[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 151 (Wednesday, October 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12852-S12859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               PASSAGE OF CERTAIN ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as this Congress draws to a close, much has 
been and will be said about what has and has not been accomplished. 
There is no getting away from the fact that Congress has dropped the 
ball on too many issues of vital importance to the American people. I 
need only mention campaign finance reform, a patients' bill of rights, 
and the failure to pass tough legislation on youth smoking. I have 
spoken often about the failure of

[[Page S12853]]

this Congress to live up to its constitutional advice and consent 
responsibilities with respect to nominations. In addition, this is the 
first year since enactment of the Congressional Budget Act that 
Congress has failed to pass a budget. There is much about the record of 
the 105th Congress with which I have been disappointed and with which 
the American people should find fault.
  In the area of criminal justice, I particularly regret Congress' 
failure to pass balanced juvenile crime legislation, the Democratic 
crime bills, S. 15 and S. 2484, or comprehensive legislation on behalf 
of crime victims. At the same time, I would like to highlight those 
important measures that we have been able to pass.


   The Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grant Act, The Care for Police 
 Survivors Act and The Public Safety Officer Educational Assistance Act

  These three bills, which I cosponsored, became law this year. 
Together these measures make a significant package of legislation to 
benefit the families of those who serve in law enforcement. This past 
May, I had the privilege of speaking during National Police Week and 
the annual memorial activities for law enforcement officers and called 
for Congress to pass this legislation.
  We were able to complete action earlier this year on the Bulletproof 
Vest Partnership Grant Act, which I introduced with Senator Hatch and 
Senator Campbell last January. Our bipartisan legislation is intended 
to save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by 
helping State and local law enforcement agencies provide their officers 
with body armor.
  Congress should do all that it can to protect our law enforcement 
officers. Far too many police officers are needlessly killed each year 
while serving to protect our citizens. According to the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, more than 40 percent of the 1,182 officers killed by 
a firearm in the line of duty since 1980 could have been saved if they 
had been wearing body armor. Indeed, the FBI estimates that the risk of 
fatality to officers while not wearing body armor is 14 times higher 
than for officers wearing it.
  Unfortunately, far too many state and local law enforcement agencies 
cannot afford to provide every officer in their jurisdictions with the 
protection of body armor. In fact, the Department of Justice estimates 
that approximately 150,000 State and local law enforcement officers, 
nearly 25 percent, are not issued body armor.
  A recent incident along the Vermont and New Hampshire border 
underscores the need for the quick passage of this legislation to 
provide maximum protection to those who protect us. On August 19, 1997, 
Federal, State and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New 
Hampshire had cornered Carl Drega, after hours of hot pursuit. This 
madman had just shot to death two New Hampshire state troopers and two 
other victims earlier in the day. In a massive exchange of gunfire with 
the authorities, Drega lost his life.
  During that shootout, all Federal law enforcement officers wore 
bulletproof vests, while some state and local officers did not. For 
example, Federal Border Patrol Officer John Pfeifer, a Vermonter, was 
seriously wounded in the incident. If it was not for his bulletproof 
vest, I would have been attending Officer Pfeifer's wake instead of 
visiting him, and meeting his wife and young daughter in the hospital a 
few days later.
  The two New Hampshire state troopers who were killed by Carl Drega 
were not so lucky. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. Protective 
vests might not have been able to save the lives of those courageous 
officers because of the high-powered assault weapons used by this 
madman. But the tragedy underscores the point that all of our law 
enforcement officers, whether Federal, state or local, deserve the 
protection of a bulletproof vest.
  I am relieved that Officer John Pfeifer is doing well and is back on 
duty. We all grieve for the two New Hampshire officers who were killed. 
With that and lesser-known incidents as constant reminders, I will 
continue to do all I can to help prevent loss of life among our law 
enforcement officers.
  The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act creates a new partnership 
between the Federal Government and State and local law enforcement 
agencies to help save the lives of police officers by providing the 
resources for each and every law enforcement officer to have a 
bulletproof vest. Our bipartisan law created a $25 million matching 
grant program within the Department of Justice dedicated to helping 
State and local law enforcement agencies purchase body armor. I am 
proud to have been able to work with the Appropriations Committees to 
fund these grants this coming year.
  I was also glad that Congress passed the Care for Police Survivors 
Act, a measure I cosponsored with Senators Hatch. This bill authorizes 
additional counseling services under the Public Safety Officers 
Benefits program for families of law enforcement officers harmed in the 
line of duty.
  I am proud to have cosponsored the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents 
Assistance Act of 1996 and the extension of those educational benefits 
to the families of State and local public safety officials who die or 
are disabled in the line of duty with passage of the Public Safety 
Officers Educational Benefits Assistance Act this year. I would have 
preferred to send the President the original text of our legislation 
since it provided full assistance to these families, but the House of 
Representatives decided to impose a sliding scale means test to our 
bill. I am glad that we were finally able to pass some educational 
benefits this year.


             Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act

  I was delighted to join with Senator DeWine during National Crime 
Victims Rights Week in April to introduce S. 1976, The Crime Victims 
with Disabilities Awareness Act. I welcomed the positive response and 
broad support that our bill received, including the active support of 
more than 50 groups, including the National Association of 
Developmental Disabilities Councils, the National Alliance for the 
Mentally Ill, the National Association of State Directors of Special 
Education, the National Center for Hearing Disabilities, the American 
Association on Health and Disability, and many others.
  This Act, which was finally approved by the House in September, 
directs the Department of Justice to conduct research that will 
increase public awareness of the victimization of individuals with 
developmental disabilities and understanding of the nature and extent 
of such crimes. In addition, the Department must examine the means by 
which States may establish and maintain a database on the incidence of 
crime against individuals with disabilities.

  The need for this research is abundantly clear. Studies conducted 
abroad have found that individuals with disabilities are four to 10 
times more likely to be a victim than individuals without disabilities. 
One Canadian study found that 67 percent of women with disabilities 
were physically or sexually assaulted as children.
  My own involvement with crime victims rights began more than three 
decades ago when I served as State's Attorney for Chittenden County, 
Vermont, and witnessed first-hand the devastation of crime. I have 
worked ever since to ensure that the criminal justice system is one 
that respects the rights and dignity of victims of crime and domestic 
violence, rather than presents additional ordeals for those already 
victimized. This bill deals with a group of victims that we should not 
ignore.
  Over the last 20 years we have made strides in recognizing crime 
victims' rights and providing much needed assistance. I am proud to 
have played a role in passage of the Victims and Witness Protection Act 
of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, and the Victims' Rights and 
Restitution Act of 1990, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, the 
Victims of Terrorism Act of 1996, and the Victim Rights Clarification 
Act of 1997. This bill is another step to assure recognition of the 
rights of, and assistance for, victims of crime.
  We could have done more. I regret that we were unable to achieve 
passage of the Crime Victims Assistance Act, S.1081, which I introduced 
last July with Senator Kennedy. This bill would provide crime victims 
with a comprehensive Bill of Rights: an enhanced right to be heard on 
the issue of pretrial detention and plea bargains, an enhanced right to 
a speedy trial and to

[[Page S12854]]

be present in the courtroom throughout a trial, an enhanced right to be 
heard on probation revocation and to give a statement at sentencing, 
and the right to be notified of a defendant's escape or release from 
prison. The Crime Victims Assistance Act would also strengthen victims' 
services by increasing Federal victim assistance personnel, enhancing 
training for State and local law enforcement and Officers of the Court, 
and establishing an ombudsman program for crime victims.


           Identification Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act

  I am pleased that we passed the Identity Theft and Assumption 
Deterrence Act, in the form I developed with Senator Kyl as the Kyl-
Leahy substitute to S.512. This bill penalizes the theft of personal 
identification information that results in harm to the person whose 
identification is stolen and then used for false credit cards, 
fraudulent loans or for other illegal purposes. It also sets up a 
``clearinghouse'' at the Federal Trade Commission to keep track of 
consumer complaints of identity theft and provide information to 
victims of this crime on how to deal with its aftermath.
  Protecting the privacy of our personal information is a challenge, 
especially in this information age. Every time we obtain or use a 
credit card, place a toll-free phone call, surf the Internet, get a 
driver's license or are featured in Who's Who, we are leaving virtual 
pieces of ourselves in the form of personal information, which can be 
used without our consent or even our knowledge. Too frequently, 
criminals are getting hold of this information and using the personal 
information of innocent individuals to carry out other crimes. Indeed, 
U.S. News & World Report has called identity theft ``a crime of the 
90's''.
  The consequences for the victims of identity theft can be severe. 
They can have their credit ratings ruined and be unable to get credit 
cards, student loans, or mortgages. They can be hounded by creditors or 
collection agencies to repay debts they never incurred, but were 
obtained in their name, at their address, with their social security 
number or driver's license number. It can take months or even years, 
and agonizing effort, to clear their good names and correct their 
credit histories. I understand that, in some instances, victims of 
identity theft have even been arrested for crimes they never committed 
when the actual perpetrators provided law enforcement officials with 
assumed names.
  Just last week, a woman accused of stealing the identity of a 
Burlington, Vermont woman was arrested in another Vermont town. 
Apparently, she used her victim's birth certificate and marriage 
license to access money in her victim's bank accounts. Now, her victim 
is left trying to clear their credit records.
  Our legislation provides important remedies for such victims of 
identity theft. Specifically, it makes clear that these victims are 
entitled to restitution, including payment for any costs and attorney's 
fees in clearing up their credit histories and having to engage in any 
civil or administrative proceedings to satisfy debts, liens or other 
obligations resulting from a defendant's theft of their identity. In 
addition, the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to keep track 
of consumer complaints of identity theft and provide information to 
victims of this crime on how to deal with its aftermath.
  This is an important bill on an issue that has caused harm to many 
Americans. I am glad that Senator Kyl and I were able to join forces to 
craft legislation that both punishes the perpetrators of identity theft 
and helps the victims of this crime.
  Finally, an amendment added in the House, at the joint request of 
Senator Hatch and myself, gives the United States Judicial Conference 
limited authority to withhold personal and sensitive information about 
judicial officers and employees whose lives have been threatened. 
Apparently, sophisticated criminals are able to use information set 
forth in publicly available financial disclosure forms to collect more 
detailed personal information then used in carrying out threats against 
our judicial officers. This amendment is an important step to protect 
the lives of judges, and I am glad that we were able to accomplish 
this.


