Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: Do I have 5 minutes on the Durbin motion?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the appropriations bill on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, in my judgment, as I have said repeatedly, is vastly underfunded. The Senate passed a bill within the context of our allocation. Working with my colleague, Senator Harkin, and our very energetic and devoted staff, we did the very best we could with the limited funding. But there simply wasn't enough money to do the job. Health is our major capital asset. Without health, we can't function. Education is our major capital asset for the future, to give opportunity for labor and worker training. We made the allocations as best we could, but the bill was underfunded. I made an effort, joined by Senator Harkin and by the subcommittee, to put LIHEAP in an emergency classification for $2.83 billion. I said in the conference that it would enable us to improve the bill--not where it ought to be but improve it substantially. I conferred with Chairman Regula and considered the projects--or so- called earmarks--which are $1 billion, where, as a matter of longstanding tradition, the Members in both the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, are enabled with an allocation to make designations within their districts or States because we know more about our States and our districts than, in many instances, do the officials who run the bureaucracy of the U.S. Government. I said if we could not get the $2.83 billion emergency declaration for LIHEAP that it was going to be my position that we ought not to include the earmarks for the projects. When we could not get that emergency declaration, we struck the earmarked projects. That was a very tough decision. We are paid to make tough decisions around here. I can't think of one in the time I have been here more disappointing to a lot of people in America who are relying on these projects. Although, the $1 billion spread around the country, here and there, is not unsubstantial--a lot of people were disappointed. Many Members were disappointed that the traditional allocations were not made. It is my hope that we can put the $2.83 billion into LIHEAP. We are facing a drastic situation with fuel costs, as we all know, and as significantly occasioned by Hurricane Katrina, which is an emergency. If there ever was a clear-cut emergency, it is what the consequences of Hurricane Katrina are. The fuel costs are a direct result of that. This is a classical, quintessential emergency. I think we have the 51 votes to pass it here in the Senate. The difficulty is going to be in getting our House colleagues to agree to it. But I hope we work our way out of this morass and impasse with approval of this resolution and ultimate approval by both bodies. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I object. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for filing his resolution and for yielding me a few minutes to talk about the merits. I support the resolution. I believe it would enhance the Senate to have Senator Coburn continue his medical practice on a basis where he does not seek a profit, where he covers his expenses, and where he continues to perform very important medical services for many people who are his patients now and who may become his patients. When the issue arises as to whether it interferes with Senator Coburn's duties and responsibilities in the Senate, I believe I am in a position to answer that question, categorically, based upon what he has done for a year in the Senate, where I have had very close contact with him on the Judiciary Committee. He is prompt in attendance. We have grave difficulties maintaining a quorum but not because of Senator Coburn. He lends an expertise which is absent. We had hearings today on the asbestos reform bill, and Senator Coburn was cross-examining the medical witnesses in a way that regular Senators, plain Senators, even though they have some experience in questioning witnesses, can't do. I said to Senator Coburn, after the hearing concluded, that he might be in the wrong profession; he ought to be practicing cross-examination. He thought that was related to being a lawyer. He didn't like that suggestion very much, but it was made only in jest. He knows things as a result of his medical profession that the rest of us do not know. We have a great many professionals in this body but not medical professionals. There is no conflict of interest, as the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, commented about lawyers and a profit motive and there might be some connection between representing clients in matters to come before the Senate. That is not the situation with Senator Coburn. There is no conflict of interest. In fact, there is a substantial confluence of interest. That may be a new phrase. If I could attract Senator Coburn's attention, I said there is a confluence of interest with his work as a doctor and with his work as a Senator. While I agree with the limitations generally, I think they do not apply to Senator/Dr. Coburn's situation. I believe the resolution ought to be adopted. Again, I thank my colleague from Mississippi. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. No. It means what it says. I can't yield having only 2 minutes, but I would be glad to hear the Senator afterwards. It means what it says--the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. The great difficulty with the Graham-Levin amendment is that it was worked out yesterday--sort of an affront to the Judiciary Committee, if I may say so--that there is no time for the Judiciary Committee to have a hearing on the matter to consider it. We are dealing with very fundamental rights, habeas corpus. Another provision of the Graham-Levin amendment says there shall be no habeas corpus jurisdiction. There have been repeated efforts in the history of our country to take away the jurisdiction of the courts. Court stripping was a big issue in the confirmation process of Chief Justice Roberts. He ran from it like the plague. He had an early memo. He didn't want to be associated with it. These are weighty and momentous considerations that go far beyond the detainees at Guantanamo. And we ought not to be deciding these questions on an amendment, which was agreed to yesterday between Senator Graham and Senator Levin, and no one has had a chance to study or analyze--most of all the authors--which on the face takes away jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is untenable and unthinkable and ought to be rejected.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I just want to alert my colleagues to the fact that the amended Graham amendment, which is the subject of newspaper comment but hasn't been the subject of any hearings, apparently agreed to by Senator Levin, or at least with fewer objections, this amendment in its present form is blatant court stripping in the most confusing way possible. The language of the amended Graham amendment says that there will be exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If it means what it says, the Supreme Court of the United States would not have jurisdiction. This language has not been subjected to any analysis or hearing. An earlier part of the amendment provides that no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider the application for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court of the United States, in three decisions handed down in June of last year, gave very substantial, articulated U.S. constitutional law as giving significant rights to the detainees to have an adjudication as to their status. We have had many efforts at court stripping. Under the language of exclusive jurisdiction in the DC Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to hear the Hamdan case which came into sharp focus because Chief Justice Roberts was on the panel there. This is a sophisticated, blatant attempt at court stripping. It ought to be rejected, and we ought to have an opportunity to give it some thoughtful analysis before these fundamental changes are made. I thank my colleague from Virginia. Amendments Nos. 2518 and 2519

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the Bingaman amendment and oppose the Graham amendment because the Graham amendment is sophisticated court-stripping. On the face of the Graham amendment, it says the DC Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction, and on the face of it, that even takes away jurisdiction from the Supreme Court of the United States. To alter habeas corpus in the context where the Supreme Court last June, 2004, found substantial rights of the detainees is court- stripping and would set a very bad precedent, not only for this factual situation but in general. I thank my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when the Senator from South Carolina says the Supreme Court of the United States can take certiorari, it is at variance with the plain language of the statute. The statute says: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the Senator from South Carolina asking for a second minute for each side?

Mr. SPECTER. No objection.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to submit a resolution to designate November 1, 2005 to October 31, 2006 as the Year of Polio Education. During the 1940s and the early 1950s, between 30,000 and 50,000 cases of polio were recorded annually in the United States, causing widespread fear and panic. I recall as a youngster attending a public swimming pool in Wichita, KS, and wondering if going to the swimming pool would cause polio. Polio is a viral illness that leads to paralysis. The polio virus damages nerves that control muscles, which results in muscle weakness. In severe cases of polio, a person may lose the ability to move their arms and legs, the ability to breathe without help, or die. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the most famous symbol of how physically debilitating polio can be. Yet despite the paralysis of his legs, he was a magnificent President and a great leader of the United States during the Depression and World War II. This year, 2005, marks the 50th anniversary of the successful nationwide trial to administer the injectable polio vaccine to children. While the invention of injectable polio vaccines eliminated naturally occurring polio cases in the United States, some American children did not receive the polio vaccine necessary to protect them. On September 29, 2005, the first of four children from a rural Minnesota Amish community was diagnosed with polio. While none of the four have suffered paralytic symptoms, the occurrence underscores the need for vaccinations. The need for continued diligence to protect this country's youth from polio and other illnesses is critical. As chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies--LHHS-- Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to provide $101.25 million in the fiscal