Copyright © 1999-2002 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM
[Congressional Record: October 1, 2002 (Senate)]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
21ST CENTURY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am glad we are on the Department of
Justice authorization. As I said earlier, I appreciate the fact the
distinguished majority leader moved to it. This is actually a very
important bill. At a time when it seems so much good legislation is
being stalled, it would be a shame if this was, too.
I know since January of last year Senate Democrats have tried to
bridge the gap and make bipartisan progress on campaign finance reform,
corporate accountability, and a real Patients' Bill of Rights, and a
number of bipartisan anticrime, antidrug, antiterrorism bills. We
worked with the administration after September 11 on the USA Patriot
Act; we passed that in record time. We created the September 11
victims' trust fund and we enhanced border security.
We tried to work as supportive partners in the effort against
terrorism. Throughout that effort in the Judiciary Committee, we rose
above the bitterness and partisanship that had been exhibited by my
predecessors during the last 6 years of the previous administration. We
have held more hearings on more judicial nominees and held more
committee votes on them and confirmed more judges in 15 months than the
Republicans were willing to confirm in the last 30 months when they
controlled the Senate.
I emphasize that for the 30 months prior to the change in the control
of the Senate, the Republicans controlled the Senate Judiciary
Committee during both the time of President Clinton and President Bush.
In the 15 months we have been in control--it has been only with
President Bush--we have put through twice as many judges in 15 months.
We put through more judges in 15 months than they did in 30 months.
I mention this because some at the White House, who should know
better, talk about the holdup on judges but do not like it when they
are reminded that we have done more under President Bush than they did
for both President Bush and President Clinton during a period twice as
long. It is an interesting point.
I remember Adlai Stevenson once said to some of his Republican
friends: If you promise to stop talking lies about us, I will stop
talking the truth about you. But I find the statements and statistics
continue, so I thought I would throw a little truth on the matter.
I mention this because we have tried to go more than halfway. As I
said, during 15 months, we moved more judges than the Republicans did
during 30 months. We have reached out in order to pass legislation from
our committee--and the distinguished Presiding Officer is a valued
member of that committee--and passed out piece after piece either
unanimously or by a strong bipartisan majority. We passed intellectual
property legislation, consumer legislation, anticrime legislation,
antidrug legislation, but then mysterious Republican holds came up and
Here are some of the bills we passed out of the committee that have
been held up on the Republican side: the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act;
the Hatch-Leahy Drug Abuse Education Prevention and Treatment Act; the
DREAM Act, championed by Senators Durbin and Hatch; a charter amendment
to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, something totally without
partisanship. We passed it unanimously, as the distinguished Senator
from Washington State knows. We passed out a charter amendment to the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, a nonpartisan request. We cannot get it
through the Senate because it is being held up on the Republican side
of the aisle.
We passed out a charter amendment for AMVETS, a wonderful veterans
organization. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I voted for it
and it was voted unanimously out of our committee. It is being held up
on the Republican side of the aisle.
We passed out a charter amendment for the American Legion. Every
Democrat voted for that. Every Democrat has agreed: Move that through
the Senate. It is being held up on the Republican side.
Now we find there is a Republican hold on the Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act. This is the first one in 21 years. It
passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 400 to 4. The chief
sponsor is a leading Republican Member of the House.
We strengthen our Justice Department, increase our preparedness
against terrorist attacks, prevent crime and drug abuse, improve our
intellectual property and antitrust laws, strengthen our judiciary, and
offer our children a safe place to go after school. It is a product of
years of work.
I commend Senator Daschle for bringing this up for a vote. Let me
show my colleagues some charts. This is not a hodgepodge where one
might go in and look as to whether you wear a green tie or paisley tie
or drive a blue car or a black car; this is something that really
It was passed by the House of Representatives. If it is allowed to
come to a vote, it could pass easily in this body: border security,
domestic preparedness, suppression of financing terrorism treaty.
Let me mention the last part. We worked this out with the Bush
administration. They said there is a difficulty in following the money
used by terrorists around the world. We know how quickly President Bush
and Secretary O'Neill moved after September 11 last year to freeze the
assets of some of these terrorist groups, and I commend the President
for that action; I praise the President for doing that. But I wish the
President now would tell his own party that we have the legislative
tools that President Bush has asked for to go after the money of
terrorists, and it is being blocked on the Senate floor by a Republican
Let's pass this. Let's do what we all know has to be done. This is
not partisan--grabbing the money of terrorist organizations that are
after the United States. That is not a Democratic or Republican issue.
But when every single Democrat said they will vote to go after that
money, it is time for the anonymous Republican who has a hold to let us
Let me show a few other items that are in the bill. We improve law
enforcement. We have FBI reform and FBI agent danger pay. Some of these
FBI agents are working in some of the most dangerous places, especially
overseas. Sometimes their mere presence targets them for assassination.
This is agent danger pay. We ought to be doing that.
The Body Armor Act is something every law enforcement agency from
which I have heard wants to protect police officers from those who
would attack them. I cannot understand why this is being held up on the
other side. We ought to go forward with this bill. We ought to pass it.
We ought to tell our law enforcement officers that we will help them.
Senator Carnahan's Law Enforcement Tribute Act is in this
legislation. It authorizes grants to States, local governments, and
Indian tribes for memorials to honor killed or disabled officers while
serving as law enforcement safety officers. How can anybody oppose that
without looking terribly political? Senator Carnahan deserves credit
for this bill.
Senator Feinstein and Senator Sessions joined in a bipartisan effort
on the Body Armor Act. That should be allowed to go through.
Then we have some ways to stop crime from happening in the first
place. We reached a bipartisan agreement to give the Boys and Girls
Clubs the funds they need for 1,200 additional clubs across the Nation.
Next to motherhood and apple pie, I cannot imagine anything that should
have more support than helping the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. We
have an excellent one in Burlington, VT. I know it very well. It just
celebrated its 40th birthday.
I remember that Boys and Girls Club back in the days when I was
State's attorney. I know those kids who went there had a place to go,
had a place to learn, had a place to gather, had a place to
constructively work, and were not the kids who got in trouble. They
were not the ones I saw in juvenile court. They were not the ones who
made our crime list. They were the ones who made the star list in our
I mention this because Senator Hatch and I went to the Boys and Girls
Club congressional breakfast honoring the regional youth of the year.
We also honored Senator Thurmond. I heard, and I know they were
sincere, Republican Senator after Republican Senator come forward and
say we have to authorize and expand the Boys and Girls Clubs. All
right. Let's do it.
Last week, we offered to pass this bill on a voice vote to zip it
through. We polled every single member of this side of the aisle. They
were all in support of that Boys and Girls Club authorization, as they
were the Body Armor Act and the help for law enforcement. Every single
Democrat was ready to vote for it. We were willing to have it go by on
a voice vote. An anonymous objection came from the Republican side.
I know in an election year some politics gets played, but not with
the Boys and Girls Clubs and not with the Violence Against Women
Office. We want to increase Federal focus on this tragic and recurring
problem. Preventing domestic violence is not a partisan issue.