          The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act

  We were also able to pass a bill, H.R. 3494, to help protect children 
from sexual predators. Senator Hatch, Senator DeWine and I joined 
together to bring forward a bill that was both strong and sensible. The 
goal of H.R. 3494, and of the Hatch-Leahy-DeWine substitute, which 
passed both houses of Congress, is to provide stronger protections for 
children from those who would prey upon them. Concerns over protecting 
our children have only intensified in recent years with the growing 
popularity of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Cyberspace gives 
users access to a wealth of information; it connects people from around 
the world. But it also creates new opportunities for sexual predators 
and child pornographers to ply their trade.
  The challenge is to protect children from exploitation in cyberspace 
while ensuring that the vast democratic forum of the Internet remains 
an engine for the free exchange of ideas and information. The Hatch-
Leahy-DeWine version of the bill meets this challenge. While no bill 
is a cure-all for the scourge of child pornography, our substitute is a 
useful step toward limiting the ability of cyber-pornographers and 
predators from harming children.


                The Crime Identification Technology Act

  Senator DeWine and I again joined forces to introduce the ``Crime 
Identification Technology Act,'' which was signed by the President on 
October 9, 1998. Our legislation authorizes comprehensive Department of 
Justice grants to every State for criminal justice identification, 
information and communications technologies and systems.
  I know from my experience in law enforcement in Vermont over the last 
30 years that access to quality, accurate information in a timely 
fashion is of vital importance. As we prepare to enter the 21st 
Century, we must provide our State and local law enforcement officers 
with the resources to develop the latest technological tools and 
communications systems to solve and prevent crime. I believe this bill 
accomplishes that goal.
  The Crime Identification Technology Act authorizes $250 million for 
each of the next five years in grants to States for crime information 
and identification systems. The Attorney General is directed to make 
grants to each State to be used in conjunction with units of local 
government, and other States, to use information and identification 
technologies and systems to upgrade criminal history and criminal 
justice record systems.
  Grants made under our legislation may include programs to establish, 
develop, update or upgrade--
  State, centralized, automated criminal history record information 
systems, including arrest and disposition reporting;
  Automated fingerprint identification systems that are compatible with 
the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
  Finger imaging, live scan and other automated systems to digitize 
fingerprints and to communicate prints in a manner that is compatible 
with systems operated by states and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation;
  Systems to facilitate full participation in the Interstate 
Identification Index (III);
  Programs and systems to facilitate full participation in the 
Interstate Identification Index National Crime Prevention and Privacy 
Compact;
  Systems to facilitate full participation in the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for firearms eligibility 
determinations;
  Integrated criminal justice information systems to manage and 
communicate criminal justice information among law enforcement, courts, 
prosecution, and corrections;
  Non-criminal history record information systems relevant to firearms 
eligibility determinations for availability and accessibility to the 
NICS;
  Court-based criminal justice information systems to promote reporting 
of dispositions to central state repositories and to the FBI and to 
promote the compatibility with, and integration of, court systems with 
other criminal justice information systems;
  Ballistics identification programs that are compatible and integrated 
with the ballistics programs of the National Integrated Ballistics 
Network (NIBN);

[[Page S12855]]

  Information, identification and communications programs for forensic 
purposes;
  DNA programs for forensic and identification purposes;
  Sexual offender identification and registration systems;
  Domestic violence offender identification and information systems;
  Programs for fingerprint-supported background checks for non-criminal 
justice purposes including youth service employees and volunteers and 
other individuals in positions of trust, if authorized by Federal or 
State law and administered by a government agency;
  Criminal justice information systems with a capacity to provide 
statistical and research products including incident-based reporting 
systems and uniform crime reports;
  Online and other state-of-the-art communications technologies and 
programs; and
  Multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional communications systems to share 
routine and emergency information among Federal, State and local law 
enforcement agencies.
  The future effectiveness of law enforcement depends on all levels of 
law enforcement agencies working together and harnessing the power of 
today's information age to prevent crime and catch criminals. One way 
to work together is for State and local law enforcement agencies to 
band together to create efficiencies of scale. For example, together 
with New Hampshire and Maine, the State of Vermont has pooled its 
resources to build a tri-state IAFIS system to identify fingerprints. 
Our bipartisan legislation would foster these partnerships by allowing 
groups of States to apply together for grants.
  Another challenge for law enforcement agencies across the country is 
communication difficulties between Federal, State and local law 
enforcement officials. In a recent report, the Department of Justice's 
National Institute of Justice concluded that law enforcement agencies 
throughout the nation lack adequate communications systems to respond 
to crimes that cross State and local jurisdictions.
  A 1997 incident along the Vermont and New Hampshire border 
underscored this problem. During a cross border shooting spree that 
left four people dead including two New Hampshire State troopers, 
Vermont and New Hampshire officers were forced to park two police 
cruisers next to one another to coordinate activities between Federal, 
State and local law enforcement officers because the two States' police 
radios could not communicate with one another.
  The Vermont Department of Public Safety, the Vermont U.S. Attorney's 
Office and others have reacted to these communication problems by 
developing the Northern Lights proposal. This project will allow the 
northern borders States of Vermont, New York, New Hampshire and Maine 
to integrate their law enforcement communications systems to better 
coordinate interdiction efforts and share intelligence data seamlessly. 
Our legislation would provide grants for the development of integrated 
Federal, State and local law enforcement communications systems to 
foster cutting edge efforts like the Northern Lights project.
  In addition, our bipartisan legislation will help each of our States 
meet its obligations under national anti-crime initiatives. For 
instance, the FBI will soon bring online NCIC 2000 and IAFIS which will 
require states to update their criminal justice systems for the country 
to benefit. States are also being asked to participate in several other 
national programs such as sexual offender registries, national domestic 
violence legislation, Brady Act, and National Child Protection Act. 
Currently, there are no comprehensive programs to support these 
national crime-fighting systems. Our legislation will fill this void by 
helping each State meet its obligations under these Federal laws.
  The Crime Identification Technology Act provides a helping hand 
without the heavy hand of a top-down, Washington-knows-best approach. 
Unfortunately, some in Congress have pushed legislation mandating 
minute detail changes that States must make in their laws to qualify 
for Federal funds. Our bill rejects this approach. Instead, we provide 
the States with Federal support to improve their criminal justice 
identification, information and communication systems without 
prescribing new Federal mandates.


