[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 126 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10674-S10677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUSTICE THROUGH DNA TECHNOLOGY
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to discuss H.R. 5107, the
Justice for All Act that was just passed by the House, by an
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 393 to 14. The bill is the result of
the hard work and dedication of many on both sides of the aisle.
In particular, I would like to commend Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee Sensenbrenner and Ranking Democrat, Representative
Delahunt for their outstanding leadership in shepherding this
groundbreaking crime bill that will allow us to further unleash the
evidentiary power of DNA. It will provide law enforcement the ability
to find and punish the guilty and give use the comfort of certainty in
criminal prosecutions. Moreover, the House attached Senator Kyl's and
Senator Feinstein's critical Crime Victims Act that ensures victims'
rights are protected in criminal prosecutions. That is very important.
This House passed bill is the result of months of intense
negotiations and addresses the concerns raised regarding title III of
the former DNA bill, including the major concerns, I believe, of
Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Cornyn.
And let me say, the overwhelming support for this bill in the House
could not have been achieved without the hard work and dedication of
the Department of Justice. I would like to specifically thank Attorney
General Ashcroft, Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, and
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sean McLaughlin for bringing the
parties together to create a truly bipartisan bill that meets the
interests of all parties. Without their constructive input we would
have never been able to get to where we are. I personally want to thank
them for their support.
But our work is not done. I call upon the Senate to act expeditiously
to pass this anticrime bill so we can present it to the President for
his signature.
So we all know, there has been a tremendous amount of work done in
the 22-page memorandum by Mr. Moschella and the Justice Department. I
think we have made a monumental effort to address every one of those
concerns. We haven't been able to address every case exactly the way
the Justice Department requested, but there has been a good-faith
effort on the part of the distinguished Senator from Vermont and
Congressman Delahunt to be able to bring this Justice for All Act
through to completion.
When it passed 393 to 14 yesterday in the House, I think that sent a
message to everybody that not only would we get this DNA bill, but we
would also get the victims' rights bill for which Senators Kyl and
Feinstein have worked so long and hard.
Rather than take the time of my distinguished friend from Arizona and
any further time from the bill on the floor, I want to compliment the
Justice Department.
I hope we can get the last few things resolved so that this bill can
pass, and that means working it out with a few of our colleagues in the
Senate. I believe when they look at this bill and read it, they will
realize almost every one of those concerns have been addressed in good
faith. Senator Leahy and I have worked hand in hand trying to make sure
those matters were addressed.
Mr. President, I hope we can get this bill up and out so we can do
what should be done for 400,000 rape kits--some of which are 20 years
old--to help not only to discover those who are guilty but to put those
who are on the streets, who have raped women, in jail where they
belong. This bill will do exactly that. It is a very important piece of
legislation.
Having said that, however, I want to make it clear that this
administration has done a great deal. Thus far, it has committed to
doing this, and it is the first administration that has done it. We
have known about these rape kits for years. This is the final touch in
the bill to help protect women in this country. It will be very
important for us to pass it today. I hope we can get it done.
We are working very diligently to try to satisfy the concerns of all
of our colleagues. Thus far, we are down to just one major concern, and
hopefully when they read the bill they will realize we have addressed
that as well and will agree to satisfy this matter.
I thank my colleague from Arizona and my colleague from Kentucky.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a year ago this month, I stood with a
bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives to announce the
introduction of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of
2003. This is landmark legislation. It provides law enforcement with
the training and equipment required to effectively and accurately fight
crime in the 21st century. It enacts the President's DNA initiative, as
the Chair probably knows, authorizing more than $1 billion over the
next 5 years to eliminate the backlog crisis in the Nation's crime labs
and fund other DNA-related programs. It also includes the Innocence
Protection Act, a death penalty reform effort I launched more than 4
years ago.
We introduced our bill on October 1, 2003. One month later, the House
passed it with overwhelming support, 357 to 57. Among those supporting
the bill were the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,
Congressman James Sensenbrenner, and virtually the entire Republican
leadership, including Majority Leader DeLay. Clearly there was a broad
consensus for action. The House vote marked a major breakthrough in
finding solutions to these serious flaws in our criminal justice
system.
