[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 103 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8664-S8670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senator 
Hatch the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, 
Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007. I thank Senator Hatch, the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, for his hard work and support of this 
legislation.
  In the 107th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives 
properly authorized spending for the entire Department of Justice, (DOJ 
or the Department,) for the first time since 1979. Congress extended 
that authorization in 1980 and 1981. Until 2002 Congress had not passed 
nor had the President signed an authorization bill for the Department. 
In fact, there were a number of years where Congress failed to consider 
any Department authorization bill. This 23-year failure to properly 
reauthorize the Department forced the appropriations committees in both 
houses to reauthorize and appropriate money.
  We ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long, 
but in the 107th Congress Senator Hatch and I joined forces with House 
Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers to create 
and pass bipartisan legislation that reaffirmed the authorizing 
authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary 
Committees--the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273. A new era of oversight began 
with that new charter for the Justice Department, with the Senate and 
House Judiciary Committees taking active new roles in setting the 
priorities and monitoring the operations of the Department of Justice, 
the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and that bill helped our 
oversight duties in many ways. And, as we have learned in the past 3 
years, the fight against terrorism makes constructive oversight more 
important than ever before.
  Already this Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers have authored and shepherded 
through the House of Representatives a new Department of Justice 
Appropriations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, 
H.R. 3036. I commend both Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member 
Conyers for working in a bipartisan manner to pass that legislation in 
the House of Representatives.
  The Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, fiscal 
years 2005 through 2007 is a comprehensive authorization of the 
Department based on H.R. 3036 as passed by the House of Representatives 
on March 30, 2004. Our bipartisan legislation authorizes appropriations 
for the Department for fiscal years 2005 through 2007, provide 
permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department to 
efficiently carry out its mission, clarify and harmonize existing 
statutory authority, and repeal obsolete statutory authorities. The 
bill also establishes certain reporting requirements and other 
mechanisms intended to better enable the Congress and the Department to 
oversee the operations of the Department. Finally, our bill 
incorporates numerous other pieces of legislation--on such issues as 
preventing and recovering missing children, cigarette trafficking, 
intellectual property, going after terrorists who commit violent acts 
against American citizens overseas, among others--currently pending 
before Congress that enjoy strong bipartisan support.
  I will now highlight a number of the provisions that make up this 
authorization bill.
  Title I of our bill authorizes appropriations for the Department of 
Justice for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. With minor 
exceptions, these authorizations generally reflect the President's 
budget request.
  Title II makes numerous improvements and upgrades to the Department's 
grant programs that assist law enforcement and criminal justice 
agencies; build community capacity to prevent, reduce and control 
crime; assist victims of crime; and prevent crime.
  We decided to combine the current Byrne formula grant, Byrne 
discretionary grant and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG, 
programs into one Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
Program with an authorization of $1.075 billion and a list of 35 uses--
a combination of the traditional Byrne and LLEBG grants regulations--
for which these grants may be used.
  I am a longtime supporter of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and 
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the LLEBG, both of which 
have been continuously targeted for elimination by the Bush 
administration. LLEBG, which received $225 million this year, provide 
local governments with the means to underwrite projects that reduce 
crime and improve public safety, and allow communities to craft their 
own responses to local crime and drug problems. The Edward Byrne 
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which 
Congress funded at $659,117,000 in FY 2004, makes grants to States to 
improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis 
on violent crimes and serious offenders, and to enforce State and local 
drug laws. As a senator from a rural State that relies on LLEBG and 
Byrne grants to combat crime, I have been concerned with the 
President's proposals for funding and program eliminations of these 
well-established grant programs. Our legislation makes it clear that 
the same authorized funding levels and uses will be available under the 
new consolidated grant program as under the previous two grant 
programs.
  I am pleased that Title II also extends the authorization of 
appropriations for the Regional Information Sharing System, RISS, at 
$100 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. RISS serves as 
an invaluable tool to Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agencies by providing much-needed criminal intelligence and 
investigative support services. It has built a reputation as one of the 
most effective and efficient means developed to combat multi-
jurisdictional criminal activity, such as narcotics trafficking and 
gang activity. Without RISS, most law enforcement officers would not 
have access to newly developed crime-fighting technologies and would be 
hindered in their intelligence-gathering efforts.
  By providing State and local law enforcement agencies with rapid 
access to its secure, state-of-the-art, nationwide information sharing 
system, RISS gives law enforcement officers the resources they need to 
identify and apprehend potential terrorists before they strike. With 
this in mind, I authored Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 
107-56, to increase information sharing for critical infrastructure 
protection. The law expanded RISS to facilitate information sharing 
among Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to investigate 
and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities, and increased 
authorized funding to $100 million.
  Proper funding provides RISS with the means to maintain six 
regionally-based information sharing centers that allow for information 
and intelligence services to be disseminated nationwide addressing 
major, multijurisdictional crimes. In addition, as the September 11 
terrorist attacks and calls for increased vigilance against future 
attacks demonstrated, RISS requires additional support to intensify 
antiterrorism measures.