I remember going into the emergency rooms of our hospitals at 3:00 in
the morning when I was in law enforcement. I saw the results of
domestic violence. I saw women beaten so badly that even though we had
an idea who may have beaten them, they could not even tell us through a
broken jaw, swollen lips, and bloody faces. I saw that. I saw domestic
violence even in a bucolic State like mine, but the amount of domestic
violence is the same in every State.
It was not just those battered individuals I saw in the emergency
room--at least we had hopes they would be brought back to health. We at
least had hopes that medical care would return them to their ability to
function--I still have nightmares sometimes of some of the others I
saw, but I didn't see them in the emergency room. I saw them one floor
up in the morgue.
This happens in every single State, and I never heard a police
officer say: I wonder if this victim is Republican or Democrat. The
police officer said: Why don't we do something to stop it?
Here is a chance to do something. Let's vote for it.
The Crime Free Rural States Grants, we have crime in our cities, but
we also have crimes in our rural areas. The distinguished Presiding
Officer was Governor in one of our finest States, a State that is a
part of the American heartland, a State I have had the pleasure of
In fact, there were Leahys who moved out to Nebraska in the 1850s
when my great-grandfather and his brothers came over from Ireland, some
staying in Vermont, some staying in New York and others going to
Nebraska. I know how beautiful a State it is, and I know there are both
cities and rural areas. I know how hard the distinguished Presiding
Officer as Governor fought against crime in both areas. He knows, as I
do, that crime is a fact of life in rural areas. It is sometimes more
difficult to fight because there are not all the needed resources
available. It might be a small sheriff's department. The chief of
police may be the whole police force.
We can help. This legislation authorizes programs that will reduce
drug abuse and recidivism, mandatory, to increased funding for drug
treatment in prisons, to funding for police training in South and
Central Asia. These proposals are not Republican or Democrat; these are
bipartisan. Most of them were in the Hatch-Leahy Drug Abuse Education,
Prevention and Treatment Act.
Drug courts, drug-free prisons, reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act--one of the saddest things is going to
juvenile court and seeing 12- or 13-year-old boys and girls who are
already recidivists, people who have committed crimes that one would
think a child that age would not even know about.
In going back through the reports, there are steps that could have
been taken 2, 3, or 4 years before that might have prevented that. Now
these boys and girls are people who are probably going to end up in an
adult jail somewhere, lost to society and lost to themselves. We should
have stopped it. That help is in here.
That is one of the reasons the House of Representatives, facing some
of the same kind of partisan divisions that we face in this great body,
passed it 400 to 4. I do not need to tell the distinguished Presiding
Officer the need for these kinds of investments. He has had the
experience both as a Governor, a Senator, and a parent. He knows what
we have to do, just as I do. Let's go ahead and do it. Let's set aside
the partisanship for a while and let's do something.
There are intellectual property provisions in this bill. We are in
the United States seeing an enormous loss of jobs. In the last 2 years,
we have had the biggest drop in jobs that I can remember, the largest
number of layoffs we have seen in years. The economy is in a tailspin.
The stock market has had a greater drop than at any time since the
Presidency of Herbert Hoover. If anything, we should be helping
American innovators and businesses, both big and small. We want these
businesses to prosper. We want these businesses to be able to compete
on a worldwide scale. We want these businesses to hire the people of
Nebraska, Vermont, South Dakota, New York, California, Florida,
Arizona, Alabama, and all our other States. So we put in the Leahy-
Hatch Madrid Protocol Implementation Act.
What this does is the sort of thing that the President and all the
people around him say we need, something to simplify life for
businesses. We would implement a treaty to allow American businesses to
have one stop for international trademark registration which they can
do only to countries that sign on to the protocol.
American businesses and companies that need to protect their
trademarks if they sell their goods and services in international
markets, especially over the Internet, would be helped by this
legislation. Every single business leader I have heard of, regardless
of their political background--from chambers of commerce, to business
leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike--say pass this bill.
I checked on this side of the aisle. Every single Democrat is ready
to vote for it right now. It has been held up for over a year by a
Republican hold. I say to some of the businesses, talk to the Members
of the Republican Party. The Democrats are ready to pass it.
We have another provision in the TEACH Act, an exemption that allows
educators to use the same rich material of distance learning over the
Internet as in face-to-face classrooms. Let me state why that is
important. In rural areas--such as Nebraska or Vermont--there may be a
number of small schools that cannot each support a library and
sometimes cannot afford a teacher in a specialized area such as
science, history, or math. Together they can, but you have to link
them. So copyright laws apply. We worked that out. This is a no-
brainer. It will help the kids. It should be a no-brainer for the
Senate to pass.
We reauthorize and modernize the Patent and Trademark Office and give
them funds they need. When I hear the baloney that comes out of the
political people in the Attorney General's office and the White House
about judges, this would be the one they should want. There are 20 new
judges included to be appointed by President Bush. For a little bit of
history, this is more than were created during the 6-plus years that
the Republican Party controlled the Senate. The Clinton administration
wanted to create these judgeships. They wanted to create new Federal
judicial positions, and they were blocked by the Republicans. I
believed the judicial positions were needed when President Clinton was
President. I thought it was wrong that the Republicans stopped us from
doing that. I did not want to do the same thing to President Bush that
they did to President Clinton. Two wrongs do not make a right. So it
was included. These are Federal judges in States we know are Republican
and will be chosen by Republican Senators--in Arizona, Alabama, Texas.
We include them just the same.
Why did that not pass last week? One may wonder, finally, having
for 6 years during the Clinton administration, now they have 20 judges
President Bush may appoint--one may wonder why it has not been passed
by a Democratic-controlled Senate. The Democratic-controlled Senate
wanted to. But I will tell you the secret: A Republican Senator held it
up. That is what happened. I hope no one comes down and says, We need
more judges. We have 20 judgeships included, mostly in Republican
There are a lot of other provisions, including the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act. A lot of western Senators want that. We get into
immigration matters. I talked a lot about rural areas.
Let me talk about the rural underserved medical areas. Every Senator
has rural areas in their State. My State happens to be predominantly
rural. But even the States of New York, California, Texas, and Illinois
have large rural areas. It is very hard sometimes to get doctors into
those areas. If you have someone injured in a farming accident, there
may not be a doctor. That injured person may die for want of needed
medical treatment. You may have a woman in a difficult childbirth. She
may die or her baby may die for want of medical care. There may be an
elderly person who just needs a certain amount of preventive care to
lead a happy, productive life. We have worked on the visa provisions of
INS to allow doctors from outside this country to serve in rural areas:
Extend their visa providing they will stay in rural areas and help
where there is a need. It allows grandparents to apply for citizenship
on behalf of orphaned children, grandparents who saw their
grandchildren orphaned in the tragedy of last September 11. These are
some items included.
This is as much a bipartisan piece of legislation as I have seen in
28 years. The people supporting this legislation are wide ranging. By
golly, I just happen to have a chart. Let's see who is in favor of
this: Boys and Girls Clubs of America; the Coalition for Juvenile
Justice; the Fraternal Order of Police; Family Violence Prevention
Fund; National Automobile Dealers Association; National Association of
Counties; National Association of Police Organizations; National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Mental Health
Association; National Network to End Domestic Violence; Presbyterian
Church, Washington office; Volunteers of America; U.S. Council for
International Business; National Association of Manufacturers; the
International Trademark Association; American Intellectual Property Law
Association; U.S. Copyright Office; the American Library Association;
Association of American Universities; American Research Libraries;
Intellectual Property Owners Association; American Intellectual
Property Law Association; Avon Products; Nintendo; Warner Brothers;
IBM--I could go on. That is about as broad a cross section supporting
this as we will see in the Senate.