             Interstate Identification Index (III) Compact

  I am also pleased that Congress finally passed the ``National Crime 
Prevention and Privacy Compact,'' or Federal-State Interstate 
Identification Index ``III'') Compact, for exchange of criminal history 
records for noncriminal justice purposes. This Compact is the product 
of a decade-long effort by Federal and State law enforcement officials 
to establish a legal framework for the exchange of criminal history 
records for authorized noncriminal justice purposes, such as security 
clearances, employment or licensing background checks.
  Since 1924, the FBI has collected and maintained duplicate State and 
local fingerprint cards, along with arrest and disposition records. 
Today, the FBI has more than 200 million fingerprint cards in its 
system. These FBI records are accessible to authorized government 
entities for both criminal and authorized noncriminal justice purposes.
  Maintaining duplicate files at the FBI is costly and leads to 
inaccuracies in the criminal history records, since follow-up 
disposition information from the States is often incomplete. Such a 
huge central database of routinely incomplete criminal history records 
raises significant privacy concerns. In addition, the FBI releases 
these records for noncriminal justice purposes (as authorized by 
Federal law), to State agencies upon request, even if the State from 
which the records originated or the receiving State more narrowly 
restricts the dissemination of such records for noncriminal justice 
purposes.
  The Compact is an effort to get the FBI out of the business of 
holding a duplicate copy of every State and local criminal history 
record, and instead to keep those records at the State level. Once 
fully implemented, the FBI will only need to hold the Interstate 
Identification Index (III), consisting of the national fingerprint file 
and a pointer index to direct the requestor to the correct State 
records repository. The Compact would eliminate the necessity for 
duplicate records at the FBI for those States participating in the 
Compact.
  Eventually, when all the States become full participants in the 
Compact, the FBI's centralized files of state offender records will be 
discontinued and users of such records will obtain those records from 
the appropriate State's central repository (or from the FBI if the 
offender has a Federal record). The Compact would establish both a 
framework for this cooperative exchange of criminal history records for 
noncriminal justice purposes, and create a Compact Council with 
representatives from the FBI and the States to monitor system 
operations and issue necessary rules and procedures for the integrity 
and accuracy of the records and compliance with privacy standards. 
Importantly, this Compact would not in any way expand or diminish 
noncriminal justice purposes for which criminal history records may be 
used under existing State or Federal law.
  Overall, I believe that the Compact should increase the accuracy, 
completeness and privacy protection for criminal history records. In 
addition, the Compact would result in important cost savings from 
establishing a decentralized system. Under the system envisioned by the 
Compact, the FBI would hold only an ``index and pointer'' to the 
records maintained at the originating State. The FBI would no longer 
have to maintain duplicate State records. Moreover, States would no 
longer have the burden and costs of submitting arrest fingerprints and 
charge/disposition data to the FBI for all arrests. Instead, the State 
would only have to submit to the FBI the fingerprints and textual 
identification data for a person's first arrest.

  With this system, criminal history records would be more up-to-date, 
or complete, because a decentralized system will keep the records 
closer to their point of origin in State repositories, eliminating the 
need for the States to keep sending updated disposition information to 
the FBI. To ensure further accuracy, the Compact would require requests 
for criminal history checks for noncriminal justice purposes to be 
submitted with fingerprints or some other form of positive 
identification, to avoid mistaken release of records.

