealth of Virginia finally acknowledged the truth. That is not the end of the story. He then spent another 4 months in prison for his attack on Hazel Weeks. That is at least a crime he committed. He hit her with a chair in 1983. So now, 17 years later, he is finishing that sentence. People sentenced for similar crimes in Virginia are generally paroled after 7 to 10 years in prison. They made Earl Washington serve twice the time that others would serve the maximum possible time in prison. Having unjustly condemned him, the Commonwealth of Virginia compounded the injustice by keeping him in prison until two days ago, when he became entitled to mandatory parole. It is almost as if they were saying: How dare you be innocent of the other crime we convicted you of? How dare you prove us wrong? We will make you pay for it. I had hoped to meet with Earl Washington after his release from prison. Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia wrote to the Virginia correctional authorities 2 weeks ago and sought permission for Earl Washington to travel to Capitol Hill Monday under the care and supervision of his attorneys. We thought it was important for the American people to hear firsthand an account of this injustice. A good justice system learns from its mistakes. The last 17 years of Earl Washington's life have been one of the system's worst mistakes. We felt we owed it to Earl Washington and future Earl Washingtons to listen. The officials of the Commonwealth did not. They had a different view. They did not want Earl Washington to come here. They did not want him to come here even for a few hours, come that great distance from Virginia, which is 2 miles away. They didn't want him to come those extra 2 miles and tell the story. This case reveals the dark side of a system that is not known for admitting its mistakes. I am not speaking only of the Commonwealth of Virginia. A whole lot of other States have been just as bad at admitting their mistakes. In the Earl Washington case, state officials insisted on pursuing a death penalty charge despite having wholly unreliable evidence. They kept him in prison for years despite knowing he was falsely convicted. They kept him locked up, knowing he was falsely convicted. And then they would not even let him come here to Washington to tell the American people what happened. We need to hear from such people like Earl Washington, not hide them from public view. The American justice system is about the search for the truth: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of finality in criminal cases, but even more important than that is the commitment to the truth; that has to come first. This case tells us we cannot sit back and assume prosecutors and courts will do the right thing when it comes to DNA evidence. It took Earl Washington years to convince prosecutors to do the very simple tests that would prove his innocence, and more time still to win his freedom. Some States continue to stonewall on requests for DNA testing. They continue to hide behind time limits and procedural default rules to deny prisoners the opportunity to present DNA test results in court. They continue to destroy DNA evidence that could set innocent people free. These practices must stop. I have long supported and I continue to support funding to ensure that law enforcement has access to DNA testing and all the other tools it needs to investigate and prosecute crime in our society. But if we as a society are committed to getting it right, and not just to getting a conviction, we need to make sure that DNA testing, and the ability to present DNA evidence to the courts, is also available to the defense. We should not pass up the promise of truth and justice for both sides of our adversarial system, and that promise is there in DNA evidence. We must also understand this case shows why we should not allow the execution of the mentally retarded. As I noted in a floor statement last December, people with mental retardation are more prone to make false confessions simply to please their interrogators, and they are often unable to assist their lawyers in their own defense. Earl Washington confessed to no less than four serious felonies which he did not commit and could not have committed. We should join the overwhelming number of nations that do not allow the execution of the mentally retarded. There are good things that may come out of this case. I know the Supreme Court of Virginia has proposed eliminating the 21-day rule, which prevented Earl Washington from getting a new trial based on the initial DNA tests in the early 1990s. That would be a good thing if it happens. But it would be just a start. I urge us to go forward and pass the Innocence Protection Act, supported by both Republicans and Democrats in this body and in the other body. This legislation addresses several serious problems in the administration of capital punishment. Most urgently, the bill would afford greater access to DNA testing for convicted offenders and help states improve the quality of legal representation in their capital cases. It also proposes that the United States Congress speak as the conscience of the Nation in condemning the execution of the mentally retarded. People of good conscience can and will disagree on the morality of the death penalty; but people of good conscience all share the same goal of preventing the execution of the innocent. People of good conscience should not disagree that the way the case of Earl Washington was handled over the past 17 years was unjust. It was completely unacceptable. We ought to find ways to make sure these kinds of things do not happen again.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield whatever time remains.

