Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased that, last night, the Senate unanimously passed the Former Vice President Protection Act, H.R. 5938, a bill to ensure that former Vice Presidents and their immediate family receive Secret Service protection for 6 months after they leave office. I am especially pleased that this important legislation includes key provisions of the Leahy-Specter Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act, a critical cyber crime bill that unanimously passed the Senate last November. I urge the House of Representatives to promptly take up and enact this important criminal legislation.

Although the Secret Service has provided protection to former Vice Presidents over the last 30 years, through a variety of temporary grants of authority, this legislation will provide clear authority for the Secret Service to provide such protection for the first time. The men and women of the Secret Service perform the very difficult job of protecting our current and former leaders exceptionally well. I am pleased that this legislation will help the Secret Service to carry out this important mission.

This bipartisan legislation also includes important cyber crime provisions portions of the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act to protect the privacy rights of all Americans. The anti-cyber crime provisions in this bill are long overdue. A recent survey by the Federal Trade Commission found that that more than 8 million Americans fell victim to identity theft in 2005. In addition, a new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development encourages democratic governments around the world to more aggressively fight identity theft by enacting stronger cyber crime laws and stiffening the penalties to deter potential cyber-criminals.

The key anti-cyber crime provisions that are included in this legislation will close existing gaps in our criminal law to keep up with the cunning and ingenuity of today's identity thieves. First, to better protect American consumers, the legislation provides the victims of identity theft with the ability to seek restitution in Federal court for the loss of time and money spent restoring their credit and remedying the harms of identity theft, so that identity theft victims can be made whole.

Second, to address the increasing number of computer hacking crimes

that involve computers located within the same State, the cyber-crime amendment eliminates the jurisdictional requirement that a computer's information must be stolen through an interstate or foreign communication in order to federally prosecute this crime.

Third, this legislation also addresses the growing problem of the malicious use of spyware to steal sensitive personal information, by eliminating the requirement that the loss resulting from the damage to a victim's computer must exceed $5,000 in order to federally prosecute the offense. The bill carefully balances this necessary change with the legitimate need to protect innocent actors from frivolous prosecutions and clarifies that the elimination of the $5,000 threshold applies only to criminal cases.

In addition, the amendment addresses the increasing number of cyber attacks on multiple computers by making it a felony to employ spyware or keyloggers to damage 10 or more computers, regardless of the aggregate amount of damage caused. By making this crime a felony, the amendment ensures that the most egregious identity thieves will not escape with minimal punishment under Federal cyber-crime laws. The legislation also strengthens the protections for American businesses, which are more and more becoming the focus of identity thieves, by adding two new causes of action under the cyber-extortion statute-- threatening to obtain or release information from a protected computer and demanding money in relation to a protected computer--so that this bad conduct can be federally prosecuted.

Lastly, the legislation adds the remedy of civil and criminal forfeiture to the arsenal of tools to combat cyber crime, and our amendment directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review its guidelines for identity theft and cyber crime offenses.

Senator Specter and I have worked closely with the Department of Justice and the Secret Service in crafting these updates to our cyber- crime laws, and the legislation we add as an amendment to the Former Vice President Protection Act has the strong support of these Federal agencies and the support of a broad coalition of business, high-tech and consumer groups. The bill as amended to include these critical cyber-crime provisions is a good, bipartisan bill that will help to better protect our Nation's leaders and to better protect all Americans from the growing threat of identity theft and other cyber crimes.

Again, I thank the bipartisan coalition of Senators who have joined Senator Specter and me in supporting this important bill. I urge the House of Representatives to promptly enact this important criminal legislation.

Mr. President, last month's 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush reaffirmed our core American values, and served as a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration's flawed power grabs over the last 6 years. The Bush administration's repeated attempts to eliminate meaningful review of its actions by the Federal judiciary have again failed to withstand Supreme Court review. This decision is a vindication for those of us who have maintained from the beginning that the administration's detention policies were not only unwise, but were also unconstitutional.

In the wake of the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001, toward the beginning of President Bush's first term in office, this country had an opportunity to come together to show that we could bring the perpetrators of heinous acts to justice, consistent with our history and our most deeply valued principles. I and others reached out to the White House to try to craft a thoughtful and effective bipartisan solution.

Instead, this White House, supported by the Republican leadership in Congress, pursued its goal of increasing executive power at the expense of the other branches. In so doing, they chose a path that disregarded basic rights, lessened our standing in the world, trampled some of our most deeply held values, and brought us no closer to delivering justice to those who have injured us.

At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which explored the mistakes and missed opportunities of the past few years, we heard from Will Gunn, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and the former chief defense counsel of the Military Commissions. He believes that ``many of our detention policies and actions in creating the Guantanamo military commissions have seriously eroded fundamental American principles of the rule of law in the eyes of Americans and in the eyes of the rest of the world.'' Kate Martin, the Director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that the administration's decision to ignore the law of war and constitutional requirements had proved to be ``disastrous,'' and that ``[d]isrespect for the law has harmed, not enhanced, our national security.''

I agree with these sobering assessments. I think that we are less safe as a result of the Bush administration's policies.

Some of us have tried in vain for years to move this country away from this destructive course, but, ironically, it has taken a conservative Supreme Court to remind this administration that the President's claim to unlimited power to override our laws is wrong. Boumediene is only the latest example of the Supreme Court decisively rejecting the administration's illegal and misguided policies.

In 2004, the Supreme Court decided two habeas-related cases Rasul and Hamdi. In those cases, the Court rejected the Bush administration's reckless and ill-advised attempts to deprive citizens and noncitizens of their right to challenge their indefinite detention in Federal court. I said at the time that these decisions ``reaffirm the judiciary's role as a check and a balance, as the Constitution intends, on power grabs by other branches.'' I also called on the Republican-led Congress to ``stop acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of this administration and to exercise its constitutional responsibility to rein in White House unilateralism and overreaching.''

The following year the Republican-led Congress attempted to overrule the Supreme Court's Rasul decision by passing the Detainee Treatment Act, DTA. I spoke out against the habeas-stripping provisions contained in the DTA. I warned that ``in order to uphold our commitment to the rule of law, we must allow detainees the right to challenge their detention in Federal court.''

This effort to prevent people from using habeas procedures to challenge the basis for their detention in Federal court backfired. In a later decision in the Hamdan case the Supreme Court rejected the view that the DTA stripped the courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas cases. I applauded the Hamdan decision at the time as a ``triumph for our constitutional system of checks and balances.''

But once again, instead of following the Supreme Court's repeated reminders that our Government must respect our Constitution and laws, within weeks of the Hamdan decision, the last Congress, acting in complicity with the Bush administration, hastily passed the Military Commissions Act in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections. That bill sought, once again, to strip access to Federal courts for noncitizens determined to be enemy combatants or who were merely ``awaiting determination.'' It aimed to take away habeas rights not just for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, but also potentially for millions of lawful permanent residents working and paying taxes in this country.

I voted no. These were my words then:

Over 200 years of jurisprudence in this country, and

following an hour of debate, we get rid of it. My God, have

the Members of this Senate gone back and read their oath of

office upholding the Constitution? [W]e are about to put the

darkest blot possible on this Nation's conscience.

Regrettably, the Federal appellate court in Washington, DC the same court whose limited review was supposed to serve as a substitute for the Great Writ fumbled its opportunity to set things right. It held that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions did not violate the Constitution.

Those of us who recognized that Congress had committed a historic error when it recklessly eliminated the Great Writ of habeas corpus tried to reverse what had been done. But even with the support of several Republican Members of this body, Senator Specter and I fell 4 votes short of the 60 votes

required to overcome a Republican filibuster of our effort last year to restore habeas rights by adding the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

In its Boumediene decision, the U.S. Supreme Court fulfilled its constitutional responsibility--a responsibility in which so many others had failed and upheld the Constitution and our core American values. After Boumediene, the administration's record in the Supreme Court on habeas is now 0 for 4. Four times it has sought to erode the time- honored habeas right that protects the liberties our forebears fought and died for. And four times the Supreme Court has repudiated these ill-advised efforts.

One cannot help but wonder where we would be in the fight against terrorism today had the Bush administration spent more time trying to catch and try terrorists, and less time trying to erode our time- honored constitutional traditions.

What did a majority of the conservative Supreme Court actually say in Boumediene? First, it reiterated that the Constitution extends to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. So the Bush administration's cynical gambit to house detainees just miles from the Florida coast to avoid judicial scrutiny and accountability for its conduct has failed as a matter of constitutional law. As the opinion of the Supreme Court correctly recognizes, the basic protections represented by the Great Writ ``must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.''

Second, the Supreme Court held that the administration's detention procedures put in place back in 2005 are a constitutionally inadequate substitute for habeas corpus. The Court found that the so-called combatant status review tribunals established to determine if detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have correctly been identified as enemy combatants are hopelessly flawed. I have maintained all along that it is unfair and un-American to detain anyone without judicial recourse based on proceedings that do not allow those held even the most basic due process rights.

Third, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Military Commissions Act that strip away all habeas rights for the Guantanamo detainees and others are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's opinion written by Justice Kennedy is quite eloquent and moving. While recognizing the executive authority and responsibility to apprehend and detain those who pose a real danger to our security, Justice Kennedy went on to note:

Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first

principles. Chief among those are freedom from arbitrary and

unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured

by adherence to the separation of powers.

He wisely counsels that the Constitution is fundamental, that ``[o]ur basic charter cannot be contracted away,'' and that the Constitution is not something the administration is able ``to switch on and off at will.'' He rightly concludes:

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and

remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security

can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled

within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that

habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of

that framework, a part of that law.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed American values, our fundamental adherence to our Constitution and the rule of law, and our great strength in so doing.

