[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 19828-19847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          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brought to light another example of how outdated and burdensome 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

[[Page 19829]]

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--
       ``(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.--

[[Page 19830]]

       (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 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

[[Page 19831]]

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 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

[[Page 19832]]

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.

     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

[[Page 19833]]

     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.
     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

[[Page 19834]]

     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.''
     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.''

[[Page 19835]]


     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; 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

[[Page 19836]]

     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.

[[Page 19837]]

       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 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.

[[Page 19838]]

       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 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.

[[Page 19839]]


     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.
     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.

[[Page 19840]]

       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 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

[[Page 19841]]

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 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

[[Page 19842]]

be continually replenished as amounts are obligated or expended. 
Allowing continual replenishments could result in the obligations or 
expenditures exceeding the $50 million Emergency Reserve maximum. 
Second, we have ensured that all Emergency Reserve funds--whether 
carried over, used to replenish the Reserve, obligated or expended--
fall above the cap on spending from the Crime Victim Fund as set by 
appropriations legislation.
  Section 242 of the House-passed bill authorized the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Office for Justice Programs (OJP) to impose 
special conditions and determine priorities for formula grants. It was 
unclear to me why the authority to determine formula grant priorities 
was necessary and what its real impact would be on local victim 
services. Could it be read to authorize OJP to infringe on the 
discretion of each State to meet its own needs, as for example by 
mandating that State VOCA programs give priority to public agencies 
over nonprofit community organizations, or fund faith-based programs 
before secular programs? Priorities are already set out by Congress in 
the authorizing statutes, as is the requirement that programs 
coordinate public and private victim services in their communities, and 
the Justice Department should not be allowed to override those 
congressional directives. Moreover, VOCA already has extensive 
reporting requirements that enable the Department to monitor how States 
are distributing these funds. We have therefore deleted the authority 
to determine formula grant priorities, while retaining the special 
conditions provision.
  Subtitle D of Title II deals with approaches to prevent crime. I am 
especially pleased that we included provisions that will specifically 
aid in preventing rural crime because rural States and communities face 
a number of unique law enforcement challenges. We added these 
provisions from Senator Daschle's ``Rural Safety Act,'' S. 1907, of 
which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I commend our Democratic 
Leader for his commitment to providing real and meaningful investments 
to address the unique set of challenges facing rural law enforcement 
agencies.
  Rural law enforcement officers patrol larger areas, operate under 
tighter budgets and with smaller staffs than their urban and suburban 
counterparts. This legislation creates programs specifically designed 
to meet the many complex needs of rural law enforcement agencies and 
officers. Methamphetamine production and use, for example, is a growing 
concern for Vermonters. Because the ingredients and the equipment used 
to produce methamphetamines are so inexpensive and readily available, 
the drug can be manufactured or ``cooked'' in homemade labs. This has 
become one of the major problems facing law enforcement agencies 
nationwide. Last month, the Vermont State Police busted the first known 
methamphetamine lab in the State. We must help our law enforcement 
agencies as they struggle to keep up with its troubling growth.
  To help law enforcement combat the spread of methamphetamine and 
other challenges, we authorize in this bill $20 million in grants for 
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.

[[Page 19843]]