Mr. LEAHY. Over the past years, Senator Hatch and I, and others on the Judiciary Committee, have worked constructively and productively together on intellectual property matters. Just in the last Congress, we were able to pass the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the Patent Fee Integrity and Innovation Protection Act, the Trademarks Amendments Act, the Satellite Home Viewers Improvements Act, and the American Inventors Protection Act. These significant intellectual property matters were preceded by our work together forging a consensus on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Copyright Term Extension Act, the PTO Reauthorization Act, the Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act, and many others. We and the other members of the committee have worked to ensure that divisive partisanship stays clear of this important area. The proof of what we in Congress can accomplish when we put partisan differences aside, roll up our sleeves, and do the hard work or crafting compromises is demonstrated by our record of legislative achievements on intellectual property matters. I hope all Senators will look at what Senator Hatch and I have been able to do when we set aside partisan differences and make sure we do things that work. This bill makes technical corrections to and various non-substantive changes in our intellectual property laws. Introduction and passage of this bill is a good start for this Congress, but we must not lose sight of the other copyright, patent and trademark issues requiring our attention. The Senate Judiciary Committee has a full slate of intellectual property matters to consider. I am pleased to work on a bipartisan basis with the chairman on an agenda to provide the creators and inventors of copyrighted and patented works with the protection they may need in our global economy, while at the same time providing libraries, educational institutions, and other users with the clarity they need as to what constitutes fair use of such work. We have to realize things have changed. There has been a lot in the press in the past couple days about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Napster. I suggest that if anyone thinks this is the end of the whole issue, they are mistaken. It is clear that creators and owners of copyrighted property should have their copyrights protected, and they should certainly be compensated for their artistry and their work. Those who distribute or produce copyrighted material, including movies, music, and books, have to realize their own business practices may well have to change and be a lot different. Profit margins may change, depending upon how it is done. Artists are not going to be beholden just to a few mega distributors. With the Internet, they are going to be able to work out their own way of distributing their material. They are going to be able to get themselves known if they want, even if it is by distributing their music, movies, or books for free. It is a different world out there, but it is just one example of the kinds of issues we have to look at. Applying copyright principles to new situations should not be done just by court-made law which is imprecise, at best, because a court is limited to the factual situation before it rather than a full panoply of circumstances, but can be done here, recognizing we have a whole new way of doing things. I remember when I was growing up in Montpelier, VT, my parents owned a small printing business. We used either moveable type or hot lead type. It was a laborious process. One thing I learned was not only to proofread in a hurry, but to read upside down and backward, as well as right side up and forward, because that is the way the letters work. It is a matter of consternation sometimes. People do not realize I am reading what is before me. Now I look at the business, and there has been enormous change. It is less labor intensive in the setting up--it is not even type anymore, now it is offset. It changes the whole economy, but opens up a whole new world, all using different kinds of copyrighted material. Among the things we should look at is protection from State infringement. In response to the Supreme Court's decisions in the Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank cases, I introduced in the last Congress legislation to restore Federal protection for intellectual property to guard against infringement by the States. This is a reaction to an activist U.S. Supreme Court which held that States and their institutions cannot be held liable for patent infringement and other violations of the Federal intellectual property laws, even though those same States can and do enjoy the full protection of those laws for themselves. Basically, the Supreme Court--it seemed to me anyway--seems to be willing to rewrite the rule of law with regard to the Constitution, certainly when it comes to telling States what they cannot do. We know they are not hesitant to do that. The legislation I sponsored would condition a State's ability to obtain new intellectual property rights on its waiver of sovereign immunity in future intellectual property suits. It would also improve the limited remedies available to enforce a nonwaiving State's obligations under Federal law and the U.S. Constitution. This is a critical area in which the Congress should act. Then we have distance education. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in the last Congress on the Copyright Office's thorough and balanced report on copyright and digital distance education, something that can be very important to those of us from rural States where there may be small schools. While the distinguished Presiding Officer has metropolitan areas in her State, she also has very rural areas. Schools in rural areas may not be able to hire the top math teacher, the top language teacher, or the top science teacher, even though all these may be needed, but three or four of them together can do so if they are connected in such a way that they can utilize this. We need to address legislative recommendations outlined in the Copyright Office's report to ensure our laws permit the appropriate use of copyrighted works in valid distance learning activities. I know Senator Hatch shares my goal for the schools in this country, particularly in rural areas. We can use this technology to maximize the educational experiences of our children. It is an important area for the Judiciary Committee to examine. Not everybody comes from large schools. I had about 30 in my high school graduating class. Interestingly, every 4 years, all 500 of those 30 students show up at my door saying they were a high school classmate; could they please have a ticket to the Presidential inauguration. We have the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act. I introduced legislation in the last two Congresses to help American businesses, and especially small and medium-sized companies, protect their trademarks as they go into international markets. The legislation would do so by conforming American trademark application procedures to the terms of the Madrid protocol. The Clinton administration transmitted the protocol to the Senate for its advise and consent last year. I regret we did not work on it promptly. I hope the new President will urge that action because ratification by the United States of this treaty would help create a one-stop international trademark registration process, an enormous benefit for American businesses. Next we have business method patents. The PTO has been subject to criticism for granting patents for obvious routines which implement existing business methods. The patent reform law that Senator Hatch and I worked out in the last Congress addressed one aspect of this matter: The prior user defense at least protects those who previously practiced that particular art. We should hold a hearing and engage the PTO in a dialog about this important issue to find out what you do with initial patents. Frankly, I find patenting electronic business practices not that far removed from the situation where two competing hardware stores in the spring put the seeds, the Rototillers, and whatnot out front and in the winter put the snowblowers out front. Should one be allowed to patent that process so in the summer its competitor would have to have its snowblowers out front and could not put out lawn items? I think not. That is what we are looking at, except now in a digital age. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development criticized the PTO for granting overly broad biotechnology patent protections. This area, as well as the international protection of patent rights, warrants examination and careful monitoring. Then we have the issue of rural satellite television and Internet service. It is important to the State of Vermont. It is important to every rural community. It is certainly important to mine. I live in a house where I cannot get any television. I used to joke that I would get one and a quarter. I do not even get the quarter anymore. I cannot get anything, but I can if I have satellite television, and I can get my Internet service the same way. Senator Hatch and I worked together to address this issue in the major Satellite Home Viewers Law passed last Congress. We authorized a rural loan guarantee program to help facilitate deployment in rural areas. That law included a priority for loans that offered financing for high-speed Internet access. That is a great tool in eliminating the digital divide between urban and rural America. So we want to make sure that gets done and done right. The job of this Congress is to ensure that the administration gets the job done so that those goals are met and the programs we have established are fully implemented. The ninth circuit's ruling in the Napster case on Monday highlights the tensions between new online tools and services and protection of intellectual property rights. In the long term, where it counts the most, both sides--copyright holders and advocates for advances in new technology--can find victories in this ruling. Nothing should stop the genius of a Shawn Fanning or those who come up with new online technologies like Napster. While Napster customers may not initially see it that way, the availability of new music and other creative works--and its contributions to the vibrancy of our culture and in fueling our economy--depends on clearly understood and adequately enforced copyright protection. The Court of Appeals has sent the case back to the district court to ensure that the rights of creators are protected and that the online marketplace is just that, and not a free-for-all. The exponential growth of Napster has proven that the Internet works well to distribute music, but this case is a warning that copyrights may not be ignored when new online services are deployed. The Internet can and must serve the needs not only of Internet users and innovators of new technologies, but also of artists, songwriters, performers and copyright holders. The Judiciary Committee should examine this issue closely to ensure that our laws are working well to meet all these needs. Last Congress I introduced the Drug Competition Act of 2000, S. 2993, to give the Justice Department and the FTC the information they need to prevent anticompetitive practices which delay the availability of low- cost generic prescription drugs. I intend to re-introduce this bill soon and work with my colleagues to enact it this year to help assure that the availability of lower cost prescription drugs. I noted upon passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998 that there was not enough time before the end of that Congress to give due consideration to the issue of database protection, and that I hoped the Senate Judiciary Committee would hold hearings and consider database protection legislation. Despite the passage of time, the Judiciary Committee has not yet held hearings on this issue. I support legal protection against commercial misappropriation of collections of information, but am sensitive to the concerns raised by the libraries, certain