I am not sure what game is being played. I urge my good friends on
the other side of the aisle to come forward, belly up to the bar, pay
the price, pass the bill.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of
letters of support.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
Boys and Girls Clubs of America,
Rockville, MD, September 27, 2002.
Senator Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to you today in regard to
H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act. As you know, in addition to
the many other critical components of the bill, H.R. 2215
authorizes continued funding to Boys & Girls Clubs of
America, so that we may continue our aggressive growth
efforts in disadvantaged communities throughout the country.
Today, thanks in large part to Congress, Boys & Girls Clubs
of America is serving more than 3,300,000 youth in more than
3,200 Clubs. We are located in all 50 states, and now have
more than 420 Clubs in public housing and 120 Clubs on Native
American lands. We are located in inner-city, and rural
communities throughout America playing a vital role in the
development of our children.
During the past 5 years, we have grown by more than 1,000
Clubs and 1,000,000 new youth served. The Congressional
funding that we have received is matched at least dollar for
dollar nationally, brining true public-private partnerships
to communities all over America.
Senator, we thank you for your strong support of Boys &
Girls Clubs of America, and ask that you move quickly and
decisively in passing the 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act.
Mr. Robbie Callaway,
Senior Vice President.
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National
Network to End Domestic Violence; Family Violence
Prevention Fund; Now Legal Defense and Education Fund,
September 26, 2002.
Dear Senator: As national organizations working to address
the varied needs of victims of domestic and sexual violence
and the service providers in the field, we urge you to
support the Violence Against Women Office in the Department
of Justice by voting in favor of the Conference Report of
H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice (DOJ)
Appropriations Authorization Act.
As you know, the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) was
created in 1995 to implement the Violence Against Women Act
of 1994 and to lead the national effort to stop domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Because ending
violence against women is an on-going struggle, it is
imperative to statutorily authorize the Violence Against
Women Office in order to institutionalize policy development,
observe trends, raise awareness, serve as a crucial resource
for the Attorney General, prosecutors, police and other
community agencies, and provide technical assistance. In
addition, the Office ensures federal dollars under the
Violence Against Women Act of 2000, passed by Congress with
overwhelming bi-partisan support, are administered in the
most effective manner possible to best serve victims and end
With strong bi-partisan support, both the House and the
Senate have passed H.R. 2215, which would statutorily
establish a strong VAWO. On behalf of all victims of domestic
and sexual violence and the service providers who help them,
we thank Congress for this strong statement from our federal
government that violence against women will not to tolerated.
As you know, it is critical that the statutory creation of
the Violence Against Women Office reflect the essential
components of the office. Currently, VAWO is part of the
Office of Justice Programs--the grant-making body of the
Department of Justice. However, VAWO cannot serve as the
leader in promoting the changes needed to effectively serve
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and
trafficking if it is merely a grant-making office. VAWO needs
the authority to create policy regarding violence against
women and needs to have a Presidentially-appointed, Senate-
confirmed Director, in order to ensure that these issues
continue to have a high profile on local, state, federal and
The Conference Report of H.R. 2215 accomplishes this and
creates a separate and independent Violence Against Women
Office in the Department of Justice, under the general
authority of the Attorney General. We urge you to lead the
way for a safer nation for women and children by voting in
favor of the Conference Report of H.R. 2215, the 21st Century
Department of Justice (DOJ) Appropriations Authorization Act.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us at the numbers listed below.
Public Policy Director, National Coalition Against Domestic
Vice President of Government Relations NOW Legal Defense
and Education Fund;
Executive Director, National Network to End Domestic
Director of Public Policy, Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Business Software Alliance,
September 30, 2002.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy: I am writing to support Senate passage
of H.R. 2215, the Department of Justice Reauthorization Act.
The members of the Business Software Alliance work with a
variety of Justice departments to reduce software piracy and
to ensure a safe and legal online world in this heightened
The legislation strengthens our nation's criminal justice
system and increases the frequency and quality of reports to
Congress. Effective criminal enforcement requires both
initiatives by prosecutors and timely action by the courts.
BSA is particularly supportive of funding for the enforcement
of our nation's intellectual property laws in Section 101 and
the related reporting requirement contained in Section 206.
The robustness of our nation's tech sector depends in part
the strength of the laws that govern intellectual property as
well as the enforcement of such laws. Until recently, there
have been few criminal copyright cases brought by the
Department. Simply put, there is nowhere else to turn if the
federal government does not enforce our nation's intellectual
We appreciate the longstanding efforts of Congress to
strengthen our nation's criminal laws and make our nation's
intellectual property laws a catalyst for growth.
Robert W. Holleyman, II,
President and CEO.
September 27, 2002.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to express our support of
the inclusion of the modified versions of H.R. 1900 and H.R.
863 in the conference report on H.R. 2215, legislation to
reauthorize the Department of Justice. The undersigned
members of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Coalition appreciate your efforts to approve a
reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 that retains the
rehabilitative principles of our juvenile justice system.
In particular, we appreciate your efforts to preserve
current law in several key areas that has been working well
for more than 25 years to ensure that youth in the juvenile
justice system are protected from abuse and assault by adults
in adult jails. The modified version of H.R. 1900 codifies
the separation protection for youth, which requires that
states prevent all contact between juvenile and adult
inmates, including any `sight or sound' contact. The proposal
also drops a harmful provision that would have permitted
children to be placed in adult facilities with parental
consent. This provision represented a radical change from
current law and would have resulted in children being
unnecessarily placed in adult jails.
The revised version of H.R. 1900 also includes an
appropriate concentration on prevention through the
restoration of the Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Grant
program. In order to ensure that children stay out of trouble
and on the right track, a significant investment in and
emphasis on prevention, particularly primary prevention, is
crucial. The Title V program is an effective model of
community collaboration in which community stakeholders--
including locally elected officials, law enforcement, school
officials, public recreation, private nonprofit
organizations, and youth workers--come together to develop a
plan for juvenile delinquency prevention. Working in more
than 1,000 communities nationwide, Title V is currently the
only federal program providing delinquency prevention funding
to communities through a flexible, local prevention block
grant approach to help communities reduce juvenile
delinquency and related problems and enable young people to
transition successfully into adulthood.
Finally, we are pleased that H.R. 863, legislation to
authorize the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JAIBG),
has also been included in the conference report. Never
authorized, the JAIBG was created in the FY98 Commerce
Justice State Appropriations bill to provide states and units
of local government with funds to develop programs to promote
greater accountability in the juvenile justice system. Under
H.R. 863, the program purpose areas are expanded
significantly to provide additional services and treatment
for troubled youth. By supporting these additional purposes,
JAIBG will provide needed resources to proven strategies for
rehabilitating adjudicated youth and families as well as
reducing juvenile re-offense rates.