  I also thank the National Association of Attorneys General and the 
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, for working with us and contributing to 
this language. I want to say a special thanks to Vermont Attorney 
General Bill Sorrell, who also serves as the current Chair of the NAAG 
Tobacco Committee, for his valuable input on the problems with 
cigarette smuggling that states are facing and his support for this 
compromise measure. I also want to thank the Vermont Grocers 
Association, the Vermont Retail Association, the Vermont Association of 
Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures for 
their support for this measure.
  The movement of cigarettes from low-tax areas to high-tax areas in 
order to avoid the payment of taxes when the cigarettes are resold has 
become a public health problem in recent years. As State after State 
chooses to raise its tobacco excise taxes as a means of reducing 
tobacco use and as a source of revenue, many smokers have sought 
cheaper means by which to purchase cigarettes. Smokers can often 
purchase cigarettes and tobacco from remote sellers, Internet or mail 
order at substantial discounts due to avoidance of State taxes. These 
sellers, however, are evading their tax obligations because they 
neither collect nor pay the proper State and local excise taxes for 
cigarette and other tobacco product sales.
  We have the ability to dramatically reduce smuggling without imposing 
undue burdens on manufacturers or law abiding citizens. By reducing 
smuggling we will also increase government revenues by minimizing tax 
avoidance. My friend General Sorrell has told me that this has become a 
rapidly growing problem in Vermont as more and more tobacco product 
manufacturers fail to collect and pay cigarette taxes. Criminals are 
getting away with smuggling and not paying tobacco taxes because of 
weak punishments, products that are often poorly labeled, the lack of 
tax stamps and the inability of the current distribution system to 
track sales from State-to-State. These lapses point to a need for 
uniform rules governing group sales to individuals.
  The PACT Act will give States the authority to collect millions of 
dollars in lost State tax revenue resulting from online and other 
remote sales of cigarette and smokeless tobacco. It also ensures that 
every tobacco retailer, whether a brick-and-mortar or remote retailer 
of tobacco products, play by the same rules by equalizing the tax 
burdens.
  Moreover, the PACT Act gives States the authority necessary to 
enforce the Jenkins Act, a law passed in 1949, which requires cigarette 
vendors to report interstate sales of cigarettes. This legislation 
enhances States' abilities to collect all excise taxes and verify the 
deposit of all required escrow payments for cigarette and smokeless 
tobacco sales in interstate commerce, including internet sales. In 
addition, it provides Federal and State law enforcement with additional 
resources to enforce state tobacco excise tax laws.
  Finally, at the request of the National Association of Attorneys 
General and many State Attorneys General, we have added a new section 
to provide the States with authority to enforce the Imported Cigarette 
Compliance Act to crack down on international tobacco smuggling. This 
additional authority should further reduce tax evasion and eliminate a 
lucrative funding source for terrorist organizations.
  We must not turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal tobacco 
smuggling. Those who smuggle cigarettes are criminals and we must close 
the loopholes that allow cigarette smuggling to continue.
  The United States has from its inception recognized the importance of 
intellectual property laws in fostering innovation, and vested in 
Congress the responsibility of crafting laws that ensure that those who 
produce inventions are able to reap economic rewards for their efforts. 
I am pleased that we can today include, as part of the Department of 
Justice Authorization Act, the ``Cooperative Research and Technology 
Enhancement Act of 2004,'' the CREATE Act, legislation that I 
cosponsored along with Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, 
Senator Schumer, Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator 
Cochran. This bill will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our 
Nation's patent laws. On June 25, 2004, the CREATE Act passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent.
  When Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, the law encouraged 
private entities and not-for-profits such as universities to form 
collaborative partnerships in order to spur innovation. Prior to the 
enactment of this law, universities were issued fewer than 250 patents 
each year. That this number has in recent years surpassed two thousand 
is owed in large measure to the Bayh-Dole Act. The innovation this law 
encouraged has contributed billions of dollars annually to the United 
States economy and has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  However, one component of the Bayh-Dole Act, when read literally, 
runs contrary to the intent of that legislation. In 1999, the United 
States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled, in Oddzon 
Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., that non-public information may in 
certain cases be considered ``prior art''--a standard which generally 
prevents an inventor from obtaining a patent. Thus some collaborative 
teams that the Bayh-Dole Act was intended to encourage have been unable 
to obtain patents for their efforts. The result is a disincentive to 
form this type of partnership, which could have a negative impact on 
the U.S. economy and hamper the development of new creations.
  However, the Federal Circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better 
conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the 
legislation. The ``CREATE Act'' does exactly that by ensuring that 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.

[[Page 19844]]

  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 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

[[Page 19845]]

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 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.''

[[Page 19846]]

  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.
                                 ______
                                 
      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

[[Page 19847]]

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:

     ``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.''.

                          ____________________