educational institutions, and the scientific community. This is a complex and important matter that I look forward to considering in this Congress. Product identification codes provide a means for manufacturers to track their goods, which can be important to protect consumers in case of defective, tainted, or harmful products and to implement product recalls. Defacing, removing, or tampering with product identification codes can thwart these tracking efforts, with potential safety consequences for American consumers. We should examine the scope of, and legislative solutions to remedy, this problem. Senator Hatch and I worked together to pass cybersquatting legislation in the last Congress to protect registered trademarks online. This is an issue that has concerned me since the Congress passed the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, when I expressed my hope that the new law would ``help stem the use of deceptive Internet addresses taken by those who are choosing marks that are associated with the products and reputations of others.'' (Congressional Record, December 29, 1995, page S19312). The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (I-CANN) has recently added new top-level domain names and is negotiating contracts with the new registries. Senator Hatch and I followed these developments closely and together wrote to then Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta on December 15, 2000, for the Commerce Department's assurances that the introduction of the new TLDs be achieved in a manner that minimizes the abuses of trademark rights. The Judiciary Committee has an important oversight role to play in this area. We also will need to pay careful attention to the increasing consolidation in the airline, telecommunications, petroleum, electric, agriculture, and other sectors of the economy to ensure that consumers are protected from anticompetitive practices. The Judiciary Committee has already held one hearing on airline consolidation in this Congress and I stand ready to work with my colleagues on legislation to address competition problems. I have already joined with the Democratic leader and several of my colleagues on the Securing a Future for Independent Agriculture Act, S. 20, to address the growing serious problem of consolidation in the agriculture processing sector. In addition, we need to carefully monitor international efforts to harmonize competition law to ensure that American companies and consumers are fairly treated and that our antitrust policies are not weakened. This bill represents a good start on the work before the Senate Judiciary Committee to update American intellectual property law to ensure that it serves to advance and protect American interests both here and abroad. The list of addititional copyright, patent, and trademark issues that require our attention shows that we have a lot more work to do. Exhibit 1 Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, February 12, 2001. Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: I understand that you will be sponsoring legislation in this Congress that will incorporate last year's proposed Copyright Technical Corrections Act of 2000, H.R. 5106. The Copyright Office proposed the technical corrections that were included in H.R. 5106 to address some minor drafting errors in the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 and to correct some other technical discrepancies in Title 17. None of these proposed corrections are substantive. I believe that it is important that the provisions of Title 17 be clear, and therefore I thank you for your leadership on this legislation and hope that you will be successful in obtaining its passage. Sincerely, Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Utah for his comments. He and I have been working closely on an agenda for the coming year for the Judiciary Committee. As always, the agenda will reflect not only the needs of the Senate, but the friendship that the two of us have had for well over 20 years. I congratulate Senator Hatch for his continuing leadership in improving our copyright, trademark, and patent law. Our intellectual property laws are important engines for our economy, fueling the creative energy responsible for America's global leadership in the software, movie, music, and high-tech industries. The bill we considered today contains amendments recommended to us by the Copyright Office. I commend the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, for the expertise she brings to her office and the assistance she brings to us. At the end of my statement, I ask that a letter from Marybeth Peters in support of this legislation be printed in the Record. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on S. 320?

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator McCain to introduce a Senate resolution to provide Internet Access to important Congressional documents. Our bipartisan resolution makes certain Congressional Research Service products, lobbyist disclosure reports and Senate gift disclosure reports available over the Internet to the American people. The Congressional Research Service, CRS, has a well-known reputation for producing high-quality reports and information briefs that are unbiased, concise, and accurate. The taxpayers of this country, who pay $67 million a year to fund the CRS, deserve speedy access to these public resources and have a right to see that their money is being spent well. The goal of our legislation is to allow every citizen the same access to the wealth of CRS information as a Member of Congress enjoys today. CRS performs invaluable research and produces first-rate reports on hundreds of topics. American taxpayers have every right to direct access to these wonderful resources. Online CRS reports will serve an important role in informing the public. Members of the public will be able to read these CRS products and receive a concise, accurate