year 2006 Senate LHHS Appropriations bill for global polio eradication, an increase of $500,000 since 2005. These funds provide polio vaccinations internationally in locations where naturally occurring polio has not been eradicated. Further, I have supported $461.5 million for the vaccine for children program as part of the fiscal year 2006 Senate LHHS Appropriations bill, an increase of $41 million since 2005. This program helps families of children who may not otherwise have access to vaccines by providing free vaccines to doctors who serve them. This year is also the 131st anniversary of the first diagnosed case of post-polio sequelae. Post-polio sequelae is a condition that may develop several decades after a person has had polio, which affects the muscles and nerves, causing weakness, fatigue, pain, and other symptoms. Approximately 70 percent of paralytic polio survivors and 40 percent non-paralytic polio survivors, develop this illness. The need for continued polio and polio vaccinations education are important to the health of all Americans, especially children. I encourage my colleagues to work with Senator Corzine and me to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to speak about S. 1699, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005, a bill I have sponsored with Senator Leahy and fifteen other cosponsors-- Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow, and Voinovich. The Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act addresses a problem that has reached epidemic proportions as a result of a loophole in our criminal code: the trafficking in counterfeit labels. Criminal law currently prohibits the trafficking in counterfeit trademarks ``on or in connection with goods or services.'' However, it does not prohibit the trafficking in the counterfeit marks themselves. As such, there is nothing in current law to prohibit an individual from selling counterfeit labels bearing otherwise protected trademarks within the United States. This loophole was exposed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Giles, 213 F.3d 1247--10th Cir. 2000. In this case, the United States prosecuted the defendant for manufacturing and selling counterfeit Dooney & Bourke labels that third parties could later affix to generic purses. Examining Title 18, section 2320, of the United States Code, the Tenth Circuit held that persons who sell counterfeit trademarks that are not actually attached to any ``goods or services'' do not violate the federal criminal trademark infringement statute. Since the defendant did not attach counterfeit marks to ``goods or services,'' the court found that the defendant did not run afoul of the criminal statute as a matter of law. Thus, someone caught red-handed with counterfeit trademarks walked free. S. 1699 closes this loophole by amending Title 18, section 2320 of the United States Code to criminally prohibit the trafficking, or attempt to traffic, in ``labels, patches, stickers'' and generally any item to which a counterfeit mark has been applied. In so doing, S. 1699 provides U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors with the means not only to prosecute individuals trafficking in counterfeit goods or services, but also individuals trafficking in labels, patches, and the like that are later applied to goods. Congress must act expeditiously to protect U.S. held trademarks to the fullest extent of the law. The recent ten count indictment of four Massachusetts residents of conspiracy to traffic in approximately $1.4 million of counterfeit luxury goods in the case of U.S. v. Luong et al., 2005 D. Mass. underscores the need for this legislation. According to the indictment, law enforcement officers raided self-storage units earlier this year and found the units to hold approximately 12,231 counterfeit handbags; 7,651 counterfeit wallets; more than 17,000 generic handbags and wallets; and enough counterfeit labels and medallions to turn more than 50,000 generic handbags and wallets into counterfeits. Although the U.S. Attorneys Office was able to pursue charges of trafficking and attempting to traffic in counterfeit handbags and wallets, they could not bring charges for trafficking and attempting to traffic in the more than 50,000 counterfeit labels and medallions. As such, these defendants will escape prosecution that would have otherwise been illegal if they had only been attached to an otherwise generic bag. This simply does not make sense and had the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005 been in effect at the time of indictment, U.S. prosecutors would have been able to bring charges against the defendants for trafficking and attempting to traffic in not only counterfeit goods, but also counterfeit labels. As Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said, ``Those who manufacture and sell counterfeit goods steal business from honest merchants, confuse or defraud honest consumers, and illegally profit on the backs of honest American workers and entrepreneurs.'' This point is underscored by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection estimate that trafficking in counterfeit goods costs the United States approximately $200 to $250 million annually. With each passing year, the United States loses millions of dollars in tax revenues to the sale of counterfeit goods. Further, each counterfeit item that is manufactured overseas and distributed in the United States costs American workers tens of thousands of jobs. With counterfeit goods