Unfortunately, while the other body acted, we did not. Despite
Chairman Hatch's sponsorship of the bill and strong support of it, the
Senate Judiciary Committee did not begin work on
[[Page S10675]]
the bill until September, almost a year after the House had passed it.
At that point we were slowed by resistance from some Republican members
of the panel, but after many hours we succeeded in working through the
20-plus amendments that were offered. All of them were rejected. Then
the bill was approved by a strong bipartisan majority.
That was 3 weeks ago. Since then, this critical legislation has been
blocked by the same Senators who tried blocking it in committee, and
unfortunately they have been buttressed by opposition from President
Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Undeterred by the fact that the Senate has not moved on this very
important legislation, the House acted again. Yesterday it voted on the
Justice For All Act of 2004, H.R. 5107. This is a criminal justice
package that bundles the Senate DNA bill with another bill, already
passed in the Senate, that would increase protection for victims of
Federal crimes. Yesterday's House margin, 393 to 14, was even larger
than it was a year ago. In these times you rarely see such bipartisan
support--393 to 14. I believe it sends a loud message to us here in
this body of: What are we waiting for? Let's pass this bill.
I want to take a moment to commend the Republican chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, who spearheaded this
effort in the House. The chairman deserves high praise for his
leadership. We could never have come as far as we have without his
steadfast commitment, and the hard work of his impressive staff.
I also thank my long-term colleagues in this effort, Representative
Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts--I was honored to serve overlapping
time as prosecutors, me in Vermont, Mr. Delahunt in Massachusetts--and
Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. They worked
tirelessly over many years to pass the Innocence Protection Act. They
deserve much of the credit for building the strong bipartisan support
for the bill in the House.
The House has spoken, not once but twice. I believe Senate action is
long overdue. It should not be threatened by a few holdouts in the
Senate, even if they are emboldened by continuing help from the
Department of Justice. I remind everybody, none of us here works for
the administration--I don't care whether it is a Republican
administration or a Democratic administration. We are elected as
individual Senators, independent of the executive branch or the
judicial branch.
The Bush administration's role in the effort to kill this bill is
significant and it is a matter of public record. On April 28 of this
year we received a 22-page letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella, presenting ``the views of the Department of Justice
and the administration'' regarding the bill the House of
Representatives had earlier passed by a vote of 357 to 67. They
expressed the Administration's strong opposition to virtually every
aspect of the bill.
I have rarely seen a letter--in fact, I cannot remember a time I have
seen a letter from an executive branch agency so hostile to a
bipartisan legislative effort that had already passed one House of
Congress. I was shocked the Department would write such a scathing
letter about a bill that had been carefully negotiated by Chairman
Sensenbrenner and Chairman Hatch, working very closely together. In
light of the support of the congressional leadership, I thought the
President would have supported the bill and worked to make the capital
punishment system more fair. Instead, his Administration chose to
stonewall the reforms and defend the injustices in current law.
The new House bill contains additional concessions to the Department
of Justice and to the handful of Republican opponents in the Senate.
But despite these concessions, despite the urgent need for reform, the
Bush administration has obstinately refused to support the bill or even
to withdraw its formal opposition to the bill. In particular, the
Department has pressed its unreasonable demand for an arbitrary 3-year
time limit on obtaining a DNA test after conviction.
If the White House kills this bill that has passed so overwhelmingly
in the House, it will be a travesty. It has, after all, been supported
by key members of the Republican leadership in both the House and the
Senate; it has passed by an overwhelming margin in the House. To put
this off another year may seem fine to the President and the Attorney
General, but another year is a long time if you are a crime victim and
you are hoping they may find the person who committed the crime, or if
you are wrongly accused and you are waiting on death row for the chance
to prove your innocence. Another year will pile more untested rape kits
on to the thousands already piled up in labs across the country.
This bill is a rare example of bipartisan cooperation for a good
cause, and instead of helping, the White House has actively hindered.
They have been unwilling to lead. They have been unwilling to follow.
Now, when all it would take is for them to get out of the way, they are
even unwilling to stand aside.