summary of the issues before the Congress. As elected representatives, we should do what we can to promote an informed, educated public. The educated voter is best able to make decisions and petition us to do the right things here in Congress. Our legislation follows the model online CRS program in the House of Representatives and ensures that private CRS products will remain protected by giving the CRS Director the authority to hold back any products that are deemed confidential. Moreover, the Director may protect the identity of CRS researchers and any copyrighted material. We can do both--protect confidential material and empower our citizens through electronic access to invaluable CRS products. In addition, the bipartisan resolution would provide public online access to lobbyist reports and gift disclosure forms. At present, these public records are available in the Senate Office of Public Records in Room 232 of the Hart Building. As a practical matter, these public records are accessible only to those inside the Beltway. I applaud the Office of Public Records for recently making technological history in the Senate by providing for lobbying registrations through the Internet. The next step is to provide the completed lobbyist disclosure reports on the Internet for all Americans to see. The Internet offers us a unique opportunity to allow the American people to have everyday access to this public information. Our bipartisan legislation would harness the power of the Information Age to allow average citizens to see these public records of the Senate in their official form, in context and without editorial comment. All Americans should have timely access to the information that we already have voted to give them. And all of these reports are indeed ``public'' for those who can afford to hire a lawyer or lobbyist or who can afford to travel to Washington to come to the Office of Public Records in the Hart Building and read them. That is not very public. That does not do very much for the average voter in Vermont or the rest of this country outside of easy reach of Washington. That does not meet the spirit in which we voted to make these materials public, when we voted ``disclosure'' laws. We can do better, and this resolution does better. Any citizen in any corner of this country with access to a computer at home or the office or at the public library will be able to get on the Internet and get these important Congressional documents under our resolution. It allows individual citizens to check the facts, to make comparisons, and to make up their own minds. I commend the Senior Senator from Arizona for his leadership on opening public access to Congressional documents. I share his desire for the American people to have electronic access to many more Congressional resources. I look forward to working with him in the days to let the information age open up the halls of Congress to all our citizens. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``Information is the currency of democracy.'' Our democracy is stronger if all citizens have equal access to at least that type of currency, and that is something which Members on both sides of the aisle can celebrate and join in. This bipartisan resolution is an important step in informing and empowering American citizens. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to make available useful Congressional information to the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, is going to be coming over on a matter of ours. He is not here yet. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed on a different subject as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Hatch and Senators Biden, DeWine, and Thurmond to introduce the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001. This bill provides a comprehensive approach to drug treatment, prevention, and enforcement. It is my hope that the innovative programs established by this legislation will assist all of our States in their efforts to address the drug problems that most affect our communities. No community is immune from the ravages of drug abuse. My own State of Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, yet we are experiencing serious troubles because of the abuse of heroin and other drugs. Recent estimates indicate that heroin use in Vermont has doubled in just the past three years, and the number of people seeking drug treatment has risen even more rapidly. The average age of a first-time heroin user dropped from 27 to 17 during the 1990s, signaling a sharp rise in teenage drug abuse. The consequences of this rise have made themselves all too clear over the past months. On January 3, Christal Jones, a 16-year-old girl from Burlington, was murdered in New York City. According to news reports, she was recruited in Burlington to move to New York and become part of a prostitution ring, and she was motivated by a desire to get money to buy heroin. When she died, drugs were found in her body, although they were not the cause of her death. And Christal Jones' tragedy apparently is not unique as many as a dozen Vermont girls may have been involved in this New York ring. And since her death, others have come forward to say that teenage girls in Burlington are prostituting themselves to get money to buy heroin. These disturbing reports followed by only a few months a heinous drug-related triple murder in Rutland, Vermont. In that case, 20-year- olds Robert Lee and Donald Fell reportedly spent the night drinking and taking crack cocaine, and then allegedly killed Fell's mother and her friend. Looking to get out of Vermont, they then allegedly carjacked a woman arriving for work at a local supermarket and drove to New York, where they are accused of beating her to death. Such a case surely deserves a strong law enforcement response, and last Thursday the accused were indicted by a federal grand jury for carjacking resulting in death and kidnapping, among