[[Page S8665]]

  Each RISS center has up to 1,600 member agencies, the vast majority 
of which are at the municipal and county levels. Over 400 State 
agencies and over 850 Federal agencies, however, are also members. The 
Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. 
Attorneys' Offices, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, Customs, 
and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are among 
the Federal agencies that participate in the RISS Program.
  Unfortunately, the Consolidated Appropriations law for FY 2004 did 
not provide full funding for RISS, instead including $30 million for 
the program. For the coming fiscal year, the President has proposed $45 
million. We must ensure that RISS can continue current services, meet 
increased membership support needs for terrorism investigations and 
prosecutions, increase intelligence analysis capabilities and add staff 
to support the increasing numbers of RISS members.
  This title also contains a reauthorization of the Crime Free Rural 
States program that we created in the DOJ Authorization bill in the 
last Congress. This program authorizes $10 million annually for rural 
States to address specific crime problems plaguing their areas. In 
Vermont, for example, this funding could be used to battle heroin abuse 
and its consequences.
  This authorization bill contains a number of provisions of great 
interest to victim service organizations and those who administer 
Federal grants for victim assistance and compensation. In particular, I 
am pleased that we have responded to repeated requests from the field 
to increase the amount that State assistance and compensation programs 
may retain for administrative purposes. I have been proposing such an 
increase for many years, without success.
  Under current law, not more than 5 percent of victim assistance and 
compensation grants may be used for the administration of the State 
program receiving the grant. The House bill effectively decreases this 
already-low apportionment by combining administrative costs with 
training costs--currently 1 percent under guidelines promulgated by the 
Office for Victims of Crime, OVC. By contrast, we propose raising the 
amount that can be used for both worthwhile purposes to 7.5 percent of 
the grants. While this is still less than 10 percent retention 
permitted, for example, by the Violence Against Women Act, it will help 
States to accommodate the addition of training purposes in their costs.
  Our bill will also amend the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, to clarify 
the provisions establishing the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve in 
various ways. The original H.R. 3036 permits replenishments of the 
emergency reserve based upon amounts obligated rather than amounts 
actually expended in any given fiscal year. Our bill includes two 
additional clarifications that I proposed. First, it makes explicit 
that the emergency reserve may be replenished only once each fiscal 
year, and may not be continually replenished as amounts are obligated 
or expended. Allowing continual replenishments could result in the 
obligations or expenditures exceeding the $50 million emergency reserve 
maximum. Second, we have ensured that all emergency reserve funds--
whether carried over, used to replenish the reserve, obligated or 
expended--fall above the cap on spending from the Crime Victim Fund as 
set by appropriations legislation.
  Section 242 of the House-passed bill authorized the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Office for Justice Programs, OJP, to impose 
special conditions and determine priorities for formula grants. It was 
unclear to me why the authority to determine formula grant priorities 
was necessary and what its real impact would be on local victim 
services. Could it be read to authorize OJP to infringe on the 
discretion of each State to meet its own needs, as for example by 
mandating that State VOCA programs give priority to public agencies 
over nonprofit community organizations, or fund faith-based programs 
before secular programs? Priorities are already set out by Congress in 
the authorizing statutes, as is the requirement that programs 
coordinate public and private victim services in their communities, and 
the Justice Department should not be allowed to override those 
congressional directives. Moreover, VOCA already has extensive 
reporting requirements that enable the Department to monitor how States 
are distributing these funds. We have therefore deleted the authority 
to determine formula grant priorities, while retaining the special 
conditions provision.