I think it is time for them to understand what is happening here, and
to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. An
overwhelming bipartisan coalition in both the House and the Senate
supports this bill because it will mean more fair and effective
criminal justice in this country.
If Congress fails to enact this much-needed law this year, I do not
lay the blame on leadership in the House or the Senate, because the
leadership in both parties has supported it, just as Senator Hatch and
Chairman Sensenbrenner have. If the Congress fails to enact this law
this year, then I lay the responsibility directly at the feet of
President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft. They deserve to be held
accountable, and will be if their stubborn opposition to the bill
causes it to die. The leaders of their own party support it, as the
leaders of my party do. They ought to stand aside.
For all those victims' groups, all those church groups, all the
others who have supported this bill--as you know, if it doesn't go
forward, it is not the fault of Congress. You should look down toward
the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a longer statement in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
Justice For All Act Of 2004
October 7, 2004
A year ago this month, I stood with a bipartisan group of
Senators and Representatives to announce the introduction of
the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003.
This landmark legislation provides law enforcement with the
training and equipment required to effectively, and
accurately, fight crime in the 21st Century. It enacts the
President's DNA Initiative, which authorizes more than $1
billion over the next five years to eliminate the backlog
crisis in the Nation's crime labs, and to fund other DNA-
related programs. It also includes the Innocence Protection
Act, a death penalty reform effort I launched more than four
years ago.
DNA is the miracle forensic tool of our lifetimes. It has
the power to convict the guilty and to exonerate the
innocent. And as DNA testing has become more and more
available, it also has opened a window on the flaws of the
death penalty process.
Hearing after hearing before the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees has shown beyond any doubt that the death penalty
system is broken. These mistakes in our system of justice
carry a high personal and social price. They undermine the
public's confidence in our judicial system, they produce
unbearable anguish for innocent people and their families and
for the victims of these crimes, and they compromise public
safety because for every wrongly convicted person, there is a
real criminal who may still be roaming the streets. Indeed,
in dozens of cases in which DNA testing has exonerated a
wrongfully convicted person, the same test has identified the
real perpetrator.
Our bill would put this powerful tool into greater use in
our police departments and our courtrooms. It also takes a
modest step toward addressing one of the most frequent causes
of wrongful convictions in capital cases--the lack of
adequate legal counsel.
Broad Bipartisan Support In Congress And Around Country
We introduced our bill on October 1, 2003. One month later,
the House passed it with overwhelming support--357 to 57.
Among those supporting the bill were the Chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, Congressman James Sensenbrenner,
and virtually the entire Republican leadership, including
Majority Leader DeLay. Clearly there was a broad consensus
for action. The House vote was a major breakthrough in
finding solutions to the serious flaws in our justice system.
Sadly, the House acted, but the Senate did not. Despite
Chairman Hatch's sponsorship of the bill, the Senate
Judiciary Committee did not begin work on the bill until
September, almost a year later. At that point,
[[Page S10676]]
we were slowed by resistance from three Republican members of
the panel. After many hours, we succeeded in working through
the 20-plus amendments that were offered--all of which were
rejected--and the bill was approved by a strong bipartisan
majority.
It speaks volumes about the opposition to this bill that
one of the amendments offered in Committee sought to strike
the Innocence Protection Act in its entirety. Our opponents
want law enforcement to use DNA aggressively to fight crime,
and so do I. But they do not want to let those who are
wrongly convicted use DNA to prove their innocence. That is
wrong. DNA can convict the guilty, but it can also exonerate
the innocent. It should be available for both purposes.
That is why victims groups support the whole package of
reforms in this bill. They do not want the wrong guy locked
up while the real rapist or murderer is out committing other
crimes. Throughout the Committee's consideration of this
bill, there were two fixtures in the room--Kirk Bloodsworth
and Debbie Smith. Kirk was exonerated by DNA testing. In
Debbie's case, DNA testing led to the arrest and conviction
of her attacker. Both support the whole bill.