other charges. Such violence is rarely visited upon my State. When it is, a swift law enforcement response is necessary, and we must do what we can to support the efforts of law enforcement to safeguard our communities. But we kid ourselves if we think that law enforcement alone, with ever- increasing penalties, is the answer to the drug problem. Though effective enforcement of our drug laws, particularly to deter involvement of our young people, is a critical component, this is simply insufficient to meet the severe social effects of drug abuse. We need to provide a comprehensive approach to the drug problems of my State and our nation. In Vermont, as the Rutland Daily Herald recently editorialized, on January 26, 2001, ``agencies that treat addictions'' need ``a boost in resources and manpower.'' Those who work to prevent drug abuse from occurring in the first place need our strong support. I have tried to boost Vermont's anti-drug efforts by working to provide funding for drug prevention, law enforcement, and drug treatment projects. For example, I secured funding for the Vermont Coalition of Teen Centers in last year's Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. These teen centers give adolescent Vermonters recreational alternatives to drug use. I was also able to help provide significant funding for the Vermont Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force, facilitating the ability of law enforcement officials to work together to tackle Vermont's drug problems. In addition, at my request Congress approved substantial funding for Vermont to plan and establish a long-term residential treatment facility for adolescents. I believe that the bill I introduce today with Senator Hatch will build upon those important efforts by providing a substantial boost for treatment, law enforcement, and prevention, both in Vermont and across the nation. It contains numerous grant programs to aid States and local communities in their efforts to prevent and treat drug abuse. Of particular interest to the residents of my State, it establishes drug treatment grants for rural States and authorizes money for residential treatment centers for mothers addicted to heroin, methamphetamines, or other drugs. This legislation also will help States and communities reduce drug use in prisons through testing and treatment, an effort I proposed in the Drug Free Prisons Act I introduced in the last Congress. It will provide funding for programs designed to reduce recidivism through funding drug treatment and other services for former prisoners after release. In addition, this bill will reauthorize drug courts another step I proposed in the Drug Free Prisons Act and create juvenile drug courts. Finally, the bill directs the Sentencing Commission to review and amend penalties for a number of drug crimes involving children. For example, in addressing circumstances such as those surrounding the death of Christal Jones, the bill instructs the Sentencing Commission to amend its guidelines to provide for any necessary sentencing enhancement for criminals who distribute drugs to minors in order to lure a minor into or keep a minor engaged in prostitution or other criminal activity. In short, there are programs in this legislation to benefit all Americans whose lives are disrupted by drug abuse in their families and communities. I strongly recommend this bipartisan bill to my colleagues, and hope that we can move quickly to make it law. As I mentioned earlier, I have worked to provide necessary funding for treatment, prevention, and enforcement efforts in Vermont. Last year, I secured $150,000 for the Vermont Coalition of Teen Centers, $400,000 for the Vermont Drug Task Force, $100,000 for an adolescent treatment facility, two grants worth $500,000 for a balanced and restorative justice project, $1.7 million in Byrne law enforcement grants, two grants worth $560,000 to reduce underage drinking, about $725,000 for Drug Free Communities Support Programs throughout Vermont, and $274,535 for Residential Substance Abuse Treatment, RSAT, programs in the Vermont Corrections Department. In 1999, I worked to procure $270,611 for RSAT programs for Vermont prisons and jails, $75,000 for the Vermont Coalition of Teen Centers and an additional $74,976 for the Essex Teen Center, two grants worth $660,000 to combat underage drinking, and about $172,000 for Drug Free Community Support programs throughout Vermont. And in 1998, I helped secure $249,864 for balanced and restorative justice programs, $274,938 for RSAT programs, $1.9 million in Byrne law enforcement grants, $360,000 to combat drunk driving, and $424,494 in a Safe Kids/Safe Streets grant. This legislation will provide additional ways that Vermont and other States can benefit from federal assistance to prevent drug abuse and drug-related crime. I would like to describe in more detail some of its most important aspects. This bill authorizes a wide variety of treatment and prevention programs. Treatment and prevention efforts are often overshadowed by law enforcement needs. Indeed, a recent study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, CASA, showed that of every dollar States spent on substance abuse and addiction, only four cents went to prevention and treatment. The States and the Federal government have undeniably important law enforcement obligations, but we must do more to balance those obligations with farsighted efforts to prevent drug crimes from happening in the first place. As I have said, heroin is an increasing problem in Vermont. In other States, methamphetamines or other drugs present a growing challenge. This legislation will help States address their most pressing drug problems, and places a particular emphasis on States that may not have been able to address their treatment and prevention needs in the past. Indeed, among many other provisions, the bill offers funding for rural States like Vermont to establish or enhance