making up a growing 5-7 percent of wor1d trade, this is a problem that we can no longer ignore. To be sure, counterfeiting is not limited to the popular designer goods that we have all seen sold on comers of just about every major metropolitan city in the United States. Counterfeiting has a devastating impact on a broad range of industries. In fact, for almost every legitimate product manufactured and sold within the United States, there is a parallel counterfeit product being sold for no more than half the price. These counterfeit products range from children's toys to clothing to Christmas tree lights. More frightening are the thousands of counterfeit automobile parts, batteries, and electrical equipment that are being manufactured and placed into the stream of commerce with each passing day. I am told that the level of sophistication in counterfeiting has reached the point that you can no longer distinguish between the real and the counterfeit good or label with the naked eye. However, just because these products look the same does not mean that they have the same quality characteristics. The counterfeit products are not subject to the same quality controls of legitimate products, resulting in items that are lower in quality and likely to fall apart. In fact, counterfeit products could potentially kill unsuspecting American consumers. In addition to closing the ``counterfeit label loophole,'' the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act strengthens the criminal code and provides heightened penalties for those trafficking in counterfeit marks. Current law does not provide for the seizure and forfeiture of counterfeit trademarks, whether they are attached to goods or not. Therefore, many times such counterfeit goods are seized one day, only to be returned and sold to an unsuspecting public. To ensure that individuals engaging in the practice of trafficking in counterfeit marks cannot reopen their doors, S. 1699 establishes procedures for the mandatory seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of counterfeit marks prior to a conviction. Further, it provides for procedures for the mandatory forfeiture and destruction of property derived from or used to engage in the trafficking of counterfeit marks. In crafting the language in Section 2(b)(I)(B) of this bill pertaining to the forfeiture authority of the U.S. Department of Justice, Senator Leahy and I discussed the scope of the facilitation language, which parallels the drug and money laundering forfeiture language in 21 U.S.C. 853 and 18 U.S.C. 982, respectively, and how it might relate to Internet marketplace companies, search engines, and ISPs. Specifically, we were aware of concerns regarding the potential misapplication of the facilitation language in Section 2(b)(1)(B) to pursue forfeiture and seizure proceedings against responsible Internet marketplace companies that serve as third party intermediaries to online transactions. To this end, I would like to make it clear for the record that this bill is not intended to apply to ``good actor'' Internet service providers that serve as third party intermediaries to online transactions and take demonstrable steps to prevent the exchange or trafficking of counterfeit goods on their networks. Does Senator Leahy agree?

Mr. SPECTER. As the Senator is aware, the Sentencing Commission has sought to update the Federal sentencing guidelines upon the periodic directive of Congress to reflect and account for changes in the manner in which intellectual property offenses are committed. The recent amendments to which you refer were promulgated by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to the authorization in the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, also known as FECA. These amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines, which took effect on October 24, 2005, address changes in penalties and definitions for intellectual property rights crimes, particularly those involving copyrighted pre-release works and issues surrounding ``uploading.'' For example, these guidelines provide for a 25-percent increase in sentences for offenses involving pre-release works. In addition, the Commission revised its definition of ``uploading'' to ensure that the guidelines are keeping up with technological advances in this area. I would like to make it clear for the record that the directive to the Sentencing Commission in Section 3 of S. 1699 is not meant as disapproval of the Commission's recent actions in response to FECA. Rather, Section 3 covers other intellectual property rights crimes that Congress believes it is time for the Commission to revisit. Specifically, Section 3 directs the Commission to review the guidelines, and particularly the definition of ``infringement amount,'' to ensure that offenses involving low-cost items like labels, patches, medallions, or packaging that are used to make counterfeit goods that are much more expensive, are properly punished. It also directs the Commission to ensure that the penalty provisions for offenses involving all counterfeit goods or services, or devices used to facilitate counterfeiting are properly addressed by the guidelines. As it did in response to the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 and FECA, I am confident that the Commission will ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines provide adequate punishment and deterrence for these very serious offenses and I look forward to the Commission's response to this directive.

