Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 120 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 120 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9938-S9956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S9938]]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Allard, and Mr. Alexander):
S. 2858. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify
the proper treatment of differential wage payments made to employees
called to active duty in the uniformed services, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has
brought to light another example of how outdated and burdensome
government policies can punish generous employers. Employers that
continue to pay their employees now on active duty in the uniformed
services are experiencing tax and pension difficulties that are
discouraging this pro-worker, patriotic gesture. Apparently, when it
comes to companies showing their respect for their employees called to
serve, there is special meaning to the old cliche ``no good deed goes
unpunished.''
The National Committee for Employer Support for the Guard and
Reserve, a nationwide association, reports that over 2,500 employers
have signed a pledge of support and have gone above and beyond the
requirements of the law in support of their National Guard and Reserve
employees. This includes many of our Nation's largest and most
reputable corporations, including 3M, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Home Depot,
Liberty Mutual and many others. These commendable companies provide
reservist employees who are on active duty with ``differential pay''
that makes up the difference between their military stipend and
civilian salary.
Not just national companies provide special pay to our men and women
who are called to serve overseas. In New Hampshire, some of the most
remarkable stories of corporate patriotism can be found. BAE Systems of
Nashua provides differential pay to their 25 called-up employees and
continuing access to benefits to family members. The company even
provides a stipend to make up the lost pay of active duty spouses of
company employees when the spouse's employer is not able to provide
differential pay.
Consider also the account of Mr. Marian Noronha, Chairman and Founder
of Turbocam, a manufacturer based in Dover, New Hampshire. An immigrant
from India, Mr. Noronha has not only provided his employees with
differential pay and continued family health benefits, but has also
extended to each of his activated employees a $10,000 line of credit.
His active duty reservist and Guard employees have used this money to,
among other things, purchase personal computers so their families can
communicate with them while they are overseas. Several other New
Hampshire private-sector companies, including Hitchiner Manufacturing
Company in Milford, have exemplary records when it comes to dealing
with reservist employees. Also, New Hampshire's Governor Benson by
Executive Order has extended differential pay for up to 18 months to
State employees who have been called to active duty.
Under current law, employers of reservists and guardsmen called up
for active duty are required to treat them as if they are on a leave of
absence under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act of 1994 (USERRA). The Act does not require employers to pay
reservists who are on active duty. But as I have pointed out, many
employers pay the reservists the difference between their military
stipends and their regular salaries. Some employers provide this
``differential pay'' for up to three years. For employee convenience,
many of these companies also allow deductions from the differential
payment for contributions to their 401(k) retirement plans.
The conflict arises, however, because a 1969 IRS Revenue Ruling
considers the employment relationship terminated when active duty
begins. This ruling prevents employers from treating the differential
pay as wages for income tax purposes, resulting in unexpected tax bills
at the end of the year for these military personnel. Further, the
contributions made to the worker's retirement account potentially
invalidate, disqualify, the employer's entire retirement plan which
could make all amounts immediately taxable to plan participants and the
employer.
The Uniformed Services Differential Pay Protection Act that I am
introducing today clarifies that differential wage payments are to be
treated as wages to current employees for income tax purposes and that
retirement plan contributions are permissible.
Differential wage payments would be treated as wages for income tax
withholding purposes and reported on the worker's W-2 form. This means
that active duty personnel will not be hit with end-of-the-year tax
bills.
No New Taxes: The legislation does not change present law, and
deferential wage payments will not be subject to Social Security and
unemployment compensation taxes.
Definition: ``Differential wage payments'' are defined to mean any
payment which: (1) is made by an employer to an individual while he or
she is on active duty for a period of more than 30 days, and (2)
represents all or a portion of the wages the individual would have
received from the employer if he or she were performing service for the
employer.
An individual receiving differential wage payments would continue to
be treated as an employee for purposes of the rules applicable to
qualified retirement plans, removing the threat that contributions on
his or her behalf would invalidate the employer's entire plan.
Distributions Protected: Clarifying language is included to ensure
that individuals would continue to be permitted to take distributions
from their accounts when they leave their jobs for active duty. Thus,
the right to receive distributions will be preserved even though
individuals are treated as current employees for contribution purposes.
The bill includes a prohibition on making elective deferrals or
employee contributions for six months after receiving a distribution.
Satisfying Nondiscrimination Rules: In order to avoid disruptions in
retirement savings plans and to remove disincentives, employers could
disregard contributions to retirement savings accounts based on
differential wage payments for nondiscrimination testing purposes,
provided that such payments are available to all mobilized employees on
reasonably equivalent terms.
In summary, the Uniformed Services Differential Pay Protection Act
upholds the principle that employers should not be penalized for their
generosity towards our Nation's reservists and members of the National
Guard.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2858

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Uniformed Services
Differential Pay Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING ON DIFFERENTIAL WAGE PAYMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 3401 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(i) Differential Wage Payments to Active Duty Members of
the Uniformed Services.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), any
differential wage payment shall be treated as a payment of
wages by the employer to the employee.
``(2) Differential wage payment.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the term `differential wage payment' means any payment
which--
``(A) is made by an employer to an individual with respect
to any period during which the individual is performing
service in the uniformed services while on active duty for a
period of more than 30 days, and
``(B) represents all or a portion of the wages the
individual would have received from the employer if the
individual were performing service for the employer.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to remuneration paid after December 31, 2004.

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF DIFFERENTIAL WAGE PAYMENTS FOR
RETIREMENT PLAN PURPOSES.

(a) Pension Plans.--
(1) In general.--Section 414(u) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to special rules relating to veterans'
reemployment rights under USERRA) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Treatment of differential wage payments.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in this paragraph,
for purposes of applying this title to a retirement plan to
which this subsection applies--

[[Page S9939]]

``(i) an individual receiving a differential wage payment
shall be treated as an employee of the employer making the
payment,
``(ii) the differential wage payment shall be treated as
compensation, and
``(iii) the plan shall not be treated as failing to meet
the requirements of any provision described in paragraph
(1)(C) by reason of any contribution which is based on the
differential wage payment.
``(B) Special rule for distributions.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i), for
purposes of section 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(I), 403(b)(7)(A)(ii),
403(b)(11)(A), or 457(d)(1)(A)(ii), an individual shall be
treated as having been severed from employment during any
period the individual is performing service in the uniformed
services described in section 3401(i)(2)(A).
``(ii) Limitation.--If an individual elects to receive a
distribution by reason of clause (i), the plan shall provide
that the individual may not make an elective deferral or
employee contribution during the 6-month period beginning on
the date of the distribution.
``(C) Nondiscrimination requirement.--Subparagraph (A)(iii)
shall apply only if all employees of an employer performing
service in the uniformed services described in section
3401(i)(2)(A) are entitled to receive differential wage
payments on reasonably equivalent terms and, if eligible to
participate in a retirement plan maintained by the employer,
to make contributions based on the payments. For purposes of
applying this subparagraph, the provisions of paragraphs (3),
(4), and (5), of section 410(b) shall apply.
``(D) Differential wage payment.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `differential wage payment' has the
meaning given such term by section 3401(i)(2).''
(2) Conforming amendment.--The heading for section 414(u)
of such Code is amended by inserting ``and to Differential
Wage Payments to Members on Active Duty'' after ``USERRA''.
(b) Differential Wage Payments Treated as Compensation for
Individual Retirement Plans.--Section 219(f)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining compensation) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``The term `compensation' includes any differential wage
payment (as defined in section 3401(i)(2)).''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2004.
(d) Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments.--
(1) In general.--If this subsection applies to any plan or
annuity contract amendment--
(A) such plan or contract shall be treated as being
operated in accordance with the terms of the plan or contract
during the period described in paragraph (2)(B)(i), and
(B) except as provided by the Secretary of the Treasury,
such plan shall not fail to meet the requirements of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 by reason of such amendment.
(2) Amendments to which section applies.--
(A) In general.--This subsection shall apply to any
amendment to any plan or annuity contract which is made--
(i) pursuant to any amendment made by this section, and
(ii) on or before the last day of the first plan year
beginning on or after January 1, 2007.
(B) Conditions.--This subsection shall not apply to any
plan or annuity contract amendment unless--
(i) during the period beginning on the date the amendment
described in subparagraph (A)(i) takes effect and ending on
the date described in subparagraph (A)(ii) (or, if earlier,
the date the plan or contract amendment is adopted), the plan
or contract is operated as if such plan or contract amendment
were in effect; and
(ii) such plan or contract amendment applies retroactively
for such period.
______

By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 2859. A bill to amend the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 to
prohibit the issuance of permits for marine aquaculture facilities
until requirements for such permits are enacted into the law; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is a fact that scientists, the media
and the public are gradually awakening to the serious disadvantages of
fish raised in fish farming operations compared to naturally healthy
wild fish species such as Alaska salmon, halibut, sablefish, crab and
many other species.
News reports are now common that cite not only the general health
advantages of eating fish at least once or twice a week, but the
specific advantages of fish such as wild salmon, which contains
essential Omega-3 fatty acids that may help reduce the risk of heart
disease and possibly have similar beneficial effects on other diseases.
Educated and watchful consumers have also seen recent stories citing
research demonstrating that farmed salmon fed vegetable-based food does
not have the same beneficial impact on cardio-vascular health, but that
the demand for non-vegetable-based food for fish farms may be
decimating populations of other key fish species.
Those same alert consumers may also have seen stories indicating that
fish farms may create serious pollution problems from the concentration
of fish feces and uneaten food, that fish farms may harbor diseases
that can be transmitted to previously healthy wild fish stocks, and
that fish farming has had a devastating effect on communities that
depend on traditional fisheries.
And yet, despite abundant evidence that fish farming practices are
deeply problematic, a small cadre of federal bureaucrats continues to
push hard for legislation that would encourage the development of huge
new fish farms off our coasts. These same people have been pushing the
idea for a number of years, and are closer than ever to presenting
draft legislation that would vastly expand fish farming by encouraging
the development of new farms in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone from 3
to 200 miles offshore.
Not only does this small group want to encourage such development,
but reports indicate they want to change the rules to place all the
decision-making authority over new farms in the hands of just one
agency--which just happens to be theirs--rather than continue the
current system where authority is spread among the agencies with the
greatest expertise in different areas, such as hydraulic engineering,
environmental protection, fish biology, etc.
We cannot afford a rush to judgment on this issue--it is far too
dangerous if we make a mistake.
The Natural Stock Conservation Act I am introducing today lays down a
marker for where this debate needs to go. It would prohibit the
development of new offshore aqua-culture operations until Congress has
acted to ensure every federal agency involved does the necessary
analyses in areas such as disease control, engineering, pollution
prevention, biological and genetic impacts, and other critical issues,
none of which are specifically required under existing law.
I realize it is far too late in this session to anticipate action on
such a controversial and complex issue, but I intend this bill to
stimulate further debate on this issue next year, as Congress begins
serious work on the future of our ocean programs in response to the
U.S. Ocean Commission report. I intend to pursue this discussion
vigorously, and I will be calling on other coastal senators to work
with me.
We all want to make sure we enjoy abundant supplies of healthy foods
in the future, but not if it means unnecessary and avoidable damage to
wild species, to the environment generally, and to the economies of
America's coastal fishing communities.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2859

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Natural Stock Conservation
Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PERMITS FOR AQUACULTURE.

The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2801 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 10 and 11 as sections 11 and
12 respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 9 the following new section:

prohibition on permits for aquaculture

``Sec. 10. (a) In General.--The head of an agency with
jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture may not issue a permit
or license to permit an aquaculture facility located in the
exclusive economic zone to operate until after the date on
which a bill is enacted into law that--
``(1) sets out the type and specificity of the analyses
that the head of an agency with jurisdiction to regulate
aquaculture shall carry out prior to issuing any such permit
or license, including analyses related to--
``(A) disease control;
``(B) structural engineering;
``(C) pollution;
``(D) biological and genetic impacts;
``(E) access and transportation;
``(F) food safety; and
``(G) social and economic impacts of such facility on other
marine activities, including commercial and recreational
fishing; and
``(2) requires that a decision to issue such a permit or
license be--
``(A) made only after the head of the agency that issues
such license or permit

[[Page S9940]]

consults with the Governor of each State located within a
200-mile radius of the aquaculture facility; and
``(B) approved by the regional fishery management council
that is granted authority under title III of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1851 et seq.) over a fishery in the region where the
aquaculture facility will be located.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Agency with jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture.--
The term `agency with jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture'
means each agency and department of the United States, as
follows:
``(A) The Department of Agriculture.
``(B) The Coast Guard.
``(C) The Department of Commerce.
``(D) The Environmental Protection Agency.
``(E) The Department of the Interior.
``(F) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
``(2) Exclusive economic zone.--The term `exclusive
economic zone' has the meaning given that term in section 3
of the of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802).
``(3) Regional fishery management council.--The term
`regional fishery management council' means a regional
fishery management council established under section 302(a)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)).''.
______

By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 2860. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as 5-year property for
purposes of depreciation; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing along with
Senator Rockefeller the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of 2004. Passage
of this bipartisan bill would serve to help reduce the tremendous
annual economic and human loss that fire in the United States inflicts
on our Nation.
In the United States, fire departments responded to approximately 1.7
million fires in 2002. Annually, over 500,000 of these are structural
fires causing approximately 3,400 deaths, around 100 of which are
firefighters. Fire also caused some 18.5 million civilian injuries and
$10.3 billion in direct property loss. The indirect cost of fire in the
United States annually exceeds $80 billion. These losses are
staggering. All of this translates to the fact that fire departments
respond to a fire every 18 seconds. Every 60 seconds a fire breaks out
in a structure and in a residential structure every 80 seconds.
There are literally thousands of high-rise buildings built under
older codes that lack adequate fire protection. In addition, billions
of dollars were spent to make these and other buildings handicapped
accessible, but people with disabilities now occupying these buildings
are not adequately protected from fire. At recent code hearings,
representatives of the health care industry testified that there are
approximately 4,200 nursing homes that need to be retrofitted with fire
sprinklers. They further testified that the cost of protecting these
buildings with fire sprinklers would have to be raised through
corresponding increases in Medicare and Medicaid. In addition to the
alarming number of nursing homes lacking fire sprinkler protection,
there are literally thousands of assisted living facilities housing
older Americans and people with disabilities that lack fire sprinkler
protection.
The solution resides in automatic sprinkler systems that are usually
triggered within 4 minutes of the temperature rising above 120 degrees.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has no record of a fire
killing more than two people in a public assembly, educational,
institutional, or residential building that has fully operational
sprinklers. Furthermore, sprinklers are responsible for dramatically
reducing property loss.
Building owners do not argue with fire authorities over the logic of
protecting their building with fire sprinklers. The issue is cost. This
bill would drastically reduce the staggering annual economic toll of
fire in America and thereby dramatically improve the quality of life
for everyone involved. This legislation provides a tax incentive for
businesses to install sprinklers through the use of a 5-year
depreciation period, opposed to the current 27.5 or 39-year period for
installations in residential rental and non-residential real property
respectively. While only a start, the bill will help eliminate the
massive losses seen in nursing homes, nightclubs, office buildings,
apartment buildings, manufacturing facilities, and other for-profit
entities.
This bill enjoys support from a variety of organizations. They
include: the American Insurance Association, the American Fire
Sprinkler Association, the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, Campus Firewatch, Congressional Fire Services Institute,
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, International
Association of Arson Investigators, International Association of Fire
Chiefs, International Fire Service Training Association, National Fire
Protection Association, National Fire Sprinkler Association, National
Volunteer Fire Council, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, and
the Mechanical Contractors Association of America.
The Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of 2004 provides long needed safety
incentives for building owners that will help fire departments across
the country save lives. I ask my colleagues for their support of this
important piece of legislation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, every 18 seconds a fire department
somewhere in America responds to a fire. And sadly, in 2001, not
including those killed in the terrorist attacks on September 11, there
were almost 4,000 deaths in America resulting from fires, including the
deaths of 99 firefighters. Obviously, the Government cannot prevent
every tragedy. But when we can help, we ought to. That is why I am
proud to introduce legislation today with my friend from Pennsylvania,
Senator Santorum, that will create incentives for the installation of
fire sprinkler systems, which are indisputably effective in limiting
death and destruction by fires. The Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of
2004 will make retrofit installation of fire sprinklers more
affordable.
The National Fire Protection Association has no record of a fire
killing more than two people in a building that had a properly
installed and functioning sprinkler system. Less important than saving
lives, but still important, sprinklers can dramatically reduce the
property damage caused by fires. Because sprinkler systems are so
successful, many jurisdictions require that newly constructed buildings
be built with proper fire suppression technology.
Unfortunately, building codes for new construction cannot protect the
many people who are living, working, or meeting in older buildings that
do not have sprinklers. And because retrofitting buildings is so
expensive few property owners can reasonably afford the upgrade. The
legislation that the Senator from Pennsylvania and I are introducing
today will provide some tax relief to property owners who are willing
to make the investment in sprinkler systems that can save lives.
A business that operates nursing homes, for example, may not be able
to afford to retrofit its older facilities without charging residents
insupportable fees. The Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act will help
ameliorate the costs of sprinkler installation by enabling property
owners to depreciate the investment over a five-year period. This small
change to the Tax Code can result in lives saved and property
preserved.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important
legislation enacted.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, Mr. DeWine,
and Mr. Daschle):
S. 2863. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of
Justice for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues
Senators Leahy, DeWine, and Schumer to introduce the ``Department of
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, fiscal years 2005 through
2007.'' I want to thank Senator Leahy for his hard work on this bill. I
also want to thank the House Judiciary Committee under the leadership
of Chairman Sensenbrenner for developing legislation upon which we have
been able to build.
I am pleased that Congress passed a Department of Justice
reauthorization bill last Congress for the first time in over two
decades. The bill, however, did not address a number of authorities,
including the Office of Justice

[[Page S9941]]

Programs. The bill we are introducing today authorizes and consolidates
and makes permanent a host of appropriations authorities. These
authorities are essential to the administration of the Department of
Justice and its ability to accomplish its mission.
The Department of Justice's central duty is to provide security and
justice for all Americans. I believe this legislation is essential to
the Department's work in protecting America from future terrorist
attacks. Importantly, the legislation will facilitate the Department's
ability to continue providing much-needed assistance and advice to our
state and local law enforcement.
I want to take a moment to highlight some of the more important
provisions of this bill. Title I of the bill authorizes appropriations
for the major components of the Department for fiscal year 2005 through
fiscal year 2007. Among these authorizations are funding for Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the newly created Terrorism Threat
Integration Center to fight the war against terrorism, and the Drug
Enforcement Administration to combat the trafficking of illegal drugs.
Title II of the bill restructures and authorizes many of the grant
programs at the Department. Specifically, it restructures the Byrne and
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) programs and authorizes for
the first time ever the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. By merging
these two programs into one Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant program (JAG), it will allow states to make one application for
funds and streamline the process.
I want to take a moment and address the concern I have heard raised
that the merger of these programs will somehow cause states to lose the
assistance they rely upon. Although we have combined the funds into one
program, we have kept the same purpose areas so that activities and
programs funded currently under Byrne and LLEBG may continue to be
eligible for funds under the JAG program. Additionally, the money
allocated to the JAG program is set up to split the funds 50/50--fifty
percent of the JAG funds are allocated in the same manner that Byrne
grants are currently allocated, and fifty percent are allocated in the
same manner that the LLEBG funds are currently allocated. Each state
receives 0.25 percent of the overall funds. Then of the remaining
funds, 50 percent is distributed based upon population, similar to the
Byrne grants, and the other 50 percent is based on the violent crime
rate, similar to the LLEBG. In other words, the JAG program is designed
to address the same purposes of the Byrne and LLEBG programs, and funds
are intended to be allocated in the same manner. The only difference is
that those funds will now come from one pot of money--the JAG account.

That being said, I do share the concern that money for the one pot,
the JAG account, will be reduced. I have supported full funding for
Byrne and LLEBG grants in the past, and I will continue to support
funding for the JAG program. For this reason, this legislation
authorizes the JAG account to receive the total amount of funds that
both the Byrne and LLEBG programs received in Fiscal Year 2003 plus a 2
percent increase. I am hopeful that the Appropriators will fund the new
JAG program at the same level. In fact, one of the benefits of creating
one new program is that it will help limit the earmarking of these
grants, thus allowing meritorious programs to receive money that may
have been previously allocated for some earmark.
In addition to the authorization of the JAG program, this legislation
restructures the COPS program as one single block grant program
covering all of its current purposes so local governments will need to
file only one COPS application for any of these purposes. The bill
reauthorizes the Boys and Girls Club of America, the Regional
Information Sharing System (RISS), the Crime Free Rural States Grant
program, the National Criminal History Background Check System, the
National Incident-Based Reporting System, and the records of the
National Crime Information Center. Further, the bill makes a number of
important changes to grants that assist victims of crime and to the
drug courts to enable these valuable programs to be more effective. *In
addition, the legislation creates a new Office of Weed and Seed
Strategies to replace the never-before authorized executive Office of
Weed and Seed Strategies.
The bill includes the Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act
and the Senior Safety Act to better protect our nation's most
vulnerable citizens: our children and seniors. The Prevention and
Recovery of Missing Children Act sets standards for the registration of
sex offenders which will make our registration system more accurate and
reliable. The Senior Safety Act enhances the penalties for crimes
committed against seniors, including fraud and telemarketing fraud, and
includes a provision to safeguard pensions from fraud and theft.
One of the keys to fighting terrorism is a tough arsenal of laws
designed to target those who support or assist terrorists and their
cause, such as those who launder money. This legislation includes the
Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of 2004 which
adds several provisions to the list of specified unlawful activities
within the RICO statute that serve as predicate offenses under the
money laundering statute. It adds a provision to the civil forfeiture
statute to allow for the forfeiture of property outside U.S.
territorial boundaries if the property was used in the planning of a
terrorist act that occurred within the U.S. It also includes a parallel
transaction provision which provides that all parts of a parallel or
dependent financial transaction are considered a money laundering
offense if one part of that transaction involves the proceeds of an
unlawful activity.
This legislation also includes the Koby Mandell Act which creates
within the DOJ an Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism.
The office will assume responsibility for the administration of the
Rewards for Justice Program and its website. The office will offer
rewards in an effort to capture terrorists involved in harming American
citizens overseas. It will also provide other related services
including sending U.S. officials to funerals of American victims of
terrorism overseas.