What is surprising is not that the U.S. Supreme Court would follow through on the earlier holdings of its opinions by Justice O'Connor and Justice Stevens, himself a decorated combat veteran, but that the decision was not unanimous.

Justice Scalia's dissent reads like a threatening partisan statement from Vice President Cheney's office rather than an independent judicial review of the case. He uses language about Islam that was rightly condemned as wrong and counterproductive by this administration's own intelligence community, and he repeats the administration's tragically mistaken mantra by lumping the various factions of Islam, including those in Iraq, as a monolithic ``enemy'' collectively responsible for the attacks on the United States on September 11. Most disappointing is that his hyperbolic rhetoric is hard to square with his own acknowledgement in the 2004 Hamdi case that habeas corpus is ``the very core of our liberty secured in our Anglo-Saxon system of separation of powers'' and that ``indefinite imprisonment on reasonable suspicion is not an available option of treatment for those accused of aiding the enemy, absent a suspension of the writ.''

What role should Congress play as the Federal judiciary begins to implement the Boumediene decision? According to Attorney General Mukasey in his recent remarks on the future of habeas, Congress should jump in the fray again in an election year. Although he does not even have legislation to propose, he asks Congress to act hastily to minimize judicial oversight and maximize executive power. The Attorney General seems to have adopted the Bush administration's mantra: ``Don't trust the courts.''

The Attorney General has it exactly wrong. Congress made a mistake in 2005 when it bent to the will of the Bush administration by passing the Detainee Treatment Act, which created the detainee review process that the Supreme Court has now determined is hopelessly inadequate. Congress made a mistake in 2006 when it bent to the will of the Bush administration by passing the Military Commission Act, which, as we now know, violated the U.S. Constitution in its efforts to stop the Federal courts from reviewing executive detention decisions.

It would be foolish to bend to the will of the Bush administration once again to try to weaken or circumvent the Boumediene decision. Worse, by hastily legislating now, we would risk perpetuating the terrible policy judgments of years past that have led us so far astray in the fight against terrorism.

I trust our Federal courts to get it right. Had we relied on them to dispense American justice, perhaps we would have accomplished more in the fight against terrorism over the last several years. Our courts have proven themselves up to the task of trying the likes of Zacarias Moussaoui and Jose Padilla in difficult, complex and sensitive federal proceedings where unlike the restricted rights available in habeas proceedings these defendants enjoyed the full panoply of constitutional protections. These men now stand convicted of terrorism-related offenses and they will spend the rest of their lives in prison, as they should. Just as I would not have questioned Attorney General Mukasey's ability to deal with terrorism-related prosecutions when he was a judge in Manhattan, I do not question the ability of the Federal judges in Washington, DC, to handle the habeas petitions from the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba responsibly and diligently--particularly where our courts have proved up to the task in so many actual criminal trials.

I was particularly disappointed to hear the Attorney General attempt to play on Americans' fears by suggesting that, in the wake of a Supreme Court decision affirming our core values, our national security will be somehow jeopardized if Congress does not act. He knows that no detainee has been set free as a result of the Boumediene decision, and that the government will have ample opportunity to justify its detention decisions on favorable standard of proof. He knows that Federal courts have successfully conducted terrorism cases using procedures derived from the Classified Information Procedures Act to ensure that classified information is safeguarded, and there have been no leaks of information where those procedures have been employed. And he knows that the federal court in Washington, DC, is taking steps to streamline and consolidate habeas proceedings to avoid unnecessary litigation.

In fact, the Federal bench in Washington, DC, is working hard to follow the rule of the Supreme Court by ensuring a prompt, safe and orderly disposition of the 250 or so detainee habeas petitions. The judges, the Department of Justice, and lawyers for the detainees are now working to resolve key issues that will allow the cases to proceed in the months ahead.

The court has also taken steps on its own to consolidate common issues before one judge former Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan--to streamline the review process as much as possible. In the meantime, for those detainees who have been charged under the law of

war, the district court has ruled that the military commissions may proceed as planned, and that the right to habeas corpus will crystallize only once there is a final judgment.

The Bush administration can hardly complain if it takes the Federal district judges presiding over these habeas cases some time to resolve them. After all, it was the Bush administration that tried to avoid court scrutiny at all costs for the last 7 years. The Supreme Court having rejected this effort, the courts must now be permitted to do their jobs.

Is there anything that Congress should do at this time? One thing that Congress could and in my view should do is to pass the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act that Senator Specter and I introduced in the wake of the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, and with which we sought to modify the Military Commissions Act. A bipartisan majority of the Senate voted with us last year when we were seeking to add it to the Department of Defense authorization bill, but we were forestalled by a filibuster. I trust that those who said they were not ready to join us last year because of the pendency of the Supreme Court case will join us now and do the right thing. It was Congress's mistake to pass the habeas stripping provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act, and we should correct it by passing our bill to amend the law. The Supreme Court has already declared those provisions unconstitutional and ineffective. In my view, it is a shame that the Supreme Court had to step in before we corrected our mistake.

These unconstitutional habeas-stripping provisions are a blot on the Senate, and on the Congress, and should not reside in our laws. We should reverse the Senate's action and correct its error. I do not want to see another Senate apologize years down the road for passing laws designed to strip habeas rights, as we have seen belated apologies for America's treatment of Native Americans, the internment of Japanese Americans, and other grievous errors in our past. I do not want a future Senate to look back with shame or have to issue an apology for unconstitutional legislation coming from this great body. Congress should pass the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act.

Thereafter we will need to join together in the weeks and months ahead to rethink the misconceived legal framework that has been devised by this administration. We will need to work together--with each other, with the House and with the new administration--to supplement our laws, consistent with our Constitution and core values, and to restore our leadership in the world and more effectively defend our Nation. We can recapture the bipartisanship that we demonstrated in the days immediately following 9/11 and move forward, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans.

The Supreme Court was explicit that its decision in Boumediene only reached the unconstitutional attempt to strip habeas corpus review from these detainees and that the Detainee Treatment Act and combatant status review tribunal process remain intact.

Likewise, the Attorney General and Department of Justice have said that the military commissions will continue, and a federal judge in Washington, DC, recently ruled against a detainee's effort to secure habeas review before his military commission was to commence.

I think we will need to review both processes. The military commission system is so deeply flawed that after close to seven years it has only just started its first trial. The world will never view those proceedings as fair or consistent with the rule of law. We are too strong and confident a nation to seek vengeance or be driven by fear. America is great in part because it does not shirk from its legal obligations but embraces them and lives by them. When America acts, as it did, to circumvent the law by holding prisoners off shore, to contract out torture to third parties, or to suspend the Great Writ, we are not the America envisioned by our Founders and preserved by every previous generation of Americans.

I look forward to working in the next session with Senator Feinstein on her initiative to close the Guantanamo Bay facility, and begin to erase the damage it has done to the United States' reputation around the world. She has sponsored legislation to move us in that direction. I want to commend Senator Whitehouse for his legislative proposal to establish a congressional commission to make nonpartisan recommendations to Congress on how best to proceed in the future. I know that Senators Durbin and Specter introduced military commission bills back in 2002, around the same time that I did. We will need to work across committee lines and across the aisle, to involve not only the reconstituted Department of Justice, but also the Departments of Defense and State as we go forward. We will need to reconsider where else we went wrong and how to set the entire system on better, stronger foundations.

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to one of central Vermont's finest community gathering spaces, the Wayside Restaurant. Over the past 90 years, the Wayside has built its reputation around the State of Vermont as a quality establishment where neighbors enjoy a country style breakfast, a quick business lunch, or a well-rounded family dinner. The Wayside represents the needs of the community with affordable and diversely pleasant fare.

In 1918, when Effie Ballou opened the small soup and sandwich restaurant, she never expected it would become what it is today. The Wayside serves around 1,000 customers a day, and with 160 seats, is always filled with loyal customers. Vermonters from all walks of life frequent the Wayside for authentic Vermont cooking. Politicians, professionals, farmers, elderly people, and families all gather here to eat, mingle and enjoy where they can choose a booth or saddle up to the horse shoe diner top.

The Wayside's menu offers more than 200 items, plus an additional list of specials, all new every day. These daily specials are memorized by the true blue patrons who line up at the doors before 6:30 a.m. Unique delights such as fresh native perch, only served in season, is breaded and fried. Traditional Yankee entrees are always accompanied by freshly baked pies, breads and donuts.

One of Vermont's landmark eateries, the Wayside Restaurant sparks community admiration through its history of public service. A major part of the Wayside's success is its history of family ownership. Karen Galfetti and Brian Zecchinelli are second-generation owners and operators. The couple's dedication and hands on approach are what sets the tone of the establishment, aided by their home's location right next to the restaurant. Working together as a family, the Zecchinellis strive to create a comfortable atmosphere and affordable service for the community; as such they represent the heart of working America. Providing excellent benefits for employees, most of whom have been there for decades, the philosophy behind the Wayside reflects the kind of values that strengthen our country. The Zecchinellis' dedication was recognized in 2005, when the U.S. Small Business Administration named them best Family-Owned Small Business of the Year.

Without the Wayside, to invite folks into Vermont, we would be missing not only the chance to connect with our next door neighbors, but the opportunity to support a long-time establishment that has always kept the interests of its customers at the heart of its expansion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Times Argus detailing their 90 years of success be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has unanimously passed legislation that, in conjunction with an international agreement being finalized between the United States and Libya, will at long last provide full and fair compensation to those United States nationals who have terrorism-related claims against Libya. I commend Senator Frank Lautenberg, who has been working hard for years to try to get justice for these victims of terror, as well as the other cosponsors who have enabled this important legislation to win Senate approval.