Mr. SPECTER. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow and Voinovich for their co-sponsorship. I would also like to thank Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representative Joe Knollenberg for their leadership in the House with regard to H.R. 32, counterfeiting legislation directly related to S. 1699. In January of this year, Representative Knollenberg introduced H.R. 32, the initial draft of the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005, in the House. When the bill was in Committee, he fostered negotiations between the Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the International Trademark Association to craft language nearly paralleling S. 1699. I commend to my colleagues the Housing Judiciary Committee Report on H.R. 32, as amended.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. When I read in the bill of the Senator from South Carolina about appeals to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia from detainee status, that opens up a brand new Pandora's box. You have existing procedures under habeas corpus which we currently understand, but if you provide for a new jurisdiction for the circuit court of appeals for detainees' appeals than that could make it worse. I think this probably requires a lot more analysis. We have an able Senator from South Carolina who sits on both Judiciary and Armed Services. We are going to continue to work on it, but I do not think this amendment is the answer. I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding me the time and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. But I am not prepared, at this stage, to support legislation which calls for removal of habeas corpus. The issues on detainees and military commissions have been pending since 9/ 11 of 2001. Until the Judiciary Committee held a hearing in June 15 of 2005, nothing had been done by Congress. The Supreme Court finally took the bull by the horns and came down with the three decisions in June of 2004 because the Congress had not acted. It didn't know what to do. It didn't know quite how to approach it. And perhaps it was too hot to handle. But the Congress frequently is inactive in the face of assertions by the executive of the need to defer to Presidential power. But I believe that the habeas corpus provisions which are now in effect need to be maintained. While the three decisions by the Supreme Court in June of 2004 did not answer the problem, they did get us started. Their movement in the Hamdan case is again significant. My own thinking, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is to try to find answers to these complex issues. When the Senator from South Carolina decries the numerous habeas corpus appeals, I know what that means. I was a district attorney of a big city, 30,000 cases a year, with a lot of convictions and a lot of habeas corpus matters. The Federal Government can handle the habeas corpus provision. But I read in the revised statute that there are going to be appeals.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding me 10 minutes. The issues presented by the Graham amendment are very important, and I commend Senator Graham for taking the initiative in offering this amendment. This is an issue which this Senator has been wrestling with for some time. Shortly after 9/11, on February 13, Senator Durbin and I introduced legislation which would have dealt with the military commission procedures. This is pursuant to the provisions of article I, section 8, clauses 10 and 11 of the Constitution, which confers upon the Congress the power ``To define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations; . . . make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.'' Early this year, after becoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in collaboration with the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, we took up this issue. We held a hearing on June 15 this year, which I had sought continually in 2002, 2003, and 2004. I believe this was the first hearing to deal with these issues. In line with that effort, I traveled to Guantanamo Bay in mid-August. I had the expectation of having a hearing and making progress to really come to grips with the complex issues which are involved here. These issues are very difficult. When you talk about detainees and their status as an enemy combatant, you first wrestle with the problem of what evidence is there. It is very hard to quantify any of the evidence. You talk about competent evidence, which we are familiar with in a courtroom--here there is none. Hearsay is permitted, but it is impossible to put your hands on what the hearsay is. There are some suggestions that on the battlefield somebody who is known and trusted to our forces would just identify: You, you, and you are enemy combatants; and it would stick. These detainees are then held for the duration. There is no doubt that these detainees are the worst of the worst. That is the way they have been characterized. We are facing very difficult problems with these terrorists. Some of them have been released, and they have gone back to Afghanistan or gone back to Iraq, so we are fighting them all over again. It is a very difficult problem. Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States came down with three decisions in June of 2004, which were a patchwork, really a crazy quilt, of decisions. Now you have the Supreme Court of the United States again undertaking jurisdiction in the Hamdan case, which challenges the Presidential authority to set up the commissions. It does so on the ground that the Geneva Convention says that there must be a tribunal who makes the determination of enemy combatant status. The question raised in the circuit court--this opinion got a lot of notoriety because Chief Justice Roberts, then Judge Roberts of the circuit court, was on the panel--dealt with the issue as to whether there had to be a tribunal. That is what the district court said. The circuit court overruled the district court's ruling that the President was not a tribunal. Although it is hard to fashion the President as a tribunal, I do realize that the President has to act to protect the country. These are the kind of weighty problems which we have not sorted through, quite frankly. I have discussed this matter with the Senator from South Carolina. He is on the Judiciary Committee and participated in the hearing which we held. He took a good bit of what we had found and worked with it in the Armed Services Committee. That is the way it should be. But when you undertake to remove habeas corpus, you better know where you are, and you better have a comprehensive plan and a comprehensive way of dealing with the issue which deals with evidence and which deals with the right of counsel. Detainees do not have the right to counsel. I can understand why the Department of Defense does not want to give detainees the right of counsel. But we have not come up with an answer as to how the detainees ought to be handled. The detainees are reviewed only once a year. We have submitted draft legislation to the Department of Defense, as we worked on this issue in June, July, August, and through the fall. A number of the suggestions which we made were incorporated by the Department of Defense. I think they have been moving in the right direction. They have changed the commission so that the presiding judge is no longer a fact finder or juror, but functions more like a judge. Changes in the Classified Information Act have occurred. But until we can sort through these issues and find a comprehensive approach which deals with them--and we should be doing that--the Judiciary Committee will still be wrestling with these problems. But it is well known that we have been busy since we took up this issue with a June 15 hearing. In July we had the nomination of Roberts, and we had the nomination of Miers, and now we have the nomination of Alito. We have had so many matters: class actions, bankruptcy and asbestos and judicial nominations, that we have not been able to come to grips with all of the issues. Candidly, it is very hard to deal with the Department of Defense on these matters. When we were in Guantanamo on August 1, we took up an issue that the New York Times had publicized, on August 1, where three officers had said that the trials were rigged by the military. We sought information from the Department of Defense on an inspector general's report and on an internal investigation. There was delay after delay after delay, as we tried to find out what was going on. It was very difficult. This is sort of a pattern, where the Department of Defense wants to do it their way and is very resistant to congressional inquiries and to congressional oversight. While it is a collateral matter, it bears on some of the work by the Judiciary Committee on Able Danger. There we have, notwithstanding commitments by the Department of Defense, not been able to get important information. I see the Presiding Officer edging forward. Is my time about to expire?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005. This bill is in direct response to the tragic events that occurred in Chicago on February 28, 2005. On that day, the husband and aged mother of Judge Joan Lefkow were shot and killed in their own home. The perpetrator, as described by Judge Lefkow, was an angry litigant. These attacks on Federal judges are not as isolated as one might think. Federal judges receive on average 700 inappropriate communications or threats each year, and three Federal judges have been assassinated in the last 25 years. Shortly after the Lefkow murders, on March 14, 2005, I wrote to the Director of the United States Marshals Service to find out what security measures were in place and what additional measures could be instituted, particularly off-site security measures, following this terrible tragedy. On March 14, 2005, Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella responded on behalf of the U.S. Marshals Service, stating that Attorney General Gonzales and Director Reyna are reviewing all aspects of judicial security, both at judicial facilities and off-site, but no specifics were offered, and no specifics have yet to be received. On April 5, 2005, the Judicial Conference of the United States wrote to the President about the issue. Stating that ``attacks such as these strike at the core of our system of government,'' the Judicial Conference asked that immediate actions be taken to improve judicial security, particularly outside of the