We appreciate your continued efforts on behalf of children
and youth and look forward to final approval of H.R. 2215.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry;
American Civil Liberties Union, Washington National
Office; American Probation and Parole Association;
American Psychological Association; Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law; Child Welfare League of America;
Children & Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder (CHADD); Children's Defense Fund; Coalition
for Juvenile Justice; Education Fund to Stop Gun
Violence; Justice Policy Institute; National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP); National Association of Counties; National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; National
Education Association; National Mental Health
Association; National Network for Youth; National
Recreation and Park Association; Presbyterian Church
(USA), Washington Office; Volunteers of America; Women
of Reform Judaism; Youth Law Center.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we don't have one of the leaders on the
floor at the present time. I was going to ask that we proceed to a
vote. But I am not going to do that until the other side is represented
here. But I know everyone on this side is ready to vote.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the distinguished committee chairman
is on the floor, Senator Leahy, I would like to ask him a couple of
Mr. LEAHY. Sure.
Mr. REID. We are now on this conference report. It is my
understanding that it passed the House 400 to 4. We moved to this a
couple of hours ago. Does the Senator know of any opposition to this
matter on either side of the aisle?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tell my distinguished friend, the senior
Senator from Nevada, that I checked. I know his office also checked on
our side of the aisle. Everybody is in favor. We were told that the
Democratic side of the aisle wanted to let it go through in wrap-up
last week. I am told there is a lot of legislation in here sponsored by
distinguished members of the Republican Party who support it. But the
hold has been a continuing hold on the Republican side. I can't
understand why. This is as close to a motherhood bill as I have seen
here in years.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the chairman of the committee, that it
would seem to me that at an appropriate time we should move for a vote.
We want to make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak. There is
certainly ample opportunity to do that. But I hope before the day ends
we can pass this very important piece of legislation. I know there are
things in here which are important to the people of Nevada and to the
rest of the country. I think the committee should be commended for
passing this, moving it to the floor, and getting to conference.
Getting anything out of conference under the present atmosphere is a
remarkable feat. Senator Leahy is to be admired and commended for doing
this. I hope that before the day is out we can pass this important
piece of legislation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. The
committee of conference went across the political spectrum. Every
conferee--Republican and Democrat--signed that conference report. They
passed it 400 to 4 in the House. I am amazed that we are still even on
the floor. I have been advised by the Republican side that a Republican
Senator wants to come over and speak. Otherwise, I would have said let
us go to a vote now. Obviously, I don't want to cut off any Senator who
wishes to speak. But I tell my friend from Nevada that, as far as this
Senator is concerned, I am perfectly willing to go to a vote anytime we
want. It is now 4:30. I can't imagine why we need to wait beyond 5
Again, just before the Senator from Nevada came to the floor I read a
Mr. REID. I was listening.
Mr. LEAHY. I am sure he was. I read a list of all those who support
it. This is probably as broad a spectrum--National Association of
Manufacturers to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. It sure
encompasses a lot.
We have a charter change for the Veterans of Foreign Wars in here; a
charter change for AMVETS; a charter change for the American Legion.
All of those organizations support it.
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I pushed that through.
This is something that the AMVETS and Veterans of Foreign Wars
discussed and asked for, this charter change. They all support it. All
the Republicans and Democrats on the committee support it. We ought to
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to make sure that it is clearly
stated and make sure it is clear in the Record. The charter changes for
the American Legion, the charter changes for AMVETS, the charter
changes for Veterans of Foreign Wars are in a separate bill that has
the Republican hold on it. However, there is no opposition from members
of the Judiciary Committee. I
am told there is no Democrat who opposes those charter changes. I am
told that every Democrat in the Senate is perfectly willing to pass the
charter changes for the American Legion, for the AMVETS, and for the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, and as soon as the Republican hold is lifted
on the charter changes for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American
Legion, and AMVETS, we can pass it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will speak to the legislation that has been
placed before us this afternoon, the Department of Justice
reauthorization bill or, as it is officially titled, the 21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.
I begin by putting this in the context of what I would call
priorities. We are now less than 2 weeks, probably, from closing the
session of this Congress, and there is a great deal of unfinished
business to which we need to attend.
As a matter of fact, we are bringing this legislation up--I should
say the majority leader has brought this legislation up--deferring, for
our consideration, the bill that is currently on the floor, the
homeland defense reorganization bill that the President asked us to
deal with about 3 months ago. That bill has now been on the floor of
the Senate for at least a month, and we still have not even voted on
the President's proposal.
This DOJ, or Department of Justice, reauthorization bill has a lot of
important provisions in it. I am going to get to those in a moment. But
in terms of priorities, it seems to me the reauthorization of a
Department which has not been reauthorized for more than two decades,
and clearly is going to continue to operate--that is, the Department of
Justice--is a little bit lower priority, at this point in this
legislative session, than voting on the President's homeland
reorganization legislation. It is a lower priority than adopting a
resolution dealing with the Senate's position with respect to the
authorization of the President to utilize force in any action he may
decide to take against Iraq. And it is less of a priority than having
the Senate act upon the Defense appropriations and authorization bill.
It is clear, because the majority was not able to pass out a budget
this year--the first time since the creation of the Budget Act, which I
think was in 1974--that we do not have a budget. That has been one of
the reasons we do not have any appropriations bills done. I am not
aware of any bill that has come from the House to the Senate and been
voted on by both bodies and sent to the President. I might be wrong,
but I do not recall any. I think we have only acted on three or four.
It is common knowledge that in order to fund the Government beyond
October 1, it is going to require the adoption of what we call
continuing resolutions or CRs. We have already adopted one, and we are
going to have to adopt another and then another one after that. These
continuing resolutions will authorize Government to continue to be
funded at some level; last year's level plus some increment of
inflation, I suppose.
Because we didn't pass a budget and because we haven't passed the
appropriations bills, we don't have all of the other specific
programmatic funding that would ordinarily be included in these
appropriations bills, including new programs. That is not good.
We can get by with these continuing resolutions for a matter of weeks
and perhaps a few months if we have to. Where we can't get along
without an appropriations bill is for the Department of Defense and the
conduct of the war. Things have changed so dramatically since last year
when an appropriations bill was passed for the Department of Defense
that all recognize--this is not a partisan issue; I think everybody
recognizes--we are going to have to pass a Defense authorization bill
and a Defense appropriations bill for the next fiscal year. We are
going to have to do that as a matter separate and apart from the
continuing resolutions we will adopt.
Those are the first three things we have to do before we complete our
work. In one way or another they all deal with national security,
which, obviously, is the first thing about which we have to be
concerned. And in a time of war, I know it is very much on the minds of
Again, a Defense authorization and appropriations bill to actually
provide the programs and the funding for our military forces for this
next year; an authorization that this body would approve the use of
some kind of force for the President, should he deem it necessary in
taking action against Iraq; and completion of our work on development
of the Department of Homeland Security so that the President would know
how he can organize the Government to best deal with the threat to the
homeland--those should be our top three priorities.
We don't yet have the Defense bill. It is ready but it hasn't been
brought to the floor. The homeland security bill has been pending for 4
weeks perhaps. We still didn't even have a vote on the President's
proposal for a Department of Homeland Security. The majority leader
keeps filing cloture which is defeated because people are not ready to
finish that bill until we have a chance to vote on the President's
proposal. That is only fair. He ought to have some say in how his
Department is going to be reorganized. Perhaps his idea won't prevail,
but it will, if we can ever get it to a vote. He is at least entitled
to a vote.