The Committee reported the bill to the full Senate three
weeks ago. Since then, this critical legislation has been
blocked by the same three Republican Senators who held up the
bill in Committee, buttressed by opposition from President
Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
This week, the House has acted again. It voted yesterday on
the Justice For All Act of 2004, H.R. 5107, a criminal
justice package that bundles the Advancing Justice Through
DNA Technology Act with another bill, already passed in the
Senate, which will increase protections for victims of
Federal crimes. Wednesday's House margin--393 to 14--was even
larger than the vote a year ago, and sends a loud and clear
message to the Senate: ``Pass this bill!''
I want to take a moment to commend the Republican Chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, who has
spearheaded this effort in the House. Chairman Sensenbrenner
deserves high praise for his leadership. We could never have
come as far as we have without his steadfast commitment and
the hard work of his impressive staff.
I also want to thank my longtime colleagues in this
endeavor, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts and
Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois. They have worked
tirelessly over many years to pass the Innocence Protection
Act, and deserve much of the credit for building the strong
support for the bill in the House.
The House has now spoken not once, but twice. Senate action
is long overdue. Sadly, Senate passage in the waning days of
this congressional session continues to be threatened by a
few holdout Republicans, emboldened by continuing opposition
from Department of Justice.
Inaction Has Real Consequences
While Congress has failed to act, much has happened in the
real world. Over the last year, five more wrongfully
convicted individuals were cleared of the crimes that sent
them to death row, bringing to 116 the number of death row
exonerations since the reinstatement of capital punishment.
Also in the past year, another 10 wrongfully convicted
individuals were exonerated by DNA testing in non-capital
cases. That brings to 151 the number of post-conviction DNA
exonerations in this country in little over a decade.
What else has happened in the real world? Just last week,
Houston's top police official called for a moratorium on
executions of inmates who were convicted based on evidence
that was handled or analyzed by the Houston Police
Department's crime lab. In a floor statement in March 2003, I
described the widespread problems at that lab, which included
poorly trained technicians, shoddy recordkeeping, and holes
in the ceiling that allowed rain to possibly contaminate
samples. It turns out that the situation is even worse than
previously imagined.
In May, the Republican Governor of Texas pardoned Josiah
Sutton, who spent 4\1/2\ years in prison for a crime that he
did not commit. He was only a teenager when he was convicted
and sentenced to 25 years for rape, based largely on a bogus
DNA match by the Houston police lab. More recently, Houston's
district attorney admitted that chemical testing used to
convict another man was inaccurate. That was after six
forensic experts concluded that the lab's analysis of DNA
evidence in the case was ``scientifically unsound.''
The situation in Houston is appalling but it is not without
precedent. There have been similar problems in various State
crime labs, as well as in the once-distinguished FBI lab.
Crime labs across the country are suffering the consequences
of years of increased demand and decreased funding.
One consequence is sloppy lab work. Another consequence is
massive backlogs. In December 2003, the Department of Justice
estimated that there were more than 500,000 criminal cases
with biological evidence awaiting DNA testing. This estimate
included 52,000 homicide cases and 169,000 rape cases. Ten
months later, the situation has only gotten worse. While the
Senate has been idle on this bill, rape kits and other crime
scene evidence has been sitting on shelves, untested for lack
of funding. This bill would authorize the funding that our
labs so desperately need.
Bush Administration's Repeated Attempts To Sabotage Bipartisan
Initiative
The Bush Administration's role in the effort to kill this
bill is a matter of public record. On April 28 of this year,
we received a 22-page letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella presenting ``the views of the Department of
Justice and the Administration'' regarding the bill that the
House of Representatives had earlier passed by a vote of 357
to 67. The letter expressed the Administration's strong
opposition to virtually every aspect of the bill.
I have rarely seen a letter from an Executive branch agency
so hostile to a bipartisan legislative effort that had
already passed one house of Congress. I was shocked that the
Department would write such a scathing letter about a bill
that had been carefully negotiated by Chairman Sensenbrenner
and Chairman Hatch. In light of the support of the Republican
congressional leadership, I expected that the President would
support this bill and work to make the capital punishment
system more fair and effective. Instead, he chose to
stonewall reform and defend the injustices in current law.
The Justice Department's criticisms of the bill are all
unfounded. Let me respond to just a few of the key claims in
the Department's April 28 letter.
The Department claimed that the post-conviction DNA testing
provisions in the bill would invite abusive prisoner
litigation. In fact, the bill includes numerous checks
against frivolous litigation, including the following: An
applicant seeking a test must assert his ``actual innocence''
under penalty of perjury; The applicant must not have waived
the right to DNA testing, or knowingly failed to request DNA
testing in a prior post-conviction motion; A chain of custody
must be established; The proposed DNA testing must be
reasonable in scope; The applicant must identify a theory of
innocence not inconsistent with any affirmative defense
presented at trial; Testing may be ordered only if it could
produce ``new material evidence'' and raise a reasonable
probability that the applicant did not commit the offense;
And the bill establishes serious sanctions, including new
criminal charges, if DNA testing produces inculpatory
results.
The Department argued that the bill should bar post-
conviction DNA testing unless DNA technology was
``unavailable'' at the time of the defendant's trial. But
witnesses at House and Senate hearings on the bill reported
numerous examples of defendants failing to request DNA
testing despite its availability at the time of trial because
the defense lawyers were incompetent or unfamiliar with the
technology, the defendant was mentally ill or retarded, or
the defense was simply unaware of the evidence, perhaps due
to government misconduct.
The Department complained that the bill would allow
prisoners who pleaded guilty to obtain a DNA test. But
witnesses at the hearings told Congress of the startling fact
that innocent defendants sometimes do plead guilty, due to
bad lawyers, mental retardation, or government intimidation.
David Vasquez in Virginia, Frank Townsend in Florida, and
Chris Ochoa in Texas are just three examples of this
disturbing phenomenon.
The Department claimed that the evidence retention
requirements in the bill were unduly burdensome. In fact, we
took every precaution to make sure that these requirements
would not pose an undue burden to law enforcement. Only
biological evidence must be preserved. Evidence need not be
preserved if the court denies a request for testing, the
defendant waives testing, or 180 days pass after the
defendant receives notice that the government intends to
destroy the evidence. If evidence would be impractical to
retain, the government need only take reasonable measures to
preserve a portion of the evidence. Finally, the failure to
retain evidence does not provide grounds for habeas corpus
relief.
The Department claimed that the counsel provisions in the
bill amounted to a Federal regulatory system for capital
defense. That characterization is grossly unfair. The Capital
Representation Improvement Grants authorized in the bill are
strictly voluntary. States are under no obligation to
participate. At House and Senate hearings on the bill,
witnesses enumerated numerous studies over 20 years that
document the failure of many States to provide competent
counsel in capital cases. In light of these long-standing
flaws, it is entirely appropriate for the Federal
government to offer financial assistance to those States
that seek it.
The Department claimed that the agencies responsible for
appointing capital defense lawyers would have limitless
resources. This criticism is unsupported and contrary to the
experience in states like North Carolina and New York that
have established independent defense entities which operate
within a budget.
If the White House kills this bill it will be a travesty.
Putting this off another year may seem fine to the President
or the Attorney General, but another year is a long time if
you are a crime victim or if you are wrongly accused, waiting
on death row for the chance to prove your innocence. Another
year will pile more untested rape kits on to the thousands
already piled up in labs across the country.
This bill is a rare example of bipartisan cooperation for a
good cause, and instead of helping, the White House has
actively hindered. They have been unwilling to lead.
[[Page S10677]]
They have been unwilling to follow. Now, when all it would
take is for them to get out of the way, they're even
unwilling to stand aside. The time has come for the President
to understand what is happening here, and to become part of
the solution instead of part of the problem.
Bush Administration Ignores Efforts to Compromise
This bill is the product of years of work and many months
of intense negotiations. It reflects a lot of compromises by
all the principal sponsors. None of us is entirely happy with
everything in the bill. There are plenty of things that I
would do differently. There are plenty of things that Senator
Hatch and other cosponsors would do differently. Nobody got
everything they wanted.
But that is why the bill has such broad bipartisan appeal.