This bill also contains important immigration provisions, including
the PROMISE Act. The PROMISE Act is an immigration enforcement measure
that amends the Immigration and Nationality Act so that those who fail
to satisfy their child support obligations are ineligible to enter the
United States. Further, those already in the United States will be
ineligible for certain immigration benefits, such as citizenship.
This bill is a step in the right direction. I look forward to
continuing to work with Senator Leahy and the House Judiciary Committee
to enact this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-
section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

DOJ Reauth Section by Section

Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents
Section 1 provides that the bill may be cited as the
``Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007'' and sets forth the table of
contents.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 101. Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year
2005
Section 101 sets forth specific sums authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the activities of the Department of
Justice for Fiscal Year 2005. These sums are set out in 22
accounts. The numbers generally reflect the President's
budget requests for the Department of Justice for Fiscal Year
2004 with a 2% inflation adjustment.
Section 102. Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year
2006
Section 102 sets forth specific sums authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the activities of the Department of
Justice for Fiscal Year 2006. These sums are set out in 22
accounts. The numbers generally reflect the President's
budget requests for the Department of Justice for Fiscal Year
2005 in Section 101 with a 2% inflation adjustment.
Section 103. Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year
2007
Section 103 sets forth specific sums authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the activities of the Department of
Justice for Fiscal Year 2007. These sums are set out in 20
accounts. The numbers generally reflect the numbers for
Fiscal Year 2006 in section 102 with a 2% inflation
adjustment.

[[Page S9942]]

TITLE II--IMPROVING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S GRANT PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--Assisting Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Agencies

Section 201. Merger of Byrne Grant and Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant Programs
Section 201 merges the current Byrne Grant Program (both
formula and discretionary) and the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant Programs into one new Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant Program. This will allow states and
local governments to make one application for this money
annually for a four-year term.
The formula for distributing these grants combines elements
of the current Byrne and LLEBG formulas. For allocating money
to the states, each state automatically receives 0.25% of the
total.
Of the remaining amount, 50% is divided up among the states
according to population (the method currently used under
Byrne) and 50% is divided up based on the violent crime rate
(the method currently used under LLEBG).
Each state's allocation is then divided among state and
locals in the following manner. Sixty percent of the
allocation goes to the state. Then, that 60% is divided
between state and locals based on their relative percentages
of overall criminal justice spending within the state. The
state keeps its portion of the 60% and gives out the local
portion in the state's discretion. This follows how Byrne
formula grants are now done.
The remaining 40% of the state's allocation goes directly
to the local governments from OJP. Each class of local
governments (e.g., cities, counties, townships, etc.) gets a
share based on its relative percentage of local criminal
justice spending within the state. Within each class, the
class's share is divided up between the local governments in
that class based on their crime rate. This is similar to how
LLEBG grants are now done.
The bill authorizes $1.075 billion for FY 2005 for the
program which represents a 2% increase over the amount
appropriated for both programs in Fiscal Year 2003. A new
feature of the program is that states will be allowed to keep
grant funds in interest bearing accounts until spent and then
keep the interest. However, all money must be spent during
the four-year grant period.
Section 202. Clarification of Official To Be Consulted by
Attorney General in Considering Application for Emergency
Federal Law Enforcement Assistance
Section 202 amends the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement
Assistance program (42 U.S.C. Sec. 10501 et seq.) to clarify
that in awarding grants under this program the Attorney
General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Justice Programs rather than the Director of
the Office of Justice Assistance. This change simply brings
the statute into conformity with the existing chain of
command in the Department.
Section 203. Clarification of Uses for Regional Information
Sharing System Grants
Section 203 amends the authorization for the Regional
Information Sharing System (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796h) to clarify
its regional character and its authority to establish and
maintain a secure telecommunications backbone.
Section 204. Authorization ofAppropriations for the Regional
Information Sharing System Grants to facilitate Federal-
State-Local Law Enforcement Response Related to Terrorist
Attacks
Section 204 reauthorizes the Regional Information Sharing
System for FY 2005-2007 at $100 million each year.
Section 205. Integrity and Enhancement of National Criminal
Record Databases
Section 205 amends the authorizing statute for the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3732): (1) to clarify
that the Director shall be responsible for the integrity of
data and statistics and the prevention of improper or illegal
use or disclosure; (2) to provide specific authorization
for the already existing National Criminal History
Background Check System, the National Incident-Based
Reporting System, and the records of the National Crime
Information Center and to facilitate state participation
in these systems; and (3) to facilitate data-sharing
agreements between the Bureau of Justice Statistics and
other federal agencies.
Section 206. Extension of Crime Free Rural States Grant
Program
Section 206 reauthorizes the Crime Free Rural States Grant
program for FY 2005-2007.

Subtitle B--Building Community Capacity to Prevent, Reduce, and Control
Crime

Section 211. Office of Weed and Seed Strategies
Section 211 creates a new Office of Weed and Seed
Strategies. This office will replace the current Executive
Office of Weed and Seed, and for the first time, this program
will have a specific authorization.

Subtitle C--Assisting Victims of Crime

Section 221. Grants to Local Nonprofit Organizations to
Improve Outreach Services to Victims of Crime
Section 221 amends the crime victim assistance grants
program to allow grants of less than $10,000 to be made to
smaller neighborhood and community-based victim service
organizations. Currently, grants under this program tend to
go to larger organizations, and this amendment simply
emphasizes that some of the money spent in this program
should go to smaller organizations as well.
Section 222. Clarification and Enhancement of Certain
Authorities Relating to Crime Victims Fund
Section 222 makes several minor adjustments to the
authorities relating to the Crime Victims Fund.
Subsection 222(1) clarifies that the fund may only accept
gifts, donations, or bequests if they do not attach
conditions inconsistent with applicable laws or regulations
and if they do not require the expenditure of appropriated
funds that are not available to the Office of Victims of
Crime. Current law establishes a $50 million antiterrorism
reserve within the fund. Each year that reserve may be
replenished by using up to 5% of the money in the fund that
was not otherwise expended during that year.
Subsection 222(2) permits replenishments of the
Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve based upon amounts
``obligated'' rather than amounts actually ``expended'' in
any given fiscal year.
Subsection 222(3) allows the Assistant Attorney General to
direct the use of the funds available for Indian child abuse
program grants under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 10601(g) and to use 5% of
those funds for grants to Indian tribes to establish victim
assistance programs.
Subsection 222(4) clarifies that the Antiterrorism
Emergency Reserve may be replenished only once each fiscal
year, rather than be continually replenished as amounts are
obligated or expended. It also ensures that no AER funds are
included in limitations on annual Crime Victims Fund
obligations.
Section 223. Amounts Received Under Crime Victim Grants May
Be Used by State for Training Purposes
Section 223 amends the grant programs for victim
compensation and victim assistance to allow the states part
of the reserved amount for administrative costs for training
purposes.
Section 224. Clarification of Authorities Relating to
Violence Against Women Formula and Discretionary Grant
Programs
Section 224 makes several clarifications to the program to
fund grants to combat violent crimes against women.
Subsection 224(a) clarifies that grants may be used for
victim services. Subsection 224(b) corrects an incorrect
section number reference in last Congress' DOJ authorization
bill. Subsection 224(c) clarifies that grants under the
program can be made to Indian tribal domestic violence
coalitions and corrects other technical errors and makes
conforming changes. Subsection 224(d) changes the reporting
requirement on the program from annual to biennial.
Subsection 224(e) clarifies that state and tribal
governments may use grant funds under the program to pay for
forensic medical exams for sexual assault victims so long as
the victims are not required to seek reimbursement from their
insurers. It further provides that the victim shall not be
required to participate in the criminal justice system or
cooperate with law enforcement in order to be provided with a
forensic medical exam, reimbursement for such exam, or both.
Subsection 224(f) makes a technical amendment to the heading
for this part of the Code.
Section 225. Expansion of Grant Programs Assisting
Enforcement of Domestic Violence Cases To Also Assist
Enforcement of Sexual Assault Cases
Section 225 amends the programs to provide grants to
encourage domestic violence arrest policies and to provide
assistance for rural domestic violence and child abuse
enforcement to clarify that such grants can also be used to
assist enforcement of sexual assault cases.

Subtitle D--Preventing Crime

Section 231. Clarification of Definition of Violent Offender
for Purposes of Juvenile Drug Courts
Section 231 amends the juvenile drug court grant program so
that offenders who are convicted of a violent misdemeanor may
participate in the program. Currently, misdemeanor offenders
may participate only if their offense is non-violent.
Section 232. Eligibility for Grants Under Drug Court Grants
Program Extended to Courts That Supervise Non-Offenders
With Substance Abuse Problems
Section 232 amends the drug court program to allow
continuing supervision over non-violent offenders as well as
other related persons who may be before the court. This will
allow a drug court to consolidate the cases of related
individuals who may be under its jurisdiction at one time and
supervise them jointly.
Section 233. Terms of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
Program for Local Facilities
Section 233 amends the Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment for State Prisoners program to clarify that the
grants should go to local correctional facilities and
detention facilities where prisoners are held long enough to
carry out a 3-month course of drug treatment.
Section 234. Rural 9-1-1 Service
Section 234 authorizes the Attorney General to provide
grants for access to, and improvements on 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.

[[Page S9943]]

