Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding history education program in Vermont and throughout the United States. National History Day is a year-long nonprofit program through which students in grades 6-12 research and create historical projects related to a broad theme, culminating in an annual contest. This year's National History Day theme, Frontiers in History: People, Places, Ideas, encompasses endless possibilities for exploration. Each year more than 500,000 students participate in this nationwide event that encourages students to delve into various facets of world, national, regional, or local history and to produce original research projects. By encouraging young Vermonters to take advantage of the wealth of primary historical resources available to them, students are able to gain a richer understanding of historical issues, ideas, people and events. Students in this program learn how to analyze a variety of primary sources such as photographs, letters, posters, maps, artifacts, sound recordings and motion pictures. This significant academic exercise encourages intellectual growth while helping students to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills that will help them manage and use information. In June I had the pleasure of meeting with the 25 winners of this year's Vermont History Day contest here in Washington as they participated in the national contest held at the University of Maryland. These impressive students represent the great benefit of fostering and encouraging academic curiosity in our youth. Every student in Vermont should have the opportunity to participate in this enriching experience. I commend the coordinator of our state program, the Vermont Historical Society, for its commitment to expanding History Day in Vermont. The National History Day program is a truly great asset to Vermont educators and students in their quest for educational excellence.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the Rural Rental Housing Act of 2000. This bill takes a much needed step toward reestablishing the federal government's commitment to quality affordable housing in rural areas and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. The need for a new federal matching grant program to encourage the production, rehabilitation and acquisition of rural rental housing has never been more evident than it is today. Families across the country in small towns, where property is often high and resources scarce, are finding themselves with fewer and fewer options for a safe and affordable place to live. In my home state of Vermont, like many other states across the country, we are in the middle of an affordable housing crisis. Housing costs are soaring and rental vacancy rates are alarmingly low. For those fortunate enough to find an apartment it is increasingly difficult to afford the rent that the market demands. Recent studies suggest that while the need for rental units continues to grow in Vermont, estimated production levels are drastically inadequate to meet demand. Despite this trend, the federal government has consistently scaled back their commitment to production and rehabilitation of rental housing. Rural rental production has dropped nearly 88% since 1990, and the funding for subsidized housing has fallen by 73% since 1994. This decline has made it difficult to produce new housing and maintain the current obligations and existing stock. In Vermont roughly 4,091 rental units were produced with federal assistance between 1976 and 1985, but during the next ten years this number fell to under two thousand-- nearly half of what was produced the decade before, despite the rising need. Nationally it is estimated that 2.6 million households live in substandard housing with severe structural damage or without indoor plumbing, heat, or electricity. Unfortunately, rural areas often have less appeal for investment from financial institutions and are often isolated from social services that are more accessible in urban areas to help address these problems. The Rural Rental Housing Act will provide $250 million dollars for a matching federal grant program to be administered by the United States Department of Agriculture to address this situation. These funds will complement existing programs run by the Rural Housing Service at USDA and will be used in a variety of ways to increase the supply, the affordability, and the quality of housing for the most needy residents, the lowest income families and the elderly. Most importantly the program is designed to be administered at the state and local level and to encourage public-private partnerships to best address the unique needs of each state. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to work with Senator Edwards to reintroduce this bill in the 107th Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor several times this year to focus attention on the national crisis in the administration of the death penalty. I rise today, in what I hope are the closing days of the 106th Congress, to report on how far we have come on this issue in Congress and across the country, and to discuss the important work that is yet to be done. In recent years, many grave flaws in the capital punishment system nationwide have come to light. Time and again, across the nation, we have heard about racial disparities, incompetent counsel who make a mockery of our adversarial process, testimony and scientific evidence that is hidden from the court, and the ultimate injustice, the conviction and sentencing to death of innocent people. In the last quarter century, some 88 people have been released from death row, not on technicalities, but because they were innocent. Those people were the ``lucky'' ones; we simply do not know how many innocent people remain on death row, and how many have been executed. Earlier this year, after it came to light that his State had sent more innocent people to death row than it had executed guilty people, Governor Ryan announced a moratorium on executions in Illinois and launched a systematic inquiry into the crisis and to consider possible reforms. At around the same time, along with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, from the Senate and from the House, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act as a first step to stimulate a national debate and inquiry and begin work on national reforms on what is a nationwide problem. Almost a year later, our informal national public inquiry has yielded a wealth of evidence. The American people have reached some compelling findings. And our reform effort has gained the endorsement, and--more important--the wisdom and insight, of Republicans and Democrats, of judges, law enforcers and defense attorneys, and of scholars and ordinary people who have experienced the system first hand. The evidence has shown that the system is broken, and the American people are demanding that it be fixed or scrapped. We have meaningful, carefully considered reforms ready to be put into place. It is now time for Congress to act. Let me first review just a few highlights of the evidence that has mounted since we first introduced the bill. On June 12, Professor James Liebman of the Columbia Law School released the most comprehensive statistical study ever undertaken of modern American capital appeals. This rigorous study, which was nine years in the making, revealed a death penalty system fraught with error reaching crisis proportions. It revealed a system that routinely makes grave errors, and then hopes haphazardly and belatedly to correct them years later by a mixture of state court review, federal court review and a large dose of luck. During the 23-year study period, courts across the country threw out nearly seven out of every ten capital sentences because of serious errors that undermined the reliability of the outcome. The single most common error, the study showed, was egregiously incompetent defense lawyering. Before the Columbia study came out, there was speculation that the problems in the administration of the death penalty were confined to a few atypical States with lax procedures. That is clearly not the case. The study documented high error rates across the country, in nearly every death penalty State. It left no room for doubt: This is not a local problem, this is a national problem, and it requires a national response. Shortly after the Columbia study issued, the Senate and House Judiciary Committees held hearings to consider some of the issues raised by the Innocence Protection Act. I had hoped that these hearings would be the first in a series of hearings that would help focus the Congress' attention on steps we can take to help restore public confidence in our death penalty system. The Committees heard from judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys about when and how post-conviction DNA testing should be required by law, and about the overwhelming importance of providing the accused with qualified and adequately funded defense counsel. We also heard from two men who between them spent over 20 years in prison for crimes they did not commit before being cleared by DNA evidence and freed. One of these men, Dennis Fritz, was represented at trial by a civil liability lawyer who had never handled any type of criminal case, much less a capital murder case. When Mr. Fritz finally got access to the crime scene evidence for DNA testing, the results not only cleared him, they also cleared his codefendant, who had come within five days of being executed. The tests also established the identity of the real killer. Now, hardly a month goes by that we do not hear about more wrongfully convicted people who owe their freedom to DNA testing. Most recently, on October 2, 2000, the Governor of Virginia finally pardoned Earl Washington, after new DNA tests confirmed what earlier DNA tests had shown: He was the wrong guy. Earl Washington's case only goes to show that we cannot sit back and assume that prosecutors and courts will do the right thing when it comes to DNA. 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 a pardon. And he is still in prison today. Several other recent reports have provided additional evidence of a system in crisis. The Justice Department released a report in September concerning the administration of the Federal death penalty. The report revealed dramatic racial and geographic disparities in the Federal death penalty system. Of the 682 cases submitted to the Justice Department in the last five years for approval to seek the death penalty, 80 percent involved defendants who were black, Hispanic, or another racial minority, and five jurisdictions accounted for about 40 percent of the submissions. Also in September, the Charlotte Observer published a study of capital cases in the Carolinas, which found that those who are on trial for their lives are often represented by the legal profession's worst attorneys. The high stress and low pay of capital trials limits the pool of lawyers willing to take them on. Some lawyers abuse drugs and alcohol, some fail to investigate evidence that could clear their client. Judges in the Carolinas have overturned at least 15 death verdicts because of serious errors made by defense lawyers, and another 16 death row inmates were represented at trial by lawyers who were later disbarred or disciplined for unethical conduct. Much has been written about the appalling state of affairs in the State of Texas. The Dallas Morning News reported on September 10 that more than 100 prisoners awaiting execution in Texas as of May 1--about one in four convicts on Texas's death row--has been defended by court- appointed lawyers who have been reprimanded, placed on probation, suspended, or banned from practicing law by the State Bar of Texas. The infractions that triggered the extraordinary step of bar discipline included failing to appear in court, falsifying documents, failing to present key witnesses, and allowing clients to lie. In about half of these instances, the misconduct occurred before the attorney was appointed to handle the capital case. Just this week, a comprehensive new report by the Texas Defender Service described that State's death penalty system as thoroughly flawed and in dire need of change because of problems like racial bias, prosecutorial misconduct and incompetent defense counsel. The report, which reviews hundreds of cases and appeals, confirmed that indigent defendants in Texas are routinely represented in trials and during appeals by underpaid court-appointed lawyers who are inexperienced, inept, or uninterested. These lawyers spend little time on the cases and present inadequate arguments and flawed defenses. In several notorious cases, defense lawyers slept in court, drank heavily, or used illegal drugs during a death penalty case. Time and again, we hear defenders of the status quo say that as long as an accused person has access to the courts, the system is working properly. Statements of this sort reflect either ignorance or worse. The question we must ask is whether the promise of access to the courts is real, or just a cruel joke. Does access mean meaningful access, with qualified defense counsel who know what they are doing and have the resources to do the job properly, or does it mean merely token access. The evidence shows that it is too often the latter. The evidence is overwhelming that the capital punishment system is broken--not just in Illinois, where the high error rate has prompted a moratorium on executions--not just in Texas, with its sleeping lawyers and racial biases--but across the Nation. The people have heard this evidence, and they