  Subtitle D of Title II deals with approaches to prevent crime. I am 
especially pleased that we included provisions that will specifically 
aid in preventing rural crime because rural States and communities face 
a number of unique law enforcement challenges. We added these 
provisions from Senator Daschle's Rural Safety Act, S. 1907, of which I 
am proud to be an original cosponsor. I commend our Democratic leader 
for his commitment to providing real and meaningful investments to 
address the unique set of challenges facing rural law enforcement 
agencies.
  Rural law enforcement officers patrol larger areas, operate under 
tighter budgets and with smaller staffs than their urban and suburban 
counterparts. This legislation creates programs specifically designed 
to meet the many complex needs of rural law enforcement agencies and 
officers. Methamphetamine production and use, for example, is a growing 
concern for Vermonters. Because the ingredients and the equipment used 
to produce methamphetamines are so inexpensive and readily available, 
the drug can be manufactured or ``cooked'' in homemade labs. This has 
become one of the major problems facing law enforcement agencies 
nationwide. Last month, the Vermont State Police busted the first known 
methamphetamine lab in the state. We must help our law enforcement 
agencies as they struggle to keep up with its troubling growth.
  To help law enforcement combat the spread of methamphetamine and 
other challenges, we authorize in this bill $20 million in grants for 
FY 2005 to provide for the cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and 
related hazardous waste in units of local government and tribal 
governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; 
and the improvement of contract-related response time for cleanup of 
methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of 
local established methamphetamine prevention and treatment pilot 
programs in rural areas, and provide additional financial support to 
local law enforcement.
  We also establish a rural 9-1-1 service program to provide access to, 
and improve a communications infrastructure that will ensure a reliable 
and seamless communication between, law enforcement, fire, and 
emergency medical service providers in units of local government and 
tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical 
Area and in States. Grants--authorized at $25 million for fiscal year 
2005--under this program will be used to establish or improve 9-1-1 
service in rural communities. Priority in making grants under this 
program will be given to communities that do not have 9-1-1 service.
  I am pleased that our bill includes the Campbell-Leahy-Hatch 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize 
an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local 
jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. 
This bill was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent a year ago this 
month and it awaits consideration by the House of Representatives.
  This measure marks the third time that I have had the privilege of 
teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on this 
legislation. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 
1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the 
Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not 
have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded 
to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body 
armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked 
protective vests because of the cost.
  Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and I hope we will go 3-for-3 this time 
around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable experience in 
this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a leader in the 
area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff,

[[Page S8666]]

he knows the dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. 
I am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by 12 other Senate 
cosponsors.
  Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement 
officers across the country by providing more help to State and local 
law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 
1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided 
law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 
350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, 148 municipalities have been 
fortunate to receive to receive funding for the purchase of almost 1200 
vests. Without the Federal funding given by this program, I daresay 
that there would be close to that number of police officers without 
vests in Vermont today.
  The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the 
success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by 
reauthorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation 
would continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50 
million per year for matching grants to State and local law enforcement 
agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body 
armor.
  We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests 
out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program 
makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few 
things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and 
they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible 
because of this program. This is the least we should do for the 
officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every 
day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a 
bulletproof vest gets one.
  We also included in this authorization bill the Prevent All Cigarette 
Trafficking, PACT, Act, as passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on 
December 9, 2003, but which has yet to be taken up and passed by the 
House. I commend Senators Hatch and Kohl for their leadership on this 
measure and thank them for working with me, among others, to craft the 
compromise language that we include in this bill to crack down on the 
growing problem of cigarette smuggling, both interstate and 
international, as well as to address the connection between cigarette 
smuggling activities and terrorist funding. I am proud to join Senator 
Hatch, Senator Kohl and 10 others as a cosponsor of the standalone 
bill.
  I also thank the National Association of Attorneys General and the 
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for working with us and contributing to 
this language. I want to say a special thanks to Vermont Attorney 
General Bill Sorrell, who also serves as the current Chair of the NAAG 
Tobacco Committee, for his valuable input on the problems with 
cigarette smuggling that States are facing and his support for this 
compromise measure. I also want to thank the Vermont Grocers 
Association, the Vermont Retail Association, the Vermont Association of 
Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures for 
their support for this measure.
  The movement of cigarettes from low-tax areas to high-tax areas in 
order to avoid the payment of taxes when the cigarettes are resold has 
become a public health problem in recent years. As State after State 
chooses to raise its tobacco excise taxes as a means of reducing 
tobacco use and as a source of revenue, many smokers have sought 
cheaper means by which to purchase cigarettes. Smokers can often 
purchase cigarettes and tobacco from remote sellers, Internet or mail 
order at substantial discounts due to avoidance of state taxes. These 
sellers, however, are evading their tax obligations because they 
neither collect nor pay the proper State and local excise taxes for 
cigarette and other tobacco product sales.
  We have the ability to dramatically reduce smuggling without imposing 
undue burdens on manufacturers or law abiding citizens. By reducing 
smuggling, we will also increase government revenues by minimizing tax 
avoidance. My friend General Sorrell has told me that this has become a 
rapidly growing problem in Vermont as more and more tobacco product 
manufacturers fail to collect and pay cigarette taxes. Criminals are 
getting away with smuggling and not paying tobacco taxes because of 
weak punishments, products that are often poorly labeled, the lack of 
tax stamps and the inability of the current distribution system to 
track sales from State to State. These lapses point to a need for 
uniform rules governing group sales to individuals.