treatment centers. It instructs the Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment to make grants to public and nonprofit private entities that provide treatment and are approved by State experts. This will allow the Vermont agencies looking to provide heroin treatment or to prevent heroin abuse in the first place to acquire Federal funding to help in their efforts. The Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act also authorizes funding for residential treatment centers that treat mothers who are addicted to heroin, methamphetamines, or other drugs. This will help mothers and the children who depend on them to rebuild their lives it will keep families together. And I hope it will help avoid further stories like one that appeared in last Sunday's edition of the Burlington Free Press, in which a young mother told a reporter how heroin ``made it easier for [her] to take care of [her] kids.'' The bill also calls for funding drug treatment programs for juveniles. As the tragic story of Christal Jones and the disturbing reports about other girls in her position have shown, juveniles can see their lives quickly deteriorate under the influence of drugs. This is why I have worked to provide Vermont with funding to establish a long- term residential treatment facility for adolescents. I hope to continue that effort through this bill, in the hope that we may be able to prevent future tragedies. Our efforts here must include reducing the lure of drugs, and educating our kids and making sure they have recreational alternatives are two key components. In light of that, this bill authorizes grants to carry out school- and community-based prevention and education programs, with priority given to rural and urban areas experiencing drug problems. It provides additional funding for after-school programs. Finally, it authorizes funding for States to establish demonstration projects of alternative education for at-risk youths. These steps should improve the quality and availability of drug education and prevention efforts throughout the United States. In addition to providing additional funds for treatment and prevention, the bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review existing criminal penalties and provide any necessary increases for drug crimes involving juveniles. In particular, the Sentencing Commission must review the current penalties for distributing drugs to minors, using minors to distribute drugs, trafficking near a school, and using Federal property to grow or manufacture controlled substances. I would like to highlight one provision in particular in my comments today. This bill calls for the Sentencing Commission to amend its guidelines to provide for a specific sentencing enhancement for anyone who distributes drugs to minors in order to lure a minor into or keep a minor engaged in prostitution or other criminal activity. Let me explain why this provision matters. If the law enforcement officials investigating the death of Christal Jones find that the person or people who brought her to New York and prostituted her were giving or selling her heroin to entice her, the punishment should be more severe. This provision will give prosecutors an additional tool to fight such odious conduct. I would also like to commend the approach taken in the criminal provisions in this legislation. Instead of imposing mandatory minimums, we have invested discretion in the Sentencing Commission to determine appropriate penalties. A 1997 study by the RAND Corporation of mandatory minimum drug sentences found that ``mandatory minimums are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug-related crime.'' Despite this study and mounting evidence of prison overcrowding, legislators continue to propose additional mandatory minimums. In light of the persistence of that idea, this legislation calls for a new study of the issue, including whether mandatory minimums have a disproportionate impact on any racial or ethnic groups and whether they are an appropriate vehicle to punish nonviolent offenders. Last year I introduced the Drug Free Prisons Act, which authorized grants to States to facilitate treatment and testing programs in prisons and jails. This bill provides resources to achieve the same goal. It is critical that our prisons be drug-free, both because lawbreaking within our correctional system is a national embarrassment, and because prisoners who are released while still addicted to drugs are far more likely to commit future crimes than prisoners who are released sober. This bill will provide needed help to address drug abuse in prisons throughout the country. It authorizes $50 million for drug-free prisons and jails bonus grants, allows States to use Residential Substance Abuse Treatment, RSAT, grants to provide services for inmates or former inmates, and reauthorizes funding for substance abuse treatment in Federal prisons. As Joseph Califano, Jr., the president of CASA and former secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, told the National Press Club last month: ``The next great opportunity to reduce crime is to provide treatment and training to drug and alcohol abusing prisoners who will return to a life of criminal activity unless they leave prison substance free and, upon release, enter treatment and continuing aftercare.'' This legislation will accomplish both of those goals. A prior CASA study found that drug and alcohol abuse was implicated in the crimes and incarceration of 80 percent of those currently serving time in America's prisons. This finding shows that we have a prison population that has a history of substance abuse, and will seek out opportunities to continue using drugs while imprisoned. Of course, if prisoners are using drugs in prison, this will create serious behavioral and other problems that corrections officers will have to address, at no small risk to them. The problem does not end there. The same CASA study shows that