courthouse. On May 6, 2005, I met with Third Circuit Judge Jane Roth, who chairs the Committee on Facilities and Securities for the Judicial Conference, to discuss security issues. Congress quickly responded and passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, which was enacted on May 11, 2005. The Act provided $11.9 million to the U.S. Marshals Service for ``increased judicial security outside of courthouse facilities, including priority consideration of home detection systems in the homes of Federal judges,'' and as a result home intrusion detection systems will soon be available to every Federal judge who wants one. But we must do more. On May 18, 2005, I chaired a full Judiciary Committee hearing entitled ``Protecting the Judiciary at Home and in the Courthouse'' and it is evident from this hearing that much more needs to be done in the area of judicial security. The responsibility of protecting our Federal judiciary and the halls of justice rests primarily with the U.S. Marshals Service, but we heard compelling testimony that coordination and cooperation is sorely lacking between the Federal judiciary and the agency principally charged with its protection. Not only does the U.S. Marshals Service arrogantly fail to coordinate and cooperate with the Federal judiciary, serious questions were raised regarding the efficacy of its existing security programs. For example, a report issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice in March 2004 found that the U.S. Marshals Service's threat assessments are ``untimely and of questionable validity,'' and that the U.S. Marshals Service has ``limited capability to collect and share intelligence, and lacks adequate standards for determining appropriate protective measures.'' This legislation would enhance judicial security in several respects. The legislation would statutorily require the U.S. Marshals Service to cooperate and coordinate with the Judicial Conference regarding judicial security on a continuing basis. The legislation also would provide new criminal sanctions on individuals who harass or intimidate judges either by filing false or malicious liens against judges or by knowingly posting personal information regarding Federal judges on the Internet with the intent that such information be used to harm them. The legislation would extend the Judicial Conference's authority to redact sensitive personal information from judges' financial disclosure forms so that such information cannot be used for harassment or intimidation purposes. The rampage in Atlanta reminds us that the issue of judicial security is no less of a compelling problem for State and local courts, where approximately 32,000 State and local court judges sit compared to approximately 2,400 Federal judges. This legislation would address these State and local issues by authorizing grants for court security and witness protection. In conclusion, there is no doubt that the rule of law is the backbone of our civilized society. The ability of the judiciary to determine the rule of law without fear or favor is an indispensable prerequisite to our democratic society. Our judges' personal security, along with judicial independence, must be safeguarded at all costs, and I believe this bill is an important step toward providing those safeguards.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work accomplished by Larry Magid and his staff at Electric Factory Concerts, who produced the original LIVE AID concert in Philadelphia's JFK Stadium in 1985, which raised awareness of poverty around the world. On July 2, 2005, Larry Magid and his staff, including Adam Spivak, John Stevenson and Jim Sutcliffe, were instrumental in producing the U.S. portion of LIVE 8 which was held in Philadelphia on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. This concert, which was attended by over 1 million people, was part of eight other concerts on the same night in nine different countries including the U.K., Japan, Russia, South Africa, Canada, Germany, France, and Italy. I again would like to commend Electric Factory Concerts for their success in helping to raise awareness of the global poverty epidemic, and they are to be commended for their efforts in this worthwhile undertaking.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005. This bill is in direct response to the tragic events that occurred in Chicago on February 28, 2005. On that day, the husband and aged mother of Judge Joan Lefkow were shot and killed in their own home. The perpetrator, as described by Judge Lefkow, was an angry litigant. These attacks on Federal judges are not as isolated as one might think. Federal judges receive on average 700 inappropriate communications or threats each year, and three Federal judges have been assassinated in the last 25 years. Shortly after the Lefkow murders, on March 14, 2005, I wrote to the Director of the United States Marshals Service to find out what security measures were in place and what additional measures could be instituted, particularly off-site security measures, following this terrible tragedy. On March 14, 2005, Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella responded on behalf of the U.S. Marshals Service, stating that Attorney General Gonzales and Director Reyna