  The PACT Act will give States the authority to collect millions of 
dollars in lost State tax revenue resulting from online and other 
remote sales of cigarette and smokeless tobacco. It also ensures that 
every tobacco retailer, whether a brick-and-mortar or remote retailer 
of tobacco products, play by the same rules by equalizing the tax 
burdens.
  Moreover, the PACT Act gives States the authority necessary to 
enforce the Jenkins Act, a law passed in 1949, which requires cigarette 
vendors to report interstate sales of cigarettes. This legislation 
enhances States' abilities to collect all excise taxes and verify the 
deposit of all required escrow payments for cigarette and smokeless 
tobacco sales in interstate commerce, including internet sales. In 
addition, it provides Federal and State law enforcement with additional 
resources to enforce state tobacco excise tax laws.
  Finally, at the request of the National Association of Attorneys 
General and many State Attorneys General, we have added a new section 
to provide the States with authority to enforce the Imported Cigarette 
Compliance Act to crack down on international tobacco smuggling. This 
additional authority should further reduce tax evasion and eliminate a 
lucrative funding source for terrorist organizations.
  We must not turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal tobacco 
smuggling. Those who smuggle cigarettes are criminals and we must close 
the loopholes that allow cigarette smuggling to continue.
  The United States has from its inception recognized the importance of 
intellectual property laws in fostering innovation, and vested in 
Congress the responsibility of crafting laws that ensure that those who 
produce inventions are able to reap economic rewards for their efforts. 
I am pleased that we can today include, as part of the Department of 
Justice Authorization Act, the Cooperative Research and Technology 
Enhancement Act of 2004, the CREATE Act, legislation that I cosponsored 
along with Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, Senator 
Schumer, Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator Cochran. This 
bill will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our Nation's patent 
laws. On June 25, 2004, the CREATE Act passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent.
  When Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, the law encouraged 
private entities and not-for-profits such as universities to form 
collaborative partnerships in order to spur innovation. Prior to the 
enactment of this law, universities were issued fewer than 250 patents 
each year. That this number has in recent years surpassed two thousand 
is owed in large measure to the Bayh-Dole Act. The innovation this law 
encouraged has contributed billions of dollars annually to the United 
States economy and has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  However, one component of the Bayh-Dole Act, when read literally, 
runs contrary to the intent of that legislation. In 1999, the United 
States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled, in Oddzon 
Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., that non-public information may in 
certain cases be considered ``prior art''--a standard which generally 
prevents an inventor from obtaining a patent. Thus some collaborative 
teams that the Bayh-Dole Act was intended to encourage have been unable 
to obtain patents for their efforts. The result is a disincentive to 
form this type of partnership, which could have a negative impact on 
the U.S. economy and hamper the development of new creations.
  However, the Federal circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better 
conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the 
legislation. The CREATE Act does exactly that by ensuring that 
nonpublic information is not considered prior art when the information 
is used in a collaborative partnership under the Bayh-Dole Act. The 
bill also includes strict evidentiary burdens to ensure that the

[[Page S8667]]

legislation is tailored narrowly in order to solely fulfill the intent 
of the Bayh-Dole Act.
  I am pleased that the PIRATE Act, which I cosponsored with Senator 
Hatch, will be included as part of this bipartisan bill. Like the 
overall bill, the PIRATE Act is a consensus bill that will give the 
Justice Department new and needed tools--in this case, these tools are 
specific to the fight against piracy. This bill was unanimously passed 
by the Senate on June 25, 2004. By including this measure in the 
Department of Justice Authorization Bill, we hope to muster more forces 
to combat the growing problem of digital piracy.
  For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit 
of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal 
charges with high burdens of proof. In the world of copyright, a 
criminal charge is unusually difficult to prove because the defendant 
must have known that his conduct was illegal and he must have willfully 
engaged in the conduct anyway. For this reason prosecutors can rarely 
justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left 
alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they 
can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet 
connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this 
is an intolerable predicament.
  The PIRATE Act will give the Attorney General civil enforcement 
authority for copyright infringement. It also calls on the Justice 
Department to initiate training and pilot programs to ensure that 
Federal prosecutors across the country are aware of the many difficult 
technical and strategic problems posed by enforcing copyright law in 
the digital age.
  This new authority does not supplant either the criminal provisions 
of the Copyright Act, or the remedies available to the copyright owner 
in a private suit. Rather, it allows the Government to bring its 
resources to bear on this immense problem and to ensure that more 
creative works are made available online, that those works are more 
affordable, and that the people who work to bring them to us are paid 
for their efforts.
  I am pleased that the Koby Mandell Act of 2003 was included in this 
legislation. I am a proud cosponsor of the stand-alone bill. The act 
would establish an office within the Department of Justice with a 
mandate to ensure equal treatment of all victims of terrorist acts 
committed overseas. Its primary role would be to guarantee that 
vigorous efforts are made to pursue, prosecute, and punish each and 
every terrorist who harms Americans overseas, no matter where attacks 
occur. It would also take steps to inform victims of important 
developments in international cases, such as status reports on efforts 
to capture terrorists and monitoring the incarceration of those 
terrorists who are imprisoned overseas. This is important legislation 
that would send a strong message of resolve that we are committed to 
finding and punishing every terrorist who harms Americans overseas.
  I am pleased that we have included part of S. 1286, the Seniors 
Safety Act, which I introduced last year. This bill would create an 
enhanced sentencing penalty for those who commit crimes against the 
elderly, create new civil and criminal penalties for pension fraud, and 
create a centralized service to log complaints of telemarketing fraud.
  We would also provide the Attorney General with a new and substantial 
tool to prevent telemarketing fraud--the power to block or terminate 
service to telephone facilities that are being used to defraud innocent 
people. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt 
telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting 
off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals acquire a 
new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors 
from being victimized.
  We have agreed to incorporate the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement 
Benefit Equity Act of 2004, which was originally introduced as a stand-
alone bill with my good friends Senator Hatch, Senator Mikulski and 
Senator Durbin. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under 
current law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less 
favorable retirement benefits than other nearly all other people 
involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would 
increase the retirement benefits given to Assistant United States 
Attorneys by including them as ``law enforcement officers,'' LEOs, 
under the Federal Employees' Retirement System and the Civil Service 
Retirement System. The bill would also allow the Attorney General to 
designate other attorneys employed by the Department of Justice who act 
primarily as criminal prosecutors as LEOs for purposes of receiving 
these retirement benefits.