know this. A recent poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research, a Democratic research firm, and American Viewpoint, a Republican research firm, shows that the public discourse on the death penalty has matured from a debate over whether the death penalty system is broken into a constructive dialogue on how broken it is, and about how much reform we need to fix it--if indeed it can be fixed at all. New developments in DNA technology have helped expose some of the flaws in the system, and they have been invaluable in freeing innocent Americans like Dennis Fritz. But the public knows that the injustices revealed by DNA testing are just the tip of the iceberg. The central theme running through the vast majority of the tragedies we have seen has been incompetent, under-funded trial counsel making a mockery of our adversarial system. Any reform that does not deal with the counsel issue is inadequate. The American people understand this. When it comes to matters of life and death, most Americans--55 percent of those surveyed--believe that it is not enough to ensure access to DNA testing without also ensuring access to competent and experienced defense counsel. There is one more key lesson to be learned from listening to the American people. We are a nation founded on tolerance, but not tolerance of incompetence and failure. When there's a broken product out there endangering innocent lives, Americans rightly demand that it be fixed or recalled. Some irresponsible corporations are currently learning what comes of those who continue to put more and more broken, dangerous products into circulation. As conservatives like George Will have pointed out, there is a parallel American tradition that we here in Washington know well of demanding that incompetent officials and broken government programs shape up or face the scrap heap. Now that they have heard the evidence, Americans are ready to apply that same common sense to the government program known as the death penalty. Americans may be divided on whether the capital punishment system needs to be recalled, but there is a clear and growing consensus that the system needs to be reformed. An overwhelming majority--some 80 percent of those surveyed--want to see concrete measures to ensure competent and adequately funded counsel. An even larger majority--nearly 90 percent of those surveyed--want to ensure that death row inmates can obtain DNA testing. When a government program has a record of incompetence, failure, and harming innocent lives, ordinary Americans say fix it or scrap it; do not under any circumstances expand it. In the past few years, as the defects of our capital punishment system have become more and more obvious, the States have largely ignored the problem, while they have expanded the program, executing more and more people. Neither history, nor the American people, will be kind to a Congress that stands by and does nothing while this trend continues. The evidence has shown that the death penalty is broken; the American people know the death penalty is broken; and they are calling upon us, their elected representatives, to fix it or scrap it. The bipartisan Innocence Protection Act is a real, practical response to that demand. Of critical importance, it meaningfully addresses not just the tip of the iceberg--DNA testing--but also the bulk of the problem--ineffective and under-funded defense counsel. Our bill does not go as far as some Americans would like. It does not scrap the death penalty; it does not place a moratorium on executions; and it does not tackle all the injustices inflicted upon racial minorities and the mentally retarded by the present capital punishment system. Rather, it embodies a consensus approach, informed by the wisdom of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and House, the Department of Justice and experts and ordinary Americans on all sides of our criminal justice system. Because of this, it has been gaining ground. We now have 14 cosponsors in the Senate, and about 80 in the House. We have Democratic and Republican cosponsors, supporters of the death penalty and opponents. President Clinton, Vice-President Gore, and Attorney General Reno have all expressed support for the bill. I had hoped that my colleagues would heed the American people's call for practical, bipartisan reform and expedite passage of this important legislation. Unfortunately, every opportunity for progress has been squandered. Even with respect to post-conviction DNA testing, where there is strong bipartisan consensus that federal legislation is appropriate and necessary, we could not even manage to report a bill out of committee. While our lack of progress on Federal legislation is regrettable, there have been some positive developments that may facilitate broader access to post-conviction DNA testing. On September 29, a federal district judge in Virginia held that State prisoners may file federal civil rights suits seeking DNA testing, reasoning that the denial of possibly exculpatory evidence states a claim of denial of due process. If this decision is upheld, it could go a long way toward persuading State prosecutors and courts to stop stonewalling on requests for postconviction DNA testing. I was also greatly heartened this week to read that the Virginia Supreme Court has moved to eliminate that State's shortest-in-the- nation deadline for death row inmates to introduce new evidence of their innocence. Currently, inmates in Virginia have only 21 days after their sentencing to ask for a new trial based on new information. The proposed rule change would re-open Virginia's courts to inmates like Earl Washington, who had to wait six years for a Governor to order additional DNA tests and grant a pardon. Outside of Virginia, some State legislatures have begun considering the need for criminal justice reforms. Since the initial introduction of the Innocence Protection Act early this year, Arizona, California, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington have passed laws providing prisoners greater access to post-conviction DNA testing, and other States are considering similar measures. I am especially pleased that California's legislators saw fit to model their law in part on the Innocence Protection Act. By contrast, Tennessee's statute allows post-conviction DNA testing only to prisoners under sentence of death, leaving the vast majority of prisoners without access to what could be the only means of demonstrating their innocence. And neither of these laws addresses the larger and more urgent problem of ensuring that capital defendants receive competent legal representation. There is still much to do. There can no longer be any doubt that our nation's capital punishment system is in crisis. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, those who support the death penalty, and those who oppose it, let us work together to find solutions.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken several times this year about the so-called McDade law, which was slipped into the omnibus appropriations bill at the end of the last Congress, without the benefit of any hearings or debate in the Senate. I have described the devastating effects that this ill-considered law is having on Federal law enforcement efforts across the country. Recent articles in the Washington Post, the Washington Times and U.S. News & World Report also describe how the McDade law has impeded Federal criminal investigations. For over a year, I have been proposing legislation to address the problems caused by the McDade law. My corrective legislation would preserve the traditional role of the State courts in regulating the conduct of attorneys licensed to practice before them, while ensuring that Federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents will be able to use traditional Federal investigative techniques. Although the bill does not go as far as the Justice Department would like--it does not establish a Federal code of ethics for government attorneys, nor does it authorize the Justice Department to write its own ethics rules-- nevertheless, the Justice Department has supported the bill as a reasonable, measured alternative to the McDade law. Congress's failure to act on this or any other corrective legislation this year means more confusion and uncertainty, more stalled investigations, and less effective enforcement of the Federal criminal laws. I regret that we have not made more progress, and hope that we can work together in the next Congress, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, to resolve the situation. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be included in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to call on the Senate to support H.R. 4068, which will extend the religious worker visa for an additional three years. I am a cosponsor and strong supporter of Senate legislation that would make permanent the provisions of our immigration law that provide for special immigrant visas for religious workers sponsored by religious organizations in the United States. These visas allow religious denominations or organizations in the United States to bring in foreign nationals to perform religious work here. This modest program--which provides for up to 5,000 religious immigrant visas a year--was created in the Immigration Act of 1990, and has been extended ever since. Although I believe the program should be made permanent, I am willing to support a three-year extension given the lateness of the session and the fact that the program expired upon last week's end of the fiscal year. The importance of this program to America's religious community has been demonstrated by the fact that leaders from a variety of faiths have come to Congress both this year and in past years to testify on its behalf. It is also important to note, however, that these religious workers contribute significantly not just to their religious communities, but to the community as a whole. They work in hospitals, nursing homes, and homeless shelters. They help immigrants and refugees adjust to the United States. In other words, they perform vital tasks that too often go undone. I have worked on this issue consistently over the years. Most recently, I cosponsored a bill in 1997 that would have made this program permanent. We were forced in that year as well to settle for a 3-year extension of the program. It is my hope and expectation that this will be the last short-term extension of this program, and that the substantial benefit that our country has derived from this program will lead us to make the program permanent 3 years from now.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote for the Agriculture appropriations conference report. I want to support our farmers. They deserve our support. But I will do so with a great deal of reluctance because of what the House of Representatives did. They inserted a provision which goes directly counter to the views that were expressed in rollcall votes of a bipartisan majority of both the House and the Senate. I probably shouldn't be that surprised that the House of Representatives, under the Republican leadership, has, once again, abused the legislative process. It has occurred too often. We had very strong votes in both the House and the Senate to lift sanctions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. After we had those votes, the House Republican leadership included a provision which prohibits any kind of public financing. What they have said is: Sure, you can have these sales. But we are going to make sure there is no way to pay for them. We go back home and say how generous we are and how we are helping our farmers, at the same time chuckling all the way out, saying it will never happen. That is bad for America's farmers. It is very bad for the Cuban people. It is certainly bad foreign policy. In fact, they even went so far as to codify the restrictions on travel to Cuba. This strikes at the fundamental right of every American to travel freely. Some of the same people who jingoistically say we are Americans; we can go wherever we want, will say, but not to Cuba. Senator Dodd and I introduced legislation to lift this ban. He spoke eloquently about this. It is ironic, actually outrageous, that Americans can travel to North Korea or Syria or Vietnam but not to Cuba. What a hypocritical, self-defeating, and anachronistic policy. What a policy so beneath a great, good nation as ours, a nation of a quarter billion people, the most powerful, wealthiest nation on Earth. How small-minded. How petty. How beneath this great Nation. It is a terrible decision, a blatantly partisan decision, a decision driven by politics, and one of the many reasons why the elections on November 7 are so important. It is time we inject intelligence and bipartisanship into our foreign policy. Congress has had its chance, but it has fallen short in too many ways to count. The decision on Cuba is another example of the failure of the 106th Congress to do what is right for America, what is right for America's farmers, what is right for the majority of the American people. As one who opposes the dictatorial policies of Fidel Castro, I also oppose anybody telling me as an American, or my family, or the people of my State, that we cannot travel anywhere in the world where we might be accepted. It is so beneath a great and good nation. I hope this is something we will correct next year. The majority of Senators and House Members, Republicans and Democrats, have already voted. A small band of the Republican leadership should not be able to thwart that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the