inmates who are illegal drug and/or alcohol abusers are the most likely to be repeat offenders. In fact, the study concluded that 61 percent of state prison inmates who have two prior convictions are regular drug users. The strong link between drug use and recidivism cannot be ignored. Prison should provide an opportunity for us to break this cycle and therefore reduce crime. We can do this through a concerted effort to test prisoners for drug use and penalize those who test positive and provide adequate drug treatment so that prisoners can lead productive, non-criminal lives upon their release. This approach to reducing drug use and addiction in prisons has the support of Jim Walton, Vermont's Commissioner of Public Safety, and John Perry, the Director of Planning for the Vermont Department of Corrections, who work with these issues every day. I have always valued their counsel, as they have first-hand knowledge of the real law enforcement needs in my state. They both feel strongly that the bill will give law enforcement the tools it needs to test and treat offender populations, both in jail and in the community. I hope and expect that this bill will have the same effect across the country. In addition to providing funding for drug treatment and testing in prisons, this legislation also adopts a proposal made by Senator Biden in both this Congress and the last that would provide funding for Federal and State programs designed to ease the transition of criminal offenders back into society after their release. It establishes court- based programs to monitor the return of offenders into communities. These programs include drug treatment and aftercare, mental and medical health treatment, vocational and educational training, life skills instructions, and assistance in obtaining suitable affordable housing. Each program uses court sanctions and incentives to promote positive behavior and graduated levels of supervision within the community corrections facility to promote community safety. I commend Senator Biden for his leadership on this program. The bill also re-establishes the drug courts program and re- authorizes funding for it, as I proposed in last year's Drug Free Prisons Act. The majority repealed the authorization of the drug courts program in the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, in an apparent attempt to discredit Democratic programs. In my view, effective programs dealing with drug abuse should not be used as political footballs. That is why the Congress has continued to fund drug courts in every year's appropriations acts. This has been the right decision, and we should undo the repeal. Drug courts provide the opportunity to deal systematically with nonviolent drug offenders at a substantial savings to taxpayers. Instead of jailing these nonviolent offenders, the courts can order alternative punishments that are mixed with mandatory testing and drug treatment and human services such as education or vocational training. Meanwhile, imprisonment is held out as a stick to ensure good behavior. To qualify for federal assistance, a drug court program must mandate periodic drug testing during any supervised release or probation periods, provide drug abuse treatment for each participant, and hold out the possibility of prosecution, confinement, or incarceration for noncompliance or failure to show satisfactory process. Violent offenders are defined quite broadly, so we can be confident that we are not funding programs that put dangerous people back on the streets. In addition to reauthorizing drug courts for adults, this legislation authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to State and local governments to establish juvenile drug courts, extending the drug court model that has shown significant promise in dealing with adult offenders to juveniles. Juvenile drug courts should provide a way to reach out to younger offenders before they turn to a life of crime, helping to save both lives and significant government resources. Finally, I would like to comment on the inclusion of charitable choice language in this legislation to allow religious groups to compete for grants on the same basis as other groups. Although the language in this bill mirrors language that was passed in the Children's Health Act last year as well as in previous legislation, I have serious reservations about it. I know that many of my colleagues share those reservations. Charitable choice is going to be a significant issue during this Congress. I would have preferred that we have hearings about charitable choice before including it in this bill, and I made my feelings known to Senator Hatch. I asked him to introduce the bill without the language and consider adding it later if specific language could be crafted for which there was bipartisan support. But Senator Hatch was committed to including this language in the bill as introduced. Let me be clear: its inclusion here does not represent my endorsement. As this legislation is considered by the Committee and the Senate, we need to give considerable thought to the approach taken here. I intend to work with Senator Hatch and the other sponsors of the bill to ensure that the important protections and prohibitions of the First Amendment are fully respected. At the very least, we need to ensure that those who receive federal drug treatment and prevention funds are trained professionals, and that the government funds are not used in any way, directly or indirectly, to support or promote discrimination. At the same time, I believe that this bill, taken as a whole, will do a great deal of good. While charitable choice language is in this bill today, I have made no commitment to having this charitable choice language in the bill when Congress passes it. My commitment is to help improve drug treatment, prevention, and education throughout the United States. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two newspaper articles.