[[Page S12856]]

  Furthermore, under the Compact, the newly-created Council must 
establish procedures to require that the most current records are 
requested and that when a new need arises, a new record check is 
conducted.
  Significantly, the newly-created Council must establish privacy 
enhancing procedures to ensure that requested criminal history records 
are only used by authorized officials for authorized purposes. 
Furthermore, the Compact makes clear that only the FBI and authorized 
representatives from the State repository may have direct access to the 
FBI index.
  The Council must also ensure that only legally appropriate 
information is released and, specifically, that record entries that may 
not be used for noncriminal justice purposes are deleted from the 
response.
  Thus, while the Compact would require the release of arrest records 
to a requesting State, the Compact would also ensure that if 
disposition records are available that the complete record be released. 
Also, the Compact would require States receiving records under the 
Compact to ensure that the records are disseminated in compliance with 
the authorized uses in that State. Consequently, under the Compact, a 
State that receives arrest-only information would have to give effect 
to disposition-only policies in that State and not release that 
information for noncriminal justice purposes. Thus, in my view, the 
impact of the Compact for the privacy and accuracy of the records would 
be positive.
  I am pleased to have joined with Senators Hatch and DeWine to make a 
number of refinements to the Compact as transmitted by to us by the 
Administration. Specifically, we have worked to clarify that (1) the 
work of the Council includes establishing standards to protect the 
privacy of the records; (2) sealed criminal history records are not 
covered or subject to release for noncriminal justice purposes under 
the Compact; (3) the meetings of the Council are open to the public, 
and (4) the Council's decisions, rules and procedures are available for 
public inspection and copying and published in the Federal Register.
  Commissioner Walton of the Vermont Department of Public Safety 
supports this Compact. He hopes that passage of the Compact will 
encourage Vermont to become a full participant in III for both criminal 
and noncriminal justice purposes, so that Vermont can ``reap the 
benefits of cost savings and improved data quality.'' The Compact is 
also strongly supported by the FBI and SEARCH.
  We all have an interest in making sure that the criminal history 
records maintained by our law enforcement agencies at the local, State 
and Federal levels, are complete, accurate and accessible only to 
authorized personnel for legally authorized purposes. This Compact is a 
significant step in the process of achieving that goal.
  I know that the Justice Department, under Attorney General Reno's 
leadership, has made it a priority to modernize and automate criminal 
history records. Our legislation will continue that leadership by 
providing each State with the necessary resources to continue to make 
important efforts to bring their criminal justice systems up to date.


                        school resource officers

  Congress also recently passed a provision originally introduced by 
Representative Mahoney of Connecticut and which we later included in S. 
2484, the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998, a 
comprehensive anti-crime bill cosponsored by Senators Daschle, Biden, 
Moseley-Braun, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Reid, Bingaman, 
Dorgan, Murray, Dodd and Torricelli. This bill authorizes use of COPS 
funds for school-based partnerships between local schools and local law 
enforcement, and for School Resource Officers.
  These are career police officers with full police authority who are 
deployed in and around elementary schools, middle schools and high 
schools to identify and combat school-related crime and disorder 
problems. The police and the schools work together. They combat gangs 
and drugs, and perhaps more important, they are there to know and be 
known by the kids. With their training, the police officers can often 
spot the initial warning signs so that problems can be stopped before 
they even start. They can give real-life lessons to likely victims and 
to kids who are starting down the wrong path. And they can help in 
developing community justice initiatives and in training students in 
conflict resolution and other means of preventing crime.
  When local communities come up with ideas that work, we in the 
Congress should assist the rest of the country in putting their own 
programs in place. The more that we can do to head off crime at an 
early stage, the more money we will save, and the safer we will make 
our communities. This is a small but a significant step.
  It was not long ago that Republicans fought hard to prevent the COPS 
program from being adopted and when they tried to keep the President 
from putting 100,000 additional police officers on the street. It is a 
real pleasure to see them come around and join with us in expanding 
what has proved to be a good program that really works.


           International Crime and Anti-Terrorism Amendments

  I am pleased that the Senate passed our Improvements to International 
Crime and Anti-Terrorism Amendments of 1998, and I am hopeful the House 
will do the same today so that this bill can be signed into law this 
year. This bill reflects the top international law enforcement 
priorities of the Departments of Justice, Treasury and State.
  Crime and terrorism directed at Americans and American interests 
abroad are part of our modern reality. The bombings of U.S. embassies 
in Kenya and Tanzania are just the most recent reminders of how 
vulnerable American citizens and interests are to terrorist attacks.
  Not all of these attacks are with bombs. As a result of improvements 
in technology, criminals now can transfer funds with a push of a 
button, or use computers and credit card numbers to steal from American 
citizens and businesses from any spot on the globe. They can strike at 
Americans here and abroad. The playing field keeps changing, and we 
need to change with it. This bill does exactly that by giving our law 
enforcement agencies new tools to fight international crime and 
terrorism.
  I initially introduced certain provisions of this bill on April 30, 
1998, in the ``Money Laundering Enforcement and Combating Drugs in 
Prisons Act of 1998,'' S. 2011, with Senators Daschle, Kohl, Feinstein 
and Cleland. Again, on July 14, 1998, I introduced with Senator Biden, 
on behalf of the Administration, the ``International Crime Control Act 
of 1998,'' S. 2303, which contains many of the provisions set forth in 
this bill. Virtually all of the provisions in the bill were included in 
another major Democratic anti-crime bill, the ``Safe Schools, Safe 
Streets, and Secure Borders Act,'' that I introduced last month.