This legislation takes a critical step in securing the final payment of settlement amounts already reached by the victims of the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie bombing and the LaBelle discotheque bombing, as well as fair compensation for all other similar claims against Libya. It has wide support among victims' rights groups, and it will be an important step in restoring relations between the United States and Libya.

I urge the House to work quickly to pass this legislation so that we can send this bill to the President's desk.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: How much time is reserved for the Senator from Vermont?

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I said on the Senate floor yesterday that I support the Free Flow of Information Act, S. 2035. Senator Specter, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, was exactly right when he said in his remarks last night that ``this bill is long past due.'' After months and months of needless delay by the Senate minority, I hope we will finally be permitted to consider this important legislative effort this morning. This is legislation that passed overwhelmingly in the other body. If the Republicans would allow it, it would pass overwhelmingly in this body.

The Senate minority's delay tactics are nothing new. Since the beginning of this Congress, we have witnessed all manner of obstructionism by a minority of Republican Senators using filibuster after filibuster, the most ever in the history of this country for that period of time. They use these filibusters to thwart the will of the majority of the Senate to conduct the business of the American people.

Republican filibusters prevented Senate majorities from passing the climate change bill. Republicans blocked us from passing the Employee Free Choice Act. Republicans blocked the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Republicans blocked the DC Voting Rights Act. Republicans blocked the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. Republicans blocked the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. Republicans blocked the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. Republicans blocked the Consumer-First Energy Act. Most recently, Republicans blocked the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act. That was designed to bring much needed relief to poor families who struggle to heat and cool their homes in times of soaring gas prices, matters that have become literally life or death for some of these people.

Republican filibusters blocked the Advancing American's Priorities Act which includes 35 stalled legislative matters including--and these were blocked by the Republicans--the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and Republicans blocked several bills to help law enforcement cope with mentally ill offenders and to protect our children from the scourge of drugs, child pornography, and child exploitation. Republicans blocked all those bills. It would be a lot more if we also list all those bills President Bush has vetoed since the beginning of this Congress.

Here are the measures blocked by the Republicans and the President: legislation to fund stem cell research and fight deadly and debilitating diseases. Republicans blocked to extend and expand the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program. Republicans blocked a program that would have provided health insurance to more of the millions of American children without it. They blocked setting a timetable for bringing American troops home from Iraq. They blocked an attempt to ban waterboarding and help restore America as a beacon for the rule of law.

The Free Flow of Information Act should not be added to the long list of legislative victims of Republican obstructionism. It is time for Senate Republicans to climb down from the barricades and work with us to improve the lives of the American people.

Time is running short in this Congress. It is past time to end the partisan gamesmanship and to make progress. That is what I have been trying to do throughout this Congress. I hope, after 18 months of unnecessary obstruction, all Senators are finally ready to join us in getting our work done. We have a historic window of opportunity to enact a Federal statutory shield law to protect Americans' right to know.

I thank Majority Leader Reid for his willingness to bring the matter before the Senate. I worked with him to find an opportunity for Senate action since the Judiciary Committee reported this bill last October, and I appreciate his support.

Senator Specter and I wrote to him and the Republican leader in March urging consideration of this bipartisan measure. Before that, I had written and spoken with the majority leader about this legislation.

Our bill has 20 Senate cosponsors. The claim made yesterday by a Republican Senator that this bill is not ready for the Senate's consideration is simply unfounded. The Judiciary Committee has been working on a bipartisan basis for the past year to reach

consensus on Federal shield legislation. In addition, the Judiciary Committee held three separate hearings on this bill during the 109th Congress. I hope that the Republican cosponsors of this bill will join us in moving to the bill and that they will bring along the seven or eight Republicans needed to defeat another Republican filibuster and allow us to make progress.

A free and vibrant press is essential to a free society in our country or any country. That has been demonstrated over and over again during the past 8 years. That is why I cosponsored the Senate version of this bill and worked hard for a meaningful reporters' shield law this year. That is why I made sure that for the first time ever, for the first time in history, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a media shield law to protect the public's right to know. I was glad to see that this bill was favorably reported by a strong bipartisan 15-to- 4 vote.

I thank the leaders in the Senate who worked hard on the Federal reporters' shield law--Senators Schumer, Specter, Dodd, and Lugar as well as the dozens of media groups that support this measure.

All of us, whether Republican, Democratic, or Independent, have an interest in enacting a balanced and meaningful shield bill to ensure the free flow of information to the American people. Forty-nine States and the District of Columbia currently have codified or common law procedures to protect confidential information sources. But even with these State law protections, the press remains the first stop, rather than the stop of last resort, for our government and private litigants when it comes to seeking information.

Our time to act is now. Our opportunity to act is now. The Washington Times editorialized on July 25, ``[a] sound shield law guards not `the media' but something much more vital--the public's right to know.''

I urge that all Senators do the right thing and end this unnecessary and counterproductive filibuster.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Times editorial in support of this bill.

Mr. President, we have found, especially in this administration, time and again that when crimes have been committed, when scandals have erupted, it is not because the Congress found them out, it is because the press found them out.

Abu Ghraib, one of the worst scandals in the history of this country, something that hurt us throughout the world--we didn't find out about it because questions were asked in this body or the other body; we found out because the press found it out. We found out through the press and subsequently through our own investigations the scandals of politicizing law enforcement by this administration through the prosecutors' offices.

If we do not have the ability for our press to seek out these things, then we are all hurt. Any administration, Republican or Democratic, is going to be perfectly willing to give us all the press releases in the world saying all the wonderful things they have done. What I have found--and I have been through six administrations--is that they rarely want to talk about when they make a mistake. That is what we need a free press for.

My parents had a small newspaper in Waterbury, VT. I grew up in a family who revered the first amendment, revered it for the right to know, for the public's right to know. What has set this Nation apart from virtually any other nation on Earth is that our press is free, our press is open, our press can ask questions, and our press can point out mistakes--whether it is mistakes of Members of Congress or mistakes of the administration.

We need this shield law. Let's not use any more excuses for one more filibuster. If you really believe in having the shield law, vote for it. If you are against it, vote against it. But don't hide behind some parliamentary maneuver of a filibuster.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, this past weekend marked the 19th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, one of the Nation's most critical and effective civil rights laws. It is fitting that as we celebrate its passage, we reflect on the progress we have made in expanding possibilities for Americans with disabilities and the challenges that still remain.

We passed the ADA in recognition that the bedrock principles of human dignity and equal opportunity require all Americans to be judged on their individual merits and not on the prejudices of others. This law promised generations of Americans the opportunity to leave their mark on a country that had only years before denied them full participation. I, like many of my colleagues, supported this historic act. I hoped it would serve as a vital tool against the barriers that had long excluded persons with disabilities from fully participating in society.

By any reasonable measure, the ADA has been a success. Today, persons with disabilities enjoy rights many of us have long taken for granted. Now they

have access to public transportation built to accommodate people in wheelchairs. They have the ability to stay in hotels, travel, and enter schools and places of entertainment equipped for their needs. Indeed, almost every office building in America is fully accessible to them. Thus, the enactment of the ADA transformed our country and we are a better Nation because of it.

Despite these significant advances, recent decisions from the Supreme Court and lower courts attempt to erode the ADA's protections and threaten to turn back the clock on our progress. I am particularly disturbed by rulings that have narrowed the ADA in ways we never intended. Rather than broadly interpreting the ADA's mandate, as we intended, courts have repeatedly interpreted that law to embody a ``strict and demanding'' standard for determining who qualifies as an individual with a disability. These narrow rulings ensure that the persons we intended to shield, including those with severe illnesses, like epilepsy and multiple sclerosis, are no longer protected. As a consequence, millions of Americans who suffer discrimination are now excluded from ADA protection.

A few years ago, a Federal judge in Vermont's neighboring State of New Hampshire ruled that a woman with breast cancer was not sufficiently disabled to be protected by the ADA. Court rulings contrary to Congress's intent for the ADA are not limited to the New England States. Last year, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously ruled that even mental retardation did not constitute a sufficient disability under the ADA.

The message sent by these rulings is as unfortunate as it is undeniable: the courts no longer consider certain persons ``disabled enough'' to be protected. That means an employer could fire or refuse to hire a qualified worker on the basis of his or her disability, and defend that action in court on the grounds that the worker was not ``disabled enough'' to be protected under law.

In addition, the legislative history is crystal clear. Congress intended the ADA to protect all persons without regard to mitigating circumstances. Indeed, the Senate committee report on the ADA expressly stated ``[w]hether a person has a disability should be assessed without regard to the availability of mitigating measures, such as reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids.'' Despite this clear intent, courts have ruled that people with disabilities who take medication or use assistive devices should not be considered disabled.

I am particularly concerned that these rulings will undermine the rights of thousands of veterans with disabilities who, upon returning from the war, will enter the civilian workforce to support their families. Many of these veterans have disabilities, including post- traumatic stress syndrome, that may be controlled with medication. If any of them suffer job discrimination, we must make sure they will have a remedy.

Equally disturbing is that many of these cases can lead all Americans into what Senator Harkin has aptly described as a legal catch-22:

People with serious health conditions [] who are fortunate

to find treatments that make them more capable and

independent and, thus, more able to work may find that they

are no longer protected by the ADA . . . . On the other hand,

if they stop their medication or stop using an assistive

device, they will be considered a person with a disability

under the ADA but they won't be qualified for the job.