comments of the distinguished Senator from Washington, I might be recognized under the normal division of time for about 6 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Presidential Threat Protection Act, H.R. 3048, is a high priority for the Secret Service and the Service's respected Director, Brian Stafford, and I am pleased that this legislation is passing the Senate today, along with legislation that Senators Thurmond, Hatch and I have crafted to assist the U.S. Marshals Service in apprehending fugitives. The Presidential Threat Protection Act, H.R. 3048, would expand or clarify the Secret Service's authority in four ways. First, the bill would amend current law to make clear it is a federal crime, which the Secret Service is authorized to investigate, to threaten any current or former President or their immediate family, even if the person is not currently receiving Secret Service protection and including those people who have declined continued protection, such as former Presidents, or have not yet received protection, such as major Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates and their families. Second, the bill would incorporate in statute certain authority, which is currently embodied in a classified Executive Order, PDD 62, clarifying that the Secret Service is authorized to coordinate, design, and implement security operations for events deemed of national importance by the President ``or the President's designee.'' Third, the bill would establish a ``National Threat Assessment Center' within the Secret Service to provide training to State, local and other Federal law enforcement agencies on threat assessments and public safety responsibilities. Finally, the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue administrative subpoenas for investigations of ``imminent'' threats made against an individual whom the service is authorized to protect. The Secret Service has requested that the Congress grant this administrative subpoena authority to expedite investigation procedures particularly in situations where an individual has made threats against the President and is en route to exercise those threats. ``Administrative subpoena'' is the term generally used to refer to a demand for documents or testimony by an investigative entity or regulatory agency that is empowered to issue the subpoena independently and without the approval of any grand jury, court or other judicial entity. I am generally skeptical of administrative subpoena power. Administrative subpoenas avoid the strict grant jury secrecy rules and the documents provided in response to such subpoenas are, therefore, subject to broader dissemination. Moreover, since investigative agents issue such subpoenas directly, without review by a judicial officer or even a prosecutor, fewer ``checks'' are in place to ensure the subpoena is issued with good cause and not merely as a fishing expedition. H.R. 3048 addresses these general concerns with the following procedural safeguards, some of which would apply not only to the new administrative subpoena authority of the Secret Service but also to current administrative subpoena authority granted to the FBI to issue administrative subpoenas in cases involving child abuse, child sexual exploitation, and Federal health care offenses. The new administrative subpoena authority in threat cases may only be exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury upon determination of the Director of the Secret Service that the threat is imminent, and the Secret Service must notify the Attorney General of the issuance of each subpoena. I should note that this requirement will help ensure that administrative subpoenas will be used in only the most significant investigations since obtaining the authorization for such a subpoena from senior Treasury and Secret Service personnel may take longer than simply going to the local U.S. Attorney's office to get a grand jury subpoena. The bill would limit the scope of both current and new administrative subpoena authority of the FBI for obtaining records in child sex abuse and exploitation cases from Internet Service Providers to the name, address, local and long distance telephone billing records, telephone number or services used by a subscriber. The bill would also expressly allow a person whose records are demanded pursuant to an administrative subpoena to contest the administrative subpoena by petitioning a federal judge to modify or set aside the subpoena. The bill would authorize a court to order non-disclosure of the administrative subpoena for up to 90 days (and up to a 90 day extension) upon a showing that disclosure would adversely affect the investigation in an enumerated way. Upon written demand, the agency must return the subpoenaed records or things if no case or proceedings arise from the production of records ``within a reasonable time.'' The administrative subpoena may not require production in less than 24 hours after service so agencies may have to wait for at least a day before demanding production. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3048 would modify the House-passed version, which provides that violation of the administrative subpoena is punishable by fine or up to five years' imprisonment. This penalty provision in the House version of the bill is both unnecessary and excessive since current law already provides that failure to comply with the subpoena may be punished as a contempt of court--which is either civil or criminal. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3486(c). Under current law, the general term of imprisonment for some forms of criminal contempt is up to six months. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. Sec. 402. The Senate amendment would strike that provision in the House bill. Secret Service protective function Privilege. While passage of this legislation will assist the Secret Service in fulfilling its critical mission, this Congress is unfortunately coming to a close without addressing another significant challenge to the Secret Service's ability to fulfill its vital mission of protecting the life and safety of the President and other important persons. I refer to the misguided and unfortunately successful litigation of Special Counsel Kenneth Starr to compel Secret Service agents to answer questions about what they may have observed or overheard while protecting the life of the President. As a result of Mr. Starr's zealous efforts, the courts refused to recognize a protective function privilege and required that at least seven Secret Service officers appear before a federal grand jury to respond to questions regarding President Clinton, and others. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 1998 W.L. 272884 (May 22, 1998 D.C.), affirmed 1998 WL 370584 (July 7, 1998 D.C. Cir) (per curiam). These recent court decisions, which refused to recognize a protective function privilege, could have a devastating impact upon the Secret Service's ability to provide effective protection. The Special Counsel and the courts ignored the voices of experience--former Presidents, Secret Service Directors, and others--who warned of the potentially deadly consequences. The courts disregarded the lessons of history. We cannot afford to be so cavalier; the stakes are just too high. In order to address this problem, I introduced the Secret Service Protective Privilege Act, S. 1360, on July 13, 1999, to establish a Secret Service protective function privilege so Secret Service agents will not be put in the position of revealing private information about protected officials as Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr compelled the Secret Service to do with respect to President Clinton. Unfortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee took no action on this legislation in this Congress. Few national interests are more compelling than protecting the life of the President of the United States. The Supreme Court has said that the nation has ``an overwhelming interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without interference from threats of physical violence.'' Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969). What is at stake is not merely the safety of one person: it is the ability of the Executive Branch to function in an effective and orderly fashion, and the capacity of the United States to respond to threats and crises. Think of the shock waves that rocked the world in November 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated. The assassination of a President has international repercussions and threatens the security and future of the entire nation. The threat to our national security and to our democracy extends beyond the life of the President to those in direct line of the Office of the President--the Vice President, the President-elect, and the Vice President elect. By Act of Congress, these officials are required to accept the protection of the Secret Service--they may not turn it down. This statutory mandate reflects the critical importance that Congress has attached to the physical safety of these officials. Congress has also charged the Secret Service with responsibility for protecting visiting heads of foreign states and foreign governments. The assassination of a foreign head of state on American soil could be catastrophic from a foreign relations standpoint and could seriously threaten national security. The bill I introduced, S. 1360, would enhance the Secret Service's ability to protect these officials, and the nation, from the risk of assassination. It would do this by facilitating the relationship of trust between these officials and their Secret Service protectors that is essential to the Secret Service's protective strategy. Agents and officers surround the protectee with an all-encompassing zone of protection on a 24-hour-a-day basis. In the face of danger, they will shield the protectee's body with their own bodies and move him to a secure location. That is how the Secret Service averted a national tragedy on March 30, 1981, when John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan. Within seconds of the first shot being fired, Secret Service personnel had shielded the President's body and maneuvered him into the waiting limousine. One agent in particular, Agent Tim McCarthy, positioned his body to intercept a bullet intended for the President. If Agent McCarthy had been even a few feet farther from the President, history might have gone very differently. For the Secret Service to maintain this sort of close, unremitting proximity to the President and other protectees, it must have their complete, unhesitating trust and confidence. Secret Service personnel must be able to remain at the President's side even during confidential and sensitive conversations, when they may overhear military secrets, diplomatic exchanges, and family and private matters. If our Presidents do not have complete trust in the Secret Service personnel who protect them, they could try to push away the Secret Service's ``protective envelope'' or undermine it to the point where it could no longer be fully effective. This is more than a theoretical possibility. Consider what former President Bush wrote in April, 1998, after hearing of the independent counsel's efforts to compel Secret Service testimony: The bottom line is I hope that [Secret Service] agents will be exempted from testifying before the Grand Jury. What's at stake here is the protection of the life of the President and his family and the confidence and trust that a President must have in the [Secret Service]. If a President feels that Secret Service agents can be called to testify about what they might have seen or heard then it is likely that the President will be uncomfortable having the agents nearby. I allowed the agents to have proximity first because they had my full confidence and secondly because I knew them to be totally discreet and honorable. . . . I can assure you that had I felt they would be compelled to testify as to what they had seen or heard, no matter what the subject, I would not have felt comfortable having them close in. . . . I feel very strongly that the [Secret Service] agents should not be made to appear in court to discuss that which they might or might not have seen or heard. What's at stake here is the confidence of the President in the discretion of the [Secret Service]. If that confidence evaporates the agents, denied proximity, cannot properly protect the President. As President Bush's letter makes plain, requiring Secret Service agents to betray the confidence of the people whose lives they protect could seriously jeopardize the ability of the Service to perform its crucial national security function. The possibility that Secret Service personnel might be compelled to testify about their protectees could have a particularly devastating affect on the Service's ability to protect foreign dignitaries. The mere fact that this issue has surfaced is likely to make foreign governments less willing to accommodate Secret Service both with respect to the protection of the President and Vice President on foreign trips, and the protection of foreign heads of state traveling in the United States. The security of our chief executive officers and visiting foreign heads of state should be a matter that transcends all partisan politics and I regret that this legislation does not do more to help the Secret Service by providing a protective function privilege. The Fugitive Apprehension Act. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3048 incorporates into the bill the substance of the Thurmond-Biden-Leahy substitute amendment to S. 2516, the Fugitive Apprehension Act, which passed the Senate unanimously on July 26, 2000. That substitute amendment reconciled the significant differences between S. 2516, as introduced, and S. 2761, ``The Capturing Criminals Act,'' which I introduced with Senator Kohl on June 21, 2000. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3048 makes certain changes to S. 2516 to ensure that the authority granted is consistent with privacy and other appropriate safeguards. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware that fugitives from justice are an important problem and that their capture is an essential function of law enforcement. According to the FBI, nearly 550,000 people are currently fugitives from justice on federal, state, and local felony charges combined. This means that there are almost as many fugitive felons as there are citizens residing in my home state of Vermont. The fact that we have more than one half million fugitives from justice, a significant portion of whom are convicted felons in violation of probation or parole, who have been able to flaunt court order and avoid arrest, breeds disrespect for our laws and poses undeniable risks to the safety of our citizens. Our Federal law enforcement agencies should be commended for the job they have been doing to date on capturing federal fugitives and helping the states and local communities bring their fugitives to justice. The U.S. Marshals Service, our oldest law enforcement agency, has arrested over 120,000 federal, state and local fugitives in the past four years, including more federal fugitives than all the other federal agencies combined. In prior years, the Marshals Service spearheaded special fugitive apprehension task forces, called FIST Operations, that targeted fugitives in particular areas and was singularly successful in arresting over 34,000 fugitive felons. Similarly, the FBI has established twenty-four Safe Streets Task Forces exclusively focused on apprehending fugitives in cities around the country. Over the period of 1995 to 1999, the FBI's efforts have resulted in the arrest of a total of 65,359 state fugitives. Nevertheless, the number of outstanding fugitives is too large. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3028 will help make a difference by providing new but limited administrative subpoena authority to the Department of Justice to obtain documentary evidence helpful in tracking down fugitives and by authorizing the Attorney General to establish fugitive task forces. Unlike initial criminal inquiries, fugitive investigations present unique difficulties. Law enforcement may not use grand jury subpoenas since, by the time a person is a fugitive, the grand jury phase of an investigation is usually over. Use of grand jury subpoenas to obtain phone or bank records to track down a fugitive would be an abuse of the grand jury. Trial subpoenas may also not be used, either because the fugitive is already convicted or no trial may take place without the fugitive. This inability to use trial and grand jury subpoenas for fugitive investigations creates a gap in law enforcement procedures. Law enforcement partially fills this gap by using the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a), which authorizes federal courts to ``issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.'' The procedures, however, for obtaining orders under the Act, and the scope and non- disclosure terms of such orders, vary between jurisdictions. Authorizing administrative subpoena power will help bridge the gap in fugitive investigations by providing a uniform mechanism for federal law enforcement agencies to obtain records useful for tracking a fugitive's whereabouts. The Thurmond-Biden-Leahy substitute amendment, which previously passed the Senate, incorporated a number of provisions from the Leahy- Kohl ``Capturing Criminals Act'' and made significant and positive modifications to the original version of S. 2516. These improvements are largely incorporated into the current Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendments to H.R. 3048, which the Senate considers today. First, as introduced, S. 2516 would have limited use of an administrative subpoena to those fugitives who have been ``indicted,'' and failed to address the fact that fugitives flee after arrest on the basis of a ``complaint'' and may flee after the prosecutor has filed an ``information'' in lieu of an amendment. The prior substitute amendment and the current Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment to H.R. 3048, by contrast, would allow use of such subpoenas to track fugitives who have been accused in a ``complaint, information or indictment.'' Second, S. 2516, as introduced, would have required the U.S. Marshals Service to report quarterly to the Attorney General (who must transmit the report to Congress) on use of the administrative subpoenas. While a reporting requirement is useful, the requirement as described in the original S. 2516 was overly burdensome and insufficiently specific. The prior substitute amendment and the current Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment to H.R. 3048 would require, as set forth in the Capturing Criminals Act, that the Attorney General report for the next three years to the Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate on the following information about the use of administrative subpoenas in fugitive investigations: the number issued, by which agency, identification of the charges on which the fugitive was wanted and whether the fugitive was wanted on federal or state charges. Third, although the original S. 2516 outlined the procedures for enforcement of an administrative subpoena, it was silent on the mechanisms for contesting the subpoena by the recipient. The procedures outlined in H.R. 3048 address this issue in a manner fully consistent with those I originally outlined in the Capturing Criminals Act by allowing a person, who is served with an administrative subpoena, to petition a court to modify or set aside the subpoena. Fourth, the original S. 2516 set forth no procedure for the government to command a custodian of records to avoid disclosure or delay notice to a customer about the existence of the subpoena. This is particularly critical in fugitive investigations when law enforcement does not want to alert a fugitive that the police are on the person's trail. Both the prior substitute amendment to S. 2516, which passed the Senate last July, and H.R. 3048, which the Senate considers today, provide express authority for law enforcement to apply for a court order directing the custodian of records to delay notice to subscribers of the existence of the subpoena on the same terms applicable in current law to other subpoenas issued, for example, to telephone companies and financial institutions. This procedure is consistent with provisions I originally proposed in the Capturing Criminals Act. Fifth, S. 2516, as introduced, would have authorized use of an administrative subpoena in fugitive investigations upon a finding by the Attorney General that the documents are ``relevant and material,'' which is further defined to mean that ``there are articulable facts that show the fugitive's whereabouts may be discerned from the records sought.'' In my view, changing the standard for issuance of a subpoena from ``relevancy'' to a hybrid of ``relevant and material'' would set a confusing precedent. Accordingly, the current Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment to H.R. 3048 amendment would authorize issuance of an administrative subpoena in fugitive investigations based on the same standard as for other administrative subpoenas, i.e., that the documents may be relevant to an authorized law enforcement inquiry. Sixth, the original S. 2516 authorized the Attorney General to issue guidelines delegating authority for issuance of administrative subpoenas in fugitive investigations only to the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, despite the fact that the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration also want this authority to find fugitives on charges over which they have investigative authority. The substitute amendment to S. 2516, which previously passed the Senate, and the current Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment to H.R. 3048, which we consider today, would authorize the Attorney General to issue guidelines delegating authority for issuance of administrative subpoenas to supervisory personnel within components of the Department. In addition, the current Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment to H.R. 3048 would require that the Attorney General's guidelines require that administrative subpoenas in fugitive investigations be issued only upon the review and approval of senior supervisory personnel within the respective investigating agency and of the U.S. Attorney in the judicial district in which the subpoena would be served. Seventh, the original S. 2516 did not address the issue that a variety of administrative subpoena authorities exist in multiple forms in every agency. The substitute amendment to S. 2516, which previously passed the Senate, and the Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment to H.R. 3048, which we consider today, incorporates from the Capturing Criminals Act a requirement that the Attorney General provide a report on this issue. Eighth, the current Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment to H.R. 3048 would limit the use of administrative subpoenas in fugitive investigations to those fugitives who have been accused or convicted of serious violent felony or serious drug offenses. Finally, as introduced, S. 2516 authorized the U.S. Marshal Service to establish permanent Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces. By contrast, the substitute amendment to S. 2516, which previously passed the Senate, and the Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment to H.R. 3048, which we consider today, would authorize $40,000,000 over three years for the Attorney General to establish multi-agency task forces (which will be coordinated by the Director of the Marshals Service) in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the States, so that the Secret Service, BATF, the FBI and the States are able to participate in the Task Forces to find their fugitives. The Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment to H.R. 3048 will help law enforcement--with increased resources for regional fugitive apprehension task forces and administrative subpoena authority--to bring to justice both federal and state fugitives who, by their conduct, have demonstrated a lack of respect for our nation's criminal justice system. I urge that the Senate pass H.R. 3048 with the Hatch-Leahy-Thurmond amendment without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I would like to commend Senator Reed for allowing us to proceed on several important immigration matters even though the Republican majority has refused to act on his compelling legislation to do justice for Liberians. Senator Reed has been a persistent advocate for the Liberian nationals who have fled the strife in their nation for the United States. He has recognized that the U.S. has a special relationship with Liberia's citizens and has sought to respect and enhance that relationship. But his efforts have been resisted by the majority, which has consistently denied his requests to take up his bipartisan bill, which would allow Liberians who fled here and meet certain criteria to become legal permanent residents of the United States. I hope that we will change course and address this issue before we adjourn. I commend the Administration for its commitment to insist on action. Meanwhile, I am pleased that we were able to pass H.R. 2883, a bill that will confer automatic citizenship upon foreign-born children who are adopted by the American parents. Given the severe curtailment of noncitizens' rights under the immigration laws we passed in 1996, it is all the more important to extend this right to American parents and their adopted children. Everyone in the Senate supports adoption, and we should make sure the law expresses that support. Many Senators on both sides of the aisle worked hard to see this bill become law, and I would like in particular to commend Senator Landrieu for her efforts. She and her staff were dedicated to this bill and were instrumental in its passage. I hope that we are able today to move forward on a number of pieces of legislation. First, I hope we can pass the bill that extends the program under which religious workers can obtain visas to enter the U.S. Senator Kennedy has championed this legislation, it has significant bipartisan support, and there is no reason not to act quickly to pass it. We should also pass the bill benefiting Syrian Jews that Senator Schumer has advocated, as well as legislation benefiting the Hmong people, which the late Congressman Bruce Vento did so much to promote. Although many of the larger immigration issues that should have been addressed in this Congress--from reforming expedited removal to restoring due process rights for legal permanent residents--may regrettably remain unresolved, we can at least take these more limited steps and demonstrate some commitment to immigrants and a sound immigration policy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, more than a week ago I came to the floor to be sure the record was clear that all Democrats had cleared for final passage H.R. 5107, the Work for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000. I urged the Senate to take up H.R. 5107 without further unnecessary delay. I am glad that the majority has finally decided that action on this consensus bill is appropriate. I still do not know what caused the unexplained 2-week delay on the Republican side. Representatives Berman and Coble deserve credit, along with the interested parties, for working out a consensus solution in this legislation. The purpose of this bill is to restore the status quo ante, as it existed before November 29, 1999 regarding whether a sound recording can qualify as a ``work made for hire'' under the second part of the definition of that term in section 101 of the Copyright Act, and to do so in a manner that does not prejudice any person or entity that might have interests concerning this question. The House held an oversight hearing to explore this matter earlier this year and originated this legislation. This bill restores the law to the same place it was before the enactment of section 1101(d) of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, as enacted by section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law Number 106-113, so that neither side is prejudiced by what was enacted at the end of 1999 or by what is being enacted now. This bill does not express or imply any view as to the proper interpretation of the work made for hire definition before November 29, 1999. Thus, neither the enactment of section 1101(d) nor this bill's deletion of that language are to be considered in any way or otherwise given any effect by a court or the Copyright Office when interpreting the work made for hire definition. I congratulate Congressmen Berman and Coble on final passage of this measure.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Kansas be recognized to make a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 more minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Massachusetts will withhold for a moment, is my understanding correct that the Senator from Vermont has 3 hours?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, I do not intend to use all that time. At some point, I am going to yield back a considerable amount of time. I know there are Senators on both sides of the aisle who have commitments tonight, some connected with the debates of the two parties' Presidential nominees. It is my hope we will be voting fairly early this afternoon--a vote on the Thompson point of order and final passage. I yield such time as the Senator from Massachusetts needs, and I ask unanimous consent that I then be able to yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent agreement that I can now yield to the distinguished Senator from California. I ask the Senator from California how much time she would like.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California. So many have worked so hard on this. The distinguished Senators from Massachusetts and Minnesota have spoken already, but especially Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Lincoln, Landrieu, Murray, and Feinstein have worked so hard. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from California. I ask the Chair how much time is remaining for the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reiterate something the Senator from Kansas and the Republican floor leader on this bill have said, and that is that we hope, because of the request of a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, to get these votes on both the Thompson point of order and final passage sometime midafternoon today. As one who holds the largest bulk of the individual time, I alert my colleagues that after the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished Senator from Delaware, I will yield back the remaining part of that time which will move up somewhat the time of the vote. The reason, incidentally, I have reserved the bulk of my time is to protect a number of Senators who wished to speak. I think virtually all of them have spoken. At least one of the Senators who would have wished to speak, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, has just undergone surgery for an accident to her leg and is not going to be here, although, of course, any statement by her will be printed in the Record. But the others have spoken. Mr. President, I am glad that the Senate is finally taking up this conference report. Unlike the conference on the Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice bill that passed the Senate in May 1999 with a bipartisan majority of 73 votes, and so many other matters that are still left undone by this Congress, we have an opportunity through this conference report to come to conclusion on three items that I have supported and tried to pass for many months. Unfortunately, there are two additional, extraneous items that were added over my opposition and that should not have been added to this conference report at all. I will speak on each of these matters. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the important work of Representative Conyers in the House, who has been a stalwart and consistent supporter of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. Without his cooperation and support and the hard work of his staff, we would not be standing here today. I also want to pay tribute to the efforts of Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Lincoln, Landrieu, Murray and Feinstein. Their efforts throughout this Congress, including in the last several days, have made the difference in our ability to move forward to begin this debate today. With Senators Kennedy, Biden, Specter, Smith and so many others, I have been urging the Republican leadership to take up and pass the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 for some time. I had to urge action by the Judiciary Committee for several weeks before we were finally able to have it added to the agenda on June 15, 2000. It was reported unanimously the same month. Over the last several months since this legislation was reported, I have worked and prodded and pushed along with our Democratic Leader Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, Senator Robb, Senator Bingaman and others on both sides of the aisle to try to get this matter taken up and passed without further delay. The President of the United States wrote the Majority Leader back on September 27, 2000 urging passage. The First Lady and the Vice President had previously called for passage back in June at the time of the Judiciary Committee markup. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 is a matter upon which we need to act. I addressed this matter twice on the Senate floor in late September when an effort was being made by some on the Republican side of the aisle to try to use VAWA as a vehicle to force consideration of a flawed bankruptcy bill or to override Oregon state law. I said that playing political games with this important legislation was the wrong thing to do and that VAWA should not be used as leverage to enact less worthy provisions. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate has been adamant in its refusal to take up and consider VAWA as a stand alone matter, even after the House passed its bill by a 415 to 3 vote. While we have been successful in preventing VAWA from being used as a vehicle for some measures, thanks in part to the President pro tempore Senator Thurmond and Senator Brownback honoring commitments they made to me in order to go to conference, we have not been wholly successful and two additional and unfortunate riders are included over my objection in this conference report. Due to their dilatory tactics, VAWA was allowed by the Republican leadership to lapse on Saturday, September 30, despite the fact that it has served the women of this country well and the measure had passed the House by a vote of 415 to 3. Such inaction by the current Senate majority is not limited to reauthorization of VAWA. Congressional leaders have continued to drag their feet on enacting comprehensive juvenile crime prevention and enforcement legislation and reasonable gun safety measures, which have been stalled in conference for over a year. Judicial vacancies around the country and most acutely in our federal courts of appeals remain vacant month after month, year after year, while qualified women and men cannot get a hearing or a vote. Legislation to extend the Campbell-Leahy program to help provide bulletproof vests for local law enforcement officers was the victim of a secret hold in the Republican Senate cloakroom. Important intellectual property legislation is stalled without explanation by a similar anonymous hold on the other side of the aisle. And hate crime legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000, has been dropped in conference in spite of the votes in both the Senate and House approving it. I am pleased that we will finally be able to reestablish the Violence Against Women Act, a law that makes such a profound difference in the lives of women and families who fall victim to domestic violence. I would not normally support efforts to add extraneous items in a conference report. In this case, in light of the unwillingness of the Senate Republican leadership to allow the Senate to act on the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 and the lapse of its authorization, I joined with Senator Biden and Senator Hatch to add it to the sex trafficking conference report we now consider. I agreed with Senator Biden's assessment that in light of its importance and the resistance we have seen from the Senate Republican leadership to proceed to the VAWA bill for a straight up or down vote, this was the only way we would ever be able to get it considered by the Senate this year. I commend Senator Biden for making clear at the second and last meeting of the conferees on September 28th that he intended to insist on the conference reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Indeed, I had raised it at our initial meeting of conferees as the one thing we should consider adding to this bill, if anything extraneous was to be considered. Unfortunately, when we voted on adding VAWA to the conference report, only three Senate conferees voted to support it--Senators Biden, Hatch and me--and the other four Senate conferees all voted against. I am glad that over the ensuing days, the other four Senate conferees and the House conferees, whose votes initially seemed to doom this effort, have reversed position and joined with us to add VAWA into this conference report. I am glad that others agree with us that while we need to address the tragic plight of women who are brought to the United States, we need to pass reauthorization of VAWA to help battered women in this country, as well. Although a conferee, I did not sign the conference report that we consider today. It may come as a surprise to some who have served in this body and remember how conferences are supposed to proceed, that I was not given an opportunity to consider the final report or to sign before it was filed. Indeed, after a second short meeting of conferees, the final meeting, which had been promised so that we could finalize our action, never occurred. Side deals were struck and broken and revised and implemented without resuming the conference. Legislating around here has come to resemble the television program ``Survivor'' more than the process intended by the Constitution or our Senate rules. We have all become increasingly accustomed to shortcuts in the legislative process, but we are now getting to the point that once sufficient numbers of signatures are obtained on a conference report, once an alliance has formed, conferees from the minority may not even be accorded an opportunity to view the final package let alone asked for their views. In this matter, after I had worked to ensure that VAWA was included in the conference report, I was treated like a member of the ill-fated Pagong tribe. Had I been consulted we might have avoided the extended debate and point of order that Senator Thompson is bringing today. I was able to intervene just before the filing of the conference report when I obtained a draft that showed the elimination of the small state minimum funding level in certain grant programs. These eliminations would have been such a disaster for Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Utah, Alaska and so many small and rural states that I had raise a strong objection and the small state minimum of $600,000 for shelters was restored by a last-minute handwritten change to the final conference report. Unfortunately, while this conference report contains provisions that enjoy broad bipartisan support and will make a positive contribution to the well-being of many people, the Republican majority could not resist loading this conference report with other legislative proposals that are so problematic they could not have passed as stand-alone measures in this or any other Congress. Let me begin by reviewing the positive parts of this conference report. These are the reasons that, last Friday, our colleagues in the House passed the Conference Report on Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 371 to 1. The trafficking of people for the illicit sex trade or slave labor is plainly abhorrent. This conference report partially addresses that problem by providing additional authority to law enforcement and offering visas to victims of severe trafficking, among other measures. Those who have experienced the horror of trafficking and are willing to assist law enforcement in prosecuting trafficking should receive the option of staying in the United States. The law enforcement and immigration measures in this report are the result of compromises reached between both Houses and both sides. In some cases, especially in the immigration area, these provisions are not as generous as I and many other members of this conference would prefer. This bill will also insist that information about severe forms of trafficking in persons be provided in the annual State Department Country Report for each foreign country, an important step forward in our attempts to raise consciousness about this issue. It also provides for the establishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force to monitor and combat trafficking, with annual and interim reports on countries whose governments do not comply with the minimum standards. The bill calls upon the President to establish initiatives to enhance economic opportunity for potential trafficking victims, such as microcredit lending programs, training, and education. As someone who has been a strong supporter of human rights, both in the United States and abroad, I am pleased to be associated with this attempt to reduce trafficking and protect its victims. I hope that the Senate can also turn its attention to human rights issues that affect immigrants who arrive in the United States willingly. In particular, I request that the Senate consider S. 1940, the Refugee Protection Act, a bill I have introduced with Senator Brownback that would restrict the use of expedited removal to times of immigration emergencies. Under expedited removal, those who flee persecution in their home countries face automatic removal from our country if they are traveling without documents, or even with documents that are facially valid but that an INS officer suspects are invalid. The limited protections that were built into this process when it was adopted in 1996 have proven insufficient, and we are receiving continuing reports of people in real danger being forced to leave the United States without even a hearing. This is simply inappropriate, and does an injustice to our nation's reputation as a haven for the oppressed. As I already noted, reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA II, was also added to this report with strong bipartisan support. This is a particularly appropriate bill to add to this conference report. As the conference report states, ``[t]raffickers primarily target women and girls, who are disproportionately affected by poverty, the lack of access to education, chronic unemployment, discrimination, and the lack of economic opportunity in countries of origin.'' VAWA II contains a number of important programs to protect women and children in this country, and would complement the goals of this legislation. I witnessed the devastating effects of domestic violence early in my career as the Vermont State's Attorney for Chittenden County. In those days, long before the passage of the VAWA, Vermont lacked the support programs and services to assist victims of domestic violence. Today, because of the effort and dedication of people in Vermont and across the country who work on these problems every day, an increasing number of women and children are receiving help through domestic violence programs and shelters around the nation. Six years ago, VAWA passed Congress as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That Act combined tough law enforcement strategies with safeguards and services for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. I am proud to say that Vermont was the first State in the country to apply for and receive funding under VAWA. Since VAWA was enacted, Vermont has received almost $14 million in VAWA funds. Since the passage of VAWA in 1994, I have been privileged to work with groups such as the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services and countless advocates who work to stop to violence against women and who provide assistance to victims. This funding has enabled Vermont to develop specialized prosecution units and child advocacy centers throughout the state. Lori Hayes, Executive Director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services and Marty Levin of the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse have been especially instrumental in coordinating VAWA grants in Vermont. Their hard work has brought grant funding to Vermont for encouraging the development and establishment of arrest policies for combating rural domestic violence and child abuse. These grants have made a real difference in the lives of those who suffer from violence and abuse. Reauthorization of these vital programs in VAWA II will continue to build on these successes. VAWA II continues to move us toward reducing violence against women by strengthening law enforcement through the extension of STOP grants, which encourage a multi-disciplinary approach to improving the criminal justice system's response to violence against women. With support from STOP grants, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, victim advocates and service providers work together to ensure victim safety and offender accountability. The benefits of STOP grants are evident throughout Vermont. With STOP grants the Windham County Domestic Violence Unit, the Rutland County Women's Network and Shelter and others like them have enhanced victim advocacy services, improved safety for women and children, and ensured that perpetrators are held accountable. The Northwest Unit for Special Investigations in St. Albans, Vermont, established a multi-disciplinary approach to the investigation of adult sexual assault and domestic violence cases with the help of STOP funds. By linking victims with advocacy programs at the time of the initial report, the Unit finds that more victims get needed services and support and thus find it easier to participate in the investigation and subsequent prosecution. The State's Attorney's Office, which has designated a prosecutor to participate in the Unit, has implemented a new protocol for the prosecution of domestic violence cases. The protocol and multi- disciplinary approach are credited with an 80 percent conviction rate in domestic violence and sexual assault cases. Passing VAWA II will continue grants that strengthen pro-arrest policies and enforcement of protection orders. In a rural state like Vermont, law enforcement agencies greatly benefit from cooperative, inter-agency efforts to combat and solve significant problems. Last year, approximately $850,000 of this funding supported Vermont efforts to encourage arrest policies. Vermont will also benefit from the extension of Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grants under VAWA II. These grants are designed to make victim services more accessible to women and children living in rural areas. I worked hard to see these provisions included in the original VAWA in 1994, and I am proud that its success has merited an increased authorization for funding in VAWA II. Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grants have been utilized by the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, the Vermont Attorney General's Office, and the Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to increase community awareness, develop cooperative relationships between state child protection agencies and domestic violence programs, expand existing multi disciplinary task forces to include allied professional groups, and create local multi-use supervised visitation centers. VAWA II also reauthorizes the National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction Grant. This important grant program assists in the improvement of local, state and national crime databases for tracking stalking and domestic violence. As we work to prevent violence against women, we must not forget those who have already fallen victim to it. VAWA II recognizes that combating violence against women extends beyond providing assistance to victims, it includes preventing women from becoming victims at all. The National Domestic Violence Hotline, which has assisted over 180,000 callers, will continue its crucial operation through the reauthorization of VAWA. Much like the state hotline that the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault helped establish in Vermont, the National Hotline reaches victims who may feel they have nowhere to turn. I am especially pleased to see that VAWA II will authorize a new grant program for civil legal assistance. In the past, funding for legal services for victims of domestic violence was dependent on a set- aside in the STOP grant appropriation. This separate grant authorization will allow victims of violence, stalking and sexual assault, who would otherwise be unable to afford professional legal representation, to obtain access to trained attorneys and advocacy services. In my State, Vermont Legal Aid, the Vermont Network to End Domestic Violence and the South Royalton Legal Clinic of Vermont Law School are currently involved in a collaborative project to expand civil legal assistance services to domestic violence victims across the state. These three organizations are partnering to create Intensive Service Teams that will provide coordinated civil legal assistance and victim advocacy in Rutland County and the Northeast Kingdom. Grants such as this one that support training, technical assistance and support for cooperative efforts between victim advocacy groups and legal assistance providers will continue to prosper under VAWA II. I remain concerned, however, over a highly objectionable provision that prohibits any expenditure of the civil legal assistant grant funds to support litigation with respect to abortion. Currently, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) operates under two abortion-related restriction provisions: The 1974 LSC statute bans the use of federally appropriated Corporation funds for legal assistance for any abortion- related proceeding or litigation. Additionally, an appropriations rider to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill restricts LSC funds from use by any person or entity that participates in abortion-related litigation. The language in VAWA II bill reaches further, in the sense that it would ban more organizations than just LSC from spending funds on abortion-related litigation. Under the Senate language, grants can be made to private, nonprofit entities, Indian tribal governments, and publicly funded organizations such as law schools. These grantees are certainly worthy and appropriate to provide these services generally; the objection is solely that they should not be gagged from providing abortion related legal assistance. I am concerned about the precedent this provision would set in expanding the restriction on abortion- related litigation to other programs and organizations. I think this kind of language should give us pause as we consider the effect it would have on victims who, in the face of domestic violence, sexual assault in family relationships, incest or rape, must run a gauntlet of congressionally imposed barriers in order simply to obtain full and complete information about their comprehensive health-care options. The original VAWA authorized funding for programs that provide shelter to battered women and children. I am pleased to see that VAWA II expands this funding so that facilities such as the Women Helping Battered Women Shelter in Burlington, Vermont, and the Rutland County Women's Shelter in Rutland, Vermont will continue to serve victims in their most vulnerable time of need. As I have noted, at one point I obtained a draft conference report that had dropped the $600,000 small state minimum funding these grants. I am relieved that my objection was heard and the minimum restored. As glad as I am that we are finally reauthorizing VAWA, this is not the version of VAWA that I cosponsored and supported in the Judiciary Committee and urged the Senate to enact. In fact, this is not the VAWA II bill that was negotiated among staff at a bipartisan, bicameral meeting earlier in this process. The version of VAWA II in this conference report was negotiated behind closed doors in the last minutes before the conference report was filed. Unfortunately, this approach saw additional provisions added and struck that have diminished the final product. One provision of particular concern to me is that on transitional housing. The previous Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, S. 2787, had over 70 co-sponsors. I am one of them. That version included better provisions on transitional housing assistance. It would have been a significant improvement over the original VAWA. This new grant program for short-term housing assistance and support services for homeless families who have fled from domestic violence environments was a priority for me and Vermont, where availability of affordable housing is at an all-time low. Unfortunately, this authorization was reduced to one year without my consent. Those involved in the discussions attribute the change to ``jurisdictional concerns'' of the Health, Labor and Pensions Committee. I look forward to working with Senators Jeffords, Gregg and Kennedy next year during reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to extend the authorization of this important program. We should all be concerned with providing victims of domestic violence with a safe place to recover from their traumatic experiences. In addition, I would like to see more support for groups that address the need for funding for under-served populations. There are positive things to come out of the revised version of VAWA II. I am pleased that we were able to cover ``dating violence'' in most of the