  The International Crime and Anti-Terrorism Amendments bill provides 
discretionary authority for investigations and prosecutions of 
organized crime groups that kill or threaten violence against Americans 
abroad, when in the view of the Attorney General, the organized crime 
group was trying to further its objectives. This should not be viewed 
as an invitation for American law enforcement officers to start 
investigating organized crime around the world, but when such groups 
are targeting Americans abroad for physical violence and the Attorney 
General believes it is necessary, we must act.
  The bill also expands current law to criminalize murder and other 
serious crimes committed against state and local officials who are 
working abroad with Federal authorities on joint projects or 
operations. The penalties for murder against such state or local 
officials, who are acting abroad under the auspices of the Federal 
Government, are the same as for Federal officers, under section 1119 of 
title 18, United States Code, and would therefore authorize imposition 
of the death penalty. While I oppose the death penalty, I also oppose 
arbitrary distinctions in its operation, and there is no principled 
basis to distinguish between penalties for murder of Federal versus 
non-Federal officials, who are both acting under the auspices of the 
Federal Government.
  These provisions are crafted to avoid an unwarranted intrusion into 
foreign affairs. The authority of the Attorney

[[Page S12857]]

General to bring these prosecutions is limited so as not to interfere 
with the criminal jurisdiction of the foreign nation where the murder 
occurred. Thus, this authority will be exercised only in the rare 
circumstance in which the Attorney General believes the foreign country 
is not adequately addressing the crime, and where we must take action.
  The bill contains provisions to protect our maritime borders by 
providing realistic sanctions for vessels that fail to ``heave to'' or 
otherwise obstruct the Coast Guard. No longer will drug-runners be able 
to stall or resist Coast Guard commands with impunity. The provision 
includes additional sanctions for resisting ``heave to'' orders and for 
lying to law enforcement officers about a boat's destination, origin 
and other pertinent matters. The Coast Guard tells me this provision 
will be a tremendous help in protecting our shores from illegal drugs 
and other contraband.
  The bill also makes sure that drug kingpins and terrorists criminals 
will not be able to come and go as they please and use the United 
States as a marketplace or recruiting ground. It provides specific 
authority to exclude from entry into our country international 
criminals and terrorists, including those engaged in flight to avoid 
foreign prosecution, alien smuggling, or arms or drug trafficking under 
specific circumstances. While it would block such criminals, the bill 
is carefully crafted to ensure that the Attorney General has full 
authority to make exceptions for humanitarian and similar reasons.
  The bill has two important provisions aimed at computer crimes: it 
provides expanded wiretap authority, subject to court order, to cover 
computer crimes, and also gives us extraterritorial jurisdiction over 
access device fraud, such as stealing telephone credit card numbers, 
where the victim of the fraud is within our borders.
  We cannot stop international crime without international cooperation, 
however. This bill facilitates such cooperation by allowing our country 
to share the proceeds of joint forfeiture operations, to encourage 
participation by foreign countries. It streamlines procedures for 
executing MLAT requests that apply to multiple judicial districts. 
Furthermore, the bill addresses the essential but often overlooked role 
of state and local law enforcement in combating international crime, 
and authorizes reimbursement of state and local authorities for their 
cooperation in international crime cases. The bill helps our 
prosecutors in international crime cases by facilitating the admission 
of foreign records in U.S. courts. Finally, it will speed the wheels of 
justice by prohibiting international criminals from being credited with 
any time they serve abroad while they fight extradition to face charges 
in our country.
  These are important provisions that I have advocated for some time. 
They are helpful, solid law enforcement provisions. Working together 
with Senator Hatch, we were able to craft a bipartisan bill that will 
accomplish what all of us want, to make America a safer and more secure 
place.


 Authorization of the Department of Justice and Implementation of the 
           Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