  The primary reason for granting enhanced retirement benefits to LEOs 
is the often dangerous work of law enforcement. Currently, Assistant 
United States Attorneys, AUSAs, and other Federal prosecutors are not 
eligible for these enhanced benefits, which are enjoyed by the vast 
majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. This 
exclusion is unjustified. The relevant provisions of the United States 
Code dealing with retirement benefits define an LEO as an employee 
whose duties are, ``primarily the investigation, apprehension, or 
detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal 
law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  8331(20) & 8401(17). AUSAs and other 
Federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations, 
interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting, 
debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements 
and representing the government at trials and sentencings, all of which 
fall within the definition of the duties performed by law enforcement 
officers. Indeed, once a defendant is brought into the criminal justice 
system, the person with whom they have the most face-to-face contact, 
and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal 
prosecutor.
  Although prosecutors do not personally execute arrests, searches and 
other physically dangerous activities, LEO status is accorded to many 
criminal justice employees who do not perform such tasks, such as 
pretrial services officers and probation officers and accountants, 
cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, because they 
are often the most conspicuous representatives of the government in the 
criminal justice system, Federal prosecutors are natural targets for 
threats of reprisals by vengeful criminals. Indeed, there are numerous 
incidents in which assaults and serious death threats have been made 
against Federal prosecutors, sometimes resulting in significant 
disruption of their personal and family lives.
  I am pleased that S. 710, the Leahy-Hatch Anti-Atrocity Alien 
Deportation Act, was included in this legislation. This measure would 
expand the grounds for removing alien human rights violators from the 
United States, or for denying them entry in the first place. We have 
heard many accounts of abusers who have taken advantage of America's 
freedoms after committing horrifying violations of their fellow 
citizens in their native lands. We need to stop that from happening 
again.
  This bill passed the Judiciary Committee last November but has been 
subject to an anonymous hold on the floor. A similar version of it 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 106th Congress. It is 
long past time to make it law.
  I would note that on May 12, a Rwandan man wanted on international 
charges of genocide and crimes against humanity was arrested at his 
suburban Chicago home by agents from the Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, ICE. Before I and others began to raise the issue 
of the war criminals among us, it was my impression that the former INS 
paid little attention to rooting out these thugs. I am pleased that the 
issue has taken on greater importance at ICE and urge the Senate to 
pass this bill so that we can expand the grounds of inadmissibility and 
removability for human rights violators.
  I am pleased that the DREAM Act has been included in this bill. I am 
a cosponsor of the bill, which Senators Hatch and Durbin introduced 
last year and was passed last fall by the Judiciary Committee. It would 
benefit undocumented alien children who were brought to the United 
States by their parents as young children, by restoring States' ability 
to offer them in-State