Instead of granting that, we have left that national security debate,
and we are now on the question of whether we should reauthorize the
Department of Justice.
What is an authorization? Ordinarily an authorization for a program
tells you what you can do from year to year in this Department of
Government. It is important in an organization such as the Department
of Defense, where we have had such a dramatic change in requirements
since last year with the war on terror.
As I said, it has been now more than two decades since the Department
of Justice has had a reauthorization. All we have done in those two
decades is each year appropriate money for the various programs we have
passed for funding of the Department. That has worked fine. It could
work, obviously, again.
One could argue that because of the war on terror, there are a lot of
new things that need to be done in the Department of Justice--new
authorities granted, new capabilities, new funding, and that it might
justify a new authorization act. I could abide by that rationale, if we
had before us a reauthorization that embodied those kinds of new
programs. But that is not what we have. This is the same old, warmed
over stuff that we have had for the last couple of decades.
If we want to fight the war on terror and we want to take our
precious time to reauthorize the Department of Justice with that in
mind, we would write an entirely different bill than this.
One example, just off the top of my head: We had testimony in the
Intelligence Committee last week that there is a great deal of
confusion about the FISA Act, the forward intelligence surveillance law
under which our law enforcement officials have the ability to collect
intelligence on people who are thought to be foreign agents or working
on behalf of foreign governments or engaged in terrorist activities
internationally. It is a little bit easier to collect intelligence on
people like that than it is under our normal criminal justice system
where a crime has been committed or is being committed and the FBI is
investigating that crime.
As part of the USA Patriot Act last year, we made changes to the FISA
law to make it more effective in the new era of the war on terror. We
found out something. This came about in a variety of different ways,
but it has all come together here. This FISA law has one aspect that
needs to be fixed. Senator Schumer and I have a proposal to fix it, but
we haven't been able to get it on to the floor. As a matter of fact, I
had anticipated including it in the intelligence reauthorization. We
will have the conference on that tomorrow evening. It is almost to the
But I was told by Chairman Graham that a member on the majority side
was going to object to the inclusion of the Schumer-Kyl provision and,
therefore, would I please not include it in that bill. I said, of
course, I would be happy to because we want to get the intelligence
authorization passed. But at some point we have to make this change in
FISA. I will describe what the change is.
It should have been in here but it is not. If we are talking about
priorities, I would much rather get that done than have to wade through
all of this. We have gone two decades without this. But we need to make
some of these changes for law enforcement.
The evidence before the Intelligence Committee was that the FBI
thought, with respect to Zacarias Moussaoui, thought to be the 20th
hijacker, that he had some connection to international terrorism. He
was a foreign person, not a U.S. citizen, and had engaged in flight
training up in Minneapolis under conditions deemed to be suspicious by
the FBI there. We all heard about the memorandum or letter from agent
Rowley from the Minneapolis office complaining about the fact that the
FBI had not seen fit to apply for a FISA warrant to look into Zacarias
Moussaoui's computer to see what was there.
We all know that after the fact, after September 11, this was done,
and certain things were found, and so on, which we don't discuss here.
The fact is, a lot of people criticized the FBI for misunderstanding
or misapplying the law and not seeking a FISA warrant on Moussaoui. The
testimony we had before the committee was that there was a dispute
within the FBI about what they had to prove, and there was some
suggestion that maybe he might have been connected in some way with a
group of Chechens, but nobody could connect him to a foreign power or
an international terrorist organization. Those are the two requirements
for FISA to apply.
Had the change that Senator Schumer and I advocate been in effect, it
is clear that we could have gotten a warrant against Moussaoui because
it would simply add the phrase ``or foreign person,'' which would mean
that if you had probable cause to believe that someone is involved in a
terrorist kind of enterprise, but you don't necessarily know what
country he is working for and you can't necessarily connect him to a
particular terrorist organization, you think maybe he is just a
terrorist, and with this warrant you might find out exactly who it is
he is connected to, but you don't really have that information at this
point, you could go ahead and seek the warrant to tap his telephone or
look in his computer, search his house, whatever the case may be.
It is a very straightforward approach. Agent Rowley, who testified
before the Intelligence Committee or the Judiciary Committee--we had a
combined hearing--said she thought that would have been a very good
thing and strongly supported it.
It has the support of the Department of Justice and the FBI. We have
had several different witnesses from those organizations testify both
before the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, both of
which I sit on. They have all indicated this would be a very helpful
change in the law, so that with respect to a guy like Moussaoui, if you
didn't have the evidence that he was connected to a particular
terrorist organization, or that he was working for a particular foreign
power, you could still get a warrant to investigate exactly what he was
up to if you could demonstrate to the judge you thought he was up to
something, that he was a foreign person, and that the kind of activity
that he appeared to be looking at was a terrorist kind of activity.
I cannot imagine anybody who would oppose that, but I understand
maybe there is somebody who would. We need to vote on that before we
leave here in a way that the House can also approve it, so that we can
actually improve our ability to fight international terrorism.
You would think those kinds of changes would be in this
reauthorization act. It is not in here. Not only that, but one of the
authors is alleged to be one of the people who would object to what
Senator Schumer and I are trying to do. We need to get to the bottom of
these things. I want to find out. If anybody objects to the Schumer-Kyl
amendment, come to the Senate floor and tell us so we can find out who
is behind the objection, get it on the floor, get it approved and
enacted into law and signed by the President. Our law enforcement
officials want it. It is important to fight the war on terror, to get
after the terrorists so we can investigate them before rather than
after they commit crimes against us. That is the kind of priority we
ought to be engaged in here.
Instead, what does this bill have in it? Well, it is about 240 pages
long. It has a lot of provisions. For example, it authorizes $75,000
for an exchange program with Thailand for prosecutors. That is probably
a nice thing. I don't know of any reason why that isn't a good thing to
do. But $75,000, as you know, is kind of decimal dust around here. We
would ordinarily be focused on somewhat larger issues. Here is a bigger
one: $5 million for a DEA training site in south and central Asia.
Probably a good idea, although I don't know.
One thing that we have been asked by the administration--especially
at this time of war--not to do is to impose any more reporting
requirements on our agencies that are involved in the war on terror. I
am trying to count the number of reports and commissions contained in
the bill. There are too many to count so far. I am trying to get an
accurate count. Suffice it to say there are numerous reports--report
after report--that we are asking the Justice Department to prepare and
send up to us on a whole variety of issues.
Oversight is very important, and we need to engage in oversight of
the Department of Justice. But there is a balance between causing them
to have to spend so much time preparing reports that they literally
cannot do the job we ask them to do. I am not sure how some of these
reports, anyway, will advance the ball with respect to justice.
The bill speaks of the 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, but it contains a lot more than just
appropriations. It seems to me that we ought to be pretty well focused
on the mission. If the FBI, for example, is going to literally change
its focus from, first and foremost, being an investigator of crimes
that have been committed so they can be prosecuted in court, to an
agency--and remember it is part of the Department of Justice--which has
now its first and foremost focus of preventing terrorism by conducting
investigations that will potentially lead to uncovering the possibility
of terrorists in the United States who would perform these horrible
acts against us, if that is the new mandate--and certainly Robert
Mueller, Director of the FBI, has been very forthright about the need
for change in the FBI and the need to create this new priority in the
FBI, and I commend him, and Attorney General John Ashcroft has
supported the same kind of reformation of the Department of Justice and
the FBI--then why is that kind of priority not reflected in this
document? It is kind of the same old thing, rather than a new 21st
century mission with terrorism at the core.