  I was pleased to work with Senator Hatch on the Hatch-Leahy 
substitute amendment to H.R. 3303, the Department of Justice 
Appropriation Authorization Act for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, 
that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably and that I had 
hoped would be enacted before the end of this Congress.
  The last time Congress properly authorized spending for the entire 
Department of Justice was in 1979. This 19-year failure to properly 
reauthorize the Department has forced the appropriations committees in 
both houses to do both jobs of reauthorizing and appropriating money 
for the Department. This bill reaffirms the authorizing jurisdiction 
and responsibility of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. I 
commend Senator Hatch and Congressman Hyde for working in a bipartisan 
manner to bring the important business of re-authorizing the Department 
back before the Judiciary Committees. Regular reauthorization of the 
Department should be part and parcel of the Committees' traditional 
role in overseeing the Department's activities.
  One of the provisions that the Hatch-Leahy substitute removed from 
the House-passed version of the bill relates to the compliance date and 
so-called ``grandfather date'' in the Communications Assistance For Law 
Enforcement Act (CALEA), commonly called the ``digital telephony law.'' 
As part of H.R. 3303, the House extended the compliance date for two 
years and the ``grandfather date'' for almost six years, until October 
2000.
  I have long resisted the efforts and urging of many to tamper with 
the provisions of CALEA. This law was carefully crafted, after months 
of negotiation, to balance privacy rights and interests, law 
enforcement needs, and the desire of business and consumers for 
innovation in the telecommunications industry. I have so far resisted 
legislative modifications not because implementation of this law has 
been problem-free. Far from it. Implementation of this important law 
has certainly been slower than any of us anticipated. For example, the 
Department of Justice issued its final notice of capacity in March 
1998, over two years late. Capacity requirements are integrally 
involved with setting appropriate capability standards and building 
CALEA-compliant equipment. Thus, the delay in release of the final 
capacity notice has also delayed the ability of telecommunications 
carriers to achieve compliance with the capability assistance 
requirements.
  In addition to significant delays, implementation of CALEA has been 
fraught with controversy and debate. Currently pending before the FCC, 
for example, are proceedings to determine the sufficiency of an interim 
standard adopted in December 1997 by industry for wireline, cellular 
and broadband PCS carriers to comply with the four general capability 
assistance requirements of the law. This interim standard was developed 
in accordance with CALEA's direction that the telecommunications 
industry take the lead on figuring out technical solutions for 
implementing the law. Such industry standards provide ``safe harbors'' 
under the law.
  While the FBI criticizes the interim standard for failing to include 
certain surveillance functions (referred to as the ``punch list'' 
items), civil liberties groups criticize the interim standard for 
failing to protect privacy by including surveillance functions for 
location information and packet-mode call content information. We 
recognized in CALEA that these are complicated issues, which require 
intensive time and technical expertise to resolve. The law consequently 
authorizes the FCC to review alleged deficiencies in, or establish 
under certain circumstances, technical requirements or standards for 
compliance with the CALEA capability assistance requirements.
  Uncertainty over the outcome of the disputed interim standard has 
resulted in further delays in developing technical solutions. Indeed, 
because of the delays in implementation of CALEA, neither the House or 
the Senate provided any new direct appropriations into the 
Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. The Explanation of Managers 
for the Omnibus Appropriations bill makes clear that should funding be 
necessary in the upcoming fiscal year, the Attorney General is expected 
to spend the unobligated funds currently available in the fund.
  Even if the FCC were to issue its decision and settle the disputes 
today, compliance with the interim standard would not be achievable for 
some time because of the development cycle for standardized products 
and services after promulgation of standards. Therefore, the conferees 
for the Omnibus Appropriations bill urged the FCC ``to act quickly to 
resolve this issue.'' I join in this direction and also urge the FCC to 
resolve the pending petitions regarding the interim standard promptly.
  Should the FCC determine that the FBI is correct and that all, or 
substantially all, the punch list items are required to be incorporated 
into the compliance standard, the FBI may have won a battle but in the 
long run--given the potential costs associated with the punch list 
items--lost the proverbial war. Carriers would bear the costs of 
complying with those punch list items for equipment, facilities, and 
services

[[Page S12858]]

deployed or installed after January 1995, unless the cost is so high, 
compliance is not reasonably achievable. Then the Government would have 
to pay for retrofitting, subject to available appropriations and 
prioritization by law enforcement. Absent such Government payment, 
which would make compliance ``reasonably achievable,'' CALEA directs 
that the equipment, facilities, and services at issue will be ``deemed 
to be in compliance with such capability requirements.'' 47 U.S.C. 
1008(b)(2)(B).
  I therefore strongly urge carriers to provide the FCC with all 
necessary cost information associated with the punch list items so that 
the agency is able to make determinations on whether compliance is 
reasonably achievable.
  We anticipated when we passed CALEA that debates and delays over 
implementation issues would occur. Congress therefore established 
processes at the FCC and in the courts to hear all sides, resolve 
differences, and grant extensions where necessary and warranted.

  CALEA expressly authorizes the FCC to extend the compliance date of 
October 1998, one of the dates extended by the House in its version of 
H.R. 3303. On September 11, 1998, the FCC released a decision 
exercising its authority and extending the CALEA compliance date until 
June 30, 2000. This is a few months shy of the extension approved by 
the House. This action shows that the FCC process we set up in CALEA to 
resolve problems that may arise with the law's implementation works. 
The agency's decision on extension of the compliance date has given me 
renewed confidence in its ability to carry out the responsibilities we 
gave the agency under CALEA.
  The House-passed version of H.R. 3303 also extended the ``grandfather 
date.'' Let me explain the significance of this date. CALEA authorizes 
$500 million for the Federal Government to pay telecommunications 
carriers for the reasonable costs of retrofitting equipment, facilities 
or services deployed by January 1, 1995 to comply with the capability 
requirements. Any such equipment not retrofitted at Government expense 
is deemed to be compliant, or ``grandfathered,'' until the equipment is 
replaced or undergoes significant upgrade in the ordinary course of 
business.
  Carriers have raised concerns that due to significant changes in the 
telecommunications infrastructure as well as the deployment of new 
equipment and services since 1995, they may be ineligible for any 
reimbursement under this ``grandfather'' clause. Carriers have sought 
an extension of the ``grandfather date'' until 2000. Before we take 
such a step and extend the grandfather date, we should fully consider 
the possible unintended consequences.
  The ``grandfather date'' was set at a time earlier than the 
compliance date in order to give telecommunications carriers every 
incentive to find and implement the most efficient and cost-effective 
solutions to ensure the requisite law enforcement access. In addition, 
Congress fully contemplated that at some point carriers--not the 
Government--would bear the costs of CALEA compliance. Setting the 
grandfather date at January 1995 was intended to be a privacy-enhancing 
mechanism by giving carriers the additional incentive to interpret the 
capability assistance requirements narrowly since compliance with non-
grandfathered equipment or services was on their ``dime.'' Extending 
the grandfather date by almost six years to the year 200 may have the 
unintended consequence of undercutting these important policy 
considerations.
  While CALEA requires that equipment, facilities or services deployed 
after January 1995 comply with capability assistance standards at the 
carriers' expense, to ensure fairness and promote innovation, the law 
provides a ``relief valve.'' Specifically, carriers are authorized to 
petition the FCC to determine whether compliance for such non-
grandfathered equipment, facilities or services is ``reasonably 
achievable'' or whether compliance would impose significant difficulty 
or expense on the carrier or users of the carrier's systems. As I noted 
above, if the FCC decides compliance is not reasonably achievable, 
under 47 U.S.C. 1008(b)(2)B), the carrier is ``deemed to be in 
compliance'' unless the Attorney General prioritizes its needs, 
evaluates the importance of the surveillance feature to laws 
enforcement's mission, and determines that reimbursement is justified.
  I appreciate the circumstances under which telecommunications 
carriers are seeking extension of the grandfather date and their 
concern over the costs of CALEA compliance for individual companies and 
ratepayers. As I have already noted, the cost implications of the 
punch list are significant in evaluating whether compliance is 
``reasonably achievable,'' regardless of the specific grandfather date. 
Should the cost of CALEA compliance and of the punch list become 
excessive, I urge the industry not to assume that extension of the 
grandfather date is the only means to achieve a fair resolution of the 
costs of CALEA compliance.