We must act to remedy these erroneous court decisions. Last month, the House overwhelmingly passed the Americans with Disabilities Act Restoration Act. Now it is the Senate's turn to respond. This legislation would reverse these flawed decisions and restore the original congressional intent of the ADA. First, the bill would clarify Congress's purpose to reinstate a broad scope of protection for a range of persons with disabilities under the ADA. Second, the legislation would modify findings in the ADA that have been used by courts to narrowly interpret what constitutes a ``disability.'' Third, the bill would lower the burden of proving that one is ``disabled enough'' to qualify for coverage.

This long overdue legislation has ample support from both disability groups and business interests. I hope this bipartisan bill does not fall victim to the petty partisan obstruction that has prevented passage of other civil rights measures in this Congress that had broad bipartisan support, like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. While unprecedented obstruction tactics have led Senate Republicans to stall one bill after another on the Senate floor, it is well past time for us to turn the page on partisan tactics designed to thwart critical civil rights bills.

Indeed, our heritage of freedom and our continued march towards perfecting our Union, should remind us all that civil rights legislation holds a unique place in this institution. These bills bring us closer to fulfilling the promises engrained in our founding charters of establishing freedom and equality for all Americans. Thus, they should be held to a higher standard than other bills.

Time has shown the ADA to have been one of our Nation's most effective tools in combating discrimination. Its continued effectiveness is important to ensure that the great progress we have made in widening the doors of opportunity for all Americans continues in the future.

We have before us a historic opportunity to restore the ADA's original intent and reclaim the basic rights it extended to persons with disabilities. I was proud to support the ADA in the 101st Congress, and I am pleased to support this year's bill as it moves forward. I hope this bill will be promptly passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I want the distinguished Presiding Officer to know the weather in our home State is much nicer today than it is here.

I support the Free Flow of Information Act, S. 2035, which the distinguished majority leader has moved to. I hope the minority will allow us to consider this important legislation.

I thank the majority leader for his willingness to bring this legislation before the Senate. I have worked with him on this matter to find an opportunity for Senate action since the Judiciary Committee reported this bill last October. I appreciate the support of the majority leader. He has offered a generous response to the bipartisan request Senator Specter and I made to him and the Republican leader earlier this year to proceed to this bill. In a bipartisan letter, we asked if he would proceed to the bill. He has done that. I applaud him for it.

Our bill has 20 Senate cosponsors, Members of both parties. I hope the Republican cosponsors will join us in moving to the bill and will bring along the seven or eight Republicans we will need to overcome yet another filibuster and make progress.

I have also supported and urged the Senate to proceed to the strong House-passed version of the Free Flow of Information Act, H.R. 2102. That bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 398 to 21-- so it obviously has overwhelming bipartisan support. The House bill has more than 70 cosponsors--both Republicans and Democrats alike.

Years ago, my mother and father owned a small daily newspaper in Waterbury, VT, the Waterbury Record. As a child, I grew up hearing, at the kitchen table, that a free and vibrant press is essential to a free society. That has been demonstrated again and again over the last eight years. That is why I cosponsored the Senate version of this bill and I have worked hard to enact a meaningful reporters' shield law this year.

That is why I made sure that for the first time ever--for the first time ever--the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a media shield law to protect the public's right to know. The Judiciary Committee reported a bill sponsored by Senators Lugar, Dodd, Specter, Schumer, Graham, and myself with a strong bipartisan 15-to-4 vote.

I wish to commend the leadership of Senator Lugar and Senator Dodd in connection with this matter. They began this quest for fairness when it seemed an impossibility several years ago. They have worked diligently to bring us to where we are today--at the cusp of achieving a Federal shield law--if only the Senate gets the support of a handful of Republican Senators to proceed to the bill.

All of us--whether Republican, Democratic or Independent--have an interest in enacting a balanced and meaningful shield bill to ensure a free flow of information to the American people. Forty-nine States and the District of Columbia currently have codified or common law protections for confidential source information. But even with these State law protections, the press remains the first stop, rather than the stop of last resort, for our Government and private litigants when it comes to seeking information. Time and time again--especially during the years when this Congress refused to do real oversight of the current administration--when there was waste in Government, when there were serious mistakes in Government, even when Government was breaking the law, we found out about it first and foremost because of the press in America.

Earlier this year, Toni Locy, a professor of journalism at West Virginia University, also a former USA TODAY reporter, was held in contempt of court for refusing to divulge her confidential sources. There are scores of other reporters who have been questioned by Federal prosecutors about their sources, notes, and reports in recent years. This is a dangerous trend that can have a chilling effect on the press, but even more so, on the public's right to know. If you don't have a free press,

then you don't have a free society. If you don't have a way for Americans to know what their Government is doing, then we will all hurt. To paraphrase Mark Twain, you should support your country all the time but question your government when it deserves it. We need a press willing and able to do that.

Enacting the Free Flow of Information Act--which carefully balances the need to protect confidential source information with the need to protect law enforcement and national security interests--would help to reverse this troubling trend and benefit all Americans. The bill creates a qualified privilege to protect journalists from being forced to reveal their confidential sources. The bill contains exceptions to the privilege for criminal conduct or national security. The legislation also requires that Federal courts weigh the need for the information with the public's interest in the free flow of information, before compelling reporters to disclose their confidential sources.

Although I strongly support the enactment of a Federal shield law, I have some reservations about possible revisions to the bill we passed out of Committee. I am pleased that language has been drafted to address my concerns about making sure that legitimate bloggers and freelance journalists are included in the definition of the persons covered by this bill.

However, I hope that any amendments to this legislation will include stronger protections for journalists and their sources with regard to matters of national security and classified information. No one would quibble with the notion that there are circumstances when the Government can and should have the right to compel information in order to keep us safe. But many newsworthy stories concerning national security, such as the exceptional reporting on the CIA's secret prisons and the warrantless--and many feel illegal--wiretapping by the National Security Agency were published with the help of confidential sources, to the great benefit of the general public and the accountability that ordinary Americans deserve from their Government.

I fear that proposals from some in this body do not go far enough to protect against Government abuse in this area or to protect the public's interest in the dissemination of newsworthy information.

Not all reporters will be as lucky as Bill Gertz of the Washington Times was when a judge recently upheld his claim in a case in a California Federal court. Even with this victory, however, the Government has responded by broadening its inquiries. To prevent further intrusions on our fundamental first amendment rights, we need some uniform standards. We need procedures to evaluate claims of privilege and protect the public's right to know. To do that, of course, the Congress must act.

In a much touted speech to the American Enterprise Institute last week, current Attorney General Mukasey, who still opposes a Federal shield law, articulated principles that argue for enacting one. Attorney General Mukasey endorsed congressional legislative action when there exists a ``serious risk of inconsistent rulings and considerable uncertainty.'' He noted that congressional action to provide procedures in national security cases is ``well within the historic role and competence of Congress.'' Although he was proposing action in another setting, the Attorney General's remarks likewise support congressional action to standardize and clarify the procedures governing a Federal statutory press shield law. In view of the disparate rulings and outcomes that have developed in the courts since the Supreme Court's Branzburg decision 36 years ago, it is now time for Congress to establish a framework for the courts to resolve press privilege assertions fairly and consistently, and we can do this while preserving our national security.

When he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the Federal shield law in 2005, William Safire told us that the essence of news gathering is this: If you do not have sources you trust and who trust you, then you don't have a solid story--and the public suffers for it. Well, Bill Safire is exactly right. We simply have no idea how many newsworthy stories have gone unwritten and unreported out of fear that a reporter would be forced to reveal a source or face jail time. We also do not know how many potential whistleblowers, or other confidential sources, have chosen to remain silent out of fear that journalists could be compelled to disclose their identity.

Just recently, investigative journalism and confidential sources have helped to uncover significant Government failures in Iraq, in New Orleans, as well as Government neglect at the Walter Reed Medical Center. We wouldn't have found out how poorly the returning soldiers were being treated--people who have lost limbs or have been paralyzed or blinded in the war in Iraq--by the Veterans' Administration and the problems and events at our Government facilities. We would not have found out about that if a confidential source hadn't told a reporter.

We have seen just in the past few days news articles about politicization at the Department of Justice. A lot of the spotlight on how politicized this administration's Justice Department has become came out of hearings we held in the Judiciary Committee. But much of what we found out about what was going on at the Justice Department came out of press reports based on confidential sources.

We learned from the press that the White House, afraid that they might find out the truth, avoided implementing the Environmental Protection Agency's recommendations on global warming by not opening the agency's e-mails. Again, we find out about that from confidential sources.

As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of making sure that the Government can effectively investigate criminal wrongdoing, combat terrorism, and preserve national security. The Federal shield legislation we are seeking to bring before the Senate strikes a balance among these important objectives. The bill addresses the legitimate need for law enforcement to obtain information from reporters to prevent a crime or a national security threat.

In addition, by providing a qualified and not an absolute privilege to withhold the identity of confidential sources, the bill also advances other important law enforcement objectives, such as encouraging whistleblowers to disclose fraud, waste, and abuse that might otherwise go unreported.

The opposition to this carefully crafted bill by the Department of Justice and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, is simply misplaced. Although 49 States, the District of Columbia, and several Federal courts have recognized a reporter's privilege either by statute or common law for years, the Department of Justice and ODNI have not cited a single circumstance where the privilege caused any harm to national security or to law enforcement. In fact, the legitimate concerns about the need to effectively combat crime and protect national security have been satisfied by the bill and by amendments to this bill offered in a bipartisan fashion by Senators Feinstein, Brownback, and Kyl.