provisions and grant programs. The Bureau of Justice Statistics report indicates that more than four in every 10 incidents of domestic violence involves non-married persons, and further, that the highest rate of domestic violence occurs among young people aged 16-24. It is crucial that we authorize prosecution of their offenders. We cannot ignore this increasingly at risk segment of the population. The House- passed version of VAWA II had contained such provisions and I support them as they have been incorporated into the conference report. In 1994, we designed VAWA to prevent abusive husbands from using control over their wives' immigration status to control them. Over the ensuing six years we have discovered additional areas that need to be addressed to protect immigrant women from abuse, and have attempted to do so in this legislation. VAWA II will ensure that the immigration status of battered women will not be affected by changes in the status of their abusers. It will also make it easier for abused women and their children to become lawful permanent residents and obtain cancellation of removal. With this legislation, battered immigrant women should not have to choose to stay with their abusers in order to stay in the United States. I am pleased that we have taken these additional steps to protect immigrant women facing domestic abuse in the United States. I would also like to point out the difficult situation of immigrant women who face domestic violence if they are returned to their home country. Numerous cases have arisen recently in which women who fear being killed by abusive spouses in their native lands were denied claims for asylum, despite the fact that the police in those countries do not enforce what limited laws apply to domestic violence. There are additional cases in which women who fear for their lives due to ingrained social practices--such as ``honor killings'' in Jordan, in which families have female relatives killed for ``dishonoring'' them-- have lost asylum claims. The Attorney General is currently reviewing the Board of Immigration Appeals decision Matter of R-A-, which is the precedent on which these later decisions have been based. I have written, along with Senator Landrieu and many other of my colleagues, urging the Attorney General to reverse this decision and protect women who face persecution. I renew that request today, and hope that the passage of this legislation will prompt action on this issue as well. The conference report includes a provision that would require dissemination of sex registry information to colleges and universities. Currently, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) applies strict restrictions on the dissemination of information in ``education records,'' but these restrictions are specifically defined to exclude ``records maintained by a law enforcement unit'' of the school and were created for a law enforcement purpose. Thus, to the extent that campus police get information about registered sex offenders under State law, they are able to use it as they wish. Apparently not satisfied to leave this issue to the States, the conference report would mandate that States provide sex registry information concerning students to colleges and universities where the students are registered. I see no need to impose a federal disclosure requirement when the States are now free to regulate as they see fit the dissemination of sex registry information to schools and campus police, who may use it to protect the safety of those on campus. No one is opposed to taking adequate safety measures regarding sex offenders on campus. My concern has to do with unnecessary federal mandates when the States are perfectly capable of addressing the issue. VAWA II includes a provision to enhance protections for older women from domestic violence and sexual assault. Last year I introduced the Seniors Safety Act, S. 751, which would enhance penalties for crimes against seniors. This provision in VAWA II is an important complement to that legislation and I am pleased this provision has been able to generate wide support. VAWA II would also help young victims of crime through funding for the establishment of safe and supervised visitation centers for children in order to reduce the opportunity for domestic violence. Grants will also be extended to continue funding agencies serving homeless youth who have been or who are at risk of abuse and to continue funding for victims of child abuse, including money for advocates, training for judicial personnel and televised testimony. Many of the most successful services for victims start at the local level, such as Vermont's model hotline on domestic violence and sexual assault. VAWA II recognizes these local successes and continues grant funding of community demonstration projects for the intervention and prevention of domestic violence. The original VAWA was an important and comprehensive Federal effort to combat violence against women and to assist the victims of such violence. Passage of VAWA II gives us the opportunity to continue funding these successful programs, to improve victim services, and to strengthen these laws so that violence against women is eliminated. I am pleased that we were able to find a way to get this considered and passed. I deeply regret that we have not been able to do so in stand- alone legislation or before VAWA expired last month. The conference report also includes the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. I commend Senators Lautenberg and Mack for working with the Administration on this consensus legislation which addresses serious policy concerns raised by prior versions of the bill. This measure has been cleared for action and passage by unanimous consent for some time by all Democratic Senators. In my view, it should have been passed in its own right a long time ago. The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act addresses an issue that should deeply concern all of us: the enforcement of court-ordered judgments that compensate the victims of state-sponsored terrorism. This legislation has the strong support of American families who have lost loved ones due to the callous indifference to life of international terrorist organizations and their client states, and it deserves our support as well. One such family is the family of Alisa Flatow, an American student killed in Gaza in a 1995 bus bombing. The Flatow family obtained a $247 million judgment in Federal court against the Iranian-sponsored Islamic Jihad, which proudly claimed responsibility for the bombing that took her life. But the family has been unable to enforce this judgment because Iranian assets in the United States remain frozen. The conference report that the Senate passes today will provide an avenue for the Flatow family and others in their position to recover some of the damages due them under American law. It will permit these plaintiffs to attach certain foreign assets to satisfy the compensatory damages portion of their judgments against foreign states for personal injury or death caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act. It will also permit these plaintiffs to recover post-judgment interest and, in the case of claims against Cuba, certain amounts that have been awarded as sanctions by judicial order. I am also pleased that this measure also includes a Leahy-Feinstein amendment dealing with support for victims of international terrorism. This amendment will enable the Office for Victims of Crime to provide more immediate and effective assistance to Americans who are victims of terrorism abroad--Americans like those killed or injured in the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. These victims deserve help, but according to OVC, existing programs are failing to meet their needs. Working with OVC, we have crafted legislation to correct this problem. The Leahy-Feinstein part of this measure will permit the Office for Victims of Crime to serve these victims better by expanding the types of assistance for which the VOCA emergency reserve fund may be used, and the range of organizations to which assistance may be provided. These changes will not require new or appropriated funds: They simply allow OVC greater flexibility in using existing reserve funds to assist victims of terrorism abroad, including the victims of the Lockerbie and embassy bombings. This provision will also authorize OVC to raise the cap on the VOCA emergency reserve fund from $50 million to $100 million, so that the fund is large enough to cover the extraordinary costs that would be incurred if a terrorist act caused massive casualties, and to replenish the reserve fund with unobligated funds from its other grant programs. At the same time, the provision will simplify the presently- authorized system of using VOCA funds to provide victim compensation to American victims of terrorism abroad, by permitting OVC to establish and operate an international crime victim compensation program. This program will, in addition, cover foreign nationals who are employees of any American government institution targeted for terrorist attack. The source of funding is the VOCA emergency reserve fund, which we authorized in an amendment I offered to the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Finally, the provision clarifies that deposits into the Crime Victims Fund remain available for intended uses under VOCA when not expended immediately. This should quell concerns raised regarding the effect of spending caps included in appropriations bills last year and this. I understand the appropriations' actions to have deferred spending but not to have removed deposits from the Fund. This provision makes that explicit. I want to thank Senator Feinstein for her support and assistance on this initiative. Senator Feinstein cares deeply about the rights of victims, and I am pleased that we could work together on some practical, pragmatic improvements to our federal crime victims' laws. We would have liked to do more. In particular, we would have liked to allow OVC to deliver timely and critically needed emergency assistance to all victims of terrorism and mass violence occurring outside the United States and targeted at the United States or United States nationals. Unfortunately, to achieve bipartisan consensus on this provision, we were compelled to restrict OVC's authority, so that it may provide emergency assistance only to United States nationals and employees. It seems more than a little bizarre to me that the richest country in the world would reserve emergency aid for victims of terrorism who can produce a passport or W-2. I will continue to work with OVC and victims' organization to remedy this anomaly. I regret that we have not done more for victims this year, or during the last few years. I have on several occasions noted my concern that we not dissipate the progress we could be making by focusing exclusively on efforts to amend the Constitution. Regretfully, I must note that the pace of victims legislation has slowed noticeably and many opportunities for progress have been squandered. I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, victims groups, prosecutors, judges and other interested parties on how we can most effectively assist victims and provide them the greater voice and rights that they deserve. This is the third good part of the package that comes before the Senate today. The sex trafficking bill, VAWA II and the Justice for Victims of Terrorism legislation could each have passed in its own right. The are being bundled together because the Republican leadership refused to proceed to consideration of VAWA II or the victims legislation and this session is drawing to a close. We are already passed the sine die adjournment date that had been set by the Majority Leader. We are already into the second or third or fourth continuing resolution needed to keep the government operating while Congress completes appropriations bills that should have been enacted in July and September. While the conference report contains many provisions which I support, it also has been used as a vehicle for some pet Republican legislative projects that I do not endorse. I refer specifically to ``Aimee's law'' and the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act.'' The conference report contains a legislative proposal called ``Aimee's law,'' which, though well intended, will not serve this country well. We all shudder when a violent offender is incarcerated for an insufficient length of time only to be released and claim another victim. Let us be clear: everyone agrees that serious violent offenders should serve appropriate and sufficient incarceration. Yet, Aimee's law is not the way to pursue this goal. Neither Aimee's law or Congress can accurately assess with one hundred percent accuracy which offender will be a recidivist and which offender will not. This proposal has myriad practical implementation problems that will make this law a headache to administer for the States and the Department of Justice, without living up to its promise of stopping future tragedies. Ironically, Aimee's law will adversely affect the States' ability to fight crime. By taking law enforcement funds away from the states, the legislation will in effect reduce the states' capacity to fight crime. The Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections has advised that ``Pennsylvania, along with many other states, plans for the use of federal law enforcement money years in advance. Excessive penalties have a high potential to interfere with states' abilities to keep violent offenders--including those who have