  I look forward to a continued dialogue with the telecommunications 
industry and the Department of Justice to ensure that the 
implementation of CALEA is fair and maintains the careful balance of 
privacy, innovation and law enforcement interests that we intended.


                  important crime issues not addressed

  Despite the passage of these important bills, we could have done 
better. When you look at the Democrat-supported ``Safe Schools, Safe 
Streets and Secure Borders Act,'' for example, you see too much 
unfinished work. You see comprehensive reform of the juvenile justice 
system, including sensible provisions dealing with youth and guns, 
grants for youth violence courts and other innovative programs for 
youth. You see comprehensive anti-gang provisions, from stopping the 
``franchising'' of youth gang to penalties for witness intimidation and 
the use of body armor or laser sighting devices by criminals. You see 
comprehensive assistance to State and local law enforcement, from more 
cops on the beat to improved funding to stop violence against women to 
funds and technology for rural areas. You see weapons against the hate 
crimes that shock the conscience of the Nation, against the growing 
problem of cargo theft, against violence and intimidation of judges and 
others in the law enforcement community, against involving minors in 
illegal drugs. You see tough money laundering provisions that recently 
were praised by FBI Director Freeh as excellent tools against not only 
the drug kingpins, but also international terrorists like Usama bin 
Laden, the man believed to be responsible for the bombings of our 
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. You see an arsenal of other weapons 
against criminals both here and abroad. And lest we lose sight of the 
victims of crime, you see a Bill of Rights for the victims of crime, 
backed by the money, personnel and technology necessary to make those 
rights a reality.
  In the end, of the ten titles in the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and 
Secure Borders Act, which I proposed with a number of other Democrats, 
Congress managed to adopt only the title on Criminal History Records in 
its entirety, along with bits and pieces of others. The list of titles 
not adopted largely defines the work that remains for a more productive 
Congress. I have put these important provisions squarely on the table 
and stand ready, as always, to work with Senators on both sides of the 
aisle to fine-tune them and to do as much as we can for the American 
people.


                        citizens protection act

  While Congress failed to enact many provisions outlined in the Safe 
Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act that would have done much 
to assist the work of law enforcement officers, Congress was placing 
unnecessary and ill-advised obstacles in the path of effective 
interstate and international prosecutions, just the type of prosecution 
that is most difficult, most complex, and most important to the safety 
and welfare of the American people. This unfortunate bill, the Citizens 
Protection Act, H.R. 3396, was added by the House to the Commerce, 
Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill, H.R. 4276. 
Although its most offensive provisions have been trimmed off, a version 
of this bill, with a delayed effective date, is now in the Omnibus 
Appropriations measure at the insistence of the House Republican 
leadership over the protests not only of the Department of Justice, but 
also the President and senior Members of both parties in the Senate. As 
the Washington Post noted in an October 18 editorial:


[[Page S12859]]


       One might expect that criminal justice legislation that is 
     opposed by the president, the attorney general and the 
     chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
     would not be blithely slipped into the statute books. But 
     prudence was long ago a casualty of this budget process.

  I hope that the next Congress will show more wisdom and turn away 
from such mischief to serious work on the unfinished work of the Safe 
Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act, and other nonpartisan, 
pro-law enforcement legislation.
  The criminal justice legislation that I have summarized represents a 
number of good, solid measures. Enactment of these provisions will have 
a real effect on the lives of Americans. Even amid the debris of a 
Congress that has botched so many opportunities to help the American 
people, I am glad to have squeezed through these significant criminal 
justice measures in the logjam of the last weeks of the session. Far 
more than satisfaction, however, I feel a determination that we in 
Congress can, should and must do better next time. We owe it to the 
people who sent us here.

                          ____________________