That is what the legislative process is all about--finding
the middle ground that a broad majority can support. That is
why 393 members of the House support this bill, and why a
substantial majority of the Senate would vote for it if our
opponents would allow it to come to a vote.
The new House bill reflects a number of additional
concessions to the Department of Justice and to our
Republican opponents in the Senate. Let me briefly describe
just a few of the changes that were made.
First, to address concerns raised in Committee by Senator
Sessions and others, the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant
Program now authorizes the use of grant funds to address non-
DNA forensic science backlogs, but only if the State has no
significant DNA backlog or lab improvement needs relating to
DNA processing.
Second, the bill no longer prevents States from uploading
arrestee information into their own DNA databases, although
they must expunge such information if the charges are dropped
or result in an acquittal.
Third, the standard for getting post-conviction DNA testing
has been streamlined by striking unnecessary language that
required courts to assume exculpatory test results. Obviously
a court considering such an application cannot know for sure
what the test results would reveal and must consider the
application in a light most favorable to the applicant in
light of all the evidence.
Fourth, the bill no longer permits Federal inmates to
obtain DNA testing of evidence relating to a State offense,
except when that offense may have resulted in a Federal death
sentence.
Fifth, it is now presumed that a motion for post-conviction
DNA testing is timely if filed within five years of enactment
of the bill, or three years after the applicant was
convicted, whichever is later. Thereafter, it is presumed
that a motion is untimely, except upon good cause shown.
The Department has complained that the ``good cause''
exception is so broad you could drive a truck through it,
and its continued opposition turns in large part on the
inclusion of this language. But while I agree that the
language is broad, it is intentionally so; I would not
agree to a presumption of untimeliness that could not be
rebutted in most cases. At the same time, this provision
should allow courts to deal summarily with the
Department's hypothetical bogeyman--the guilty prisoner
who ``games the system'' by waiting until the witnesses
against him are dead and retrial is no longer possible,
and only then seeking DNA testing.
Sixth, modifications were made to the standard for
obtaining a new trial based on an exculpatory DNA test
result; instead of establishing by ``a preponderance of the
evidence'' that a new trial would result in an acquittal,
applicants must now establish this by ``compelling
evidence.'' The point of this change, which I proposed, is to
require courts to focus on the quality of the evidence
supporting an applicant's new trial motion rather than trying
to calculate the odds of a different verdict.
Finally, the bill now specifies that 75 percent of funds
awarded under the new capital representation improvement
grant program must be aimed at improving trial counsel,
unless the Attorney General waives this requirement. This
change was included to assuage concerns that this program
will somehow resurrect the post-conviction resource centers
that Congress de-funded in the mid-1990s.
With few exceptions, these most recent changes to the bill
were made at the behest of the Department of Justice, after
weeks of negotiations aimed at securing the Department's
endorsement of the bill. Yet despite the changes, and despite
the urgent need for reform, the Bush Administration has
obstinately refused to support the bill or even to withdraw
its formal opposition to the bill. As Chairman Sensenbrenner
has said, we ``bent over backwards'' to try to satisfy the
Department's concerns, but ``no matter how much we bent,
nothing could satisfy them.'' In particular, the Department
pressed its unreasonable demand for an arbitrary three-year
time limit on obtaining a DNA test after conviction.
Let us be clear what this means. A DNA test is not a get-
out-of-jail-free card; it does not even guarantee someone a
new trial. All this is about is providing access to evidence
in the government possession for purposes of forensic
testing. Judge Michael Luttig, one of the most conservative
jurists in the country, has written that this is nothing less
than a constitutional right. Senator Specter took the same
position in the last Congress. A large majority of the States
that have passed post-conviction DNA testing laws have
rejected time limits, recognizing, as I do, that there should
never be a time limit on innocence.
The reforms proposed in the Justice for All Act will mean
more fair and effective criminal justice in this country. The
few remaining opponents of the bill still wave around the
April 28 letter from the Department of Justice. If Congress
fails to enact this needed law this year I lay responsibility
directly at the feet of President Bush and Attorney General
Ashcroft. They deserve to be held accountable if their
stubborn opposition to the bill causes it to die.
____________________