We need to find resources to fight terrorism. A lot in this bill has
nothing to do with terror. That is not to say there is not a great deal
the Department needs to do that doesn't relate to terrorism, and we all
understand and appreciate that. One would think there would at least be
something here that represents the case for looking forward into the
21st century, rather than just looking back for the last couple of
decades and trying to pull together different things that we would like
for the Department of Justice to do for us.
Let me get back to the issue of reports. Do we need to require the
Attorney General to submit to the Committees on the Judiciary and
Appropriations of both the House and the Senate a report identifying
and describing every grant and cooperative agreement that was made for
which additional or supplemental funds were provided in the immediately
preceding year? I suppose somebody should put that information
together. I wonder whether we need to mandate it in this authorization
bill. Here is another report identifying and reviewing every office of
justice program grant, cooperative agreement, or programmatic contract.
I suppose some auditor needs to have that on the books, but is it
necessary to send a report to the committees of the House and the
Senate? Do we need to
require that the Attorney General submit, within 6 months of enactment,
a report to the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate
Committees on the Judiciary, detailing the distribution and allocation
of appropriated funds, attorneys, and pre-attorney workloads for each
office of the U.S. attorney, except those at the justice management
division? That is an internal matter that is important to the proper
functioning and operation of the Department of Justice offices of U.S.
attorney, but there is an office of U.S. attorney that is supposed to
keep track of those things.
It doesn't seem to me that this rises to the level of what we are
including within the reauthorization. Do we need to require the
Attorney General to conduct a study of offenders with mental illness
who are released from prison or jail to determine how many such
offenders qualify for Medicaid, SSI, or SSDI, and other Government aid?
Do we need that? Should that be included in this 21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act? At least, if it
is, does it rise to the level of priority greater than giving the
President the authority to take action to deal with Iraq, giving the
President a vote on his idea for reorganizing a Department of Homeland
Security and providing the Senate's approval of funding so our military
can do what we ask it to do? Which of those ought to come first?
We have now taken these other items and put them over here so we can
deal with this Department of Justice reauthorization--an action that
doesn't need to be done at all. We haven't had a reauthorization of the
Department of Justice for over 20 years and yet it has functioned very
There is more. I will cite one more. The bill provides the inspector
general discretion to investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing or
administrative misconduct by an employee of the Department of Justice--
authority which already exists--and allows the inspector general to
refer such allegations to the office of professional responsibility or
the internal affairs office of the appropriate component of the
Department of Justice.
It seems to me that a lot of what is in the legislation is
questioning the Department of Justice rather than supporting it. It is
asking it to do a lot of things that will take time and money and
divert resources from the job that is first and foremost on the minds
of Americans. I will let that point go for the moment.
It is not that this is a bad bill. That is not my point. My point is
that this is an old bill that was written for another time and which
isn't really necessary today--certainly not to take the time of the
Senate away from those other items that I mentioned. We should not be
taking the time to debate this.
Now, I was just notified a couple hours ago that this bill was going
to be brought to the floor. The problem with dealing with a bill such
as this in this context is that there is naturally a tendency to hurry
up and rush to get it over with because we have more important things
to do. I suspect that is what you are going to hear from perhaps the
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee or others--``If
these other things are so important, then hurry up and pass this
That is a nice technique: find a time when we really ought to be
doing something else, insert this into the agenda and argue that we
better hurry and get it over with so we can get back to these more
important items. If it is so all-fired important to do, then it is
important enough to be done right. I will give you one example of a
part of it that wasn't done right.
(Mr. KOHL assumed the chair.)
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we have a strict rule around here that a
conference report, which is what this is--and for those who are not
aware, that means the Senate has passed a bill, the House has passed a
bill, representatives of the two bodies have gotten together and agreed
on a compromise, a conference report. They held a conference and they
agreed. The bill goes to the House and the Senate, and we are supposed
to act on the conference report. That is our process.
The idea is that the conference committee is supposed to iron out
differences between the House and the Senate. That is what happens in a
conference committee. What you do not do is bring up new issues in a
conference committee. That is verboten. That is not right. If it was
not in the House or the Senate bill, then it is not germane to the
conference. Every now and then, people look the other way and forget
about the rules and say: There is a group who wants another provision;
granted it was not in the Senate bill and it was not in the House bill,
but we are getting a lot of pressure to get it done, so we are going to
stick it in the conference report. There is such a provision in this
I do not know if it is a good or bad provision. I have heard
arguments both ways. I have gotten a lot of pressure from the group who
wants it. They are good people. They are friends of mine. I would like
to support them. I do not know whether they are right or wrong on the
provision, and I will describe it in a moment.
The fact is, when it whizzed through the Judiciary Committee, I
thought I would have an opportunity to come to the floor and hear a
debate about it and perhaps be involved in that debate and ask
questions, understand it, and maybe even offer an amendment or two, and
then either pass it or not pass it or vote for it or vote against it.
I am not sure what I would do, but when it comes in the form of a
conference report, as you know, it is unamendable. Whatever is in here,
you take it or you leave it. You either take everything or the whole
bill goes down. This bill may not have a whole lot that is important or
good in it, but I do not know that it has a whole lot of bad provisions
in it. There are at least some good provisions in the conference
report. I want to make that point, and I will speak to them. There are
a couple items I like in this bill.
I am not arguing this bill should not be adopted. The problem is,
when the House and Senate conferees take something out of left field
and stick it in the bill when it was neither in the Senate bill nor in
the House bill, it comes back in a form we cannot even amend.
That is what happened with this arbitration issue. I am not sure
exactly what it is called--the motor vehicle franchise dispute
resolution process bill. This is a bill that is supported by a lot of
local auto dealers. As I said, at least the auto dealers in Arizona
are, for the most part, good folks, as far as I am concerned. They have
a complaint against the motor companies whose cars they sell having to
do with the contracts, the franchise agreements they sign when they
become a dealer for these cars.
What they complain about is the fact that when they sign the
contract, it pretty well binds them to a process of arbitrating
disputes in a certain way so that if they and their parent company have
a dispute, the contract says, you resolve that dispute by arbitration.
In that way, the parties do not have to go to court.
Arbitration is actually a good thing, not a bad thing. I would think
you would want to keep the parties from having to go to court. And if
both parties, the franchisee and the franchiser, agree they will
resolve their disputes through arbitration, through the American
Arbitration Association, rather than going to court, one would think
that is a good thing. These dealers believe it is a bad thing. They
said they signed bad contracts and were under pressure by the
franchisers, the big auto companies, that had bargaining power leverage
over them, basically, to say: You either sign the contract the way we
have presented it to you or you cannot be our franchisee. I do not know
whether that is right or not, but that is their argument.
They say the Federal Government has to intervene and, in effect,
create an opportunity for the voiding of those provisions of those
contracts so they can literally take these disputes into court and
fight it out with their lawyers in court.