are reviewing all aspects of judicial security, both at judicial facilities and off-site, but no specifics were offered, and no specifics have yet to be received. On April 5, 2005, the Judicial Conference of the United States wrote to the President about the issue. Stating that ``attacks such as these strike at the core of our system of government,'' the Judicial Conference asked that immediate actions be taken to improve judicial security, particularly outside of the courthouse. On May 6, 2005, I met with Third Circuit Judge Jane Roth, who chairs the Committee on Facilities and Securities for the Judicial Conference, to discuss security issues. Congress quickly responded and passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, which was enacted on May 11, 2005. The Act provided $11.9 million to the U.S. Marshals Service for ``increased judicial security outside of courthouse facilities, including priority consideration of home detection systems in the homes of Federal judges,'' and as a result home intrusion detection systems will soon be available to every Federal judge who wants one. But we must do more. On May 18, 2005, I chaired a full Judiciary Committee hearing entitled ``Protecting the Judiciary at Home and in the Courthouse'' and it is evident from this hearing that much more needs to be done in the area of judicial security. The responsibility of protecting our Federal judiciary and the halls of justice rests primarily with the U.S. Marshals Service, but we heard compelling testimony that coordination and cooperation is sorely lacking between the Federal judiciary and the agency principally charged with its protection. Not only does the U.S. Marshals Service arrogantly fail to coordinate and cooperate with the Federal judiciary, serious questions were raised regarding the efficacy of its existing security programs. For example, a report issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice in March 2004 found that the U.S. Marshals Service's threat assessments are ``untimely and of questionable validity,'' and that the U.S. Marshals Service has ``limited capability to collect and share intelligence, and lacks adequate standards for determining appropriate protective measures.'' This legislation would enhance judicial security in several respects. The legislation would statutorily require the U.S. Marshals Service to cooperate and coordinate with the Judicial Conference regarding judicial security on a continuing basis. The legislation also would provide new criminal sanctions on individuals who harass or intimidate judges either by filing false or malicious liens against judges or by knowingly posting personal information regarding Federal judges on the Internet with the intent that such information be used to harm them. The legislation would extend the Judicial Conference's authority to redact sensitive personal information from judges' financial disclosure forms so that such information cannot be used for harassment or intimidation purposes. The rampage in Atlanta reminds us that the issue of judicial security is no less of a compelling problem for State and local courts, where approximately 32,000 State and local court judges sit compared to approximately 2,400 Federal judges. This legislation would address these State and local issues by authorizing grants for court security and witness protection. In conclusion, there is no doubt that the rule of law is the backbone of our civilized society. The ability of the judiciary to determine the rule of law without fear or favor is an indispensable prerequisite to our democratic society. Our judges' personal security, along with judicial independence, must be safeguarded at all costs, and I believe this bill is an important step toward providing those safeguards.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment because the fees for L visas would raise funds but would do nothing to fill very important jobs in the United States. The existing plan submitted by the Judiciary Committee imposes a fee, but it extends the H-1B visa and recaptures the visas which were not used in the last 5 years. There are very careful safeguards so that U.S. jobs are not lost. I understand the position of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the position of the unions, but I believe their concerns are misplaced and that there is a real need for these positions of highly skilled professionals, Ph.D.s, advanced degrees. Therefore, with due respect to my colleague from West Virginia, I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I very much appreciate those very generous remarks by Senator Harkin, and I appreciate even more his cooperation and leadership on this important subcommittee, working with health and education, the two major capital assets of Americans, and labor and related agencies. It is an important bill, and I think we have crafted it about as well as you can, given the limitations of the resources. There is a lot more I could say, but Senator Byrd is waiting to speak, so I will just reference the appointment of conferees. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendments to H.R. 3010, request a conference with the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Now the Alexander amendment 2308, as modified.