A free press in our country is what sets us apart from so many other nations in the world. The distinguished Presiding Officer, in his years in the House and in the Senate, can certainly point to examples where we have found out things that have been kept hidden from the Congress only because the press uncovered them. Certainly, that has been my experience in my years here in the Senate.

I also know that there is a temptation--when any administration has made a serious mistake or is trying to hide wrongdoing by their administration, the first thing they want to do is to make sure nobody in the press or the Congress or the public finds out what they have done. For every administration, it is easy to have all of their press people go out and tout the things they want us to know, the things they consider a success. None want us to hear about the embarrassments or the mistakes or, more recently, out-and-out wrongdoing. That is where you need a press willing to go in and uncover Government wrongdoing and protect the sources who help them to do so.

Do you think even with all of the hearings I and others have held we would have found out how law enforcement was manipulated and thwarted by this administration in the selection and manipulation of U.S. attorneys?

We found out about it first and foremost by the press, and then through witness testimony in hearings, and now by the Justice Department's Inspector General who had the willingness to stand up and point to the wrongdoing of this administration. And then there was Abu Ghraib--how did we find out about that? We learned about it in the press, not because the administration was willing to say: Look at this terrible thing we have done.

So after months and months of delaying tactics and opposition by the Bush administration, the time has come to pass a Federal shield law. I thank and commend the more than 60 news media and journalism organizations including ABC News, the Associated Press, CNN, the National Newspaper Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Vermont Press Association, that worked so hard to get us to this point.

I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of a support letter from the Media Coalition Supporting the Free Flow of Information Act printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. President, I will just leave with this: Let's make sure the Congress--especially this Senate--takes steps, as the other body did, to make it easier for the public to know not all the things the Government wants them to know but the times when our Government has made mistakes, the times when our Government has not followed the law, the times when our Government has tried to give disinformation. We are a stronger nation if we know the truth. We are a weaker nation if our laws allow the truth to be shielded from the American people. I trust the American people. I trust the American people to question our Government. I trust the American people to be able to handle the information. I do not trust those who would try to use every barrier to keep that information from the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Media Coalition Supporting the Free Flow of Information Act

July 21, 2008.

Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Russell Bldg., U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

Re: S. 2035--The Free Flow of Information Act.

Dear Chairman Leahy: On behalf of the men and women across

the country who work to bring the American people vital news

and information, we, the undersigned media companies and

organizations, thank you for your support and co-sponsorship

of S. 2035, the Free Flow of Information Act. Your leadership

in support of this bill has been invaluable in fighting to

ensure that the American public has access to news and

information about their government and the institutions that

affect their daily lives. Protecting confidential sources

through federal legislation has broad support on both sides

of the aisle, in both chambers of Congress, and from state

attorneys general across the nation.

The legislation is vitally important to the national

interest, an informed citizenry, and a free and vibrant

press. As you know last October, S. 2035 was favorably

reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong

15-4 bipartisan vote and is supported by the presumptive

Republican and Democrat presidential nominees, Sens. John

McCain and Barack Obama. A similar shield bill (H.R. 2102)

passed by an overwhelming 398-21 vote.

Chairman Leahy, we appreciate your leadership and

respectfully request that you do whatever you can to make

sure that S. 2035 is approved by the Senate, without any

further amendments that would weaken the well-reasoned

protections in the bill.

Very truly yours,

ABC News, ABC Owned Television Stations, Advance

Publications, Inc., A. H. Belo Corporation, Allbritton

Communications Company, American Business Media, American

Society of Magazine Editors, American Society of Newspaper

Editors, The Associated Press, The Associated Press Managing

Editors Association.

Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Association of

American Publishers, Association of Capitol Reporters and

Editors, Belo Corp., Bloomberg News, CBS Corporation, Clear

Channel, CNN, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government,

The Copley Press, Inc.

Cox Television, Cox Newspapers, Cox Enterprises, Inc.,

Daily News, L.P., First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc.,

Freedom Communications, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Gray

Television, Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc., Hearst

Corporation.

Lee Enterprises, Inc., Magazine Publishers of America, The

McClatchy Company, The McGraw-Hili Companies, Media Law

Resource Center, National Association of Broadcasters,

National Conference of Editorial Writers, National Federation

of Press Women, The National Geographic Society, National

Newspaper Association.

National Press Photographers Association, National Public

Radio, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Newspaper Association

of America, The Newspaper Guild-CWA, Newsweek, The New York

Times Company, North Jersey Media Group Inc., Online News

Association.

Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, Radio-Television News

Directors Association, Raycom Media, Inc., The Reporters

Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reuters America LLC, E.

W. Scripps, Society of Professional Journalists, Stephens

Media LLC, Time Inc.

Time Warner, Tribune Company, truTV, The Walt Disney

Company, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, White

House News Photographers Associations.

Mr. Presient, last week, I joined the majority leader in introducing S. 3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act. The majority leader selected three dozen legislative items from the jurisdiction of seven Senate committees, including eight Judiciary Committee bills, for this effort. These are all measures with bipartisan support and, we believe, the support of a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate. I have moved several such bills through the Judiciary Committee only to be stymied by objection once on the Senate calendar. All of the Judiciary bills have already passed the House with overwhelming support. Each of these bills has the support of all Democratic Senators. Each has been stalled on the Senate floor by Republican objection. I hope that all Senators will now join us to support this important effort and finally pass legislation helpful to the American people that should have passed long ago by unanimous consent.

After more than 7 years of failed policies from the Bush administration, the American people are suffering. Americans are feeling the effects of a very real recession which has left them with fewer jobs and record high prices. People are rightly worried about keeping their communities and their children safe from crime as well as terrorism.

Americans are looking to us in Congress to work to solve these vexing problems. We had an opportunity in this Congress to come together across party lines to do the work of the American people. Instead, regrettably some have chosen to obstruct our progress and stand in the way of legislation designed to help hard working Americans.

The Judiciary Committee has worked throughout this Congress to advance the priorities of Americans. We have reported legislation to support local law enforcement to make our cities and towns safe from crime that has now gone back up after consistent declines, to protect our children from exploitation and poverty, to ensure the civil rights and voting rights of Americans, to combat fraud and corruption, and to keep us secure without sacrificing our values.

Many pieces of legislation with broad bipartisan support that we have managed to move through the Judiciary Committee have then stalled on the Senate floor due to obstruction. The majority leader has been forced to resort to extraordinary measures to try to pass these bills, which should have sailed through without opposition. Some of these bills, including several important pieces of legislation that have been reported from the Judiciary Committee this Congress, have been incorporated by the majority leader into the Advancing America's Priorities Act. Congress should promptly pass this important legislation, which will help the American people.

One key bill in this package is the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. It is astonishing that in the richest country in the world, millions of our young people face homelessness and the many dangers of life on the streets.

When the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this issue in April, we heard from Mark Redmond and Michael Hutchins of Spectrum Youth and Family Services in Burlington, VT. They told us how much the act is needed to help young people in Vermont and around the country. Mr. Hutchins had been homeless himself as a young person and saw first hand how the programs this act funds

can help children turn their lives around and give back to their communities.

I also held a hearing in Rutland, VT, this winter on crime in small cities and towns, which emphasized the need for programs to help young people in difficult circumstances. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act reauthorization will double the funding states like Vermont are guaranteed to receive for programs to benefit runaway and homeless young people. This bill will help our young people, and we should pass it right away.

Another important piece of legislation included in this package is the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which I have been working with Senator Dodd, Congressman Lewis, and others to pass for years. In 1955, the brutal murder of a 14-year-old African-American teenager named Emmett Till stirred the conscience of our country. Unfortunately, no one has ever been punished for this tragic and brutal murder. Last week, I met Simeon Wright, Emmett Till's cousin, who was with Mr. Till on the horrible night he was kidnapped. We must share Mr. Wright's commitment to fighting for justice after so many years.

The Till bill would help law enforcement to finally track down those whose violent acts during a period of national turmoil remain unpunished. Fifty-three years after Emmett Till's murder, his family and the families of hundreds of other Americans who lost their lives in the fight for equal rights still await justice.

This legislation provides necessary tools for our Federal Government, in cooperation with state and local officials, to vigorously investigate and prosecute these cases. By passing this legislation, we honor Emmett Till and all those who sacrificed their lives advancing civil rights. It is disgraceful that it has taken us so long to take this basic step to honor their memories and pursue justice too long delayed. It is incredible that some continue to obstruct these efforts.

The Advancing America's Priorities Act also includes legislation to help law enforcement cope with mentally ill offenders, and to protect our children from the scourges of drugs, child pornography, and child exploitation.

It seems particularly perverse that legislation meant to protect our children and grandchildren from the dangers of the modern world has become the subject of partisan obstructionism. This legislative package includes the PROTECT Our Children Act, which Senator Biden has championed and which would streamline the government's efforts to investigate and prevent the exploitation of children. It also includes two separate measures that strengthen the laws against the despicable practice of child pornography. I have worked hard with many of my colleagues to pass these and other child protection bills, and we should delay no longer passing them into law. The Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act passed the House 409-0 last November. The Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography provision passed the House 416-0 last November. The PROTECT Our Children Act passed the House 415-2 last November. The Drug Endangered Children Act passed the House last September 389-4. All of these bills have been cleared by all Democratic Senators, and all are included in the bill being brought before the Senate by the majority leader.

Senator Coburn has now introduced a new bill, S. 3344, which combines several of the pieces of child protection legislation contained in the Advancing America's Priorities Act package and other preexisting legislation. Senator Coburn has prevented many of these same bills from passing for many months. He has chosen not to work with the majority leader on the Advancing America's Priorities Act to secure passage of the many important bills contained within it. He has also chosen not to work with the sponsors, Democratic and Republican, House and Senate, of the child protection bills he has co-opted, and he did not bother to attend a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing which squarely addressed one of those bills.

Instead, he has taken these bills, drafted and introduced by other Senators and House members, and without their input or permission, combined them and introduced them as his own legislation. Moreover, he has combined them in a way that appears calculated to attract opposition, and he has included provisions that have not been carefully vetted or considered. Where the majority leader has worked with many others in the Senate and House to collect important bills with bipartisan, bicameral support that can pass into law and increase protection for our children, Senator Coburn instead has appropriated the work of others in Congress in a way that is unfair and bound to fail. That is not legislating. It is more showboating and obstruction. We have had too much of those tactics already.

Sadly, obstruction through Republican holds is just one example of the ways some have chosen to hamper progress on so many issues in this Congress. They have also boycotted meetings to consider legislation, used Senate rules to prevent hearings or cut them short, and filibustered more than 80 times.

Republicans boycotted the most recent business meeting of the Judiciary Committee thereby blocking the committee from obtaining a quorum and considering important legislation. At that meeting, the committee was to consider a bipartisan juvenile justice bill, which reauthorized key programs aimed at making our communities safer and keeping our children out of the criminal justice system; bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which would strengthen our efforts to stop the abhorrent practice of human trafficking around the world; and other matters.

They have threatened to boycott again this week. That would prevent action on the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission, a resolution to honor national historically Black colleges and universities, and other important bipartisan measures.

We have seen all manners of obstructionism since the beginning of this Congress, with a minority of Republican members using filibuster after filibuster to thwart the will of the majority of the Senate from doing the business of the American people. Republican filibusters prevented Senate majorities from passing the climate change bill; the Employee Free Choice Act; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the DC Voting Rights Act; the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007; the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008; the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008; the Consumer-First Energy Act; and the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, to bring much needed relief to poor families who struggle to heat and cool their homes in a time of soaring gas prices.

These are critical pieces of legislation to address urgent priorities like the energy crisis, the environment, voting rights, health care, and fair wages for working men and women. All of them had a support of the majority of the Senate. And all were blocked by a minority of Republican Senators bent on preventing us from making progress. Republicans have now filibustered more than 80 pieces of legislation in this Congress. More than 80. We can only imagine what we could have accomplished in this Congress with cooperation rather than obstruction.

The list goes on. Republican objection has blocked legislation to ensure that law enforcement officers can obtain bulletproof vests, to strengthen efforts to investigate and prosecute public corruption, to give much needed resources to state and local law enforcement, to break the grip of a cartel on oil prices, to prohibit war profiteering, to train prosecutors, and to teach children to use the internet safely, just to name some of the examples. And those are just examples of legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee that has been obstructed. Last week I made statements delineating a dozen and a half bills in addition to those included by the majority leader in S.3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act. Other committees have similar lists.

This long list of priorities unaddressed is even longer if we include the many important bills President Bush has vetoed since the beginning of this Congress. This list includes legislation to fund stem cell research

to fight debilitating and deadly diseases, to extend and expand the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program that would have provided health insurance to more of the millions of American children without it, to set a timetable for bringing American troops home from the disastrous war in Iraq, and to ban waterboarding and help restore America as a beacon for the rule of law.

This is not about partisan posturing. The American people are suffering, and it is time for Congress to start working to make their lives better. Time is running short in this Congress. It is past time to end the partisan gamesmanship and idiosyncratic objections and make progress on behalf of the American people. It is time for us to get to work and do what we can to improve the lives of Americans. That is what I have been trying to do throughout this Congress. The majority leader, with the Advancing America's Priorities Act, has given us a chance to take a small but significant step in the right direction. I hope, after 18 months of unnecessary obstruction, all Senators are finally ready to join us in doing the work of the American people.

Mr. President, the sluggish national economy and the rising cost of housing is a one-two punch that is keeping affordable housing out of the reach of too many Vermont families. It is important that during these times of economic hardship we do more--not less--to help struggling families make ends meet. I am pleased that today, after months of delay, the Senate is set to act on final passage of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, H.R. 3221, a responsible bill to strengthen our economy, restore confidence in our financial markets, and provide urgently needed relief to American families who are struggling to make ends meet.

Under the Bush administration's watch, unregulated mortgage originators were given financial incentives to sell risky, unaffordable, subprime mortgages to vulnerable borrowers. As these adjustable rate mortgages reset to higher rates, the number of families unable to afford their payments and threatened with foreclosure is skyrocketing.

Foreclosures have climbed in my home State of Vermont and, while subprime mortgages are not the largest driver, the mortgage foreclosure crisis will still have severe costs for homeowners, not only in direct costs but in its effect on home values and declining property taxes. According to the State of Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration, for the first quarter of 2008, well over 400 new foreclosures have been filed in Vermont, which is a 30-percent increase over those filed in last year's first quarter. If the current trend holds, Vermont is facing about 1600 this year.

Several urgent housing-related issues have become prominent already this year. The most visible issue is the prevalence of subprime loans and growing mortgage default and foreclosure rates, affecting an estimated 2 million homeowners. Congress has responded with a reform package to change the way in which the lending and home-buying industry is regulated and to assist borrowers who are facing default and foreclosure. These proposals address several of the problems spawned by a housing foreclosure crisis that has threatened America's hard-working families, their communities, and our local and national economies.

I recognize that this bill is not a perfect solution. However, I also believe the housing crisis and market instability demand action. Ending the foreclosure crisis is vital to the American economic recovery. This package will help prevent another crisis of this magnitude, stop foreclosures before they begin, and preserve for future generations the American dream of home ownership.

Homes that have been foreclosed upon and are sitting unoccupied lead to

declines in neighboring house values, increased crime, and significant disinvestment. To ensure that communities can mitigate these harmful effects of foreclosures, the package provides $3.92 billion to communities hit hard by foreclosures and delinquencies. These supplemental community development block grant, or CDBG, funds will be used to purchase foreclosed homes, at a discount, and rehabilitate or redevelop the homes to stabilize neighborhoods and stem the significant losses in house values of neighboring homes.

It has always been a priority of mine to help make housing more affordable, and I have worked over the years--as I will do in years to come--to bring the resources into Vermont to make that happen. That is why I worked with Senators Sanders, Baucus, Snowe, Thune, and Whitehouse to successfully include a provision that applies an all- State minimum of 0.50 percent to the supplemental CDBG funds provided to States to buy up and rehabilitate foreclosed properties to ensure smaller States like Vermont receive a portion of the help. This will result in roughly $20 million coming to Vermont to help with foreclosures in our communities.

Now that the President has lifted his veto threat and after months of delay tactics by the minority, the Senate is ready to pass a responsible bill to address the worsening foreclosure crisis, which is the root of the broader economic crisis. By helping Americans keep their homes and their home equity, we are restoring stability to the housing market and helping businesses and communities hurt by this crisis not only recover, but also create new jobs. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act will help prevent another crisis of this magnitude, stop foreclosures before they begin, and preserve home ownership for future generations.

Each day this bill has been stalled, nearly 8,500 new families filed for foreclosure--on top of already accelerating foreclosure filings that were 53 percent higher in June than in the same month last year. The time for delay has passed. It is about time that we send this bill to the President for his signature into law so we may begin to deliver solutions that are in the best interest of the American taxpayer and the U.S. economy.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act. As an original cosponsor of this important legislation that nearly doubles funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to invoke cloture.

While we are currently in the middle of summer, every Vermonter knows that winter isn't far off. Families in cold-weather States, like Vermont, who were able to pay this past winter's bill, are already preparing for next winter and they are finding the costs of home heating to be out of reach.

In its most recent ``Short-Term Energy Outlook,'' the Department of Energy predicted that the cost of home heating oil will increase more than 41 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2008. This increase comes on top of the 162-percent increase in heating oil prices that has occurred since President Bush took office.

Many of our neediest neighbors will need Federal and State assistance in order to fill their fuel tanks. There is currently $120 million in LIHEAP emergency funds that Congress has appropriated and the President could release tomorrow. Unfortunately, so far he has refused to do so.

I have passed an amendment that would require the President to release the $120 million in emergency LIHEAP funding. Yet clearly more funding is needed.

The skyrocketing price of home heating oil, propane, kerosene, natural gas and electricity is stretching the household budgets of millions of families with children, senior citizens on fixed incomes and persons with disabilities beyond the breaking point.

More LIHEAP assistance is urgently needed. This legislation will provide an additional $2.5 billion for LIHEAP. With the current oil prices, the average LIHEAP grant only pays for 18 percent of the total cost of heating a home with heating oil in the winter; 21 percent of residential propane costs; 41 percent of natural gas costs; and 43 percent of electricity costs.

This legislation is a moral imperative. People without adequate heat are vulnerable to illness. And people struggling to pay the heating bills may be tempted to skimp on medicines and even food. No one should have to choose between heating and eating.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join us in supporting this bill immediately and the President will sign it as soon as possible.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I do not believe that the provisions of title VII of the Advancing America's Priorities Act, S. 3297, constitute a ``congressionally directed spending item,'' as defined by Public Law 110-81, but out of an abundance of caution I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the provisions of title VII of S. 3297, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. Presdient, earlier this week, I joined the majority leader in the introduction of S. 3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act. The majority leader selected 35 legislative items from the jurisdiction of seven Senate committees, including eight bills from that of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for this effort. These are all measures with bipartisan support and, we believe, the support of a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate. I have moved several through the Judiciary Committee, and several have already passed the House. All have the support of all Democratic Senators, and all were cleared for unanimous Senate passage, but each has been stalled on the Senate floor by Republican objection.

One key bill included in this package is the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. I thank Senator Dodd and Congressman Lewis for their tireless work on this bill over the last 4 years. It will strengthen the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute unsolved murders from the civil rights era. It would create new cold case units in the Justice Department and FBI dedicated to investigating and prosecuting unsolved cases involving violations of criminal civil rights statutes which resulted in death and occurred before January 1, 1970. The Senate legislation was introduced on February 8, 2007. I was proud to cosponsor Senator Dodd's bill. The Judiciary Committee reported it by unanimous consent as amended on June 20, 2007, more than a year ago. The House legislation passed the House on June 20, 2007, more than a year ago, by a vote of 422 to 2. Its Republican cosponsors include Senator Cochran,

Senator Hatch, Senator Alexander, and Senator Cornyn.

Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting Emmett Till's cousin, Simeon Wright, who was with him that terrible night. The brutal killing of Emmett Till galvanized this Nation. I want to acknowledge Mr. Wright's courage and his commitment to fight for justice for all these years.

The primary purpose of the Till bill is to track down those whose violent acts during a period of national turmoil remain unpunished. By passing this legislation, we honor Emmett Till and all those who sacrificed their lives advancing civil rights. It is disgraceful that it has taken us so long to take this basic step to pursue justice too long delayed. It is incredible to me that some continue to obstruct these efforts. It reminds me of those who so adamantly opposed a national holiday to recognize the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the progress this country has made toward equal justice.

Another important piece of legislation in this bill is the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Many Vermonters have told me how much that act is needed to help young people in Vermont and around the country. I held a hearing in Rutland this year on crime in small cities and towns, which emphasized the need for programs to help young people in difficult circumstances, and held another here in Washington on this measure before the Judiciary Committee reported it in April. The companion House bill passed in June.

In addition, the eight Judiciary Committee related bills include several concerning child pornography, exploitation and drugs. The Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act passed the House 409 to 0 last November; the Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography provision passed the House 416 to 0 last November; the PROTECT Our Children Act passed the House 415 to 2 last November; the Drug Endangered Children Act passed the House last September 389 to 4. All of these bills have been cleared by all Democratic Senators.

Thus, the Judiciary Committee components in S. 3297 are all measures that should have passed the Senate long ago. Two of the eight have Republican Senators as their lead sponsors. Others have Republican cosponsors.

People are rightly worried about keeping their communities safe and protecting their children. The Judiciary Committee has worked throughout this Congress to advance these priorities of Americans. Sadly, these important efforts have been obstructed by Republican objections. I hope that all Senators will join together tomorrow to pass S. 3297 without further delay.

The bill we will consider tomorrow contains eight Judiciary Committee-related pieces. There were selected from many more bills that have been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee and that have passed the House. All these bills have the support of every Democratic Senator, and it is Republican objections, usually anonymous objections, that are keeping them from passing.

Let me mention some of the others:

S. 879, No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007--this bill would make it illegal for any foreign state or any instrumentality or agent of a foreign state to act collectively with another foreign state to limit the production, set the price, or take any other action to restrain trade of oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product. The actions of OPEC to limit production of oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products result in higher prices of crude oil and, thus, gasoline in the United States. These actions are having a harmful effect on American consumers. This legislation will make clear that the actions of nations and their agents to limit supply and fix prices of oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products to affect the U.S. market violates U.S. antitrust law, and it will authorize the Attorney General to enforce antitrust law against such nations and prevent technical legal doctrines such as sovereign immunity and act of state from preventing actions for redress.

S. 368, COPS Improvements Act of 2007--this bill would reauthorize and improve the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS. Since 1994, the programs created by the COPS initiative have helped drive down crime rates. The COPS Program would restore vital programs that have been cut at a time when our law enforcement officers need it most. S. 368 would authorize $600 million to hire officers to engage in community policing, intelligence gathering and antiterror initiatives, and to serve as school resource officers. It would authorize $350 million per year for technology grants and $200 million per year to help local district attorneys hire community prosecutors. Also, it would establish the COPS office as an entity within the Department of Justice to carry out these functions and activities under the COPS Program in order to eliminate duplication of efforts.

S. 119/H.R. 400, War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007--this legislation would strengthen the tools available to Federal law enforcement to combat contracting fraud during times of war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities. It would also extend extraterritorial jurisdiction in an attempt to reach fraudulent conduct wherever it occurs. The bill would create a new criminal fraud offense in title 18 of the U.S. Code to prohibit fraudulent acts involving the provision of goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities.

S. 185, Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007--this bill would repeal provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that eliminated the jurisdiction of any court to hear or consider applications for a writ of habeas corpus filed by aliens who have been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as enemy combatants. Passage of this bill would restore the basic and essential right to challenge arbitrary detention by the Government to noncitizens, including the 12 million lawful permanent residents currently in this country, who under current law may be held forever with no recourse to challenge their detention in court. This legislation will contribute to renewed global respect for American values and the rule of law.

S. 2511, a bill to amend the grant program for law enforcement armor vests to provide for a waiver of or reduction in the matching funds requirement in the case of fiscal hardship--this bill would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to waive, in whole or in part, matching fund requirements applicable to the grant program for the purchase of armor vests for law enforcement officers.

S. 2344, Internet Safety Education Act of 2007--this bill would create a competitive grant program for eligible organizations to carry out free, age-appropriate programs that promote Internet safety for children. This would give educators and parents the tools necessary to teach proper online interactions and promote safe Internet usage to their students and children in an age-appropriate manner.

H.R. 3095, to amend the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 to modify a deadline relating to a certain election by Indian tribes--this bipartisan bill would provide Indian tribes a 1-year extension in which to decide how to comply with the requirements of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The Adam Walsh Act enacted new requirements for States and Indian tribes to maintain sex offender registration information, post such information on the Internet, and share such information among States and other Indian tribes. The Justice Department proposed detailed regulations for States and Indian tribes to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, but those regulations are not yet final. The Indian tribes cannot make an informed decision on how to comply with the act until those regulations are final. This 1-year extension would give Indian tribes sufficient time to make appropriate choices.

S. 267/H.R. 545, Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act--this bill would ensure that Indian tribes are able to apply for grant programs authorized by the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. When Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, tribes were unintentionally left out as eligible applicants in some of these programs. This bill would clarify that

territories and Indian communities are eligible to receive the resources they need to fight methamphetamine use.

S. 877, Controlling the Abuse of Prescriptions Act of 2007--this bill seeks to crack down on performance-enhancing drugs by putting human growth hormone on the same list of controlled substances as anabolic steroids. Classifying human growth hormone, HGH, as a schedule III controlled substance would subject the drug to more Government regulation and stiffer penalties for illegal distribution.

S. 1027, PACT Act--this bill would help combat cigarette trafficking by updating existing antitrafficking laws and introducing new tools to combat illegal remote sales, such as those conducted over the Internet. The legislation closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws, enhances penalties for violations, and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative new methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. By strengthening criminal laws governing cigarette trafficking and empowering Federal, State, and local law enforcement with the powers to investigate and prosecute the cigarette traffickers of the 21st century, the PACT Act can help disrupt terrorist groups and other organized criminal enterprises.

S. 627, Safe Babies Act of 2007--this bill would amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to require the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to award a grant to a national early childhood development organization to establish a National Court Teams Resource Center. The goals of the Center would be to promote the well-being of maltreated infants and toddlers and their families, help prevent the recurrence of abuse and neglect of children, and promote timely reunification of families.

H.R. 5569, to extend for 5 years the EB-5 Regional Center Pilot Program, and for other purposes--this bill would extend the EB-5 Regional Center Program for 5 years. This program allows entrepreneurs from around the country to apply for Regional Center designation with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which in turn allows project managers to attract foreign investment to discrete projects within specified geographic areas, many of which are rural areas in need of economic stimulation. Over the years, this program has resulted in foreign capital investment of billions of dollars and the creation of thousands of jobs in American communities. This important program is set to expire on September 30, 2008, and its reauthorization is critical for the many Americans who depend upon this program to make positive economic changes to their communities.

S. 442, John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007--this bill would establish a student loan repayment program for qualified attorneys who agree to remain employed for at least 3 years in certain public sector employment. This targeted student loan repayment assistance program will bolster the ranks of attorneys in the criminal justice system, enhancing the quality of that system and the public's confidence in it.

S. 3296, to extend the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice--this bill would extend for 5 years the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect Supreme Court Justices when they leave the Supreme Court grounds. In January of this year, the Court Security Improvement Act was signed into law to authorize additional resources to protect Federal judges, personnel, and courthouses. This additional legislation would extend the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect the Supreme Court Justices on and off Court grounds. It would also change the title of the Chief Justice's senior advisor from ``Administrative Assistant'' to ``Counselor.''

S. 3106, a bill to amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code, relating to the vessel hull design protection, to clarify the definitions of a hull and a deck--this bill would give the Department of Defense full assurance that Government and defense designs will not be subject to unwarranted restrictions. In 1998, Congress passed the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act to recognize the significant time, effort, and innovation that figure into ship design. Recent action in the courts has made it clear that in order to be effective, this law needs to be clarified and refined. This bill does exactly that by clarifying the definition of ``hull'' and ``deck,'' to ensure that the intellectual property rights of vessel hull designers would be protected.

H.R. 6344, Responsive Government Act of 2008--this bill would provide the Federal courts and the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, with needed emergency authority to delay judicial proceedings or statutory deadlines in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation which makes it impractical for parties, including the United States, to comply with certain filing conditions or to protect the rights and privileges of people affected by certain emergencies or a major disaster. We have recently observed how the ravages of natural disasters disrupt the lives of our fellow citizens, which can impede the ability to comply with strict statutory deadlines. Thus the Responsive Government Act provides critical flexibility to the courts and the PTO to help ameliorate the practical difficulties caused by these emergency situations.