Section 235. Methamphetamine Cleanup
Section 235 authorizes the Methamphetamine Cleanup program.
The program funds the cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories
and related hazardous waste, and provides additional contract
personnel, equipment, and facilities to local governments.
Section 236. National Citizens Crime Prevention Campaign
Section 236 authorizes the National Citizens Crime
Prevention Campaign for FY 2005-2007 and requires a 30% non-
Federal match for all Federal funds.
Section 237. SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics
Section 237 authorizes the Bureau of Justice Assistance to
award a grant to SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics to perform its functions under the
direction of the Office of Justice Programs.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Section 241. Changes to Certain Financial Authorities
Subsection 241 (a) raises from 3 to 6 percent the amount of
money collected from civil debt collection activities that
can be credited to the Working Capital Fund established under
28 U.S.C. Sec. 527.
Subsection 241 (b) exempts the Southwest Border Initiative
from the requirement that it reimburse the Treasury for
untimely payments and the requirement that it pay interest to
states for untimely payments.
Subsections 241(c) and (d) update certain general law
enforcement authorities of the Attorney General to include
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Section 242. Coordination Duties of Assistant Attorney
General
Subsection 242(a) amends the authorizing statute for OJP to
include the Office for Victims of Crime within the list of
OJP bureaus. Subsection 242(b) allows the Assistant Attorney
General to place special conditions on all grants.
Section 243. Repeal of Certain Programs
Section 243 repeals seven grant programs that have been
authorized, but have largely not been funded in recent years:
the Criminal Justice Facility Construction Pilot Program; the
Family Support Program; the Matching Grant Program for School
Security; the Local Crime Prevention Block Grant Program; the
Assistance for Delinquent and At-Risk Youth Program; and the
Improved Training and Technical Automation Program; the Other
State and Local Aid Program.
Section 244. Elimination of Certain Notice and Hearing
Requirements
Section 244 eliminates the requirement that OJP must
provide notice and a hearing for grant applicants whose
applications are denied. It further eliminates the
opportunity for appellate review of the decisions arising
from such hearings. These rights are rarely used.
Section 245. Amended Definitions for Purposes of Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Section 245 broadens the definition of the term ``Indian
Tribe'' to allow more tribes to be treated as units of local
government for purposes of OJP grants. It broadens the
definition of the term ``combination'' of State and local
governments to include those who jointly plan. It amends the
definition of the term ``neighborhood or community-based
organizations'' to clarify that it includes faith-based
organizations.
Section 246. Clarification of Authority To Pay Subsistence
Payments to Prisoners for Health Care Items and Services
Under current law, the Attorney General is required to pay
for health care items and services for certain prisoners in
the custody of the United States. In every instance, he must
not pay more than the lesser of what the Medicare or Medicaid
program would pay. This requires the Attorney General to
expend a great deal of effort to determine that in each
case. This subsection changes that to simply say that he
shall not pay more than the Medicare rate. It also
substitutes the Department of Homeland Security for a
reference to the now defunct Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Section 247. Consolidation of Financial Management Systems of
Office of Justice Programs
Section 247 requires the Assistant Attorney General of the
Office of Justice Programs to make two significant financial
management reforms: (1) consolidate all accounting activities
of OJP into a single financial management system under the
direct management of the Office of the Comptroller by
September 30, 2010, and (2) consolidate all procurement
activities of OJP into a single procurement system under the
direct management of the Office of Administration by
September 30, 2007.
The Assistant Attorney General is required to begin the
consolidation of accounting activities under the Office of
the Comptroller and the consolidation of procurement
activities under the Office of Administration not later than
October 1, 2003. The Office of Administration is to begin the
consolidation of procurement operations and financial
management systems into a single financial system not later
than September 30, 2005.
Section 248. Authorization and Change of COPS program to
single grant program
Section 248 reauthorizes the COPS program while
restructuring it as one single block grant program covering
all of its current purposes so local governments will need
only to file one COPS application for any of these purposes.
Section 249. Enhanced Assistance for Criminal Investigations
and Prosecutions by State and Local Law Enforcement
Officials
Section 249 enhances assistance for criminal investigations
and prosecutions by requiring the Attorney General to provide
federal assistance upon request by a state, local or Indian
tribe governments.

TITLE III--COMBATING MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING ACT OF
2004

Section 301. Short Title
Section 301 authorizes that this bill may be cited as the
``Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of
2003''.
Section 302. Specified Activities for Money Laundering
Amends the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) to expand its scope to cover acts or threats
involving burglary, embezzlement, and fraud in the purchase
of securities. Modifies provisions regarding: (1) the
laundering of monetary instruments to include violations of
the Social Security Act relating to obtaining funds through
misuse of a social security number, to grant authority to the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commissioner of Social
Security over offenses within their jurisdictions, and to
cover certain informal transfers of the proceeds of specified
unlawful activity; and (2) engaging in monetary transactions
in property derived from specified unlawful activity to grant
authority to the Secretary over offenses within his
jurisdiction.
Section 303. Illegal Money Transmitting Businesses
Changes the name of a money transmitting business the
operation of which is prohibited from an ``unlicensed'' to an
``illegal'' money transmitting business. Specifies that such
a business shall be illegal if it fails to comply with money
transmitting business registration requirements (current
law), whether or not the defendant knew that the operation
was required to comply with such requirements. Authorizes the
Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security to investigate violations
regarding such businesses.
Section 304. Assets of Persons Committing Terrorist Acts
Against Foreign Countries or International Organizations
Amends the Federal criminal code to provide for civil
forfeiture of the assets of individuals or entities engaging
in planning or perpetrating any act of international
terrorism against any international organization or foreign
government.
Section 305. Money Laundering through Informal Value Transfer
Systems
Section 305 amends the Federal criminal code to include as
money laundering unlawful transactions where one part of such
plan or arrangement actually involves the proceeds of
specified unlawful activity.
Section 306. Technical Corrections to Financing of Terrorism
Statute
Section 306 amends 18 USC 2339(c) to change the definition
of concealment and other minor changes.
Section 307. Miscellaneous and Technical Amendments
Section 307 amends 18 USC 982(b), 18 USC 1510(b)(3)(B) and
adds technical amendments Sections 1956, 1957.
Section 308. Extension of the Money Laundering and Financial
Crimes Strategy Act of 1998
Reauthorizes the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes
Strategy Act of 1998 through years 2004, 2005, and 2006.

TITLE IV--PREVENTION AND RECOVERY OF MISSING CHILDREN ACT OF 2004

Section 401. Short Title
This Title may be called the ``Prevention and Recovery of
Missing Children Act of 2004.''
Section 402. Findings
Section 403. Missing Child Reporting Requirements
Section 403 stops the practice of removing a missing child
entry from the NCIC database when the child reaches age 18 to
increase the chances for child recovery and investigative
information available for other cases. It also requires that
a missing child be entered into NCIC within 2 hours of
receipt.
Section 404. Standards for Sex Offender Registration Programs
Section 404 requires that (1) a state register sex
offenders before they are released from prison; (2) the
registering agency obtain current fingerprints and a
photograph (annually), as well as a DNA sample, from an
offender at the time of registration; (3) registrants obtain
either a driver's license or an identification card from the
department of motor vehicles; (4) registration changes occur
within 10 days of the changes taking effect; (5) all
registered sex offenders verify their registry information
every 90 days; and (6) states inform another state when a
known registered person is moving into its jurisdiction. This
section also creates a felony designation for the crime of
non-compliance with the registration requirements.
Section 405. Effective Date
The provisions in this title will go into effect 2 years
after this bill is signed into law.

TITLE V--BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT OF 2004

Section 501. Short Title
This title may be called the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Act of 2004.''

[[Page S9944]]

Section 502. Authorization of Appropriations
Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 to extend through FY 2007 the authorization of
appropriations for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Program (a matching grant program which helps State, tribal,
and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law
enforcement officers).

TITLE VI--PACT ACT

Section 601. Short Title
This title may be called the ``Prevent All Cigarette
Trafficking Act'' or ``PACT Act.''
Section 602. Collection of State Cigarette Taxes
This section increases the ability of state, local, and
tribal governments to collect excise taxes from cigarette and
smokeless tobacco sales by strengthening the Jenkins Act,
which requires reporting of interstate cigarette sales.
Jenkins now explicitly includes cigarette and smokeless
tobacco sales made via phone, Internet or mail. Delivery
sellers must report interstate sales, including those to
distributors, to state, local, and tribal governments, as
well as list all Jenkins requirements on the bill of lading,
and maintain records of all delivery sales. Delivery sales
may not be made until excise tax stamps are applied.
Violators of Jenkins are subject to felony prosecution and
civil penalties. State, local and tribal governments, as well
as tobacco manufacturers may prevent and restrain violations
of Jenkins in U.S. district courts, in addition to their
respective jurisdictions.
Section 603. Treatment of Cigarettes as Nonmailable Matter
This section prohibits a person from sending cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco via the U.S. Postal Service in the
continental United States.
Section 604. Penal Provisions Regarding Trafficking in
Contraband Cigarettes
Under the amended Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act
(``CCTA''), the threshold amount of non-excise tax-paid
cigarettes is lowered to 10,000. CCTA covers smokeless
tobacco if the quantity exceeds 500 single-units. Monthly
reports must be filed detailing transactions and inventory
with the Attorney General and Secretary of Treasury, as well
as with state and tribal authorities as appropriate, if
monthly delivery sales exceed these contraband thresholds.
Seized cigarettes and smokeless tobacco may be used for
undercover law enforcement operations. State, local and
tribal governments, as well as tobacco manufacturers may
prevent and restrain violations of the CCTA in U.S. district
courts, in addition to their respective jurisdictions.
Section 605. Compliance with Model Statute or Qualifying
Statute
This section prohibits tobacco manufacturers and importers
from participating in transactions occurring in states party
to the Master Settlement Agreement (``MSA''), which involve
cigarettes manufactured by companies that are not in
compliance with the ``qualifying statute'' of the particular
MSA state. These statutes require that states neutralize the
cost disadvantages of the manufacturers that entered into the
MSA due to their escrow payments. State attorneys general may
bring actions in the United States district courts to prevent
and restrain violations of this section.
Section 606. Undercover Criminal Investigations of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
This section grants BATFE the authority to offset expenses
incurred in undercover operations by revenue obtained from
the same operation. This will enhance their ability to
conduct sting operations. BATFE is also empowered to inspect
the records and premises of those who ship, sell, distribute,
or receive in interstate commerce any quantity in excess
of the contraband threshold, within a single month.
Section 607. Inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives of Records of Certain Cigarette
Sellers
This section empowers the BATFE to inspect the records and
premises of those who ship, sell, distribute, or receive in
interstate commerce any quantity in excess of the contraband
threshold, within a single month.
Section 608. Compliance with Tariff Act of 1930
Section 609. Exclusions Regarding Indian Tribes and Tribal
Matters
Section 610. Effective Date
The new authority granted to the BATFE is effective
immediately. All other changes are effective 90 days after
enactment.

TITLE VII--CREATE ACT

Section 701. Short Title
Section 701 authorizes that this bill may be cited as the
``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE)
Act of 2004.''
Section 702. Collaborative Efforts on Claimed Inventions
Section 702 amends Federal patent and trademark law to deem
subject matter developed by another person and a claimed
invention to have been owned by the same person or subject to
an obligation of assignment to the same person, for purposes
of provisions that treat inventions of a common owner
similarly to inventions made by a single person, if: (1) the
claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a
joint research agreement (agreement) that was in effect on or
before the date the claimed invention was made; (2) the
claimed invention was made as a result of activities
undertaken within the scope of the agreement; and (3) the
application for patent for the claimed invention discloses,
or is amended to disclose, the names of the parties to the
agreement.
Section 703. Effective Date
Section 703 applies the CREATE Act to any patents issued
after its enactment and does not apply to any pending action
before the courts or the Patent and Trademark Office.

TITLE VIII--PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS AGAINST THEFT AND
EXPROPRIATION ACT OF 2004

Section 801. Short Title
Section 801 authorizes that this bill may be cited as the
``Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and
Expropriation Act of 2004''.
Section 802. Authorization of Civil Copyright Enforcement by
Attorney General
Section 802 amends Federal copyright law to authorize the
Attorney General (AG) to: (1) commence a civil action against
any person who engages in conduct constituting copyright
infringement; (2) collect damages and profits resulting from
such infringement; and (3) collect
Section 803. Authorization of Funding for Training and Pilot
Program
Section 803 directs the Attorney General to: (1) develop a
program to ensure effective implementation and use of the
authority for civil enforcement of the copyright laws,
including training programs for qualified personnel from the
Department of Justice and United States Attorneys Offices;
and (2) report annually to Congress on the use of such
enforcement authority and progress made in implementing the
training programs.
Authorizes appropriations for FY 2005.