[[Page S8668]]

tuition and offering them a path to legal residency. It has been 
distressing that a bill with committee approval and 48 sponsors has 
been unable to get a vote on the floor of the Senate, and I hope that 
including the DREAM Act in this legislation will give it added 
momentum.
  I am proud that we include Schumer-Specter legislation to honor the 
sacrifice of the September 11, 2001 terrorist victims by creating 
congressional medals that would be awarded to their families and loved 
ones by the President. I am proud to have joined my friends as a 
cosponsor of this legislation, as have 18 other Senators.
  The tragedy of September 11, 2001 demanded unprecedented sacrifices 
of everyday American civilians and rescue workers 3,000 of whom lost 
their lives in the attacks. In recognition of their heroic actions on 
that day, the bipartisan Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act would create a medal 
to be awarded posthumously to the victims of the September 11 terrorist 
attacks. The medal would be designed by the Department of Treasury and 
awarded to representatives of the deceased by the President. The 
production of the medals would be paid for by the sale of duplicate 
medals to the public. Those of us who lost loved ones almost 3 years 
ago can never have them back, but a medal of honor could recognizes the 
sacrifices and heroic efforts of our fallen citizens.
  I am pleased that our Department of Justice authorization bill 
includes legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced together to 
reauthorize and expand the Department of Justice grant program for Boys 
& Girls Clubs. The original version of this legislation, S. 2363, 
currently enjoys 44 cosponsors and passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent last month. It was considered and reported out of the House 
Judiciary Committee by voice vote earlier this month but still awaits 
floor consideration.
  Children are the future of our country, and we have a responsibility 
to make sure they are safe and secure. I know firsthand how well Boys & 
Girls Clubs work and what topnotch organizations they are. When I was a 
prosecutor in Vermont, I was convinced of the great need for Boys & 
Girls Clubs because we rarely encountered children from these kinds of 
programs. In fact, after I became a U.S. Senator, a police chief was 
such a big fan that he asked me to help fund a Boys & Girls Club in his 
district rather than helping him get a couple more police officers.
  In Vermont, Boys & Girls Clubs have succeeded in preventing crime and 
supporting our children. The first club was established in Burlington 
62 years ago. Now we have 22 club sites operating throughout the State: 
seven clubs in Brattleboro, one in Springfield, two clubs in 
Burlington, one in Winooski, two clubs in Montpelier, five clubs in 
Randolph, one club in Rutland, two clubs in Vergennes and one in 
Bristol. There are 10 additional project sites that will be on board 
and serving kids by the end of 2005: one in Bennington, two in 
Burlington, one in Duxbury, one in St. Johnsbury, one in Hardwick, 
three in Randolph and one in Ludlow. These clubs will serve well over 
10,000 kids statewide.
  As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have 
pushed for more Federal funding for Boys & Girls Clubs. Since 1998, 
Congress has increased Federal support for Boys & Girls Clubs from $20 
million to $80 million in this year. Due in large part to this increase 
in funding, there now exist 3,300 Boys & Girls Clubs in all 50 States 
serving more than 3.6 million young people. Because of these successes, 
I was both surprised and disappointed to see that the President 
requested a reduction of $20 million for FY 2005. That request will 
leave thousands of children and their Clubs behind and we cannot allow 
such a thing to happen.
  In the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act, which Senator Hatch and I worked together to pass in 
the 107th Congress, we included a provision to reauthorize Justice 
Department grants to establish new Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. By 
authorizing $80 million in DOJ grants for each of the fiscal years 
through 2005, we sought to establish 1,200 additional Boys & Girls 
Clubs nationwide. This was to bring the number of Boys & Girls Clubs to 