They were in my office a week or so ago wanting to talk to me about
this. I will honestly tell you, I had no idea this provision was coming
up then. I thought: Why are you guys coming in here? It turned out
there was a mixup and I could not meet with them.
I spoke with one of their representatives last Friday. I said: I am
sorry you all were in and you thought we had a meeting, but I really
did not think this issue was coming up. Little did I know.
They probably knew something I did not know. I guess they might have
known this was coming to the floor and I did not realize that was the
situation. I perhaps should have.
The problem now is that we debate this in a scenario in which there
can be no amendments. The conference report, under our rules, cannot be
amended. The only way to amend it is to send it back and have the
conference committee revisit it, and that is a motion that very rarely
is accepted. I am not even sure I would be for doing that.
This is the kind of thing that should not be done in this type of
bill. It was done by a very few people. I am on the Judiciary
Committee, as is the Presiding Officer. I did not know it was put in
there. I did not have anything to do with it. I was not asked, and yet
we are members of the Judiciary Committee and this is supposed to be
Again, I do not know whether this is a good idea or a bad idea. I
would have liked to have heard debate on it, perhaps an opportunity for
it to be amended, but that will not be possible. That is another
problem with the conference report as it has come to us.
What I am talking about is the motor vehicle franchise dispute
resolution process bill. That is not the only example of items that
were added to the conference report and which had never been passed by
the House of Representatives or by the Senate. Let me give some
In title I, subtitle A, there is something called the Law Enforcement
Tribute Act. This section authorizes grants for the construction of
memorials to honor the men and women in the United States who were
killed or disabled while serving as law enforcement or public safety
officers. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not. I presume
there is nothing wrong with it. I suppose if the grants for
construction got out of hand from a monetary standpoint we might have
some objection. We obviously want to use some prudence in what kind of
money is appropriated for that purpose.
I do not know anything about that issue. I am on the Judiciary
Committee and that was never considered. It did not come through the
Senate. It did not come through the House. But it is in the conference
report. It was put in in the conference.
There is a section 11002, disclosure of grand jury matters relating
to money laundering offenses. This would add two sections relating to
money laundering to the list of banking law violations where a
prosecutor can disclose grand jury information to a State financial or
a Federal financial institution or regulatory agency.
We have had a lot of complaints in the war on terror about the
disclosure of grand jury testimony. Here national security is involved.
There are some who still say that we should not release grand jury
testimony on a very classified basis to other law enforcement or
intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, so that it can do its work
better to protect us from terrorists; that when information is
presented to a grand jury, it is as if it is sacred and nobody else can
know about it. We cannot even use it for protection against terrorism.
But this bill, without having passed through the House or Senate,
includes a section that would let grand jury information be disclosed
to either a State financial or a Federal financial institution or
That may well be a good thing if you are trying to go after people
who launder money. That may well be a good section. I just do not know.
Again, being a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Member of the
Senate does not provide enough protection for us really to have had the
opportunity to debate or amend this provision.
There is a section called grant program for State and local domestic
preparedness support. This would seem to be a good purpose, expanding
the uses of grant funds and changes the name from the Office of State
and Local Domestic Preparedness Support to the Office of Domestic
Preparedness. It does not seem to me there would be anything wrong with
that. It did not pass the Senate. It did not pass the House.
There is a provision, section 11004, U.S. Sentencing Commission Act
access to NCIC terminal. This is a big deal. It would allow the
Attorney General to exchange NCIC information with the U.S. Sentencing
Commission. The reason, I guess, is the Sentencing Commission has
stated it is necessary for it to help complete a study that it wants to
do on recidivism rates that they have been charged--by who else?--by
Congress to complete. They are currently working with the FBI, and they
There is another section dealing with danger pay for FBI agents, and
this could conceivably fall into the category of a response to the war
on terror, although I do not know.
It is the kind of thing one might expect to see in the bill even
though it was not in the Senate-passed or House-passed bill. It would
be interesting to find out whether or not the granting of the danger
pay allowance is a response to the war on terror. That might well be an
appropriate one of those rare exceptions where even though the House
and Senate bills did not have this in it, it might be a good thing to
include in the conference report, but one would hope there would be
some description and discussion of that so we would all appreciate the
reason for doing it.
There is a section on Police Corps. It provides for increases in the
tuition allotments for Police Corps officers; scholarship reimbursement
from $10,000 to $13,333 a year; reauthorizes the program for 4 more
years. It increases the stipend for training from $250 to $400 a week
and eliminates the $10,000 direct payment to participating police
agencies requirement--or opportunity, I should say.
Again, that is what one ordinarily would have seen come before the
committee and the Senate, but it did not pass this body. Section 11007,
radiation exposure compensation technical amendments; section 11008,
Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002--I have pages of these--
persons authorized to serve search warrants; a study on reentry, mental
illness and public safety; technical amendments to the Omnibus Crime
Control Act; debt collection improvement; use of annuity brokerage
There is a provision which I would certainly support, section 11014,
reauthorization of a State criminal alien assistance program. There are
those who oppose this. I favor it. For those who oppose it, maybe they
would want to offer an amendment reducing the amount of it.
Frankly, I would love to offer an amendment increasing the amount
because the amount that is authorized is about one-third what is
necessary to reimburse the States for the housing of criminal illegal
aliens who are the responsibility of the Federal Government but whom
the States undertake to house in their prisons.
I am denied the opportunity to offer an amendment to increase the
funding under this very good program because it comes to us in the
conference report upon which we did not act.
I will not go through all of these, but there are INS processing
fees; U.S. Parole Commission extension; the waiver of foreign country
residence requirement with respect to international medical graduates;
pretrial disclosure of expert testimony relating to a defendant's
mental condition; Multiparty/Multiform Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002;
direct shipment of wine, there is a provision on that; Webster
Commission Implementation Report. There is a very large provision in
effect authorizing the establishment of a police force within the FBI
to provide protection for FBI buildings and personnel in various areas.
There is a report on information management technology; a GAO report on
crime statistics. There is a big grant program--well, not big. It
authorizes $30 million for the Attorney General to make grants to
States for various reasons. There is a new motor vehicle franchise--
excuse me, that is the one I mentioned before. There is a new holding
court in a certain State. I will not mention the State, but just one
The point is that this bill includes numerous provisions which did
not pass the House, did not pass the Senate, which we have no
opportunity therefore to seek to amend, and which are presented to us
in a take-it-or-leave-it form in the conference report. It is not the
right way for us to do business, again, in the last 10 days or so of
I will not say anything more about the bill itself because I do not
want one to get the impression that reauthorizing the Department of
Justice is not
a good thing; it is--that many of the provisions I read to you are not
good provisions. Some of them I know are good provisions because I know
what they are. Others I presume are good, though I do not necessarily
know that. But I would like to at least offer one amendment to one of
them, and I know I will not be given that opportunity.
It is not what we should be doing in the context of the debate we are
having in these last 10 days, which is, How do we enhance the national
security of the United States of America?
I go back to the three things we should be doing right now. We should
be completing our work on the Homeland Security Department. At a
minimum, the President should be granted an opportunity for Senators to
vote on his proposal. Why have we not been allowed to do that? Why,
right after the debate on that very issue, right after another cloture
motion on that failed, do we in effect call a timeout on the Homeland
Security Department legislation and go to this bill instead? That is
more important, and that should take precedence. So should the Defense
authorization and appropriations bills.