committed Aimee's law crimes--incarcerated for longer periods of time.'' Specifically, this proposal would allow a state to apply to the Attorney General for reimbursement of the costs for investigation, prosecution and incarceration of prisoners who were previously convicted in another state for murder, rape or a dangerous sexual offense. The source of the reimbursement funds will be from Federal law enforcement assistance funds that would otherwise be paid out to the state that convicted the individual of the prior offense and released that offender. Last year, this proposal was adopted as an amendment to S. 254, the Juvenile Justice bill. Even then I expressed grave reservations with the language and complications contained in the legislation. Specifically, I noted that the proposal was ``extremely complicated and can create a great deal of problems with some States'' and offered ``to work more on the language to see if there are areas of unnecessary complication that could be removed.'' (Record, May 19, 2000, p. S5526). Unfortunately, the juvenile justice conference, in which the language of this proposal could have been refined, has failed to meet for over a year. Apparently, the Republican leadership intends to end the Congress without ever completing work on the juvenile crime bill. By any stretch of the imagination, the costs of Aimee's law outweigh its promised benefits: First, Aimee's law penalizes states' law enforcement not for their own actions, but for the actions taken by judicial and corrections officers resulting in the release of a defendant who has not served the incarceration period required under Aimee's law. Indeed, defendants who escape from jail without serving their full term and commit subsequent crimes could subject the state in which they committed their initial crimes to decreased federal funds otherwise used to help law enforcement. Second, Aimee's law requires the annual collection, maintenance and reporting of criminal history for violent offenders and covers not just those offenders currently in the system but any such offender no matter how long ago that offender was convicted, served time and was released. This provision alone demands an enormous investment of time and money, neither of which the legislation provides, to build the criminal history database necessary to implement the new law. As the Department of Justice has pointed out, ``[s]ince no time limit is imposed between the prior and subsequent convictions, the system would require electronic criminal records that do not now exist and would be very expensive to accumulate.'' This ``would require the establishment of a major national data center to collect and match state records'' and constitutes an ``unfunded mandate.'' During a colloquy in the House on October 6th, Congressman Conyers asked a House sponsor of Aimee's law whether it was the drafters' intent that Aimee's law shall apply prospectively, that is only to offenders whose first sentence for a covered offense occurs on or after the effective date of this law, January 1, 2002, and the sponsor responded affirmatively. Yet, the law remains murky on this point since the effective date may be construed to apply only to the time when states may make applications for reimbursement, not to when the offenses occurred. We have two years before the effective date to clarify this point, and others, in this problematic law. Third, while Aimee's law would exempt certain States from application of the law, those exemptions are predicated, in part, upon ``the average term of imprisonment imposed for that offense in all States.'' The Pennsylvania Director of Corrections has pointed out that ``[t]here is no record of what the national `average. . .' is for crimes covered in this language. Further, if such an average existed, it would continually fluctuate, guaranteeing that there would always be some states out of compliance.'' Fourth, Aimee's law adopts offense definitions that are unclear and fail to conform to the offense definitions found in the federal criminal code or to the standard legal terms used in state codes making it difficult to enforce Aimee's law across state lines. The National Governors' Association has repeatedly registered its disapproval of Aimee's law as ``onerous, impractical and unworkable.'' Consequently, States may simply agree among themselves not to file the applications with the Attorney General required to obtain reimbursement. Indeed, such an application might trigger a retaliatory review of the applicant's own record of released defendants and result in reduction of important federal funds. As a consequence, states may view invocation of Aimee's law reimbursement provisions as a risky proposition. In short, Aimee's law is an empty promise that may make good fodder for 60-second campaign spots but will do nothing to continue the progress we have made over the last eight years to reduce the violent crime rate or to truly help crime victims. Senator Hatch has insisted that the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act'' be included in the conference report, despite the fact that the conference met September 28th, and expressly rejected inclusion of this proposal in the conference report. It was rejected by the Senate conferees and the House conferees went so far as to adopt the position that no extraneous legislation would be added to the sex trafficking provisions. Nevertheless, the conference report contains Senator Hatch's bill, which amounts to a double whammy--it is unnecessary and dangerous to e-commerce. The purported goal of this legislation is to enforce state liquor laws. The approach of this legislation sets a dangerous precedent by erecting barriers to interstate and electronic commerce. Specifically, the bill would permit the enforcement of state liquor laws in Federal court. This expansion of the jurisdiction of the Federal courts is not warranted. State attorneys general are already enforcing their state liquor laws in state courts--whether the alcohol was brought over the Internet or over the counter at the corner store. The Internet has not changed the enforcement of state liquor laws. This year, for instance, the Utah Attorney General successfully enforced that state's liquor laws against an out-of-state direct sales shipper of alcoholic beverages. That case resulted in fines of more than $25,000 and guilty pleads by an out-of-state direct shipper to state law counts of unlawfully importing alcohol and selling it to a minor. Indeed, the Utah Attorney General, Jan Graham, declared: ``This case represents a significant win for Utah. No longer can retailers claim that we have no authority over illegal transactions that occur outside of the state. If you're shipping to a Utah resident, we can and will prosecute you.'' This legislation is using the Internet as an excuse to impose a Federal fix for a problem that is already being solved at the state level. Whatever happened to Federalism? In fact, the National Conference of State Legislatures opposes this legislation, calling the bill ``an overreaction to a situation which can be reconciled among the states and not in a federal court.'' Skeptics rightly are concerned that some may be using the Internet as an excuse to protect the decades-old distribution system for wine and other alcoholic beverages. Although the Internet has not changed state liquor law enforcement, it has opened up the wine and beer market to new consumer choices and competition. With the power of electronic commerce, adult consumers now have the freedom to choose from a rich assortment of different wine and beer products--from small wineries to nationwide brewers in America or any other country in the world. We should be embracing this free market and open competition. Competition in the free market is the American way. But instead some wine and beer wholesalers want to use this legislation as a protectionist ploy to keep their present distribution system, which effectively locks out small wineries and micro-breweries from ever getting their products on a store shelf. Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the National Conference of State Legislatures have noted that this Federal legislation is nothing more than an attempt to use the Federal courts in a disagreement between wholesalers and small independent wineries and breweries. On August 12, 1999, The Wall Street Journal wrote about this legislation: ``This is a bad bill, with dangerous consequences not only for alcohol but for the future of e-commerce and other cross-state transactions.'' I whole-heartedly agree. The Department of Justice has warned Congress in relation to legislation affecting the Internet that: ``[A]ny prohibitions that are designed to prohibit criminal activity on the Internet must be carefully drafted to accomplish the legislation's objectives without stifling the growth of the Internet or chilling its use.'' This bill fails that test. It is not carefully crafted. In fact, it is not even needed. It also could chill the use of the Internet as a means of promoting interstate commerce. I will vote in support of this conference report because the provisions on sex trafficking, VAWA and justice for victims are proposals I endorse. I do so with profound regret with the process and that the majority insisted on including Aimee's law and the internet alcohol bill that are not well considered. They are the price that we pay for making progress here today. I will work to see if we can limit their damage. In closing, I wish to thank the conferees and their staffs who showed courtesy to me and mine. In particular, I thank Karen Knutsen of Senator Brownback's staff and Mark Lagon and Brian McKee of the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee. I thank Nancy Zirkin of the American Association of University Women and Pat Reuss of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund for their efforts on behalf of VAWA II. This has been a difficult matter at a difficult time that is being concluded as best we can under these circumstances in order to enact the sex trafficking legislation, VAWA II and the victims bill for all the good they can mean. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is an interesting precedent being set as the Senate considers adopting Aimee's law as part of the conference report on the Sex Trafficking Act. The supporters of Aimee's law argue that states have a financial responsibility regarding the protection, or lack of protection, offered by state law. I have expressed my concerns about Aimee's law and I want to put my colleagues on notice. If Congress and the President determine that this Act will become law, there are important ramifications that should be reflected in future legislation on many issues. For example, the application of the Aimee's law standard to state responsibility should also be applied to pollution and waste that also crosses state borders. I think it will be interesting to see in the future whether supporters of Aimee's law will also support efforts to make states responsible for air pollution that is generated in their states but falls downwind on other states to damage the environment and endanger the health of children and individuals who suffer from asthma. My colleagues in the Northeast will all recognize this issue--we are collectively suffering from the damage inflicted on our forests, waterways, and public health every day by the tons of uncontrolled pollution emitted from power plants in the midwest. In 1997, out of the 12,000,000 tons of acid-rain causing sulfur dioxide emitted by the United States, Vermont was the source of only ten--or 0.00008%. Yet my state suffers disproportionately from the ecological and financial damage of acid rain, from stricken sugar maple trees to fishless lakes and streams. Vermont, like many other New England states, spends significant funds to test fish for mercury and issue fish advisories when levels are too high--mercury that also has its source at uncontrolled midwestern plants. All of our hospitals also spend money for tests for respiratory problems for children exposed to ozone-thick air, air that drifts into Vermont from the urban centers to the south and west. I would like to put the Senate on notice that when the Senate considers any amendments to the Clean Air Act, I will consider offering an amendment that will hold states responsible for the cost of the pollution they generate and which falls downwind. It will be interesting to see whether the supporters of the logic behind Aimee's law will support a Federal Government mandate that Vermont be paid by midwestern states for every ton of uncontrolled pollution that crosses into our state and results in costs to our environment and our citizens. I provide this background to highlight the underlying problems with Aimee's law. While done with the best of intentions, the solution achieved with this provision is on questionable constitutional ground and has the potential to set a precedent that will have far reaching implications for many issues Congress will address in the future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains for the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. I assumed the time of the Senator from Utah was coming from his side.

Mr. LEAHY. It is not trial experience. There is a big difference. She deserved a vote just as much as anybody else. She never got the vote. Had she gotten the vote, then I think she would have been confirmed. It is not a question of Judge Rader, whom I happen to like, who is a close personal friend of mine, and whom I supported; it is a question of who gets a vote around here.