TITLE IX--KOBY MANDELL ACT OF 2004

Section 901. Short Title
Section 902. Definitions
Section 903. Establishment of an Office of Justice for
Victims of Overseas Terrorism in the Department of
Justice
Section 903 creates within the DOJ an Office of Justice for
Victims of Overseas Terrorism which will assume the
responsibility for administration of the Rewards for Justice
Program and its website. These offices will offer rewards to
capture all terrorists involved in harming American citizens
overseas as well as other related services including sending
US officials to funerals of American victims of terrorism
overseas.
Included in this section are reporting requirements to
Congress and monitoring of actions by governments and regimes
pertaining to terrorists who have harmed American citizens.
This section also requires the Office to initiate
negotiations to secure compensation for American citizens or
their families who were harmed by organizations who claim
responsibility for the acts of terrorism.
The Office will also be required to monitor the
incarceration abroad of terrorists who have harmed American
citizens overseas to ensure their incarceration is similar to
that condition of incarceration in the United States. As
well, this section requires that all terrorists who have
harmed Americans overseas are treated by the US government as
persona non grata.
Section 904. Authorization of Appropriations
Section 904 authorizes for 2005-2007 such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.

TITLE X--SENIOR SAFETY ACT OF 2004

Section 1001. Short Title
The title may be cited as the ``Seniors Safety Act of
2004.''
Section 1002. Findings and Purposes
This section enumerates 14 findings on the incidence of
crimes against seniors, the large percentages of seniors who
can expect to spend time in nursing homes, the amount of
Federal money spent on nursing home care and the estimated
losses due to fraud and abuse in the health care industry.
The purposes of the Act are to enhance safeguards for
pension plans and health benefit programs, prevent and deter
criminal activity that results in economic and physical harm
to seniors, and ensure appropriate restitution.
Section 1003. Definitions
Definitions are provided for the following terms: (1)
``Crime'' is defined as any criminal offense under Federal or
State law; and (2) ``Senior'' is defined as an individual who
is older than 55.

Subtitle A--Combating Crimes Against Seniors

Section 1011. Enhanced Sentencing Penalties Based on Age of
Victim
Directive to the United States Sentencing Commission. The
U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to review and, if
appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines applicable to
the age or a victim.
Section 1012. Study and Report on Health Care Fraud Sentences
(a) Directive to the United States Sentencing Commission.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to review and, if
appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines applicable to
health care fraud offenses.
(b) Requirements. During its review, the Sentencing
Commission shall: ensure that the guidelines reflect the
serious harms associated with health care fraud and the need
for law enforcement to prevent such fraud;

[[Page S9945]]

consider enhanced penalties for persons convicted of health
care fraud; consult with representatives of industry,
judiciary, law enforcement, and victim groups; account for
mitigating circumstances; assure reasonable consistency with
other relevant directives and guidelines; make any necessary
conforming changes; and assure that the guidelines adequately
meet the purposes of sentencing.
(c) Report. The Sentencing Commission shall report the
results of the review required under (a) and include any
recommendations for retention or modification of the current
penalty levels for health care fraud offenses, by December
31, 2004.
Section 1013. Increased Penalties for Fraud Resulting in
Serious Injury or Death
This section increases the penalties under the mail fraud
statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341, and the wire fraud statute, 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1343, for fraudulent schemes that result in
serious injury or death. Existing law provides such an
enhancement for a narrow class of health care fraud schemes
(see 18 U.S.C. 1347). This provision would extend this
penalty enhancement to other forms of fraud under the mail
and wire fraud statutes that result in death or serious
injury. The maximum penalty if serious bodily harm occurred
would be up to twenty years; if a death occurred, the maximum
penalty would be a life sentence.
Section 1014. Safeguarding Pension Plans From Fraud and Theft
(a) In General. This section would add new section 1351 to
title 18, United States Code.
Sec. 1351: Fraud in Relation to Retirement Arrangements.
(a) This section defines retirement arrangements and
provides an exception for plans established by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
(b) This section punishes, with up to ten years'
imprisonment, the act of defrauding retirement arrangements,
or obtaining by means of false or fraudulent pretenses money
or property of any retirement arrangement. Retirement
arrangements would include employee pension benefit plans
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),
qualified retirement plans under section 4974(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code (IRC), medical savings accounts under
section 220 of the IRC, and funds established within the
Thrift Savings Fund. This provision is modeled on existing
statutes punishing bank fraud (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344) and
health care fraud (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1347). Any government
plan defined under section 3(32) of title I of the ERISA,
except funds established by the Federal Retirement Thrift
Investment Board, is exempt from this section.
(c) The Attorney General is given authority to investigate
offenses under the new section, but this authority expressly
does not preclude other appropriate Federal agencies,
including the Secretary of Labor, from investigating
violations of ERISA.
(b) Conforming Amendment. The table of sections for chapter
63 of title 18 United States Code, is modified to list new
section ``1351. Fraud in relation to retirement
arrangements.''
Section 1015. Additional Civil Penalties for Defrauding
Pension Plans
(a) In General. This section would authorize the Attorney
General to bring a civil action for a violation, or
conspiracy to violate, new section 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1351,
relating to retirement fraud. Proof of such a violation
established by a preponderance of the evidence would subject
the violator to a civil penalty of the greater of the amount
of pecuniary gain to the offender, the pecuniary loss to the
victim, or up to $50,000 in the case of an individual,
or $100,000 for an organization. Imposition of this civil
penalty has no effect on other possible remedies.
(b) Exception. No civil penalties would be imposed for
conduct involving an employee pension plan subject to
penalties under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132.
(c) Determination of Penalty Amount. In determining the
amount of the penalty, the court is authorized to consider
the effect of the penalty on the violator's ability to
restore all losses to the victims and to pay other important
tax or criminal penalties.
Section 1016. Punishing Bribery and Graft in Connection with
Employee Benefit Plans
This section would amend section 1954 of title 18, United
States Code, by changing the title to ``Bribery and graft in
connection with employee benefit plans,'' and increasing the
maximum penalty for bribery and graft in regard to the
operation of an employee benefit plan from 3 to 5 years
imprisonment. This section also broadens existing law under
section 1954 to cover corrupt attempts to give or accept
bribery or graft payments, and to proscribe bribery or graft
payments to persons exercising de facto influence or control
over employee benefit plans. Finally, this amendment
clarifies that a violation under section 1954 requires a
showing of corrupt intent to influence the actions of the
recipient of the bribe or graft.

Subtitle B--Preventing Telemarketing Fraud

Section 1021. Centralized Complaint and Consumer Education
Service for Victims of Telemarketing Fraud
(a) Centralized Service. This section directs the
Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission to log the
receipt of calls complaining about telemarketing fraud and
provide information on telemarketing fraud to such
individuals. The FTC is also authorized to provide civil or
criminal law enforcement information about specific
companies.
(b) Fraud Conviction Data. The Attorney General is directed
to provide information about corporations and companies that
are the subject of civil or criminal law enforcement action
for telemarketing fraud, under Federal and state law, to the
FTC in electronic format, so that the FTC can enter the
information into a database maintained in accordance with
section (a).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations. Authorization is
provided for such sums as are necessary to carry out the
section.
Section 1022. Blocking of Telemarketing Scams
(a) Expansion of Scope of Telemarketing Fraud Subject to
Enhanced Criminal Penalties. Section 2325 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by replacing the term ``telephone
calls'' with ``wire communication utilizing a telephone
service'' to clarify that telemarketing fraud schemes
executed using cellular telephone services are subject to the
enhanced penalties for such fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2326.
(b) Blocking or Termination of Telephone Service Associated
With Telemarketing Fraud. This section adds new section 2328
to title 18, United States Code, to authorize the termination
of telephone service used to carry on telemarketing fraud,
and is similar to the legal authority provided under 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1084(d), regarding termination of telephone
service used to engage in illegal gambling. The new section
2328 requires telephone companies, upon notification in
writing from the Department of Justice that a particular
phone number is being used to engage in fraudulent
telemarketing or other fraudulent conduct, and after notice
to the customer, to terminate the subscriber's telephone
service. The common carrier is exempt from civil and criminal
penalties for any actions taken in compliance with any notice
received from the Justice Department under this section.
Persons affected by termination may seek an appropriate
determination in Federal court that the service should not be
discontinued or removed, and the court may direct the
Department of Justice to present evidence supporting the
notification of termination. Definitions are provided for
``wire communication facility'' and ``reasonable notice to
the subscriber.''

TITLE XI--FEDERAL PROSECUTORS RETIREMENT BENEFIT EQUITY ACT OF 2004

Section 1101. Short Title
This title may be called the ``Federal Prosecutors
Retirement Benefit Equity Act.''
Section 1102. Retirement Treatment of Federal Prosecutors
Amends the definition of law enforcement officer to include
prosecutors for retirement purposes.
Section 1103. Provisions Relating to Incumbents
Defines ``federal prosecutor'' to include assistant United
States Attorneys and attorneys at the Department of Justice
designated by the Attorney General under the conditions set
out in this title. The change takes effect upon enactment of
the bill. This section also sets a time limit for the
attorneys to elect to opt out.
Section 1104. Department of Justice Administrative Actions
Directs the Attorney General to consult with the Office of
Personnel Management on this title and make regulations.

TITLE XII--ANTI-ATROCITY ALIEN DEPORTATION ACT OF 2004

Section 1201. Short Title
This title may be cited as the ``Anti-Atrocity Alien
Deportation Act of 2004.''
Section 1202. Inadmissibility and Deportability of Aliens Who
Have Committed Acts of Torture or Extrajudicial Killing
Abroad
Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during
the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, and (ii)
aliens who engaged in genocide, are inadmissible to the
United States. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E)(i) and (ii).
Current law also provides that aliens who have participated
in Nazi persecutions or engaged in genocide are deportable.
See Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The bill would amend these sections
of the INA by expanding the grounds for inadmissibility and
deportation to cover aliens who have committed, ordered,
incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the
commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killing abroad
and clarify and expand the scope of the genocide bar.
Subsection (a) would first amend the definition of
``genocide'' in clause (ii) of section 212(a)(3) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii). Currently, the ground of
inadmissibility relating to genocide refers to the definition
in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide. Article III of that Convention punishes
genocide, the conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and
public incitement to commit genocide, attempts to commit
genocide, and complicity in genocide. The bill would modify
the definition to refer instead to the ``genocide''
definition in section 1091 (a) of title 18, United States
Code, which was adopted to implement United States
obligations under the Convention and also prohibits attempts
and conspiracies to commit genocide.
Specifically, section 1091 (a) defines genocide as
``whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, . . .
with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in
substantial

[[Page S9946]]

part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such:
(1) kills members of that group; (2) causes serious bodily
injury to members of that group; (3) causes the permanent
impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group
through drugs, torture, or similar techniques; (4) subjects
the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause
the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the
group; or (6) transfers by force children of the group to
another group.'' This definition includes genocide by public
or private individuals in times of peace or war. While the
federal criminal statute is limited to those offenses
committed within the United States or offenders who are U.S.
nationals, see 18 U.S.C. 1091(d), the grounds for
inadmissibility in the bill would apply to such offenses
committed outside the United States that would otherwise be a
crime if committed within the United States or by a U.S.
national.
In addition, the bill would broaden the reach of the
inadmissibility bar to apply not only to those who ``engaged
in genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien
who has ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated
in genocide abroad. This broader scope will ensure that the
genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of
levels of complicity.
Second, subsection (a) would add a new clause to 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E) that would trigger operation of the
inadmissibility ground if an alien has ``committed, ordered,
incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in'' acts of
torture, as defined in section 2430 of title 18, United
States Code, or extrajudicial killings, as defined in section
3(a) the Torture Victim Protection Act. The statutory
language--``committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or
otherwise participated in''--is intended to reach the
behavior of persons directly or personally associated with
the covered acts, including those with command
responsibility. Command responsibility holds a commander
responsible for unlawful acts when (1) the forces who
committed the abuses were subordinates of the commander
(i.e., the forces were under his control either as a matter
of law or as a matter of fact); (2) the commander knew, or,
in light of the circumstances at the time, should have known,
that subordinates had committed, were committing, or were
about to commit unlawful acts; and (3) the commander failed
to prove that he had taken the necessary and reasonable
measures to (a) prevent or stop subordinates from committing
such acts, or (b) investigate the acts committed by
subordinates in a genuine effort to punish the perpetrators.
Attempts and conspiracies to commit these crimes are
encompassed in the ``otherwise participated in'' language.
This language addresses an appropriate range of levels of
complicity for which aliens should be held accountable, and
has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation and
construction. See Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490,
514 (1981); Kalejs v.INS, 10 F.3d 441, 444 (7th Cir. 1993);
U.S. v. Schmidt, 923 F. 2d 1253, 1257-59 (7th Cir. 1991);
Kulle v. INS, 825 F. 2d 1188, 1192 (7th Cir. 1987).
The definitions of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial
killing'' are contained in the Torture Victim Protection Act,
which served as the implementing legislation when the United
States joined the United Nations' ``Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment.'' This Convention entered into force with respect
to the United States on November 20, 1992 and imposes an
affirmative duty on the United States to prosecute torturers
within its jurisdiction. The Torture Victim Protection Act
provides both criminal liability and civil liability for
persons who, acting outside the United States and under
actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign
nation, commit torture or extrajudicial killing.
The criminal provision passed as part of the Torture Victim
Protection Act defines ``torture'' to mean ``an act committed
by a person acting under the color of law specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or
suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful
sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
control.'' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1). ``Severe mental pain or
suffering'' is further defined to mean the ``prolonged mental
harm caused by or resulting from (A) the intentional
infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain
or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or
threatened administration or application, of mind-altering
substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt
profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the threat of
imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will
imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or
suffering, or the administration or application of mind-
altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt
profoundly the senses or personality.'' 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2340(2).
The bill also incorporates the definition of
``extrajudicial killing'' from section 3(a) of the Torture
Victim Protection Act. This law establishes civil liability
for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or
apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation .
. . subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which
is defined to mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by
a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted
court affording all the judicial guarantees which are
recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Such term,
however, does not include any such killing that, under
international law, is lawfully carried out under the
authority of a foreign nation.''
Both definitions of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial
killing'' require that the alien be acting under color of
law. A criminal conviction, criminal charge or a confession
are not required for an alien to be inadmissible or removable
under the new grounds added in this subsection of the bill.
The final paragraph in subsection (a) would modify the
subparagraph heading to clarify the expansion of the grounds
for in admissibility from ``participation in Nazi persecution
or genocide'' to cover ``torture or extrajudicial killing.''
Subsection (b) would amend section 237(a)(4)(D) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D), which enumerates grounds for
deporting aliens who have been admitted into or are present
in the United States. The same conduct that would constitute
a basis of inadmissibility under subsection (a) is a ground
for deportability under this subsection of the bill. Under
current law, assisting in Nazi persecution and engaging in
genocide are already grounds for deportation. The bill would
provide that aliens who have committed any act of torture or
extrajudicial killing would also be subject to deportation.
In any deportation proceeding, the burden would remain on the
government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
alien's conduct brings the alien within a particular ground
of deportation.
Subsection (c) regarding the ``effective date'' clearly
states that these provisions apply to acts committed before,
on, or after the date this legislation is enacted. These
provisions apply to all cases after enactment, even where the
acts in question occurred or where adjudication procedures
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the
Executive Office of Immigration Review were initiated prior
to the time of enactment.
Section 1203. Inadmissibilty and Deportability of Foreign
Government Officials Who Have Committed Particularly
Severe Violations of Religious Freedom
This section of the bill would amend section 212(a)(2)(G)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G), which was added as
part of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(IFRA), to expand the grounds for inadmissibility and
deportability of aliens who commit particularly severe
violations of religious freedom. Current law bars the
admission of an individual who, while serving as a foreign
government official, was responsible for or directly carried
out particularly severe violations of religious freedom
within the last 24 months. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(c)(2)(G). The
existing provision also bars from admission the individual's
spouse and children, if any. ``Particularly severe violations
of religious freedom'' is defined in section 3 of IFRA to
mean systematic, ongoing, egregious violation of religious
freedom, including violations such as (A) torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; (B) prolonged
detention without charges; (C) causing the disappearance of
persons or clandestine detention of those persons; or (D)
other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the
security of persons. While IRFA contains numerous provisions
to promote religious freedom and prevent violations of
religious freedom throughout the world, including a wide
range of diplomatic sanctions and other formal expressions of
disapproval, section 212 (a)(2)(G) is the only provision
which specifically targets individual abusers.
Subsection (a) would delete the 24-month restriction in
section 212 (a)(2)(G) since it limits the accountability, for
purposes of admission, to a two-year period. This limitation
is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States
to promote religious freedom throughout the world.
Individuals who have committed particularly severe violations
of religious freedom should be held accountable for their
actions and should not be admissible to the United States
regardless of when the conduct occurred.
In addition, this subsection would amend the law to remove
the current bar to admission for the spouse or children of a
foreign government official who has been involved in
particularly severe violations of religious freedom. The bar
of inadmissibility is a serious sanction that should not
apply to individuals because of familial relationships that
are not within an individual's control. None of the other
grounds relating to serious human rights abuse prevent the
spouse or child of an abuser from entering or remaining
lawfully in the United States. Moreover, the purpose of these
amendments is to make those who have participated in
atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not
served by holding the family members of such individuals
accountable for the offensive conduct over which they had no
control.
Subsection (b) would amend section 237(a)(4) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(4), which enumerates grounds for
deporting aliens who have been admitted into or are present
in the United States, to add a new clause (E), which provides
for the deportation of aliens described in subsection (a) of
the bill.
The bill does not change the effective date for this
provision set forth in the original IFRA, which applies the
operation of the amendment to aliens ``seeking to enter the
United States on or after the date of the enactment of this
Act.''
Section 1204. Waiver of Inadmissibility
Under current law, most aliens who are otherwise
inadmissible may receive a waiver

[[Page S9947]]

under section 212(d)(3) of the INA to enter the nation as a
nonimmigrant, where the Secretary of State recommends it and
the Attorney General approves. Participants in Nazi
persecutions or genocide, however, are not eligible for such
a waiver. Our bill retains that prohibition. It does allow
for the possibility, however, of waivers for those who commit
acts of torture or extrajudicial killings.
Section 1205. Bar to Good Moral Character, Asylum and Refugee
Status, and Withholding of Removal for Aliens Who Have
Committed Acts of Torture, Extrajudicial Killings, or
Severe Violations of Religious Freedom
This section of the bill would amend section 101 (f) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(f), which defines ``good moral
character,'' to make clear that aliens who have committed
torture, extrajudicial killing, or severe violation of
religious freedom abroad do not qualify. Good moral character
is a prerequisite for certain forms of immigration relief,
including naturalization, cancellation of removal for
nonpermanent residents, and voluntary departure at the
conclusion of removal proceedings. Aliens who have committed
torture or extrajudicial killing, or severe violations of
religious freedom abroad cannot establish good moral
character. Accordingly, this amendment prevents aliens
covered by the amendments made in sections 2 and 3 of the
bill from becoming United States citizens or benefiting from
cancellation of removal or voluntary departure. Absent such
an amendment there is no statutory bar to naturalization
for aliens covered by the proposed new grounds for
inadmissibility and deportation.
It would also make aliens who are inadmissible under
section 212(a)(3)(E) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E),
ineligible for asylum, refugee status, or withholding of
removal.
Section 1206. Establishment of the Office of Special
Investigations
Attorney General Civiletti established OSI in 1979 within
the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice,
consolidating within it all ``investigative and litigation
activities involving individuals, who prior to and during
World War II, under the supervision of or in association with
the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other
affiliatated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered,
incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the
persecution of any person because of race, religion, national
origin, or political opinion.'' (Att'y Gen. Order No. 85179).
The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney
General Order.
Subsection (a) would first amend the INA, 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an
Office of Special Investigations within the Department of
Justice with authorization to denaturalize any alien who has
participated in Nazi persecution, genocide, torture or
extrajudicial killing abroad. This would not only provide
statutory authorization for OSI, but also expand OSI's
current authorized mission beyond Nazi war criminals.
The second part of this subsection would require the
Attorney General to consult with the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security before making decisions about
prosecution or extradition of the aliens covered by this
bill. The third part of this subsection sets forth specific
considerations in determining the appropriate legal action to
take against an alien who has participated in Nazi
persecution, genocide, torture or extrajudicial killing
abroad. Significantly, in order to fulfill the United States'
obligation under the ``Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment'' to hold
accountable torturers found in this country, the bill
expressly directs the Department of Justice to consider the
availability of prosecution under United States laws for any
conduct that forms the basis for removal and
denaturalization. In addition, the Department is directed to
consider extradition to foreign jurisdictions that are
prepared to undertake such a prosecution. Statutory and
regulatory provisions to implement Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the removal of
any person to a country where he or she would be tortured,
must also be part of this consideration.
Subsection (b) authorizes additional funds for these
expanded duties to ensure that OSI fulfills its continuing
obligations regarding Nazi war criminals.
Section 1207. Reports on Implementation of the Act
This section of the bill would direct the Attorney General,
in consultation with the Homeland Security Secretary, to
report within six months on implementation of the Act,
including procedures for referral of matters to OSI, any
revisions made to INS forms to reflect amendments made by the
bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due process
protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine
whether an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.
It also requires the Attorney General and the DHS Secretary
to report annually on the number of criminal investigations
and prosecutions undertaken pursuant to the Act, the number
of persons removed from or denied admission to the United
States pursuant to the Act, and the nationality of those
persons.