4,000, serving no less than 5 million young people. The bill we 
introduce today will build upon this: We authorize Justice Department 
grants at $80 million for fiscal year 2006, $85 million for fiscal year 
2007, $90 million for fiscal year 2008, $95 million for fiscal year 
2009 and $100 million for fiscal year 2010 to Boys & Girls Clubs to 
help establish 1,500 additional Boys & Girls Clubs across the Nation 
with the goal of having 5,000 Boys & Girls Clubs in operation by 
December 31, 2010.
  If we had a Boys & Girls Club in every community, prosecutors in our 
country would have a lot less work to do because of the values that are 
being instilled in children from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. 
Each time I visit a club in Vermont, I am approached by parents, 
educators, teachers, grandparents and law enforcement officers who tell 
me ``Keep doing this! These clubs give our children the chance to grow 
up free of drugs, gangs and crime.''
  You cannot argue that these are just Democratic or Republican ideas, 
or conservative or liberal ideas. They are simply good sense ideas. We 
need safe havens where our youth--the future of our country can learn 
and grow up free from the influences of drugs, gangs and crime. That is 
why Boys & Girls Clubs are so important to our children.
  We also incorporated language similar to the Leahy-Grassley-Lincoln 
Missing Child Cold Case Review Act of 2004, S. 2435, which will allow 
an inspector general to authorize his or her staff to provide 
assistance on and conduct reviews of the inactive case files, or ``cold 
cases,'' involving children stored at the National Center for Missing & 
Exploited Children, NCMEC, and to develop recommendations for further 
investigations. The only alteration we made to the original bill was to 
include language to also allow the Inspector General of the Government 
Printing Office to authorize his or her staff to work on cold cases.
  Speed is everything in homicide investigations. As a former 
prosecutor in Vermont, I know firsthand that speed is of the essence 
when trying to solve a homicide. This focus on speed, however, has led 
the law enforcement community to generally believe that any case not 
solved within the first 72 hours or lacking significant leads and 
witness participation has little likelihood of being solved, regardless 
of the expertise and resources deployed. With time, such unsolved cases 
become ``cold,'' and these are among the most difficult and frustrating 
cases detectives face because they are, in effect, cases that other 
investigators, for whatever reason, failed to solve.
  Our Nation's law enforcement agencies, regardless of size, are not 
immune to rising crime rates, staff shortages and budget restrictions. 
Such obstacles have strained the investigative and administrative 
resources of all agencies. More crime often means that fewer cases are 
vigorously pursued, fewer opportunities arise for followup and 
individual caseloads increase for already overworked detectives.
  All the obstacles that hamper homicide investigations in their early 
phases contribute to cold cases. The National Center for Missing & 
Exploited Children our Nation's top resource center for child 
protection presently retains a backlog of cold cases involving children 
that law enforcement departments nationwide have stopped investigating 
primarily due to all these obstacles. NCMEC serves as a clearinghouse 
for all cold cases in which a child has not been found and/or the 
suspect has not been identified.
  This provision will allow an inspector general to provide staff 
support to NCMEC for the purpose of conducting reviews of inactive case 
files to develop recommendations for further investigation and similar 
activities. The inspector general community has one of the most diverse 
and talented criminal investigative cadres in the Federal Government. A 
vast majority of these special agents have come from traditional law 
enforcement agencies, and are highly-trained and extremely capable of 
dealing with complex, criminal cases.
  Under current law, an inspector general's duties are limited to 
activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. This 
measure would allow an inspector general to permit criminal 
investigators under his or her supervision to review cold case files, 
so long as doing so would not interfere

[[Page S8669]]

with normal duties. An inspector general would not conduct actual 
investigations, and any inspector general would only commit staff when 
the office's mission-related workloads permitted. At no time would 
these activities be allowed to conflict with or delay the stated 
missions of an inspector general.
  From time to time a criminal investigator employed by an inspector 
general may be between investigations or otherwise available for brief 
periods of time. This act would also allow those resources to be 
provided to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. 
Commitment of resources would be at a minimum and would not materially 
affect the budget of any office.
  We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be 
moved easily through the Senate and House. It is supported by the 
Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. I applaud the 
ongoing work of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children 
and hope that we can soon provide NCMEC with the resources it requires 
to solve cold cases involving missing children.
  This authorization bill includes a provision that would help colleges 
and universities in Vermont and across the nation. It would allow 
foreigners who are pursuing ``distance learning'' opportunities at 
American schools to enter the country for up to 30 days to fulfill 
academic requirements. Under current law, these students do not fall 
under any visa category, and many are being denied entry and are thus 
unable to complete their educations. This is a loophole that harms both 
those students and the institutions that serve them.
  In recent months, serious questions have been raised in the media and 
in several congressional hearings about deficiencies within the 
translation program at the FBI. Nearly, 2 years ago I began asking 
questions in Judiciary Committee hearings about the FBI's translation 
program. Most of these remain unanswered. As a result, members of our 
committee are no closer to determining the scope of the issue, 
including the pervasiveness and seriousness of FBI shortcomings in this 
area, or what the FBI intends to do to rectify personnel shortages, 
security issues, translation inaccuracies and other problems that have 
plagued the translator program for years.
  Section 205 of the USA PATRIOT Act included an important reporting 
requirement by the Attorney General to the Senate and House Judiciary 
Committees about (1) the number of translators employed by the FBI, (2) 
legal and practical impediments to using translators employed by other 
Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared 
basis, and (3) the needs of the FBI for specific translation services 
in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those needs. To 
date, the Attorney General has not made the report required by Section 
205 most likely because there is no date certain written in the law by 
which the report must be made. This provision fills that gap by 
requiring the report ``not later than 30 days after the date of 
enactment and annually thereafter .with respect to the preceding 12 
month period.'' It also expands the reporting requirement to include 
translators ``contracted'' by the government in addition to those 
``employed.''
  I have worked my entire professional life to protect children from 
those who would prey on them. Preventing child exploitation through the 
use of the Internet is one concrete and important way to help this 
important cause. In this regard, under the Protection of Children from 
Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Public Law No. 105-314, remote computing 
and electronic communication service providers are mandated to report 
all instances of child pornography to the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children. I respect and applaud the work of NCMEC and its 
tireless efforts in this important national priority.
  In March 1998, Congress mandated that NCMEC initiate the CyberTipline 
for citizens to report online sexual crimes against children. In 
December 1999, Congress passed Public Law No. 106-113 to modify 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 13032(b)(1) to set forth a ``duty to report'' by ISPs. 
According to NCMEC, many U.S. electronic communications service 
providers are not complying with the requirement that they register and 
use the CyberTipline to report child porn found on their services 
because supporting regulations required to be promulgated by the 
Department of Justice on matters such as the contents of the report 
were never done so.
  In this authorization bill we propose language that amends the ``duty 
to report'' language by providing specific guidance on what information 
is required to be included in the ISP reports. The information required 
includes the content and images of the apparent violation, the Internet 
Protocol Address, the date and time associated with the violation, and 
specific contact information for the sender.
  America's film heritage is an important part of the American 
experience, an inheritance from previous generations that helps tell us 
who we are and who we were as a society. They offer insight into our 
history, our dreams, and our aspirations. Yet sadly, this part of 
American heritage is literally disintegrating faster than can be saved. 
Today, I am delighted that with the help of Senator Hatch, the National 
Film Preservation Act can be included in our Department of Justice 
reauthorization bill.
  I introduced the National Film Preservation Act last November, a bill 
that will reauthorize and extend the National Film Preservation Act of 
1996. We first acted in 1988 in order to recognize the educational, 
cultural, and historical importance of our film heritage, and its 
inherently fragile nature. In doing so, Congress created the National 
Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation 
both of which operate under the auspices of the Library of Congress in 
order to help save America's film heritage.
  The National Film Preservation Act will allow the Library of Congress 
to continue its important work in preserving America's fading 
treasures, as well as providing grants that will help libraries, 
museums, and archives preserve films and make those works available for 
study and research. These continued efforts are more critical today 
than ever before. While a wide range of works have been saved, with 
every passing day we lose the opportunity to save more. Fewer than 20 
percent of the features of the 1920s exist in complete form and less 
than 10 percent of the features of the 1910s have survived into the new 
millennium.
  The films saved by the National Film Preservation Board are precisely 
those types of works that would be unlikely to survive without public 
support. At-risk documentaries, silent-era films, avant-garde works, 
ethnic films, newsreels, and home movies frequently provide more 
insight into the American experience than the Hollywood sound features 
kept and preserved by major studios. What is more, in many cases only 
one copy of these ``orphaned'' works exists. As the Librarian of 
Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, has noted, ``Our film heritage is 
America's living past.''
  I would like to thank Senator Hatch again for working with me to 
include the ``National Film Preservation Act'' in the bill we are 
introducing today.
  The House-passed bill included an important reporting requirement 
authored by Rep. Adam Schiff and adopted by the House Judiciary 
Committee. Specifically, this provision required the Department of 
Justice to submit an annual report to Congress specifying the number of 
U.S. persons or residents detained on suspicion of terrorism, and 
describing Department standards for recommending or determining that a 
person should be tried as a criminal defendant or designated as an 
enemy combatant. A Washington Post editorial dated April 3, 2004, 
praised this provision, while noting that ``If more members of the 
House took their duty to legislate in this critical area seriously, 
Congress would craft a bill that actually imposed standards rather than 
simply inquired what they were.'' I agree, and regret that was unable 
to persuade Chairman Hatch to retain this modest oversight tool.
  I am disappointed that we will not be including the privacy officer 
provision referred to us by the House. It is critical that the 
Department have a designated leader who is consistently mindful of the 
impact of the Department's activities on privacy rights. While there 
has been some history of a

[[Page S8670]]

privacy official at the Department, these positions have been 
nonstatutory, and thus there has been no guarantee of consistent vigor 
and accountability on these issues. Given that the Department's mission 
increasingly involves gathering and assessing personal information, we 
simply can't afford to have a lapse in accountability on privacy. 
Moreover, this is not an untested idea. Congress created a privacy 
officer for the Department of Homeland Security, and it has been 
recognized as a successful example of how this role can be helpful in 
assessing and addressing privacy concerns. We need to follow this lead, 
and the privacy officer provision would have been a good opportunity to 
do so.
  I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Congressman 
Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers to continue the important 
business of reauthorizing the Department of Justice. Clearly, regular 
reauthorization of the Department should be part and parcel of the 
committees' traditional role in overseeing the Department's activities. 
Swift passage into law of the Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 will be a significant 
step toward enhancing our oversight role.

                          ____________________