Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senator Hatch the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007. I thank Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his hard work and support of this legislation.

In the 107th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives properly authorized spending for the entire Department of Justice, (DOJ or the Department,) for the first time since 1979. Congress extended that authorization in 1980 and 1981. Until 2002 Congress had not passed nor had the President signed an authorization bill for the Department. In fact, there were a number of years where Congress failed to consider any Department authorization bill. This 23-year failure to properly reauthorize the Department forced the appropriations committees in both houses to reauthorize and appropriate money.

We ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long, but in the 107th Congress Senator Hatch and I joined forces with House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers to create and pass bipartisan legislation that reaffirmed the authorizing authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees--the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273. A new era of oversight began with that new charter for the Justice Department, with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees taking active new roles in setting the priorities and monitoring the operations of the Department of Justice, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and that bill helped our oversight duties in many ways. And, as we have learned in the past 3 years, the fight against terrorism makes constructive oversight more important than ever before.

Already this Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers have authored and shepherded through the House of Representatives a new Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, H.R. 3036. I commend both Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers for working in a bipartisan manner to pass that legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, fiscal years 2005 through 2007 is a comprehensive authorization of the Department based on H.R. 3036 as passed by the House of Representatives on March 30, 2004. Our bipartisan legislation authorizes appropriations for the Department for fiscal years 2005 through 2007, provide permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department to efficiently carry out its mission, clarify and harmonize existing statutory authority, and repeal obsolete statutory authorities. The bill also establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms intended to better enable the Congress and the Department to oversee the operations of the Department. Finally, our bill incorporates numerous other pieces of legislation--on such issues as preventing and recovering missing children, cigarette trafficking, intellectual property, going after terrorists who commit violent acts against American citizens overseas, among others--currently pending before Congress that enjoy strong bipartisan support.

I will now highlight a number of the provisions that make up this authorization bill.

Title I of our bill authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. With minor exceptions, these authorizations generally reflect the President's budget request.

Title II makes numerous improvements and upgrades to the Department's grant programs that assist law enforcement and criminal justice agencies; build community capacity to prevent, reduce and control crime; assist victims of crime; and prevent crime.

We decided to combine the current Byrne formula grant, Byrne discretionary grant and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG, programs into one Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program with an authorization of $1.075 billion and a list of 35 uses-- a combination of the traditional Byrne and LLEBG grants regulations-- for which these grants may be used.

I am a longtime supporter of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the LLEBG, both of which have been continuously targeted for elimination by the Bush administration. LLEBG, which received $225 million this year, provide local governments with the means to underwrite projects that reduce crime and improve public safety, and allow communities to craft their own responses to local crime and drug problems. The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which Congress funded at $659,117,000 in FY 2004, makes grants to States to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent crimes and serious offenders, and to enforce State and local drug laws. As a senator from a rural State that relies on LLEBG and Byrne grants to combat crime, I have been concerned with the President's proposals for funding and program eliminations of these well-established grant programs. Our legislation makes it clear that the same authorized funding levels and uses will be available under the new consolidated grant program as under the previous two grant programs.

I am pleased that Title II also extends the authorization of appropriations for the Regional Information Sharing System, RISS, at $100 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. RISS serves as an invaluable tool to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies by providing much-needed criminal intelligence and investigative support services. It has built a reputation as one of the most effective and efficient means developed to combat multi- jurisdictional criminal activity, such as narcotics trafficking and gang activity. Without RISS, most law enforcement officers would not have access to newly developed crime-fighting technologies and would be hindered in their intelligence-gathering efforts.

By providing State and local law enforcement agencies with rapid access to its secure, state-of-the-art, nationwide information sharing system, RISS gives law enforcement officers the resources they need to identify and apprehend potential terrorists before they strike. With this in mind, I authored Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56, to increase information sharing for critical infrastructure protection. The law expanded RISS to facilitate information sharing among Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities, and increased authorized funding to $100 million.

Proper funding provides RISS with the means to maintain six regionally-based information sharing centers that allow for information and intelligence services to be disseminated nationwide addressing major, multijurisdictional crimes. In addition, as the September 11 terrorist attacks and calls for increased vigilance against future attacks demonstrated, RISS requires additional support to intensify antiterrorism measures.

Each RISS center has up to 1,600 member agencies, the vast majority of which are at the municipal and county levels. Over 400 State agencies and over 850 Federal agencies, however, are also members. The Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, Customs, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are among the Federal agencies that participate in the RISS Program.

Unfortunately, the Consolidated Appropriations law for FY 2004 did not provide full funding for RISS, instead including $30 million for the program. For the coming fiscal year, the President has proposed $45 million. We must ensure that RISS can continue current services, meet increased membership support needs for terrorism investigations and prosecutions, increase intelligence analysis capabilities and add staff to support the increasing numbers of RISS members.

This title also contains a reauthorization of the Crime Free Rural States program that we created in the DOJ Authorization bill in the last Congress. This program authorizes $10 million annually for rural States to address specific crime problems plaguing their areas. In Vermont, for example, this funding could be used to battle heroin abuse and its consequences.

This authorization bill contains a number of provisions of great interest to victim service organizations and those who administer Federal grants for victim assistance and compensation. In particular, I am pleased that we have responded to repeated requests from the field to increase the amount that State assistance and compensation programs may retain for administrative purposes. I have been proposing such an increase for many years, without success.

Under current law, not more than 5 percent of victim assistance and compensation grants may be used for the administration of the State program receiving the grant. The House bill effectively decreases this already-low apportionment by combining administrative costs with training costs--currently 1 percent under guidelines promulgated by the Office for Victims of Crime, OVC. By contrast, we propose raising the amount that can be used for both worthwhile purposes to 7.5 percent of the grants. While this is still less than 10 percent retention permitted, for example, by the Violence Against Women Act, it will help States to accommodate the addition of training purposes in their costs.

Our bill will also amend the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, to clarify the provisions establishing the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve in various ways. The original H.R. 3036 permits replenishments of the emergency reserve based upon amounts obligated rather than amounts actually expended in any given fiscal year. Our bill includes two additional clarifications that I proposed. First, it makes explicit that the emergency reserve may be replenished only once each fiscal year, and may not be continually replenished as amounts are obligated or expended. Allowing continual replenishments could result in the obligations or expenditures exceeding the $50 million emergency reserve maximum. Second, we have ensured that all emergency reserve funds-- whether carried over, used to replenish the reserve, obligated or expended--fall above the cap on spending from the Crime Victim Fund as set by appropriations legislation.

Section 242 of the House-passed bill authorized the Assistant Attorney General for the Office for Justice Programs, OJP, to impose special conditions and determine priorities for formula grants. It was unclear to me why the authority to determine formula grant priorities was necessary and what its real impact would be on local victim services. Could it be read to authorize OJP to infringe on the discretion of each State to meet its own needs, as for example by mandating that State VOCA programs give priority to public agencies over nonprofit community organizations, or fund faith-based programs before secular programs? Priorities are already set out by Congress in the authorizing statutes, as is the requirement that programs coordinate public and private victim services in their communities, and the Justice Department should not be allowed to override those congressional directives. Moreover, VOCA already has extensive reporting requirements that enable the Department to monitor how States are distributing these funds. We have therefore deleted the authority to determine formula grant priorities, while retaining the special conditions provision.

Subtitle D of Title II deals with approaches to prevent crime. I am especially pleased that we included provisions that will specifically aid in preventing rural crime because rural States and communities face a number of unique law enforcement challenges. We added these provisions from Senator Daschle's Rural Safety Act, S. 1907, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I commend our Democratic leader for his commitment to providing real and meaningful investments to address the unique set of challenges facing rural law enforcement agencies.

Rural law enforcement officers patrol larger areas, operate under tighter budgets and with smaller staffs than their urban and suburban counterparts. This legislation creates programs specifically designed to meet the many complex needs of rural law enforcement agencies and officers. Methamphetamine production and use, for example, is a growing concern for Vermonters. Because the ingredients and the equipment used to produce methamphetamines are so inexpensive and readily available, the drug can be manufactured or ``cooked'' in homemade labs. This has become one of the major problems facing law enforcement agencies nationwide. Last month, the Vermont State Police busted the first known methamphetamine lab in the state. We must help our law enforcement agencies as they struggle to keep up with its troubling growth.

To help law enforcement combat the spread of methamphetamine and other challenges, we authorize in this bill $20 million in grants for FY 2005 to provide for the cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of local government and tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; and the improvement of contract-related response time for cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of local established methamphetamine prevention and treatment pilot programs in rural areas, and provide additional financial support to local law enforcement.

We also establish a rural 9-1-1 service program to provide access to, and improve a communications infrastructure that will ensure a reliable and seamless communication between, law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service providers in units of local government and tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and in States. Grants--authorized at $25 million for fiscal year 2005--under this program will be used to establish or improve 9-1-1 service in rural communities. Priority in making grants under this program will be given to communities that do not have 9-1-1 service.

I am pleased that our bill includes the Campbell-Leahy-Hatch Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. This bill was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent a year ago this month and it awaits consideration by the House of Representatives.

This measure marks the third time that I have had the privilege of teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on this legislation. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost.

Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and I hope we will go 3-for-3 this time around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable experience in this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a leader in the area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff,

he knows the dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. I am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by 12 other Senate cosponsors.

Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by providing more help to State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, 148 municipalities have been fortunate to receive to receive funding for the purchase of almost 1200 vests. Without the Federal funding given by this program, I daresay that there would be close to that number of police officers without vests in Vermont today.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by reauthorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation would continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50 million per year for matching grants to State and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body armor.

We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.

We also included in this authorization bill the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, PACT, Act, as passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on December 9, 2003, but which has yet to be taken up and passed by the House. I commend Senators Hatch and Kohl for their leadership on this measure and thank them for working with me, among others, to craft the compromise language that we include in this bill to crack down on the growing problem of cigarette smuggling, both interstate and international, as well as to address the connection between cigarette smuggling activities and terrorist funding. I am proud to join Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl and 10 others as a cosponsor of the standalone bill.

I also thank the National Association of Attorneys General and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for working with us and contributing to this language. I want to say a special thanks to Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who also serves as the current Chair of the NAAG Tobacco Committee, for his valuable input on the problems with cigarette smuggling that States are facing and his support for this compromise measure. I also want to thank the Vermont Grocers Association, the Vermont Retail Association, the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures for their support for this measure.

The movement of cigarettes from low-tax areas to high-tax areas in order to avoid the payment of taxes when the cigarettes are resold has become a public health problem in recent years. As State after State chooses to raise its tobacco excise taxes as a means of reducing tobacco use and as a source of revenue, many smokers have sought cheaper means by which to purchase cigarettes. Smokers can often purchase cigarettes and tobacco from remote sellers, Internet or mail order at substantial discounts due to avoidance of state taxes. These sellers, however, are evading their tax obligations because they neither collect nor pay the proper State and local excise taxes for cigarette and other tobacco product sales.

We have the ability to dramatically reduce smuggling without imposing undue burdens on manufacturers or law abiding citizens. By reducing smuggling, we will also increase government revenues by minimizing tax avoidance. My friend General Sorrell has told me that this has become a rapidly growing problem in Vermont as more and more tobacco product manufacturers fail to collect and pay cigarette taxes. Criminals are getting away with smuggling and not paying tobacco taxes because of weak punishments, products that are often poorly labeled, the lack of tax stamps and the inability of the current distribution system to track sales from State to State. These lapses point to a need for uniform rules governing group sales to individuals.

The PACT Act will give States the authority to collect millions of dollars in lost State tax revenue resulting from online and other remote sales of cigarette and smokeless tobacco. It also ensures that every tobacco retailer, whether a brick-and-mortar or remote retailer of tobacco products, play by the same rules by equalizing the tax burdens.

Moreover, the PACT Act gives States the authority necessary to enforce the Jenkins Act, a law passed in 1949, which requires cigarette vendors to report interstate sales of cigarettes. This legislation enhances States' abilities to collect all excise taxes and verify the deposit of all required escrow payments for cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales in interstate commerce, including internet sales. In addition, it provides Federal and State law enforcement with additional resources to enforce state tobacco excise tax laws.

Finally, at the request of the National Association of Attorneys General and many State Attorneys General, we have added a new section to provide the States with authority to enforce the Imported Cigarette Compliance Act to crack down on international tobacco smuggling. This additional authority should further reduce tax evasion and eliminate a lucrative funding source for terrorist organizations.

We must not turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal tobacco smuggling. Those who smuggle cigarettes are criminals and we must close the loopholes that allow cigarette smuggling to continue.

The United States has from its inception recognized the importance of intellectual property laws in fostering innovation, and vested in Congress the responsibility of crafting laws that ensure that those who produce inventions are able to reap economic rewards for their efforts. I am pleased that we can today include, as part of the Department of Justice Authorization Act, the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004, the CREATE Act, legislation that I cosponsored along with Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, Senator Schumer, Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator Cochran. This bill will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our Nation's patent laws. On June 25, 2004, the CREATE Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

When Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, the law encouraged private entities and not-for-profits such as universities to form collaborative partnerships in order to spur innovation. Prior to the enactment of this law, universities were issued fewer than 250 patents each year. That this number has in recent years surpassed two thousand is owed in large measure to the Bayh-Dole Act. The innovation this law encouraged has contributed billions of dollars annually to the United States economy and has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs.

However, one component of the Bayh-Dole Act, when read literally, runs contrary to the intent of that legislation. In 1999, the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled, in Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., that non-public information may in certain cases be considered ``prior art''--a standard which generally prevents an inventor from obtaining a patent. Thus some collaborative teams that the Bayh-Dole Act was intended to encourage have been unable to obtain patents for their efforts. The result is a disincentive to form this type of partnership, which could have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and hamper the development of new creations.

However, the Federal circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the legislation. The CREATE Act does exactly that by ensuring that nonpublic information is not considered prior art when the information is used in a collaborative partnership under the Bayh-Dole Act. The bill also includes strict evidentiary burdens to ensure that the

legislation is tailored narrowly in order to solely fulfill the intent of the Bayh-Dole Act.

I am pleased that the PIRATE Act, which I cosponsored with Senator Hatch, will be included as part of this bipartisan bill. Like the overall bill, the PIRATE Act is a consensus bill that will give the Justice Department new and needed tools--in this case, these tools are specific to the fight against piracy. This bill was unanimously passed by the Senate on June 25, 2004. By including this measure in the Department of Justice Authorization Bill, we hope to muster more forces to combat the growing problem of digital piracy.

For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof. In the world of copyright, a criminal charge is unusually difficult to prove because the defendant must have known that his conduct was illegal and he must have willfully engaged in the conduct anyway. For this reason prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament.

The PIRATE Act will give the Attorney General civil enforcement authority for copyright infringement. It also calls on the Justice Department to initiate training and pilot programs to ensure that Federal prosecutors across the country are aware of the many difficult technical and strategic problems posed by enforcing copyright law in the digital age.

This new authority does not supplant either the criminal provisions of the Copyright Act, or the remedies available to the copyright owner in a private suit. Rather, it allows the Government to bring its resources to bear on this immense problem and to ensure that more creative works are made available online, that those works are more affordable, and that the people who work to bring them to us are paid for their efforts.

I am pleased that the Koby Mandell Act of 2003 was included in this legislation. I am a proud cosponsor of the stand-alone bill. The act would establish an office within the Department of Justice with a mandate to ensure equal treatment of all victims of terrorist acts committed overseas. Its primary role would be to guarantee that vigorous efforts are made to pursue, prosecute, and punish each and every terrorist who harms Americans overseas, no matter where attacks occur. It would also take steps to inform victims of important developments in international cases, such as status reports on efforts to capture terrorists and monitoring the incarceration of those terrorists who are imprisoned overseas. This is important legislation that would send a strong message of resolve that we are committed to finding and punishing every terrorist who harms Americans overseas.

I am pleased that we have included part of S. 1286, the Seniors Safety Act, which I introduced last year. This bill would create an enhanced sentencing penalty for those who commit crimes against the elderly, create new civil and criminal penalties for pension fraud, and create a centralized service to log complaints of telemarketing fraud.

We would also provide the Attorney General with a new and substantial tool to prevent telemarketing fraud--the power to block or terminate service to telephone facilities that are being used to defraud innocent people. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals acquire a new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors from being victimized.

We have agreed to incorporate the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2004, which was originally introduced as a stand- alone bill with my good friends Senator Hatch, Senator Mikulski and Senator Durbin. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than other nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would increase the retirement benefits given to Assistant United States Attorneys by including them as ``law enforcement officers,'' LEOs, under the Federal Employees' Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System. The bill would also allow the Attorney General to designate other attorneys employed by the Department of Justice who act primarily as criminal prosecutors as LEOs for purposes of receiving these retirement benefits.

The primary reason for granting enhanced retirement benefits to LEOs is the often dangerous work of law enforcement. Currently, Assistant United States Attorneys, AUSAs, and other Federal prosecutors are not eligible for these enhanced benefits, which are enjoyed by the vast majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. This exclusion is unjustified. The relevant provisions of the United States Code dealing with retirement benefits define an LEO as an employee whose duties are, ``primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331(20) & 8401(17). AUSAs and other Federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations, interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting, debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements and representing the government at trials and sentencings, all of which fall within the definition of the duties performed by law enforcement officers. Indeed, once a defendant is brought into the criminal justice system, the person with whom they have the most face-to-face contact, and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal prosecutor.

Although prosecutors do not personally execute arrests, searches and other physically dangerous activities, LEO status is accorded to many criminal justice employees who do not perform such tasks, such as pretrial services officers and probation officers and accountants, cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, because they are often the most conspicuous representatives of the government in the criminal justice system, Federal prosecutors are natural targets for threats of reprisals by vengeful criminals. Indeed, there are numerous incidents in which assaults and serious death threats have been made against Federal prosecutors, sometimes resulting in significant disruption of their personal and family lives.

I am pleased that S. 710, the Leahy-Hatch Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act, was included in this legislation. This measure would expand the grounds for removing alien human rights violators from the United States, or for denying them entry in the first place. We have heard many accounts of abusers who have taken advantage of America's freedoms after committing horrifying violations of their fellow citizens in their native lands. We need to stop that from happening again.

This bill passed the Judiciary Committee last November but has been subject to an anonymous hold on the floor. A similar version of it passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 106th Congress. It is long past time to make it law.

I would note that on May 12, a Rwandan man wanted on international charges of genocide and crimes against humanity was arrested at his suburban Chicago home by agents from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. Before I and others began to raise the issue of the war criminals among us, it was my impression that the former INS paid little attention to rooting out these thugs. I am pleased that the issue has taken on greater importance at ICE and urge the Senate to pass this bill so that we can expand the grounds of inadmissibility and removability for human rights violators.

I am pleased that the DREAM Act has been included in this bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill, which Senators Hatch and Durbin introduced last year and was passed last fall by the Judiciary Committee. It would benefit undocumented alien children who were brought to the United States by their parents as young children, by restoring States' ability to offer them in-State

tuition and offering them a path to legal residency. It has been distressing that a bill with committee approval and 48 sponsors has been unable to get a vote on the floor of the Senate, and I hope that including the DREAM Act in this legislation will give it added momentum.

I am proud that we include Schumer-Specter legislation to honor the sacrifice of the September 11, 2001 terrorist victims by creating congressional medals that would be awarded to their families and loved ones by the President. I am proud to have joined my friends as a cosponsor of this legislation, as have 18 other Senators.

The tragedy of September 11, 2001 demanded unprecedented sacrifices of everyday American civilians and rescue workers 3,000 of whom lost their lives in the attacks. In recognition of their heroic actions on that day, the bipartisan Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act would create a medal to be awarded posthumously to the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The medal would be designed by the Department of Treasury and awarded to representatives of the deceased by the President. The production of the medals would be paid for by the sale of duplicate medals to the public. Those of us who lost loved ones almost 3 years ago can never have them back, but a medal of honor could recognizes the sacrifices and heroic efforts of our fallen citizens.

I am pleased that our Department of Justice authorization bill includes legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced together to reauthorize and expand the Department of Justice grant program for Boys & Girls Clubs. The original version of this legislation, S. 2363, currently enjoys 44 cosponsors and passed the Senate by unanimous consent last month. It was considered and reported out of the House Judiciary Committee by voice vote earlier this month but still awaits floor consideration.

Children are the future of our country, and we have a responsibility to make sure they are safe and secure. I know firsthand how well Boys & Girls Clubs work and what topnotch organizations they are. When I was a prosecutor in Vermont, I was convinced of the great need for Boys & Girls Clubs because we rarely encountered children from these kinds of programs. In fact, after I became a U.S. Senator, a police chief was such a big fan that he asked me to help fund a Boys & Girls Club in his district rather than helping him get a couple more police officers.

In Vermont, Boys & Girls Clubs have succeeded in preventing crime and supporting our children. The first club was established in Burlington 62 years ago. Now we have 22 club sites operating throughout the State: seven clubs in Brattleboro, one in Springfield, two clubs in Burlington, one in Winooski, two clubs in Montpelier, five clubs in Randolph, one club in Rutland, two clubs in Vergennes and one in Bristol. There are 10 additional project sites that will be on board and serving kids by the end of 2005: one in Bennington, two in Burlington, one in Duxbury, one in St. Johnsbury, one in Hardwick, three in Randolph and one in Ludlow. These clubs will serve well over 10,000 kids statewide.

As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have pushed for more Federal funding for Boys & Girls Clubs. Since 1998, Congress has increased Federal support for Boys & Girls Clubs from $20 million to $80 million in this year. Due in large part to this increase in funding, there now exist 3,300 Boys & Girls Clubs in all 50 States serving more than 3.6 million young people. Because of these successes, I was both surprised and disappointed to see that the President requested a reduction of $20 million for FY 2005. That request will leave thousands of children and their Clubs behind and we cannot allow such a thing to happen.

In the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which Senator Hatch and I worked together to pass in the 107th Congress, we included a provision to reauthorize Justice Department grants to establish new Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. By authorizing $80 million in DOJ grants for each of the fiscal years through 2005, we sought to establish 1,200 additional Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. This was to bring the number of Boys & Girls Clubs to 4,000, serving no less than 5 million young people. The bill we introduce today will build upon this: We authorize Justice Department grants at $80 million for fiscal year 2006, $85 million for fiscal year 2007, $90 million for fiscal year 2008, $95 million for fiscal year 2009 and $100 million for fiscal year 2010 to Boys & Girls Clubs to help establish 1,500 additional Boys & Girls Clubs across the Nation with the goal of having 5,000 Boys & Girls Clubs in operation by December 31, 2010.

If we had a Boys & Girls Club in every community, prosecutors in our country would have a lot less work to do because of the values that are being instilled in children from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Each time I visit a club in Vermont, I am approached by parents, educators, teachers, grandparents and law enforcement officers who tell me ``Keep doing this! These clubs give our children the chance to grow up free of drugs, gangs and crime.''

You cannot argue that these are just Democratic or Republican ideas, or conservative or liberal ideas. They are simply good sense ideas. We need safe havens where our youth--the future of our country can learn and grow up free from the influences of drugs, gangs and crime. That is why Boys & Girls Clubs are so important to our children.

We also incorporated language similar to the Leahy-Grassley-Lincoln Missing Child Cold Case Review Act of 2004, S. 2435, which will allow an inspector general to authorize his or her staff to provide assistance on and conduct reviews of the inactive case files, or ``cold cases,'' involving children stored at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, NCMEC, and to develop recommendations for further investigations. The only alteration we made to the original bill was to include language to also allow the Inspector General of the Government Printing Office to authorize his or her staff to work on cold cases.

Speed is everything in homicide investigations. As a former prosecutor in Vermont, I know firsthand that speed is of the essence when trying to solve a homicide. This focus on speed, however, has led the law enforcement community to generally believe that any case not solved within the first 72 hours or lacking significant leads and witness participation has little likelihood of being solved, regardless of the expertise and resources deployed. With time, such unsolved cases become ``cold,'' and these are among the most difficult and frustrating cases detectives face because they are, in effect, cases that other investigators, for whatever reason, failed to solve.

Our Nation's law enforcement agencies, regardless of size, are not immune to rising crime rates, staff shortages and budget restrictions. Such obstacles have strained the investigative and administrative resources of all agencies. More crime often means that fewer cases are vigorously pursued, fewer opportunities arise for followup and individual caseloads increase for already overworked detectives.

All the obstacles that hamper homicide investigations in their early phases contribute to cold cases. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children our Nation's top resource center for child protection presently retains a backlog of cold cases involving children that law enforcement departments nationwide have stopped investigating primarily due to all these obstacles. NCMEC serves as a clearinghouse for all cold cases in which a child has not been found and/or the suspect has not been identified.

This provision will allow an inspector general to provide staff support to NCMEC for the purpose of conducting reviews of inactive case files to develop recommendations for further investigation and similar activities. The inspector general community has one of the most diverse and talented criminal investigative cadres in the Federal Government. A vast majority of these special agents have come from traditional law enforcement agencies, and are highly-trained and extremely capable of dealing with complex, criminal cases.

Under current law, an inspector general's duties are limited to activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. This measure would allow an inspector general to permit criminal investigators under his or her supervision to review cold case files, so long as doing so would not interfere

with normal duties. An inspector general would not conduct actual investigations, and any inspector general would only commit staff when the office's mission-related workloads permitted. At no time would these activities be allowed to conflict with or delay the stated missions of an inspector general.

From time to time a criminal investigator employed by an inspector general may be between investigations or otherwise available for brief periods of time. This act would also allow those resources to be provided to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Commitment of resources would be at a minimum and would not materially affect the budget of any office.

We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be moved easily through the Senate and House. It is supported by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. I applaud the ongoing work of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and hope that we can soon provide NCMEC with the resources it requires to solve cold cases involving missing children.

This authorization bill includes a provision that would help colleges and universities in Vermont and across the nation. It would allow foreigners who are pursuing ``distance learning'' opportunities at American schools to enter the country for up to 30 days to fulfill academic requirements. Under current law, these students do not fall under any visa category, and many are being denied entry and are thus unable to complete their educations. This is a loophole that harms both those students and the institutions that serve them.

In recent months, serious questions have been raised in the media and in several congressional hearings about deficiencies within the translation program at the FBI. Nearly, 2 years ago I began asking questions in Judiciary Committee hearings about the FBI's translation program. Most of these remain unanswered. As a result, members of our committee are no closer to determining the scope of the issue, including the pervasiveness and seriousness of FBI shortcomings in this area, or what the FBI intends to do to rectify personnel shortages, security issues, translation inaccuracies and other problems that have plagued the translator program for years.

Section 205 of the USA PATRIOT Act included an important reporting requirement by the Attorney General to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees about (1) the number of translators employed by the FBI, (2) legal and practical impediments to using translators employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared basis, and (3) the needs of the FBI for specific translation services in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those needs. To date, the Attorney General has not made the report required by Section 205 most likely because there is no date certain written in the law by which the report must be made. This provision fills that gap by requiring the report ``not later than 30 days after the date of enactment and annually thereafter .with respect to the preceding 12 month period.'' It also expands the reporting requirement to include translators ``contracted'' by the government in addition to those ``employed.''

I have worked my entire professional life to protect children from those who would prey on them. Preventing child exploitation through the use of the Internet is one concrete and important way to help this important cause. In this regard, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Public Law No. 105-314, remote computing and electronic communication service providers are mandated to report all instances of child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I respect and applaud the work of NCMEC and its tireless efforts in this important national priority.

In March 1998, Congress mandated that NCMEC initiate the CyberTipline for citizens to report online sexual crimes against children. In December 1999, Congress passed Public Law No. 106-113 to modify 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13032(b)(1) to set forth a ``duty to report'' by ISPs. According to NCMEC, many U.S. electronic communications service providers are not complying with the requirement that they register and use the CyberTipline to report child porn found on their services because supporting regulations required to be promulgated by the Department of Justice on matters such as the contents of the report were never done so.

In this authorization bill we propose language that amends the ``duty to report'' language by providing specific guidance on what information is required to be included in the ISP reports. The information required includes the content and images of the apparent violation, the Internet Protocol Address, the date and time associated with the violation, and specific contact information for the sender.

America's film heritage is an important part of the American experience, an inheritance from previous generations that helps tell us who we are and who we were as a society. They offer insight into our history, our dreams, and our aspirations. Yet sadly, this part of American heritage is literally disintegrating faster than can be saved. Today, I am delighted that with the help of Senator Hatch, the National Film Preservation Act can be included in our Department of Justice reauthorization bill.

I introduced the National Film Preservation Act last November, a bill that will reauthorize and extend the National Film Preservation Act of 1996. We first acted in 1988 in order to recognize the educational, cultural, and historical importance of our film heritage, and its inherently fragile nature. In doing so, Congress created the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation both of which operate under the auspices of the Library of Congress in order to help save America's film heritage.

The National Film Preservation Act will allow the Library of Congress to continue its important work in preserving America's fading treasures, as well as providing grants that will help libraries, museums, and archives preserve films and make those works available for study and research. These continued efforts are more critical today than ever before. While a wide range of works have been saved, with every passing day we lose the opportunity to save more. Fewer than 20 percent of the features of the 1920s exist in complete form and less than 10 percent of the features of the 1910s have survived into the new millennium.

The films saved by the National Film Preservation Board are precisely those types of works that would be unlikely to survive without public support. At-risk documentaries, silent-era films, avant-garde works, ethnic films, newsreels, and home movies frequently provide more insight into the American experience than the Hollywood sound features kept and preserved by major studios. What is more, in many cases only one copy of these ``orphaned'' works exists. As the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, has noted, ``Our film heritage is America's living past.''

I would like to thank Senator Hatch again for working with me to include the ``National Film Preservation Act'' in the bill we are introducing today.

The House-passed bill included an important reporting requirement authored by Rep. Adam Schiff and adopted by the House Judiciary Committee. Specifically, this provision required the Department of Justice to submit an annual report to Congress specifying the number of U.S. persons or residents detained on suspicion of terrorism, and describing Department standards for recommending or determining that a person should be tried as a criminal defendant or designated as an enemy combatant. A Washington Post editorial dated April 3, 2004, praised this provision, while noting that ``If more members of the House took their duty to legislate in this critical area seriously, Congress would craft a bill that actually imposed standards rather than simply inquired what they were.'' I agree, and regret that was unable to persuade Chairman Hatch to retain this modest oversight tool.

I am disappointed that we will not be including the privacy officer provision referred to us by the House. It is critical that the Department have a designated leader who is consistently mindful of the impact of the Department's activities on privacy rights. While there has been some history of a

privacy official at the Department, these positions have been nonstatutory, and thus there has been no guarantee of consistent vigor and accountability on these issues. Given that the Department's mission increasingly involves gathering and assessing personal information, we simply can't afford to have a lapse in accountability on privacy. Moreover, this is not an untested idea. Congress created a privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, and it has been recognized as a successful example of how this role can be helpful in assessing and addressing privacy concerns. We need to follow this lead, and the privacy officer provision would have been a good opportunity to do so.

I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers to continue the important business of reauthorizing the Department of Justice. Clearly, regular reauthorization of the Department should be part and parcel of the committees' traditional role in overseeing the Department's activities. Swift passage into law of the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 will be a significant step toward enhancing our oversight role.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senator Hatch the ``Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, fiscal years 2005 through 2007.'' I thank Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for support of this legislation.

In the 107th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives properly authorized spending for the entire Department of Justice, ``DOJ'' or the ``Department'', for the first time since 1979. Congress extended that authorization in 1980 and 1981. Until 2002 Congress had not passed nor had the President signed an authorization bill for the Department. In fact, there were a number of years where Congress failed to consider any Department authorization bill. This 23-year failure to properly reauthorize the Department forced the appropriations committees in both houses to reauthorize and appropriate money.

We ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long, but in the 107th Congress Senator Hatch and I joined forces with House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers to create and pass bipartisan legislation that reaffirmed the authorizing authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees--the ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,'' Public Law 107-273. A new era of oversight began with that new charter for the Justice Department, with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees taking active new roles in setting the priorities and monitoring the operations of the Department of Justice, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and that bill helped our oversight duties in many ways. And, as we have learned in the past three years, the fight against terrorism makes constructive oversight more important than ever before.

Already this Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers have authored and shepherded through the House of Representatives a new Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006, H.R. 3036. I commend both Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for working in a bipartisan manner to pass that legislation in the House of Representatives.

The ``Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007,'' is a comprehensive authorization of the Department based on H.R. 3036 as passed by the House of Representatives on March 30, 2004. Our bipartisan legislation would authorize appropriations for the Department for fiscal years 2005 through 2007, provide permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department to efficiently carry out its mission, clarify and harmonize existing statutory authority, and repeal obsolete statutory authorities. The bill also establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms intended to better enable the Congress and the Department to oversee the operations of the Department. Finally, our bill incorporates numerous other pieces of legislation on such issues as preventing--and recovering missing children, cigarette trafficking, intellectual property, going after terrorists who commit violent acts against American citizens overseas, among others--currently pending before Congress that enjoy strong bipartisan support.

I will now highlight a number of the provisions that make up this authorization bill.

Title I of our bill authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. With minor exceptions, these authorizations generally reflect the President's budget request.

Title II makes numerous improvements and upgrades to the Department's grant programs that assist law

enforcement and criminal justice agencies; build community capacity to prevent, reduce and control crime; assist victims of crime; and prevent crime.

We decided to combine the current Byrne formula grant, Byrne discretionary grant and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, (LLEBG), programs into one Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program with an authorization of $1.075 billion and a list of 35 uses-- a combination of the traditional Byrne and LLEBG grants regulations-- for which these grants may be used.

I am a longtime supporter of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the LLEBG, both of which have been continuously targeted for elimination by the Bush Administration. LLEBG, which received $225 million this year, provide local governments with the means to underwrite projects that reduce crime and improve public safety, and allow communities to craft their own responses to local crime and drug problems. The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which Congress funded at $659,117,000 in fiscal year 2004, makes grants to States to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent crimes and serious offenders, and to enforce State and local drug laws. As a senator from a rural State that relies on LLEBG and Byrne grants to combat crime, I have been concerned with the President's proposals for funding and program eliminations of these well-established grant programs; our legislation makes it clear that the same authorized funding levels and uses will be available under the new consolidated grant program as under the previous two grant programs.

I am pleased that Title II also extends the authorization of appropriations for the Regional Information Sharing System, RISS, at $100 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. RISS serves as an invaluable tool to Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies by providing much-needed criminal intelligence and investigative support services. It has built a reputation as one of the most effective and efficient means developed to combat multi-jurisdictional criminal activity, such as narcotics trafficking and gang activity. Without RISS, most law enforcement officers would not have access to newly developed crime-fighting technologies and would be hindered in their intelligence-gathering efforts.

By providing State and local law enforcement agencies with rapid access to its secure, state-of-the-art, nationwide information sharing system, RISS gives law enforcement officers the resources they need to identify and apprehend potential terrorists before they strike. With this in mind, I authored Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56, to increase information sharing for critical infrastructure protection. The law expanded RISS to facilitate information sharing among Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities, and increased authorized funding to $100 million.

Proper funding provides RISS with the means to maintain six regionally-based information sharing centers that allow for information and intelligence services to be disseminated nationwide addressing major, multi-jurisdictional crimes. In addition, as the September 11 terrorist attacks and calls for increased vigilance against future attacks demonstrated, RISS requires additional support to intensify anti-terrorism measures.

Each RISS center has up to 1,600 member agencies, the vast majority of which are at the municipal and county levels. Over 400 State agencies and over 850 Federal agencies, however, are also members. The Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, Customs, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are among the Federal agencies that participate in the RISS Program.

Unfortunately, the Consolidated Appropriations law for FY 2004 did not provide full funding for RISS, instead including $30 million for the program. For the coming fiscal year, the President has proposed $45 million. We must ensure that RISS can continue current services, meet increased membership support needs for terrorism investigations and prosecutions, increase intelligence analysis capabilities and add staff to support the increasing numbers of RISS members.

This title also contains a reauthorization of the Crime Free Rural States program that we created in the DOJ Authorization bill in the last Congress. This program authorizes $10 million annually for rural states to address specific crime problems plaguing their areas. In Vermont, for example, this funding could be used to battle heroin abuse and its consequences.

This authorization bill contains a number of provisions of great interest to victim service organizations and those who administer federal grants for victim assistance and compensation. In particular, I am pleased that we have responded to repeated requests from the field to increase the amount that State assistance and compensation programs may retain for administrative purposes. I have been proposing such an increase for many years, without success.

Under current law, not more than five percent of victim assistance and compensation grants may be used for the administration of the State program receiving the grant. The House bill effectively decreases this already-low apportionment by combining administrative costs with training costs--currently one percent under guidelines promulgated by the Office for Victims of Crime, OVC. By contrast, we propose raising the amount that can be used for both worthwhile purposes to 7.5 percent of the grants. While this is still less than 10 percent retention permitted, for example, by the Violence Against Women Act, it will help States to accommodate the addition of training purposes in their costs.

Our bill will also amend the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, to clarify the provisions establishing the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve in various ways. The original H.R. 3036 permits replenishments of the Emergency Reserve based upon amounts obligated rather than amounts actually expended in any given fiscal year. Our bill includes two additional clarifications that I proposed. First, it makes explicit that the Emergency Reserve may be replenished only once each fiscal year, and may not be continually replenished as amounts are obligated or expended. Allowing continual replenishments could result in the obligations or expenditures exceeding the $50 million Emergency Reserve maximum. Second, we have ensured that all Emergency Reserve funds-- whether carried over, used to replenish the Reserve, obligated or expended--fall above the cap on spending from the Crime Victim Fund as set by appropriations legislation.

Section 242 of the House-passed bill authorized the Assistant Attorney General for the Office for Justice Programs (OJP) to impose special conditions and determine priorities for formula grants. It was unclear to me why the authority to determine formula grant priorities was necessary and what its real impact would be on local victim services. Could it be read to authorize OJP to infringe on the discretion of each State to meet its own needs, as for example by mandating that State VOCA programs give priority to public agencies over nonprofit community organizations, or fund faith-based programs before secular programs? Priorities are already set out by Congress in the authorizing statutes, as is the requirement that programs coordinate public and private victim services in their communities, and the Justice Department should not be allowed to override those congressional directives. Moreover, VOCA already has extensive reporting requirements that enable the Department to monitor how States are distributing these funds. We have therefore deleted the authority to determine formula grant priorities, while retaining the special conditions provision.

Subtitle D of Title II deals with approaches to prevent crime. I am especially pleased that we included provisions that will specifically aid in preventing rural crime because rural States and communities face a number of unique law enforcement challenges. We added these provisions from Senator Daschle's ``Rural Safety Act,'' S. 1907, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I commend our

Democratic Leader for his commitment to providing real and meaningful investments to address the unique set of challenges facing rural law enforcement agencies.

Rural law enforcement officers patrol larger areas, operate under tighter budgets and with smaller staffs than their urban and suburban counterparts. This legislation creates programs specifically designed to meet the many complex needs of rural law enforcement agencies and officers. Methamphetamine production and use, for example, is a growing concern for Vermonters. Because the ingredients and the equipment used to produce methamphetamines are so inexpensive and readily available, the drug can be manufactured or ``cooked'' in homemade labs. This has become one of the major problems facing law enforcement agencies nationwide. Last month, the Vermont State Police busted the first known methamphetamine lab in the State. We must help our law enforcement agencies as they struggle to keep up with its troubling growth.

To help law enforcement combat the spread of methamphetamine and other challenges, we authorize in this bill $20 million in grants for fiscal year 2005 to provide for the cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of local government and tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; and the improvement of contract-related response time for cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of local establish methamphetamine prevention and treatment pilot programs in rural areas, and provide additional financial support to local law enforcement.

We also establish a rural 9-1-1 service program to provide access to, and improve a communications infrastructure that will ensure a reliable and seamless communication between, law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service providers in units of local government and tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and in States. Grants authorized at $25 million for fiscal year 2005 under this program will be used to establish or improve 9-1-1 service in rural communities. Priority in making grants under this program will be given to communities that do not have 9-1-1 service.

I am pleased that our bill includes the Campbell-Leahy-Hatch Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. This bill was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent a year ago this month and it awaits consideration by the House of Representatives.

This measure marks the third time that I have had the privilege of teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on this legislation. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost.

Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and I hope we will go 3-for-3 this time around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable experience in this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a leader in the area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff, he knows the dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. I am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by 12 other Senate cosponsors.

Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by providing more help to State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, 148 municipalities have been fortunate to receive funding for the purchase of almost 1200 vests. Without the Federal funding given by this program, I daresay that there would be close to that number of police officers without vests in Vermont today.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by re- authorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation would continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50 million per year for matching grants to State and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body armor.

We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.

We also included in this authorization bill the ``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, PACT, Act,'' as passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on December 9, 2003, but which has yet to be taken up and passed by the House. I commend Senators Hatch and Kohl for their leadership on this measure and thank them for working with me, among others, to craft the compromise language that we include in this bill to crack down on the growing problem of cigarette smuggling, both interstate and international, as well as to address the connection between cigarette smuggling activities and terrorist funding. I am proud to join Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl and 10 others as a cosponsor of the standalone bill.

I also thank the National Association of Attorneys General and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, for working with us and contributing to this language. I want to say a special thanks to Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who also serves as the current Chair of the NAAG Tobacco Committee, for his valuable input on the problems with cigarette smuggling that states are facing and his support for this compromise measure. I also want to thank the Vermont Grocers Association, the Vermont Retail Association, the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures for their support for this measure.

The movement of cigarettes from low-tax areas to high-tax areas in order to avoid the payment of taxes when the cigarettes are resold has become a public health problem in recent years. As State after State chooses to raise its tobacco excise taxes as a means of reducing tobacco use and as a source of revenue, many smokers have sought cheaper means by which to purchase cigarettes. Smokers can often purchase cigarettes and tobacco from remote sellers, Internet or mail order at substantial discounts due to avoidance of State taxes. These sellers, however, are evading their tax obligations because they neither collect nor pay the proper State and local excise taxes for cigarette and other tobacco product sales.

We have the ability to dramatically reduce smuggling without imposing undue burdens on manufacturers or law abiding citizens. By reducing smuggling we will also increase government revenues by minimizing tax avoidance. My friend General Sorrell has told me that this has become a rapidly growing problem in Vermont as more and more tobacco product manufacturers fail to collect and pay cigarette taxes. Criminals are getting away with smuggling and not paying tobacco taxes because of weak punishments, products that are often poorly labeled, the lack of tax stamps and the inability of the current distribution system to track sales from State-to-State. These lapses point to a need for uniform rules governing group sales to individuals.

The PACT Act will give States the authority to collect millions of dollars in lost State tax revenue resulting from online and other remote sales of cigarette and smokeless tobacco. It also ensures that every tobacco retailer, whether a brick-and-mortar or remote retailer of tobacco products, play by the same rules by equalizing the tax burdens.

Moreover, the PACT Act gives States the authority necessary to enforce the Jenkins Act, a law passed in 1949, which requires cigarette vendors to report interstate sales of cigarettes. This legislation enhances States' abilities to collect all excise taxes and verify the deposit of all required escrow payments for cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales in interstate commerce, including internet sales. In addition, it provides Federal and State law enforcement with additional resources to enforce state tobacco excise tax laws.

Finally, at the request of the National Association of Attorneys General and many State Attorneys General, we have added a new section to provide the States with authority to enforce the Imported Cigarette Compliance Act to crack down on international tobacco smuggling. This additional authority should further reduce tax evasion and eliminate a lucrative funding source for terrorist organizations.

We must not turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal tobacco smuggling. Those who smuggle cigarettes are criminals and we must close the loopholes that allow cigarette smuggling to continue.

The United States has from its inception recognized the importance of intellectual property laws in fostering innovation, and vested in Congress the responsibility of crafting laws that ensure that those who produce inventions are able to reap economic rewards for their efforts. I am pleased that we can today include, as part of the Department of Justice Authorization Act, the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004,'' the CREATE Act, legislation that I cosponsored along with Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, Senator Schumer, Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator Cochran. This bill will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our Nation's patent laws. On June 25, 2004, the CREATE Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

When Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, the law encouraged private entities and not-for-profits such as universities to form collaborative partnerships in order to spur innovation. Prior to the enactment of this law, universities were issued fewer than 250 patents each year. That this number has in recent years surpassed two thousand is owed in large measure to the Bayh-Dole Act. The innovation this law encouraged has contributed billions of dollars annually to the United States economy and has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs.

However, one component of the Bayh-Dole Act, when read literally, runs contrary to the intent of that legislation. In 1999, the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled, in Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., that non-public information may in certain cases be considered ``prior art''--a standard which generally prevents an inventor from obtaining a patent. Thus some collaborative teams that the Bayh-Dole Act was intended to encourage have been unable to obtain patents for their efforts. The result is a disincentive to form this type of partnership, which could have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and hamper the development of new creations.

However, the Federal Circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the legislation. The ``CREATE Act'' does exactly that by ensuring that non- public information is not considered ``prior art'' when the information is used in a collaborative partnership under the Bayh-Dole Act. The bill also includes strict evidentiary burdens to ensure that the legislation is tailored narrowly in order to solely fulfill the intent of the Bayh-Dole Act.

I am pleased that the PIRATE Act, which I cosponsored with Senator Hatch, will be included as part of this bipartisan bill. Like the overall bill, the PIRATE Act is a consensus bill that will give the Justice Department new and needed tools--in this case, these tools are specific to the fight against piracy. This bill was unanimously passed by the Senate on June 25, 2004. By including this measure in the Department of Justice Authorization Bill, we hope to muster more forces to combat the growing problem of digital piracy.

For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof. In the world of copyright, a criminal charge is unusually difficult to prove because the defendant must have known that his conduct was illegal and he must have willfully engaged in the conduct anyway. For this reason prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament.

The PIRATE Act will give the Attorney General civil enforcement authority for copyright infringement. It also calls on the Justice Department to initiate training and pilot programs to ensure that Federal prosecutors across the country are aware of the many difficult technical and strategic problems posed by enforcing copyright law in the digital age.

This new authority does not supplant either the criminal provisions of the Copyright Act, or the remedies available to the copyright owner in a private suit. Rather, it allows the government to bring its resources to bear on this immense problem, and to ensure that more creative works are made available online, that those works are more affordable, and that the people who work to bring them to us are paid for their efforts.

I am pleased that the Koby Mandell Act of 2003 was included in this legislation. I am a proud cosponsor of the stand-alone bill. The Act would establish an office within the Department of Justice with a mandate to ensure equal treatment of all victims of terrorist acts committed overseas. Its primary role would be to guarantee that vigorous efforts are made to pursue, prosecute, and punish each and every terrorist who harms Americans overseas, no matter where attacks occur. It would also take steps to inform victims of important developments in international cases, such as status reports on efforts to capture terrorists and monitoring the incarceration of those terrorists who are imprisoned overseas. This is important legislation that would send a strong message of resolve that we are committed to finding and punishing every terrorist who harms Americans overseas.

I am pleased that we have included part of S. 1286, the Seniors Safety Act, which I introduced last year. This bill would create an enhanced sentencing penalty for those who commit crimes against the elderly, create new civil and criminal penalties for pension fraud, and create a centralized service to log complaints of telemarketing fraud.

We would also provide the Attorney General with a new and substantial tool to prevent telemarketing fraud--the power to block or terminate service to telephone facilities that are being used to defraud innocent people. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals acquire a new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors from being victimized.

We have agreed to incorporate a slightly revised version of the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2004, which was originally introduced as a stand-alone bill with my good friends Senator Hatch, Senator Mikulski and Senator Durbin. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system including pretrial services officers, probation officers, accountants, cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Indeed the benefits incorporated in this bill are comparable not only to those received by traditional ``law enforcement officers'' such as Federal agents, but also the Capitol Police, Supreme Court police, air traffic controllers and firefighters. The bill would essentially allow, but not mandate, AUSAs to retire at age 50 with 20 years of service.

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

prosecutors are not eligible for these enhanced benefits even though they are enjoyed by the vast majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. Once a defendant is brought to into the criminal justice system, the person with whom they have the most face- to-face contact, and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal prosecutor. AUSAs and other Federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations, interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting, debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements and representing the government at trials and sentencings. Each of these responsibilities encompass ``the investigation, apprehension, or detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal law which is just one justification for granting extended benefits to law enforcement officers.

AUSAs are an integral part of the criminal justice system and their unique position and demanding jobs has rightfully earned them the benefits set forth in this important bill.

I am pleased that S. 710, the Leahy-Hatch Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act, was included in this legislation. This measure would expand the grounds for removing alien human rights violators from the United States, or for denying them entry in the first place. We have heard many accounts of abusers who have taken advantage of America's freedoms after committing horrifying violations of their fellow citizens in their native lands. We need to stop that from happening again.

This bill passed the Judiciary Committee last November but has been subject to an anonymous hold on the floor. A similar version of it passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 106th Congress. It is long past time to make it law.

I would note that on May 12, a Rwandan man wanted on international charges of genocide and crimes against humanity was arrested at his suburban Chicago home by agents from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. Before I and others began to raise the issue of the war criminals among us, it was my impression that the former INS paid little attention to rooting out these thugs. I am pleased that the issue has taken on greater importance at ICE, and urge the Senate to pass this bill so that we can expand the grounds of inadmissibility and removability for human rights violators.

I am proud that we include Schumer-Specter legislation to honor the sacrifice of the September 11, 2001, terrorist victims by creating Congressional medals that would be awarded to their families and loved ones by the President. I am proud to have joined my friends as a cosponsor of this legislation, as have 18 other Senators.

The tragedy of September 11, 2001, demanded unprecedented sacrifices of everyday American civilians and rescue workers--3,000 of whom lost their lives in the attacks. In recognition of their heroic actions on that day, the bipartisan Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act would create a medal to be awarded posthumously to the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The medal would be designed by the Department of Treasury and awarded to representatives of the deceased by the President. The production of the medals would be paid for by the sale of duplicate medals to the public. Those of us who lost loved ones almost three years ago can never have them back, but a medal of honor could recognizes the sacrifices and heroic efforts of our fallen citizens.

We also incorporated language similar to the Leahy-Grassley-Lincoln ``Missing Child Cold Case Review Act of 2004,'' S. 2435, which will allow an Inspector General to authorize his or her staff to provide assistance on and conduct reviews of the inactive case files, or ``cold cases,'' involving children stored at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, and to develop recommendations for further investigations. The only alteration we made to the original bill was to include language to also allow the Inspector General of the Government Printing Office to authorize his or her staff to work on cold cases.

Speed is everything in homicide investigations. As a former prosecutor in Vermont, I know firsthand that speed is of the essence when trying to solve a homicide. This focus on speed, however, has led the law enforcement community to generally believe that any case not solved within the first 72 hours or lacking significant leads and witness participation has little likelihood of being solved, regardless of the expertise and resources deployed. With time, such unsolved cases become ``cold,'' and these are among the most difficult and frustrating cases detectives face because they are, in effect, cases that other investigators, for whatever reason, failed to solve.

Our Nation's law enforcement agencies, regardless of size, are not immune to rising crime rates, staff shortages and budget restrictions. Such obstacles have strained the investigative and administrative resources of all agencies. More crime often means that fewer cases are vigorously pursued, fewer opportunities arise for follow-up and individual caseloads increase for already overworked detectives.

All the obstacles that hamper homicide investigations in their early phases contribute to cold cases. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children--our Nation's top resource center for child protection--presently retains a backlog of cold cases involving children that law enforcement departments nationwide have stopped investigating primarily due to all these obstacles. NCMEC serves as a clearinghouse for all cold cases in which a child has not been found and/or the suspect has not been identified.

This provision will allow an Inspector General to provide staff support to NCMEC for the purpose of conducting reviews of inactive case files to develop recommendations for further investigation and similar activities. The Inspector General community has one of the most diverse and talented criminal investigative cadres in the Federal Government. A vast majority of these special agents have come from traditional law enforcement agencies, and are highly trained and extremely capable of dealing with complex criminal cases.

Under current law, an Inspector General's duties are limited to activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. This measure would allow an Inspector General to permit criminal investigators under his or her supervision to review cold case files, so long as doing so would not interfere with normal duties. An Inspector General would not conduct actual investigations, and any Inspector General would only commit staff when the office's mission- related workloads permitted. At no time would these activities be allowed to conflict with or delay the stated missions of an Inspector General.

From time to time a criminal investigator employed by an Inspector General may be between investigations or otherwise available for brief periods of time. This act would also allow those resources to be provided to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Commitment of resources would be at a minimum and would not materially affect the budget of any office.

We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be moved easily through the Senate and House. It is supported by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. I applaud the ongoing work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and hope that we can soon provide NCMEC with the resources it requires to solve cold cases involving missing children.

This authorization bill includes a provision that would help colleges and universities in Vermont and across the Nation. It would allow foreigners who are pursuing ``distance learning'' opportunities at American schools to enter the country for up to 30 days to fulfill academic requirements. Under current law, these students do not fall under any visa category, and many are being denied entry and are thus unable to complete their educations. This is a loophole that harms both those students and the institutions that serve them.

In recent months, serious questions have been raised in the media and in several congressional hearings about deficiencies within the translation program at the FBI. Nearly 2 years ago I began asking questions in Judiciary Committee hearings about the FBI's translation program. Most of these remain unanswered. As a result, members of our Committee are no closer to

determining the scope of the issue, including the pervasiveness and seriousness of FBI shortcomings in this area, or what the FBI intends to do to rectify personnel shortages, security issues, translation inaccuracies and other problems that have plagued the translator program for years.

Section 205 of the USA PATRIOT Act included an important reporting requirement by the Attorney General to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees about 1. the number of translators employed by the FBI, 2. legal and practical impediments to using translators employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared basis, and 3. the needs of the FBI for specific translation services in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those needs. To date, the Attorney General has not made the report required by Section 205--most likely because there is no date certain written in the law by which the report must be made. This provision fills that gap by requiring the report ``not later than 30 days after the date of enactment . . . and annually thereafter . . . with respect to the preceding 12 month period.'' It also expands the reporting requirement to include translators ``contracted'' by the government in addition to those ``employed.''

I have worked my entire professional life to protect children from those who would prey on them. Preventing child exploitation through the use of the Internet is one concrete and important way to help this important cause. In this regard, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Public Law 105-314, remote computing and electronic communication service providers are mandated to report all instances of child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I respect and applaud the work of NCMEC and its tireless efforts in this important national priority.

In March 1998, Congress mandated that NCMEC initiate the CyberTipline for citizens to report online sexual crimes against children. In December 1999, Congress passed Public Law 106-113 to modify 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13032(b)(1) to set forth a ``duty to report'' by ISPs. According to NCMEC, many U.S. electronic communications service providers are not complying with the requirement that they register and use the CyberTipline to report child porn found on their services because supporting regulations required to be promulgated by the Department of Justice on matters such as the contents of the report were never done so.

In this authorization bill we propose language that amends the ``duty to report'' language by providing specific guidance on what information is required to be included in the ISP reports. The information required includes the content and images of the apparent violation, the Internet Protocol Address, the date and time associated with the violation, and specific contact information for the sender.

America's film heritage is an important part of the American experience, an inheritance from previous generations that help tell us who we are--and who we were--as a society. They offer insight into our history, our dreams, and our aspirations. Yet sadly, this part of American heritage is literally disintegrating faster than can be saved. Today, I am delighted that with the help of Senator Hatch, the ``National Film Preservation Act'' can be included in our Department of Justice Reauthorization bill.

I introduced the ``National Film Preservation Act'' last November, a bill that will reauthorize and extend the ``National Film Preservation Act of 1996.'' We first acted in 1988 in order to recognize the educational, cultural, and historical importance of our film heritage, and its inherently fragile nature. In doing so, Congress created the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation both of which operate under the auspices of the Library of Congress in order to help save America's film heritage.

The ``National Film Preservation Act'' will allow the Library of Congress to continue its important work in preserving America's fading treasures, as well as providing grants that will help libraries, museums, and archives preserve films and make those works available for study and research. These continued efforts are more critical today than ever before. While a wide range of works have been saved, with every passing day we lose the opportunity to save more. Fewer than 20 percent of the features of the 1920s exist in complete form and less than 10 percent of the features of the 1910s have survived into the new millennium.

The films saved by the National Film Preservation Board are precisely those types of works that would be unlikely to survive without public support. At-risk documentaries, silent-era films, avant-garde works, ethnic films, newsreels, and home movies frequently provide more insight into the American experience than the Hollywood sound features kept and preserved by major studios. What is more, in many cases only one copy of these ``orphaned'' works exists. As the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, has noted, ``Our film heritage is America's living past.''

I would like to thank Senator Hatch again for working with me to include the ``National Film Preservation Act'' in the bill we are introducing today.

I am pleased that the DREAM Act has been included in this bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill, which Senators Hatch and Durbin introduced last year and was passed last fall by the Judiciary Committee. It would benefit undocumented alien children who were brought to the United States by their parents as young children, by restoring States' ability to offer them in-state tuition and offering them a path to legal residency. It has been distressing that a bill with Committee approval and 48 sponsors has been unable to get a vote on the floor of the Senate, and I hope that including the DREAM Act in this legislation will give it added momentum.

Status Reports on Enemy Combatants: The House-passed bill included an important reporting requirement authored by Representative Adam Schiff and adopted by the House Judiciary Committee. Specifically, this provision required the Department of Justice to submit an annual report to Congress specifying the number of U.S. persons or residents detained on suspicion of terrorism, and describing Department standards for recommending or determining that a person should be tried as a criminal defendant or designated as an enemy combatant. A Washington Post editorial dated April 3, 2004, praised this provision, while noting that ``If more members of the House took their duty to legislate in this critical area seriously, Congress would craft a bill that actually imposed standards rather than simply inquired what they were.'' I agree, and regret that was unable to persuade Chairman Hatch to retain this modest oversight tool.

Privacy Officer: I am disappointed that we will not be including the privacy officer provision referred to us by the House. It is critical that the Department have a designated leader who is consistently mindful of the impact of the Department's activities on privacy rights. While there has been some history of a privacy official at the Department, these positions have been non-statutory, and thus there has been no guarantee of consistent vigor and accountability on these issues. Given that the Department's mission increasingly involves gathering and assessing personal information, we simply can't afford to have a lapse in accountability on privacy. Moreover, this is not an untested idea. Congress created a privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, and it has been recognized as a successful example of how this role can be helpful in assessing and addressing privacy concerns. We need to follow this lead, and the privacy officer provision would have been a good opportunity to do so.

I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers to continue the important business of re-authorizing the Department of Justice. Clearly, regular reauthorization of the Department should be part and parcel of the Committees' traditional role in overseeing the Department's activities. Swift passage into law of the ``Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007'' will be a significant step toward enhancing our oversight role.

I am pleased today to introduce the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003, a bill intended to close loopholes in our immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights abusers to enter and remain in this country. Senator Hatch has joined me in offering this bill, along with Senators Lieberman and Levin. In the other body, Representatives Mark Foley and Gary Ackerman today introduce identical legislation.

Our bill would update the charter of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, OSI, which for years has investigated and has sought justice in the cases of Nazi war criminals who have sought refuge on our shores. It is time to renew the OSI charter to take into account the new generations of war criminals who try to escape justice by living among us.

This bill closely mirrors legislation I had offered that was reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and which passed the Senate during the 106th Congress. I hope and expect that, with the help of Senator Hatch and others, this bill will become law during this Congress.

As we introduce this bill, our armed forces are fighting to replace an Iraqi regime that has been marked by its utter disregard for the human rights of its people. We must not fight this war on the one hand, and let human rights abusers from around the world enter our Nation with impunity on the other.

When they learn it is so, the American people are appalled to learn that our country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent civilians. A report issued last year by Amnesty International claims that nearly 150 alleged human rights abusers have been identified living here and warns that this number may be as high as 1,000. Meanwhile, an article in the New York Review of Books stated that ``hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign nationals who have been plausibly accused of the most heinous human rights crimes, including torture and assassination, either have lived or still live freely in the U.S.'' [William Schulz, ``The Torturers Among Us,'' New York Review, p. 22, April 25, 2002.]

I introduced a similar version of this bill on May 10, 2001, and the Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a Leahy-Hatch managers' amendment on April 18, 2002. Unfortunately, the bill was subject to an anonymous hold on the Senate floor.

I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress and was pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The legislation passed the Senate on November 5, 1999, as part of S. 1754, the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act,'' but unfortunately it was not acted on by the House before the end of the 106th Congress. Nevertheless, Representatives Foley and Ackerman have provided consistent leadership in moving this legislation in the House, by introducing the measure in the l06th Congress as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058, in the 107th Congress, as H.R. 1449, and again today.

The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation.

For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court that

Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in the military dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s, engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them when they lived in that country. Negewo oversaw and participated in the torture of opposition political figures in Ethiopia, and then moved to the United States only to work at the same Atlanta hotel as one of his own victims. The court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1.5 million to the plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. [See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996).] Yet during the pendency of his appeal of the civil verdict, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted Negewo citizenship.

This situation is an affront both to the foreign victims of torture who fled here to escape their persecutors, and to the American victims of such torture and their families. As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration relief.'' [20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657.]

Indeed, another case actually involves American victims. In 1980, four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by the Salvadoran National Guard. Two former Salvadoran government officials who allegedly covered up the murders currently reside in Florida.

Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock that door to human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should promptly show them the door out.

We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too long after World War II to focus prosecutorial resources and attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Thousands of declassified CIA documents were made public last year, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud to help enact in 1998. These documents made clear the extent to which the United States relied upon and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, noted at the time, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United States.

When I first introduced this bill, the Rutland Daily Herald in Vermont editorialized that:

For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything,

U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough

to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and

then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip

across the border to find a home in America. (October 31,

1999)

The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. One Clinton Administration witness testified in February 2000 that:

The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our

ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of

torture abroad. The department also recognizes, however, that

our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough

bars for human rights abusers. . . . Right now, only three

types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from

entering or remaining in the United States. The types of

prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly

severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi

persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly

defined. [Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien

Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and

Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d

Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello,

Associate Deputy Attorney General).]

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar to human rights abusers and close loopholes in our current laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) currently provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, are both inadmissable to the United States and removable. [See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D).] This bill would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to: (1) add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing,'' and (2) remove limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom.''

The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

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:

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 Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for ``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, 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. This term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.''

The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii).] For clarity and consistency, the bill would substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of the provision 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. This broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of levels of complicity.

Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), limits its application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the individual's

spouse and children, if any. This bill would delete the reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor Aceves has written:

This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month

time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A

perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to

seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the

commission of these acts. [William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich.

J. Int'l L., at 683.]

In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for the spouse or children of a violator of religious freedom. This is a serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are beyond their control. 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.

Under current law, most aliens who are 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 provision. It does not, however, ban waivers for those who commit acts of torture or extrajudicial killings. I would hope that such waivers are used sparingly and only under the most compelling of circumstances.

Of course, changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted:

[s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to

implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does

not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice

with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and

prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights

atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency

for this function can be seen in the experiences of the

Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at

689.

Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective enforcement. Since OSI was created in 1979, more than 60 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 such individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied entry.

OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when Attorney General Civiletti, by a 1979 Attorney General order, established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct 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 affiliated 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.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order.

I believe it is time to reward the tremendous work that OSI has done by expanding its mission to ensure effective enforcement against war criminals of all stripes.

Little is being done about the new generation of international human rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are costly. As any prosecutor knows instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and enforcement, and should never come to believe that they will find safe harbor in the United States.

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with authorization to denaturalize any alien who has participated in Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for OSI, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad not just Nazis.

The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and would best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions.

These are the sound policy and practical reasons that experts in this area recommend that the United States ``establish an office in the Justice Department similar to the one that has tracked Nazi war criminals, with an exclusive mandate to carry out the task of investigation [of suspected human rights abusers].'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 24.]

I appreciate that this part of the legislation has in the past proven controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in this bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has concluded that the OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657.

Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission instead, additional resources are authorized in the bill to cover the costs of the Office's expanded duties.

Significantly, the bill further directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a prosecution. Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994 and adopting a new law making torture anywhere in the world a crime, federal law enforcement has not used this authority. In fact, one recent observer noted that ``the U.S. has never prosecuted a suspected torturer; nor has it ever extradited one under the Convention Against Torture, although it has surrendered one person to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 23 - 24.]

As one human rights expert has noted:

``The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is

discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their

way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to

call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals

certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to

offer. But when we ask the question `where should they be?'

the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the

essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal

of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers.'' [Hearing on

H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability

Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the

House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept.

28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington

Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).]

Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House on implementation of the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of matters to the OSI, any

revisions made to immigration 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.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate again to give their approval to this bill, and for the House to help us finally make it law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

I am pleased today to introduce the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003, a bill intended to close loopholes in our immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights abusers to enter and remain in this country. Senator Hatch has joined me in offering this bill, along with Senators Lieberman and Levin. In the other body, Representatives Mark Foley and Gary Ackerman today introduce identical legislation.

Our bill would update the charter of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, OSI, which for years has investigated and has sought justice in the cases of Nazi war criminals who have sought refuge on our shores. It is time to renew the OSI charter to take into account the new generations of war criminals who try to escape justice by living among us.

This bill closely mirrors legislation I had offered that was reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and which passed the Senate during the 106th Congress. I hope and expect that, with the help of Senator Hatch and others, this bill will become law during this Congress.

As we introduce this bill, our armed forces are fighting to replace an Iraqi regime that has been marked by its utter disregard for the human rights of its people. We must not fight this war on the one hand, and let human rights abusers from around the world enter our Nation with impunity on the other.

When they learn it is so, the American people are appalled to learn that our country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent civilians. A report issued last year by Amnesty International claims that nearly 150 alleged human rights abusers have been identified living here and warns that this number may be as high as 1,000. Meanwhile, an article in the New York Review of Books stated that ``hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign nationals who have been plausibly accused of the most heinous human rights crimes, including torture and assassination, either have lived or still live freely in the U.S.'' [William Schulz, ``The Torturers Among Us,'' New York Review, p. 22, April 25, 2002.]

I introduced a similar version of this bill on May 10, 2001, and the Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a Leahy-Hatch managers' amendment on April 18, 2002. Unfortunately, the bill was subject to an anonymous hold on the Senate floor.

I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress and was pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The legislation passed the Senate on November 5, 1999, as part of S. 1754, the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act,'' but unfortunately it was not acted on by the House before the end of the 106th Congress. Nevertheless, Representatives Foley and Ackerman have provided consistent leadership in moving this legislation in the House, by introducing the measure in the l06th Congress as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058, in the 107th Congress, as H.R. 1449, and again today.

The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation.

For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court that

Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in the military dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s, engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them when they lived in that country. Negewo oversaw and participated in the torture of opposition political figures in Ethiopia, and then moved to the United States only to work at the same Atlanta hotel as one of his own victims. The court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1.5 million to the plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. [See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996).] Yet during the pendency of his appeal of the civil verdict, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted Negewo citizenship.

This situation is an affront both to the foreign victims of torture who fled here to escape their persecutors, and to the American victims of such torture and their families. As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration relief.'' [20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657.]

Indeed, another case actually involves American victims. In 1980, four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by the Salvadoran National Guard. Two former Salvadoran government officials who allegedly covered up the murders currently reside in Florida.

Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock that door to human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should promptly show them the door out.

We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too long after World War II to focus prosecutorial resources and attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Thousands of declassified CIA documents were made public last year, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud to help enact in 1998. These documents made clear the extent to which the United States relied upon and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, noted at the time, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United States.

When I first introduced this bill, the Rutland Daily Herald in Vermont editorialized that:

For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything,

U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough

to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and

then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip

across the border to find a home in America. (October 31,

1999)

The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. One Clinton Administration witness testified in February 2000 that:

The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our

ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of

torture abroad. The department also recognizes, however, that

our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough

bars for human rights abusers. . . . Right now, only three

types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from

entering or remaining in the United States. The types of

prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly

severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi

persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly

defined. [Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien

Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and

Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d

Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello,

Associate Deputy Attorney General).]

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar to human rights abusers and close loopholes in our current laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) currently provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, are both inadmissable to the United States and removable. [See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D).] This bill would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to: (1) add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing,'' and (2) remove limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom.''

The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

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:

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 Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for ``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, 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. This term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.''

The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii).] For clarity and consistency, the bill would substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of the provision 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. This broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of levels of complicity.

Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), limits its application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the individual's

spouse and children, if any. This bill would delete the reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor Aceves has written:

This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month

time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A

perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to

seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the

commission of these acts. [William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich.

J. Int'l L., at 683.]

In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for the spouse or children of a violator of religious freedom. This is a serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are beyond their control. 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.

Under current law, most aliens who are 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 provision. It does not, however, ban waivers for those who commit acts of torture or extrajudicial killings. I would hope that such waivers are used sparingly and only under the most compelling of circumstances.

Of course, changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted:

[s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to

implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does

not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice

with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and

prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights

atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency

for this function can be seen in the experiences of the

Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at

689.

Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective enforcement. Since OSI was created in 1979, more than 60 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 such individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied entry.

OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when Attorney General Civiletti, by a 1979 Attorney General order, established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct 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 affiliated 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.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order.

I believe it is time to reward the tremendous work that OSI has done by expanding its mission to ensure effective enforcement against war criminals of all stripes.

Little is being done about the new generation of international human rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are costly. As any prosecutor knows instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and enforcement, and should never come to believe that they will find safe harbor in the United States.

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with authorization to denaturalize any alien who has participated in Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for OSI, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad not just Nazis.

The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and would best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions.

These are the sound policy and practical reasons that experts in this area recommend that the United States ``establish an office in the Justice Department similar to the one that has tracked Nazi war criminals, with an exclusive mandate to carry out the task of investigation [of suspected human rights abusers].'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 24.]

I appreciate that this part of the legislation has in the past proven controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in this bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has concluded that the OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657.

Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission instead, additional resources are authorized in the bill to cover the costs of the Office's expanded duties.

Significantly, the bill further directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a prosecution. Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994 and adopting a new law making torture anywhere in the world a crime, federal law enforcement has not used this authority. In fact, one recent observer noted that ``the U.S. has never prosecuted a suspected torturer; nor has it ever extradited one under the Convention Against Torture, although it has surrendered one person to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 23 - 24.]

As one human rights expert has noted:

``The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is

discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their

way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to

call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals

certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to

offer. But when we ask the question `where should they be?'

the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the

essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal

of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers.'' [Hearing on

H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability

Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the

House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept.

28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington

Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).]

Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House on implementation of the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of matters to the OSI, any

revisions made to immigration 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.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate again to give their approval to this bill, and for the House to help us finally make it law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future the two things that matter most to all electricity customers: affordable electricity and reliable electricity.

Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana, affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer legislation today.

Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail electricity service in my State.

There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I attempt to address in the legislation being offered today.

First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction, which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions, regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet, customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced electricity service.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers. It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to priority service.

FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan] would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into Louisiana.

To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers. This is current law and the current practice in a large number of States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain jurisdiction over retail.

My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners, understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity.

A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible, and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export just a portion of the new generation that is planned to come on-line in Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent.

Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3 would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions.

Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the investment.

The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail

customers across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the past 10 years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while transmission investment during the same period has continuously declined about 45 percent.

What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts of that State.

To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector, Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance from Congress.

Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country, electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities, including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets. Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over electric utilities.

Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts of utilities.

Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to consider the development and progress of regional transmission organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6 would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that public power entities provide a limited form of access to their transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public power.

In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States. Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all customers, in all parts of the country.