TITLE XIII--PROMISE ACT

Section 1301. Short Title
This title may be called the ``Parental Responsibility
Obligations Met through Immigration System Enforcement Act''
or ``PROMISE Act''.
Section 1302. Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas and Excluded
from Admission for Non-Payment of Child Support
Section 1302 amends INA Sec. 212(a) so that aliens who are
in violation of court order to pay child support are
inadmissible. This section defines child support order to
include orders from a court in the United States as well as
any foreign country, if a reciprocity agreement exists
between that country and the United States or any individual
State. The applicant for admission may become admissible by
satisfying the outstanding child support debt, or by entering
into an approved payment arrangement.
Section 1303. Authority to Parole Aliens Excluded from
Admission for Non-Payment of Child Support
Section 1303 allows for the alien's physical return to the
United States in the event that it is crucial to his ability
to pay child support, the Secretary of DHS may parole the
alien, but the alien will be subject to removal until he
meets his support obligations.
Section 1304. Effect of Non-Payment of Child Support on
Establishment of Good Moral Character
Section 1304 amends INA Sec. 101(f) so that an alien who is
not in compliance with a court order to pay child support
does not possess good moral character. This provision
includes agreements in the United States and in any foreign
country, if a reciprocity agreement exists between that
country and the United States or any individual State. The
alien would be unable to obtain certain immigration benefits,
the most important of which is U.S. citizenship, without
being able to demonstrate statutory good moral character.
Section 1305. Authorization to Serve Legal Process in Child
Support Cases on Certain Visa Applicants and Arriving
Aliens
Section 1305 authorizes immigration officers to serve on
any alien seeking admission to the United States legal
process with respect to any action to enforce or to establish
a legal obligation of an individual to pay child support.
Section 1306. Authorization to Obtain Information on Child
Support Payments by Aliens
Section 1306 grants the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security as well as the Attorney General access to child
support payment information of an alien seeking an
immigration benefit.
Section 1307. Effective Date
The provisions of this title shall be effective 90 days
after enactment.

TITLE XIV--FALLEN HEROES OF 9/11 ACT

Section 1401. Short Title
Section 1401 authorizes that this bill may be cited as the
``Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act.''
Section 1402. Congressional Findings
Section 1403. Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Congressional Medals
Authorizes the President to present to the personal
representative or next of kin of each individual who died on
or after September 11, 2001, as a direct result of the act of
terrorism within the United States on that date, a Fallen
Heroes of 9/11 Congressional Medal in recognition of their
sacrifice and to honor their deaths.
Section 1404. Duplicate Medals
Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to strike: (1) three
medals to honor victims of the attack at the World Trade
Center (WTC), victims aboard United Airlines Flight 93 that
crashed in Pennsylvania, and victims at the Pentagon; and (2)
duplicate medals for presentation to each precinct house,
firehouse, emergency response station, or other duty station
or place of employment to which officers, emergency workers,
and other employees of the U.S. Government and of State and
local government agencies (including the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey) and others who responded to and
perished as a direct result of the WTC attacks were assigned
on September 11, 2001.
Section 1405. Establishment of Lists of Recipients
Directs the Secretary of Treasury to establish a list of
individuals eligible under section 1604 and add individuals
as they subsequently become eligible.
Section 1406. Sales to the Public to Defray Costs
Directs the Secretary of Treasury to strike and sell
duplicate medals to the public to defray the costs of
production.
Section 1407. National Medals
The medals struck pursuant to this title are national
medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United 11
States Code.

TITLE XV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 1501. Technical Amendments Relating to Public Law
107-56
Section 1501 makes a series of technical amendments to
Public Law No. 107-56, the USA PATRIOT Act.
Section 1502. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments
Section 1502 makes a series of technical amendments to
Title 18 and Title 28, and it also repeals a duplicative
authorization of a sexual abuse prevention program for
runaway children which has recently been reauthorized in
another statute. Sec. 117(b) of Pub. L. No. 108-96.

[[Page S9948]]

Section 1503. Minor Substantive Amendment Relating to
Contents of FBI Annual Report
Section 1503 adds a requirement that the FBI include the
number of personnel receiving danger pay in its annual
report.
Section 1504. Use of Federal Training Facilities
Section 1504 is intended to ensure that the Justice
Department uses the most cost-effective training and meeting
facilities for its employees. For any predominantly internal
training subsection (a) requires the Justice Department to
use only a facility that does not require a payment to a
private entity for the use of such facility, unless
specifically authorized in writing by the Attorney General.
Subsection (b) requires the Attorney General to prepare an
annual report to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the
House and Senate Judiciary Committees that details each
training requiring authorization under subsection (a). The
report must include an explanation of why the facility was
chosen and a breakdown of any expenditures incurred in excess
of the cost of conducting the training at a facility that did
not require such authorization.
Section 1505. Technical Correction Relating to Definition
Used in ``Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries''
Statute
Makes technical changes to 18 USC 1958.
Section 1506. Increased Penalties and Expanded Jurisdiction
for Sexual Abuse Offenses in Correctional Facilities
Section 1506 increases the penalties for sexual abuse
within federal correction facilities and those who are held
by the Bureau of Prisons.
Section 1507. Expanded Jurisdiction for Contraband Offenses
in Correctional Facilities
Section 1507 expands the jurisdiction for contraband
offenses in correctional facilities to include those in the
custody of or in a facility under the control of the Attorney
General and the Bureau of Prisons.
Section 1508. Magistrate Judge's Authority To Continue
Preliminary Hearing
Amends 18 USC 3060(c) to include a provision to allow a
magistrate judge to extend a preliminary hearing without the
consent of the accused after a showing of extraordinary
circumstances.
Section 1509. Boys and Girls Clubs of America
Section 1509 reauthorizes the Boys and Girls Club of
America through 2010 and increases the minimum number of
clubs that must exist nationwide.
Section 1510. Authority of the Inspectors General
Section 1510 amends the Crime Control Act of 1990 to allow
Inspectors General to provide assistance to the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Section 1511. Foreign Student Visas
This section would allow foreign students participating in
``distance learning'' programs at U.S. colleges and
universities to enter the United States for up to 30 days on
an ``F'' visa, in order to pursue their studies. Such aliens
would be ineligible to change their nonimmigrant
classification while in the United States.
Section 1512. Pre-Release Custody of Prisoners
This provision corrects an anomaly that developed in the
law that prevents the BOP from exercising their previous
ability to place convicts in community correctional
facilities for a small part of the final portion of their
sentences, so as to facilitate a smoother transition back
into society.
Section 1513. FBI Translator Reporting Requirement
Section 1513 amends section 205 of the USA PATRIOT Act
regarding 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. This section
clarifies the deadline for the report, makes such reporting
an annual requirement and expands the reporting requirement
to include translators contracted by the government.
Section 1514. Amendment to Victims of Child Abuse Act
Section 1514 provides specific guidance on what information
is required to be reported to the CyberTipline to include
information on 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. In 1999, Congress established a
statutory ``duty to report'' evidence of apparent violations
of child pornography laws by Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) to the CyberTipline which is operated by the National
Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).
Section 1515. Development of an Information System Interstate
Compact for Adult Offender Supervision
This section supports the development of an information
sharing system between states to support the exchange of
information on offenders seeking and completing transfer from
one state to another through the Interstate Compact for Adult
Offender Supervision. This system will (1) establish a system
of uniform data collection; (2) allow instant and real time
access to information on active criminal cases by criminal
justice officials; (3) provide regular reporting of Compact
activities to heads of state councils, state executive,
judicial and legislative leaders and criminal justice
administrators; and (4) will be designed to integrate with
current and future national, state, and local information
systems.

TITLE XVI--REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL FILM PRESERVATION BOARD

Section 1601. Short Title
Section 1601 sets forth the short title of Title XVII, the
``National Film Preservation Act of 2004.''
Section 1602. Reauthorization and Amendment
Section 1602 generally reauthorizes the National Film
Preservation Board and directs the Librarian of Congress to
continue the National Film Registry, established and
maintained under the National Film Preservation Acts of 1988,
1992 and 1996, to maintain and preserve films that are
culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.
Section 1602(a) clarifies that the National Film Registry
seal may be used with all formats of Registry films (e.g.,
film, video, DVD), inserts language regarding copyright
ownership of Registry films that is consistent with a similar
provision under the Sound Recording Preservation Act of 2000
[P.L. 106-474]; and sets forth, among current duties and
powers of the Librarian under this title, new duties,
parallel to those under the Sound Recording Preservation
Act, to make registry films more broadly accessible for
research and educational purposes, to review the
comprehensive national plan developed under the National
Film Preservation Act of 1992 and amend it to the extent
necessary to ensure that it addresses technological
advances in film preservation and storage, and to
undertake initiatives to ensure preservation of the
nation's moving image heritage, in concert with efforts of
the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC) of
the Library of Congress and other organizations.
Section 1602(b) amends the National Film Preservation Board
to increase Board membership from 20 to 22 members, and
amends the provision governing reimbursement of expenses so
that it is consistent with the corresponding provision of the
Sound Recording Preservation Act of 2000. The two new members
are at-large members appointed by the Librarian.
Section 1602(c) incorporates parallel language from the
Sound Recording Preservation Act of 2000, requiring the
Librarian to utilize the NAVCC to ensure proper storage,
preservation and dissemination of Registry films.
Section 1602(d) clarifies that the National Film Registry
seal may be used with all formats of Registry films (e.g.,
film, video, DVD).
Section 1602(e) extends the authorization of the National
Film Preservation Act for 10 years from the effective date of
this Act, by striking the 7-year authorization period under
the 1996 Act and substituting a 17-year period, dating from
the 1996 Act effective date.

TITLE XVII--REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL FILM PRESERVATION
FOUNDATION

Section 1701. Short Title
Section 1701 sets forth the short title of Title XV111, the
``National Film Preservation Foundation Reauthorization Act
of 2004.''
Section 1702. Reauthorization and Amendment
Section 1702(a) increases the Foundation's Board of
Directors from nine to twelve, and allowing Board members to
serve an unlimited number of terms.
Section 1702(b) and (c) permit the Board to incorporate the
foundation in any location, rather than only in the District
of Columbia.
Section 1702(d) increases the authorized appropriations
level for federal matching funds for the Foundation from
$250,000 per year to: $500,000 in fiscal years 2004 and 2005,
and $1 million for fiscal years 2006 through 2013.

TITLE XVII--DREAM ACT

Section 1801. Short Title
This title may be called the ``Development, Relief, and
Education for Alien Minors Act.''
Section 1802. Definition of an Institute of Higher Education
This section explains that ``institution of higher
education'' is defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Section 1803. Restoration of State Option To Determine
Residency for the Purposes of Higher Education Benefits
Section 1803 repeals IIRIRA Sec. 505, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1623.
Each state is free to determine whom it deems a resident for
the purpose of determining in-state tuition. The DREAM Act
does not compel states to offer in-state tuition to
undocumented aliens, nor does it prevent states from offering
in-state tuition to anyone else.
Section 1804. Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of
Status of Certain Long-Term Residents Who Entered the
United States as Children
Section 1804 provides that applicants may qualify for an
initial conditional period of six years during which they can
earn permanent resident status if they entered the United
States at least five years prior to enactment, were under 16
years of age at the time of entry and are not inadmissible or
deportable for specifically enumerated

[[Page S9949]]

grounds. There is a limited waiver only applicable for
grounds of inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) Sec. 212(a)(6) or deportability under INA
Sec. 237(a)(1), (3), and (6). The applicant must also have
graduated from high school, obtained a GED, or be admitted to
an institution of higher learning as defined in 20 U.S.C.
Sec. 1001. Additionally, the secondary and higher education
institutions must be located within the United States.
Persons previously ordered deported are not eligible for
adjustment of status under this Act. Exceptions are made for
those who remain within the United States with the U.S.
government's consent or who received the deportation order
while under the age of sixteen. This section also contains a
physical presence requirement that the applicant must not
have been out of the United States for more than ninety days
in one visit, or one hundred and eighty days in the aggregate
during the five-year period. There is a possible waiver of
this requirement if the applicant shows exceptional
circumstances no less compelling than serious illness to
self, or death or serious illness to an immediate family
member.
Section 1805. Conditional Permanent Residence Status
Section 1805 provides the ways through which conditional
residents, after proving themselves worthy after six years,
may become permanent residents. The ways are to earn a degree
from an institution of higher education or to complete two
years in a bachelor's or higher program, or to serve
honorably in the military for at least two years. The
applicant may obtain a waiver for these requirements but only
at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security or
the Attorney General and only if applicant demonstrates
``exceptional and extreme unusual hardship.'' In addition,
the applicant must maintain a clean record, meaning no crime
or other misdeed that would render the applicant deportable
or inadmissible. The alien cannot be a public charge
during the six-year period. The applicant also must
maintain continuous residence, as defined by this act, in
the United States. If the applicant successfully completes
the enumerated requirements, the six-year conditional
period also satisfies the residency requirements for
naturalization, subject to the limitations set forth in
section 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 1806. Retroactive Benefits Under this Act
Section 1806 provides that if at the time of enactment an
alien has already satisfied all requirements under sections
1804 and 1805 (meaning that the alien has already ``passed
the test'' and has proven himself or herself worthy of the
DREAM Act benefits) then that alien can adjust to permanent
resident status without going to school or serving in the
military again. Those who benefit from this ``grandfather''
clause must undergo the six-year conditional period and
comply with all other requirements.
Section 1807. Exclusive Jurisdiction
Section 1807 provides that the Secretary of Homeland
Security has jurisdiction to adjudicate affirmative
applications for benefits, but the jurisdiction transfers to
the EOIR under the DOJ when the applicant is in removal
proceedings. The DREAM Act benefits will be available
defensively to those in proceedings. Children 12 years of age
or older who satisfy all other requirements of this act but
who are still enrolled full time in school shall be granted a
stay of proceedings by the EOIR. To the extent permissible
under existing law, a child whose removal proceedings are
stayed may obtain work authorization. Section 1807 does not
preempt any existing federal or state labor laws, including
laws governing minimum age to work.
Section 1808. Penalties for False Statements in Application
Section 1808 provides for criminal penalties for falsifying
the application including fine or imprisonment or both.
Section 1809. Confidentiality of Information
Section 1809 contains a confidentiality clause. The
Government is not permitted to use information gathered in
processing an application under the DREAM Act to initiate
removal proceedings against anyone. Violation of the
confidentiality agreement would result in a fine up to
$10,000. However, information sharing is permissible for the
purpose of investigating a crime or a national security
breach. Information also may be disseminated to a coroner for
the purpose of identifying the deceased.
Section 1810. Expedited Processing of Applications;
Prohibition on Fees
Section 1810 prohibits the collection of an application
fee.
Section 1811. SERVIS Registration
Section 1811 requires an institution of higher education to
register any student it enrolls who is a beneficiary under
this Act in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information
System (SEVIS).
Section 1812. Higher Education Assistance
Section 1812 limits the types of federal financial
assistance that beneficiaries may receive. This section
limits federal financial assistance under Title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to student loans under Parts B
and D, and work study programs under Part C of Title IV.
Section 1813. GAO Report
Section 1813 requires the Government Accounting Office
(GAO) to produce a study, seven years after enactment,
concerning the number of aliens who apply for and receive
benefits under this Act.

TITLE XIX--DRU'S LAW

Section 1901. Short Title
This title may be called the Dru Sjodin National Sex
Offender Public Database Act of 2004, or Dru's Law
Section 1902. Definitions
Section 1903. Availability of the NSOR Database to the Public
Section 1904. Release of High Risk Inmates
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 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
three 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 would authorize
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

[[Page S9950]]

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 fiscal year 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, multi-jurisdictional crimes. In addition, as the September 11
terrorist attacks and calls for increased vigilance against future
attacks demonstrated, RISS requires additional support to intensify
anti-terrorism measures.
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 five 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 one 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

[[Page S9951]]

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
fiscal year 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 establish 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, 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 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 re-
authorizing 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.

[[Page S9952]]

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 non-
public 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
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 a slightly revised version of 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 nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice
system including pretrial services officers, probation officers,
accountants, cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Indeed the
benefits incorporated in this bill are comparable not only to those
received by traditional ``law enforcement officers'' such as Federal
agents, but also the Capitol Police, Supreme Court police, air traffic
controllers and firefighters. The bill would essentially allow, but not
mandate, AUSAs to retire at age 50 with 20 years of service.

Currently, Assistant United States Attorneys, AUSAs, and other
Federal

[[Page S9953]]

prosecutors are not eligible for these enhanced benefits even though
they are enjoyed by the vast majority of other employees in the
criminal justice system. Once a defendant is brought to 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. 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. Each of these responsibilities
encompass ``the investigation, apprehension, or detention'' of
individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal law which is
just one justification for granting extended benefits to law
enforcement officers.
AUSAs are an integral part of the criminal justice system and their
unique position and demanding jobs has rightfully earned them the
benefits set forth in this important bill.
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 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 three
years ago can never have them back, but a medal of honor could
recognizes the sacrifices and heroic efforts of our fallen citizens.
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
and 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 follow-up 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 and
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 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 and 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 and 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

[[Page S9954]]

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 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 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 help 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.
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 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.
Status Reports on Enemy Combatants: The House-passed bill included an
important reporting requirement authored by Representative 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.
Privacy Officer: 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 privacy official at the
Department, these positions have been non-statutory, 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 re-authorizing 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.

[[Page S9955]]

______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bond, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 2864. A bill to extend for eighteen months the period for which
chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, is reenacted; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2864

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Family Farmer Bankruptcy
Relief Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. EIGHTEEN-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR WHICH CHAPTER
12 OF TITLE 11, UNITED STATES CODE, IS
REENACTED.

(a) Amendments.--Section 149 of title I of division C of
Public Law 105-277 (11 U.S.C. 1201 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2004'' each place that term
appears and inserting ``July 1, 2005''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``June 30, 2003'' and inserting ``December
31, 2003''; and
(B) by striking ``July 1, 2003'' and inserting ``January 1,
2004''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
are deemed to have taken effect on January 1, 2004.

______

By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Burns,
Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska
and Mr. Craig):
S. 2866. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Commodity Credit Corporation to enter into memorandums of
understanding with a State regarding the collection of approved State
commodity assessments on behalf of the State from the proceeds of
marketing assistance loans; read the first time.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce the
Commodity Assessment Protection and Reform Act.
This legislation fixes a potential problem for our wheat producers in
the State of Oklahoma as well as other wheat producing states.
As Government encourages agricultural producers to become more
responsible for their own marketing and research programs, it is vital
that we give producers the ability to do just that.
To enhance marketing and research of agricultural commodities, farm
programs for many years have authorized the use of marketing loans for
some commodities. Producers receive cash loans using the commodity as
collateral. Marketing loans allow the producer to market crops while
also providing cash to pay outstanding bills.
These marketing and research programs provide many benefits:
increasing commodity category sales; creating a viable, thriving
marketplace for individual businesses; providing greater opportunity
for brands and businesses to compete for their share of the category;
protecting small producers from being severely disadvantaged against
large competitors that could undermine industry growth; building a more
favorable economic environment--better prices for producers, more
revenue growth for processors; reducing dependence on taxpayer dollars
for support payments and government administration in times of economic
hardship; providing an open, free flow of consumer information to help
consumers make informed choices about purchasing these commodities; and
providing ongoing investments in research to ensure product quality,
safety and nutrition expectations.
For wheat, this program is administered by the individual State wheat
commissions and is not a national program. In Oklahoma, wheat producers
have the option to opt out of the program if they choose.
Wheat producers in Oklahoma, and in many other States, have supported
this system for collecting assessments on the commodities they produce.
For wheat placed under loan with the United States Department of
Agriculture, USDA, Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, the CCC has
collected these grower-funded assessments. Again, these assessments are
used to fund research and marketing programs.
The loan placement is considered to occur at the first point of sale.
The CCC has supported State commissions in the collection of grower-
funded assessments for many years. These State assessments have been
collected under a cooperative agreement defined in a Memoranda of
Understanding between individual State commodity commissions and the
USDA.
Recently USDA determined that if the state commission changes the
assessment rate, USDA would no longer honor a Memorandum of
Understanding between a state commodity commission and USDA. In several
states, wheat growers voted to increase their support of commodity
activities by approving an assessment increase. State wheat commissions
whose growers have voted for increased funding are faced with no viable
means of collecting assessments on the commodity under the loan
program.
USDA claims that it lacks statutory authority to recognize these new
or modified Memoranda of Understanding. The decision by USDA not to
honor amended Memoranda of Understanding could cause serious financial
harm to the work of the commissions, which support a range of
activities from research to market development.
The use of these funds is very important for the expanding markets
and increasing research. They become even more critical when wheat
prices are low.
This decision by USDA to no longer honor these Memoranda of
Understanding has caused great hardship for a number of wheat states
whose producers have voluntarily voted to give more of their own money
to programs they deem important.
In order to correct this problem, I am introducing legislation that
will allow USDA to continue to collect approved State commodity
assessments. This legislation authorizes the USDA to recognize a
Memorandum of Understanding when a State has increased or modified its
assessment rate, as well as recognize Memoranda of Understanding that
have been terminated prior to the date of enactment of this
legislation.
According to USDA, the cost of implementing this legislation would be
minimal, since the collection procedure is already in place and will
only require a change in the factor of the assessment.
I would like to note that the House Agriculture Committee passed this
bill unanimously last week through the excellent work of my friends
George Nethercutt and Bob Goodlatte.
The House Agriculture Committee informs me that their intention is to
achieve full House passage of this legislation by suspension of the
rules next week. I want to make a special plea to the Senate to pass
this simple, much-needed, thoroughly bipartisan, and noncontroversial
legislation in the 108th Congress. Toward that end, I request that the
bill be held at the desk per Rule 14.
Again, as Government encourages agricultural producers to become more
responsible for their own marketing and research programs, this common
sense legislation is needed to ensure the continued success of these
programs.
At this time I thank the people in Oklahoma who have contacted me in
support of this legislation: Jeramy Rich with the Oklahoma Farm Bureau,
Ray Wulf with the Oklahoma Farmers Union, Tim Bartram with the Oklahoma
Wheat Growers Association, Mark Hodges with Oklahoma Wheat Commission,
Mike Kubicek with the Oklahoma Peanut Commission, as well my
Legislative Assistant Mike Ference who assisted me with this
legislation. I appreciate all of their support.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2866

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Commodity Assessment,
Protection, and Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF COMMODITY ASSESSMENTS.

Subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

[[Page S9956]]

``SEC. 1210. COLLECTION OF COMMODITY ASSESSMENTS.

``(a) Definition of Assessment.--In this section, the term
`assessment' means funds that are--
``(1) collected with respect to a specific commodity in
accordance with this Act;
``(2) paid by the first purchaser of the commodity in
accordance with a State law or this title; and
``(3) not collected through a tax or other revenue
collection activity of a State.
``(b) Authority to Collect Commodity Assessments From
Marketing Assistance Loans.--The Secretary may collect
commodity assessments from the proceeds of a marketing
assistance loan made under this subtitle in accordance with
an agreement between the Secretary and the State.''.

____________________