S. 621, Wartime Treatment Study Act--this bill would establish two factfinding commissions to supplement the work done in the 1980s by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, which studied the treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The act would create one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II.

S. 2942, a bill to authorize funding for the National Advocacy Center--this bill would authorize the National District Attorneys Association to use the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, SC, for a national training program to improve the professional skills of State and local prosecutors and to enhance the ability of Federal, State, and local prosecutors to work together.

I hope that those Republican Senators who are holding up these measures will work with me by coming forward and letting me know what it is in the bill that they find objectionable. That way, we might be able to work something out to accommodate them. But when they object anonymously and do not come forward to work with us, it seems they are only interested in obstruction.

Mr. President, before I was a Senator, I was a prosecutor, as the Chittenden County State's Attorney for 8 years, I prosecuted all varieties of crime in Vermont. I know first hand how important it is for criminal investigators, and the lawyers who prosecute those cases, to have a full arsenal of legal tools to ensure that justice is done. I also know how important the intellectual property industries are to our economy, and to our position as a global leader. In Vermont, Hubbardton Forge makes beautiful, trademarked lamps. The Vermont Teddy Bear Company relies heavily on its patented products. Likewise, SB Electronics needs patents for its film capacitor products. Burton's snowboards and logo are protected by trademarks and patents.

While Vermont is closest to my heart, every state in the Nation has such companies, and every community

in the United States is home to creative and productive people. Intellectual property--copyrights, patents, and trademarks--is critical to our fiscal health and to our continuing dominance of the world economy. This valuable property is also terribly vulnerable; by its very nature, it is subject to numerous types of thievery and misappropriation. The Internet has brought great and positive change to all our lives, but it is also an unparalleled tool for piracy. The increasing inter-connectedness of the globe, and the efficiencies of sharing information quickly and accurately between continents, has made foreign piracy and counterfeiting operations profitable in numerous countries. Americans suffer when their intellectual property is stolen, they suffer when those counterfeit goods displace sales of the legitimate products, and they suffer when counterfeit products actually harm them, as is sometimes the case with fake pharmaceuticals and faulty electrical products.

The time has come to bolster the Federal effort to protect this most valuable and vulnerable property, to give law enforcement the resources and the tools it needs to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and to make sure that the many agencies that deal with intellectual property enforcement have the opportunity and the incentive to talk with each other, to coordinate their efforts, and to achieve the maximum effects for their efforts. The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 does just that.

First, it gives the Department of Justice the ability to bring civil actions against anyone whose conduct constitutes criminal copyright infringement. Many times, a criminal sanction is simply too severe for the harm done. This provision, the concept of which has passed the Senate on three separate occasions as the PIRATE Act, gives the Department of Justice an extra tool.

Second, the bill enhances civil intellectual property rights law by eliminating unnecessary burdens to instituting a suit; improving remedies; and applying the copyright and trademark laws not only to imported goods, but also to exported and transshipped items.

Third, the bill improves and harmonizes the forfeiture provisions in copyright and counterfeiting cases.

Fourth, the bill addresses concerns that the current governmental structure to coordinate intellectual property rights enforcement among agencies and departments is impeding the Government from reaching its full potential. It creates a Coordinator within the Executive Office of the President to chair an inter-agency committee that will produce a Joint Strategic Plan to combat piracy and counterfeiting.

Finally, the bill will increase the resources available to Federal, state and local law enforcement.

We are not addressing theoretical concerns with this bill, nor are we making grandiose policy proclamations. We are synthesizing the real- world experiences of our many constituents who develop and monetize intellectual property--the individuals and companies that turn their creative and innovative efforts into jobs, goods, and services--with the daily frustrations of law enforcement agents who lack the laws, and the resources, to vindicate those property rights.

I was once a prosecutor. I am now a Senator. But I have always been a fan of movies. My cameo in the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight, was priceless to me, but we can put real numbers on the value of that production to the economy. The Dark Knight shot for 65 days in Chicago, pouring almost $36 million into the local economy. Seventeen million dollars went to nearly 800 local vendors that were critical to the production of the movie. For example, one local lumber supplier employing 40 people played a central role in the set construction that helped transform Chicago into the mythical ``Gotham City.'' In order to fulfill the production needs of the film, the lumber company worked closely with 15 other Illinois-based companies. Those 15 suppliers employed an additional 350 workers.

All of that value is threatened by piracy. Just in the movie industry, piracy costs 140,000 U.S. jobs and $5.5 billion in wages each year. Piracy costs cities, towns and states an estimated $837 million in additional tax revenue each year. The movie industry alone produces $30.2 billion each year in revenue for 160,000 vendors all across the Nation, and 85 percent of those vendors employ 10 people or fewer.

This is a well balanced bill, drawn from numerous conversations with all manner of interested parties. It brings together the best of numerous proposals, including important legislation I introduced earlier this year with Senator Cornyn. His support on intellectual property matters is critical to our success moving forward. I thank him, and all the cosponsors of this legislation for their efforts and support. This bill will improve the enforcement of our Nation's intellectual property laws, bolster our intellectual property-based economy, and protect American jobs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, before I was a Senator, I was a prosecutor, as the Chittenden County State's Attorney for 8 years, I prosecuted all varieties of crime in Vermont. I know first hand how important it is for criminal investigators, and the lawyers who prosecute those cases, to have a full arsenal of legal tools to ensure that justice is done. I also know how important the intellectual property industries are to our economy, and to our position as a global leader. In Vermont, Hubbardton Forge makes beautiful, trademarked lamps. The Vermont Teddy Bear Company relies heavily on its patented products. Likewise, SB Electronics needs patents for its film capacitor products. Burton's snowboards and logo are protected by trademarks and patents.

While Vermont is closest to my heart, every state in the Nation has such companies, and every community

in the United States is home to creative and productive people. Intellectual property--copyrights, patents, and trademarks--is critical to our fiscal health and to our continuing dominance of the world economy. This valuable property is also terribly vulnerable; by its very nature, it is subject to numerous types of thievery and misappropriation. The Internet has brought great and positive change to all our lives, but it is also an unparalleled tool for piracy. The increasing inter-connectedness of the globe, and the efficiencies of sharing information quickly and accurately between continents, has made foreign piracy and counterfeiting operations profitable in numerous countries. Americans suffer when their intellectual property is stolen, they suffer when those counterfeit goods displace sales of the legitimate products, and they suffer when counterfeit products actually harm them, as is sometimes the case with fake pharmaceuticals and faulty electrical products.

The time has come to bolster the Federal effort to protect this most valuable and vulnerable property, to give law enforcement the resources and the tools it needs to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and to make sure that the many agencies that deal with intellectual property enforcement have the opportunity and the incentive to talk with each other, to coordinate their efforts, and to achieve the maximum effects for their efforts. The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 does just that.

First, it gives the Department of Justice the ability to bring civil actions against anyone whose conduct constitutes criminal copyright infringement. Many times, a criminal sanction is simply too severe for the harm done. This provision, the concept of which has passed the Senate on three separate occasions as the PIRATE Act, gives the Department of Justice an extra tool.

Second, the bill enhances civil intellectual property rights law by eliminating unnecessary burdens to instituting a suit; improving remedies; and applying the copyright and trademark laws not only to imported goods, but also to exported and transshipped items.

Third, the bill improves and harmonizes the forfeiture provisions in copyright and counterfeiting cases.

Fourth, the bill addresses concerns that the current governmental structure to coordinate intellectual property rights enforcement among agencies and departments is impeding the Government from reaching its full potential. It creates a Coordinator within the Executive Office of the President to chair an inter-agency committee that will produce a Joint Strategic Plan to combat piracy and counterfeiting.

Finally, the bill will increase the resources available to Federal, state and local law enforcement.

We are not addressing theoretical concerns with this bill, nor are we making grandiose policy proclamations. We are synthesizing the real- world experiences of our many constituents who develop and monetize intellectual property--the individuals and companies that turn their creative and innovative efforts into jobs, goods, and services--with the daily frustrations of law enforcement agents who lack the laws, and the resources, to vindicate those property rights.

I was once a prosecutor. I am now a Senator. But I have always been a fan of movies. My cameo in the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight, was priceless to me, but we can put real numbers on the value of that production to the economy. The Dark Knight shot for 65 days in Chicago, pouring almost $36 million into the local economy. Seventeen million dollars went to nearly 800 local vendors that were critical to the production of the movie. For example, one local lumber supplier employing 40 people played a central role in the set construction that helped transform Chicago into the mythical ``Gotham City.'' In order to fulfill the production needs of the film, the lumber company worked closely with 15 other Illinois-based companies. Those 15 suppliers employed an additional 350 workers.

All of that value is threatened by piracy. Just in the movie industry, piracy costs 140,000 U.S. jobs and $5.5 billion in wages each year. Piracy costs cities, towns and states an estimated $837 million in additional tax revenue each year. The movie industry alone produces $30.2 billion each year in revenue for 160,000 vendors all across the Nation, and 85 percent of those vendors employ 10 people or fewer.

This is a well balanced bill, drawn from numerous conversations with all manner of interested parties. It brings together the best of numerous proposals, including important legislation I introduced earlier this year with Senator Cornyn. His support on intellectual property matters is critical to our success moving forward. I thank him, and all the cosponsors of this legislation for their efforts and support. This bill will improve the enforcement of our Nation's intellectual property laws, bolster our intellectual property-based economy, and protect American jobs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.