Presumably, we are going to leave time to debate a resolution with
respect to granting the President the authority he needs to take action
I see my good friend and colleague on both the Judiciary and
Intelligence Committees, the Senator from California, is in the Chamber
and appears ready to speak. I will yield the floor to her in about 1
It has always been my great pleasure first to chair and now to be the
ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on
Terrorism and Technology, a committee that has worked over the years,
whether under my chairmanship or Senator Feinstein's chairmanship, on
the kinds of legislation I was speaking of earlier, the very things we
need to do to help our law enforcement agencies have the power to do
the job we want them to do.
I am very proud to say that legislation we worked on together as a
result of hearings we held together was finally passed as part of the
USA Patriot Act, and the work that that subcommittee has done over the
years has really paved the way for a lot of what we now know was
important to do but until, unfortunately, after September 11 people
were not willing to focus on in order to get done.
I conclude by saying it is a matter of priorities. We ought to be
focused right now on first things first, and that is our national
security, and that means first and foremost passing legislation such as
the Schumer-Kyl amendment to FISA, getting our Homeland Security
Department legislation concluded, getting our Defense authorization and
appropriations bills concluded, and paving the way for action on a
resolution of force with respect to Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my
distinguished colleague and friend from Arizona. I must say I differ
with him on this bill because I am very much in support of this bill.
In particular, I commend both Senators Leahy and Hatch for bringing
this first Department of Justice authorization report to the Senate
floor in 20 years. I very much hope the Senate is going to adopt the
Before I go into saying what this bill does with respect to Federal
judgeships, I want to comment that this bill does deal with homeland
security, particularly border security. This bill specifically
authorizes more than $4 billion for the administration and enforcement
of laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and alien
registration. More than $3.2 billion of this amount will be allotted to
the National Border Patrol. That is something for which both Senator
Kyl and I have worked on our subcommittee for a substantial period of
time, and I am very pleased to see this authorization. It deals with
For example, the Conference Report authorizes funding for the Centers
for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana,
Nevada, Vermont, and Pennsylvania. It adds additional uses for grants
for the Office of Domestic Preparedness to support State and local law
enforcement agencies. This bill also has FBI reform. It includes
provisions from the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act to codify the
authority of the Department of Justice inspector general to investigate
allegations of misconduct by FBI employees.
The conference report provides special danger pay allowances to FBI
agents in hazardous duty locations outside of the United States,
something we should very much want to speed through at this time.
It has the Law Enforcement Tribute Act. It has the Feinstein-
Sessions-Carnahan-Durbin, James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor
Act, which imposes criminal penalties on individuals who use body armor
in the commission of crimes of violence or drug trafficking crimes.
This bill specifically originated as a product of the work of Lee
Guelff, whose brother, James Guelff, was a police officer at San
Francisco's northern station. Officer Guelff responded to a sniper
incident at the corner of Franklin and Pine Streets and encountered an
individual completely clad in Kevlar--Kevlar helmet, Kevlar vest,
Kevlar pants, the whole thing--with about 1,100 rounds of ammunition.
Officer Guelff only had his police revolver, which he emptied to no
effect against his Kevlar protected assailant, who shot the officer in
the head and killed him. It took 150 police officers to equal the
firepower of this one man with semiautomatic weapons clad in Kevlar
standing in the intersection.
This is a very important bill. We have worked for 6 years. To Lee
This bill authorizes a separate and independent Violence Against
Women Office within the Department of Justice similar to S. 570
introduced by Senator Biden with 22 cosponsors. It is a very important
step for those who would like to see this separate office set up.
The bill has crime-free rural States grants. It creates and
authorizes $30 million for the crime-free rural States program to make
grants to rural States to help local communities prevent and reduce
crime, violence, and substance abuse.
For many of us, this bill is important because it restores a vital
program, the SCAAP program, that the President cut out. SCAAP is an
acronym for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Under law, the
Federal Government is responsible for the borders. If we do not protect
the borders, people come to our country illegally. Some commit crimes,
they are convicted, they do time in jails, but the local jurisdictions
pay for that time in jail in State prison and in jails. SCAAP is the
only program that reimburses the States for their cost of incarcerating
illegal aliens. It is a very important program. Senator Kyl and the
people of Arizona support it. I support it. I believe every member of
the Judiciary Committee supports it. I believe the Presiding Officer
supports it. That authorization is in this bill.
Regarding drug abuse, this bill includes several provisions from the
Hatch-Leahy-Biden-Feinstein Drug Abuse Education Prevention and
Treatment Act that will move Federal antidrug policy toward a more
balanced approach that includes added attention to prevention and
treatment. The provisions in this bill, for example, authorize funding
for drug courts. We know drug courts work in prevention of narcotic
use. The bill authorizes $172 million over the next 3 fiscal years to
support State and local adult and juvenile drug courts. These courts
provide treatment as an alternative to jail for nonviolent offenders
who stay off drugs. The statistics of recidivism show this approach
There are provisions with respect to drug-free prisons. The bill
authorizes the use of Federal funds for jail-based substance abuse
programs, for reentry programs, for DEA, and police training. It
authorizes funding for the drug enforcement agency police training in
South and Central Asia to reduce the supply of drugs entering the
The bill has a myriad of proposals with respect to protecting
intellectual property: The Madrid Protocol, distance learning, Patent
and Trademark Office authorization and modernization, and enhanced
enforcement of intellectual property laws.
Most importantly, this bill authorizes a number of new judgeships. It
authorizes five new permanent judgeships in the southern district of
San Diego, as well as two in the western district of Texas. The western
district of North Carolina receives one. It converts four temporary
judgeships to permanent judgeships: One in the central district of
Illinois, the northern district of New York, the eastern district of
Virginia. And it creates seven new temporary judgeships, one in each of
the northern districts of Alabama, Arizona, central district of
California, southern district of Florida, district of New Mexico,
western district of North Carolina, eastern district of Texas. It
extends the temporary judgeship in the northern district of Ohio for 5
I have heard Members of this body implore the Judiciary Committee
about the need for additional judgeships. The Southern District court
in San Diego, for example, has the heaviest caseload in the nation.
This court has operated in a state of emergency since September, 2000.
The Southern District handles complex litigation as well as major drug
cases that emanate from the closeness of San Diego to the Mexican
border. The district is relying on temporary and senior judges. The
bench has been close to real catastrophe. This bill finally brings
This bill improves civil justice; has motor vehicle franchise
fairness; the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act; and the Antitrust
Technical Corrections Act. There are a number of things in this bill to
improve immigration procedures: The J-1 visa program, the H-1B visas,
help to children, and more.
I conclude by noting that this bill is not unrelated to our present
place in time. It is not unrelated to the need to protect our borders,
to seeing that our nation has adequate border security, to seeing that
FBI agents have hazardous duty pay, and to seeing that our visa program
is improved. The bill provides authorization for the payment to State
and local jurisdictions for the incarceration of illegal immigrants and
for the addition of additional judgeships. It is a very important bill.
Again, I particularly thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
Without them, this bill would not be on the floor today. It is a very
important bill. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Share this page
Bookmark this page
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM