Floor Statements

I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch in introducing the Assistant United States Attorney Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill was previously introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. A House companion bill, H.R. 3183, has already been introduced and currently has 43 bipartisan cosponsors.

Fairness is the driving force behind this legislation. The bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby AUSAs receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would increase the retirement benefits given to AUSAs, as well as other designated attorneys employed by DOJ who act primarily as criminal prosecutors, by including them in the Civil Service Retirement System. This change would bring their retirement benefits inline with thousands of other employees involved in the Federal criminal justice system.

Enhanced retirement benefits will allow us to attract and retain the best and the brightest for these vital positions in Government. As a former prosecutor, I know that experienced prosecutors are needed to bring ever more sophisticated cases under increasingly complex federal criminal laws. The Government's success in combating the threats posed by organized crime, drug cartels, terrorist groups, and other sophisticated criminals depends upon representation by skilled, experienced litigators.

Because of the lure of higher salaries and benefits, the average assistant U.S. attorney remains with the Department of Justice only 8 years. The hours are long, the pay is low, and they place themselves in harm's way by prosecuting criminals. Surveys of assistant U.S. attorneys have shown that a fair retirement benefit is the foremost incentive that would increase their tenure with the Department of Justice. Creating an enticement for them to remain with the Department of Justice for the length of their careers would be a tremendous victory for the American people. This legislation would improve public safety for us all by ensuring a strong, knowledgeable, and experienced crop of prosecutors at the federal level.

I want to thank Senators Hatch, Mikulski, Durbin, DeWine, Biden, Feinstein, Feingold, Smith, Dodd, Chambliss, Rockefeller, Lieberman, Boxer, Wyden, Nelson, and Corzine, for cosponsoring this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, Senator Cornyn and I have already worked together on significant Freedom of Information Act legislation and on counterfeiting legislation during the first session of this Congress. Today, we pass yet another bill and take our partnership to the high seas, or at least to our Nation's boat manufacturing industry, with the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2005.

Designs of boat vessel hulls are often the result of a great deal of time, effort, and financial investment. They are afforded intellectual property protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that Congress passed in 1998. This law exists for the same reason that other works enjoy intellectual property rights: to encourage continued innovation, to protect the works that emerge from the creative process, and to reward the creators. Recent courtroom experience has made it clear that the protections Congress passed 7 years ago need some statutory refinement to ensure they meet the purposes we envisioned. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments shore up the law, making an important clarification about the scope of the protections available to boat designs.

We continue to be fascinated with, and in so many ways dependent on, bodies of water, both for recreation and commerce. More than 50 percent of Americans live on or near the coastline in this country. We seem always to be drawn to the water, whether it is the beautiful Lake Champlain in my home State of Vermont or the world's large oceans. And as anyone who has visited our seaports can attest, much of our commerce involves sea travel. I would like to thank Senators Kohl and Hatch for cosponsoring this legislation. Protecting boat designs and encouraging innovation in those designs are worthy aims, and I am grateful that we have moved to pass this bipartisan legislation.

I want to speak about a matter that I suspect few Senators are aware of, but which should concern each of us.

On February 21, 2005, in the small Colombian community of San Jose de Apartado, eight people, including three children, were brutally murdered. Several of the bodies were mutilated and left to be eaten by wild animals.

This, unfortunately, was not unusual, as some 150 people, overwhelmingly civilians caught in the midst of Colombia's conflict, have been killed by paramilitaries, rebels, and Colombian soldiers in that same community since 1997. None of those crimes has resulted in effective investigations or prosecutions. No one has been punished.

That is an astonishing fact. Think of 150 murders, including massacres of groups of people, in a single rural community, and no one punished.

This latest atrocity occurred in a remote area frequented by rebels and paramilitaries. As a result, the presence of the Colombian army has also grown significantly there. Yet the army, which was sent to that area to protect civilians from attacks by illegal armed groups, is now suspected by some of having committed this massacre.

Residents of San Jose de Apartado have blamed the army, and international observers who went with community members to locate the bodies witnessed disturbing behavior by soldiers who reportedly laughed while body parts were being exhumed, who took pictures of themselves making victory signs, and who mishandled evidence from the massacre sites. There is also the possibility that paramilitaries acted in collusion with the army. And some have speculated that there were two separate groups of perpetrators, perhaps including the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the country's oldest rebel group.

Even before an investigation began, top Colombian officials publicly declared that the FARC was responsible. The Minister of Defense, who has since resigned, insisted that the army could not have done this because on February 21 they were more than 2 days' walking distance from the crime scene. It was soon determined, however, that there were soldiers only half a day's walk away, and army helicopters had recently been seen in the vicinity.

While it has not been proven who is responsible for this horrific crime, the government's rush to judgment was only its first mistake. That was quickly followed by the decision, against the wishes of the community, to send armed police officers into their midst. While I do not doubt the authority of Colombian police to enter that territory, it caused the majority of its inhabitants to flee their homes out of fear that the police would become a target of illegal groups and that the villagers could once again be harmed.

In fact, such an attack took place on June 26, when three policemen were wounded in an attack by the FARC and community members were caught in the crossfire. Later, on July 18, an old man was found beaten to death. There were two more killings by the FARC, one in August and another in September, and verbal threats and acts of intimidation by soldiers and police officers towards members of the community have reportedly steadily increased. Then last month, there were three incidents in which armed paramilitaries and soldiers reportedly threatened members of the community and destroyed property. It appears that the community may be no safer today than it was on February 21.

One of the consequences of the government's tactless approach to this and previous cases is that several witnesses from the community have refused to come forward and give testimony, and this has hindered the investigation. After a massacre of 6 members of this same community 5 years ago when over 100 people gave testimony to judicial authorities, no one was convicted and no report on the investigation was ever issued. Convincing witnesses to come forward this time will require a degree of sensitivity by the government that has, to date, been sorely lacking.

We are told by the Colombian Government that an investigation of the massacre is ongoing. That, unfortunately, is the story of most heinous crimes in Colombia. Investigations often continue without end, and often the perpetrators avoid punishment. I am concerned that this case may be no different.

According to information I have received, neither the soldiers who were in the area at the time of the February 21 killings nor hospital workers who treated a girl who was wounded by soldiers there the previous day have been interviewed by investigators. I find this hard to believe, but if it is correct the government has much to answer for.

For 5 years, the United States has provided significant military aid to Colombia despite ongoing concerns about human rights. Several months ago, the

Secretary of State certified that the Colombian Government had met the human rights conditions in our law, and recommended the release of additional military aid. However, the report accompanying her certification also noted that ``[w]hile the human rights performance of many of the Army's units is improving, an exception is evidenced by continued accusations of human rights violations and collusion with paramilitaries against the Army's 17th Brigade, which operates in northern Colombia. These reportedly include some 200 allegations involving the peace community of San Jose de Apartado in 2000-2001 and, most recently, of involvement in the killings near San Jose de Apartado in February 2005. . . As a result of these allegations, the United States has informed the Government of Colombia that it will not consider providing assistance to the 17th Brigade until all significant human rights allegations involving the unit have been credibly addressed.''

While I might differ with the Secretary's decision to make the certification at the time she did, which coincidently occurred just hours before President Uribe's arrival at President Bush's ranch in Texas, I commend her decision to withhold aid to the 17th Brigade. It is noteworthy, however, that concerns about the 17th Brigade had been conveyed to the State Department well before this incident, including reports that its members were openly colluding with paramilitaries. Yet there is reason to believe that U.S. aid continued despite those reports.

This case presents the Bush administration with an important challenge. It shows that despite billions of dollars from the United States and lofty rhetoric about human rights, the Colombian Government's initial reaction to this despicable crime was not appreciably different from what we saw years ago. They denied responsibility and blamed the victims even before an investigation began, and some of the key witnesses may not even have been interviewed 8 months later.

This is unfortunate because there has been progress on human rights under President Uribe's government. Parts of the country are noticeably safer. The government reports a significant decline in violent crime. But labor leaders and human rights defenders are still threatened and killed, the judicial system remains sluggish, and impunity is more the rule than the exception. Clearly, much more needs to be done to protect human rights.

This case also presents a challenge for the Colombian Government to demonstrate, albeit belatedly, that it can respond with sympathy, with impartiality, and effectively to bring justice to the victims of a crime that epitomizes the worst of Colombia's conflict.

I am also told that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights conducted its own investigation of the massacre, but that the Colombian Government has not requested a copy of the report of that investigation. If this is correct I urge the government to do so immediately and to release as much of the report to the public as possible without compromising the investigation.

This conflict has brought nothing but suffering to the Colombian people. It has caused the deaths of countless innocent civilians, uprooted millions from their homes, and perpetuated the trade in illegal drugs that has corrupted many sectors of society. The people of San Jose de Apartado, with the conflict raging around them, sought to insolate themselves from this danger by declaring themselves a peace community. That strategy failed, as one after another of their members was brutally murdered.

Before February 21, I was not aware of the many tragedies this community had already suffered. While I do know, as a former prosecutor, that some crimes are harder to solve than others, in Colombia, as in so many countries, political will is often what really matters. It is imperative that this case not be added to the long list of unsolved, unpunished crimes in San Jose de Apartado, or become part of the history of impunity in Colombia. Who ever was responsible must be brought to justice.

Mr. President, I also want to mention the demobilization of paramilitaries that is underway in Colombia. We all want these narco- terrorist organizations to be dismantled, their commanders punished, their illegally acquired assets seized, and their victims compensated. The Colombian Government is asking the United States for millions of dollars to help finance the demobilization, and we want to help.

I am concerned, however, because if the demobilization of the paramilitary unit located in the area of San Jose de Apartado is indicative of the way this process is unfolding, there are serious problems that need to be addressed. According to reports I have received, paramilitaries are engaging in the same threatening and violent behavior, they continue to collude with the army, and some have joined the army. Little has changed for the people in that area who continue to live in fear of losing their property and their lives. I hope the Colombian authorities who have been touting the success of the demobilization process will investigate these reports.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Priya Narasimhan be granted the privilege of the floor during votes and throughout the debate today.

Mr. President, today at the World Summit on the Information Society, an agreement was announced to maintain the current structure for managing the Internet. This agreement marks a critical step toward ensuring the stability and security of the Internet and preserving its benefits not only for the United States, but for countries across the globe.

In late October I joined with the other cochairs of the Internet Caucus in a letter to the White House urging the administration to stand firm in its position to protect the Internet and resist efforts to undo the structure that has worked so well so far. I also joined Senator Burns in offering a resolution to maintain the currently effective status quo on Internet governance. The agreement that now has been reached in Tunis to maintain the current structure for managing domain names and the Internet is consistent with our efforts.

The value of the Internet is incalculable. The Internet has brought an unprecedented level of commercial exchanges in both the consumer and business-to-business realms. It has spawned and prompted the development of new ideas, businesses and relationships. It has empowered people who have never had access to power and otherwise would likely never have an opportunity to be heard, much less challenge or influence public policy and institutional power. It has introduced and cemented friendships across the globe, and it has distributed information and fostered greater understanding and awareness of others' ideas and others' cultures. Becoming part of a global Internet environment has also shown us we are part of the wider world in which all of us live. It is values like these that no doubt our world partners are seeking to preserve in their proposals, yet would unwittingly undermine.

The United States developed and nourished the Internet. The open economy and constitutional liberties that are the foundations of our Nation allowed us the privilege and extraordinary responsibility to serve as the great incubator that has unleashed these spectacular developments and benefits.

No doubt we can do even better. Some have benefited substantially more than others. We have further strides to make before eradicating the digital divide and narrowing the gaps between the haves and have- nots. We also need to be vigilant in maintaining the essential freedom and influences that have kept the Internet flourishing. We should work closely with other countries to address challenges and concerns as they arise. By proceeding prudently and knowledgeably, taking care not to jeopardize the innovations and openness that have allowed the Internet to thrive, we can foster progress and continue to enjoy the benefits the Internet continues to bring to the world.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from the Internet Caucus cochairs to the White House and today's Associated Press article ``Deal Reached on Managing the Internet'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. The Senator should be heard.

Mr. President, I commend my colleagues across the aisle who are attempting to address the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody, despite resistance from members of their own party and the strong opposition of the White House. I know Senator Graham has worked closely with Senator McCain and others to give our troops the clear guidance they need to effectively detain and interrogate enemy prisoners, and I commend him for that. The legislative branch has not met its obligation of oversight and policymaking in this area. For months, Senator Graham has been prodding the Congress to take action. He is one of the few members of his party to forcefully speak out on the need to change the administration's policies.

While I support Senator Graham's efforts on these issues, I cannot support his amendment to strip Federal courts of the authority to consider a habeas petition from detainees being held in U.S. custody as enemy combatants.

The Graham amendment would deny prisoners who the administration claims are unlawful combatants the right to challenge their detention. At no time in the history of this Nation have habeas rights been permanently cut off from a group of prisoners. Even President Lincoln's suspension of habeas was temporary. The Supreme Court has held numerous times that enemy combatants can challenge their detention.

Many of my colleagues across the aisle argue that terrorists do not deserve access to our Federal courts. This argument would be far more persuasive if all of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay were terrorists. Unfortunately, many of them are almost certainly not. Numerous press accounts have quoted unnamed officials who believe that a significant percentage of those detained at Guantanamo do not have a connection to terrorism. And yet they have been held for years without the right to challenge their detention in a fair and impartial hearing, a situation that does significant harm to our Nation's reputation as a leader in human rights and which puts our own soldiers at risk.

Filing a writ of habeas corpus is often the detainee's only opportunity to openly challenge the basis for his detention. Providing detainees this right is not about coddling terrorists--it is about showing the world that we are a nation of laws and that we are willing to uphold the values that we urge other nations to follow. It is about honoring and respecting the principles that are part of our heritage as Americans and that have been a beacon to the rest of the world. Allowing a detainee to file a habeas petition provides legitimacy to our detention system and quells speculation that we are holding innocent people in secret prisons without any right to due process.

Some Members of the Senate have argued that these prisoners should be tried in the military justice system. I think that we could all agree on such a course if the administration had worked with Congress from the start and established with our approval procedures that are fair and consistent with our tradition of military justice. I introduced a bill in the 107th Congress to do just that. So did Senator Specter. The fact is, that the system that has been established by the administration to try individuals held at Guantanamo is not a system that reflects our values. It does not give due process or independent review.

Everyone in Congress agrees that we must capture and detain terrorist suspects, but it can and should be done in accord with the laws of war and in a manner that upholds our commitment to the rule of law. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on detainee issues in June. At that hearing, Senator Graham said that once enemy combatant status has been conferred upon someone, ``it is almost impossible not to envision that some form of prosecution would follow.'' He continued, ``We can do this and be a rule of law nation. We can prove to the world that even among the worst people in the world, the rule of law is not an inconsistent concept.'' I agree with Senator Graham, but I strongly believe 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.

As Chairman Specter noted on the floor last week, there are existing procedures under habeas corpus that have been upheld by the Supreme Court that do not invite frivolous claims, and that are appropriate. Senator Graham's amendment would not only restrict habeas in a manner never done before in our Nation, but, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said last week, it would open a Pandora's box.

The chairman is right. He spoke forcefully again this morning about the danger of such court stripping efforts. We must not rush to change a legal right that predates our Constitution. Creating one exemption to the ``great writ'' only invites more. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over habeas corpus and it should have the first opportunity to review any proposed changed carefully and thoroughly. Although congressional action on the

issue of foreign detainees is long overdue, we must not act hastily when the ``great writ''--something that protects us all--is at stake.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the deans of four of our Nation's most prestigious law schools that articulates the dangers of adopting the Graham amendment.

Mr. President, I support the Foreign Operations Conference Report for fiscal year 2006 and urge all Senators to vote its passage.

Like every appropriations bill, there are things in this conference report that I disagree with. There are programs which I, as do many here, believe need substantially more funding than we were able to provide. A good example is our migration and refugee programs. This conference report provides less than the President requested and far less than the Senate bill. The suffering of refugees and displaced people that we are able to relieve but will not because of the scant resources in this bill is shameful and inexcusable. We and other industrialized nations could and should do far more to help them.

Another problem is HIV/AIDS, although we were able to provide $268 million more than the President requested. I am disappointed that the amount of our contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was $50 million less than in the Senate bill. There are few more compelling needs for those funds than fighting these insidious diseases.

I had hoped we would have enough to fully fund the Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs account. It is a mistake to cut funding for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty International Monitoring System, for which the President did not request sufficient funds. The amount in this conference report represents a cut of $4.498 million below the fiscal year 2005 level, and is at least $6 million less than the amount of the U.S. share for this vitally important monitoring system.

The fact is, despite the help we got from Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd with our allocation, for which we are very grateful, this conference report does not provide nearly enough resources to respond adequately to the multitude of threats we face across the globe. We had to make the kind of peevish choices that the world's wealthiest, most powerful country should not be making.

There are other funding problems in this conference report, but on the whole it strikes the right balance for the bipartisan support it needs, and for that I commend Chairman McConnell, Chairman Kolbe, and Congresswoman Lowey. We have worked very cooperatively as is our practice, and I think we did about the best we could with an allocation that was almost $2 billion below the President's budget request.

I want to mention a few other issues.

First, Colombia. I was pleased that the conferees agreed to my request to provide an additional $6 million for economic and social programs. Despite assurances by the administration that they would increase funding for these programs as the security situation in Colombia improves, they have done the opposite. Military programs have consistency received a larger share of the budget.

I was pleased that the conferees included report language I requested, directing that $500,000 of our military aid for Colombia be used to pay incidental costs relating to the treatment at U.S. hospitals of seriously injured Colombian soldiers. Due to the tireless work of the nonprofit organization ``United for Colombia,'' these hospitals have generously offered to perform this surgery--which requires sophisticated technology and expertise that is unavailable in Colombia--free of charge. But there are additional expenses such as transportation, lodging and medicines. The conferees also included my recommendation that additional assistance from the Leahy War Victims Fund be made available for civilians who have been injured by landmines and other causes relating to the conflict.

The conference report also includes language concerning the demobilization of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in Colombia. We would like to support this process, but it has been flawed from the beginning and the ``Peace and Justice'' law has been widely criticized by human rights experts in Colombia, the United States, Europe, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States. There is considerable

skepticism that the paramilitary leaders will in fact give up narco- trafficking, surrender their illegally acquired land and other assets, or be brought to justice. We want to be sure that the law is being implemented in a manner that lives up to its promise of peace and justice, that these organizations are dismantled, and that their leaders receive the severe punishment they deserve.

We provide up to $20 million in fiscal year 2006 for the demobilization. These are mostly funds that were already requested by the Administration for other purposes. We require the Secretary of State to first certify that certain conditions have been met and to notify the Congress. This reflects the serious concerns that Members of Congress have with the demobilization process. Among those conditions is that the Government of Colombia is ``providing full cooperation to the Government of the United States to extradite the leaders and members of [Foreign Terrorist Organizations] who have been indicted in the United States.''

This is very important, and it was included at the insistence of both Republican and Democrat Members. When we say ``full cooperation'' we mean nothing less. We want to see these people in handcuffs and on an airplane to the United States as soon as possible. We do not want anything to happen that would interfere with the extradition of the leaders of these narcoterrorist organizations--organized crime syndicates is what they are--for major crimes for which they have been indicted here.

These are not ordinary criminals. Some of them make Pablo Escobar look like an amateur. They are responsible for creating and arming their own death squads, for killing thousands of civilians, for shipping billions of dollars worth of cocaine into the United States, and they have infiltrated many sectors of Colombian society including, we learned recently, the police intelligence service. We also know they have sway with some members of the Colombian Congress.

Impunity has been the norm throughout Colombia's history. Nothing would be worse for the cause of justice, or for democracy in Colombia, than for people who are among the most notorious criminals in this hemisphere to escape punishment that is proportional to their crimes. If that happens, you can be sure that their criminal enterprises will not be dismantled, the cocaine will keep flowing across our borders, the Colombian people will continue to be plagued by narcotics related violence and corruption, and peace and justice will remain out of reach.

Another item in this conference report deals with Indonesia.

President Yudhoyono, who was democratically elected, has been advancing reformist policies that we support, including reducing the army's role in the political process. He has also been a reliable ally in fighting terrorism in the world's largest Muslim country.

The conference report provides assistance to the Indonesian Navy in the amount requested by the Administration, and it also provides IMET assistance for Indonesia without restriction. In addition, our largest counterterrorism training program is with Indonesia, and the Defense Department regularly conducts joint exercises and other activities with the Indonesian military.

But one area where there has been no discernable progress is accountability for crimes by the army. In 1992 the Indonesian army shot to death an estimated 200 unarmed protesters in a cemetery in Dili, East Timor. A few low-ranking soldiers were punished, but in a perversity of justice several of the civilians were sent to jail for far longer sentences. Then in 1999, the Indonesian military armed the militias who laid waste to East Timor after the independence referendum. The U.N. identified the top officers involved and accused them of crimes against humanity, but the army sabotaged the government's halfhearted efforts to bring them to justice. Thousands of innocent people died, and no one has been punished.

Some have suggested that because these are ``past'' crimes, we should look forward, not backward. What crime isn't a past crime? Does that make it any less important that justice be done? How do you prevent future atrocities if you let those who order and commit murder get away with it? What is more fundamental to democracy than justice?

For many years, the Congress has put conditions on U.S. assistance to the Indonesian army. The conditions in our law require nothing more than that the army respect the law, yet both Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice asked Congress to eliminate the conditions. I understand there are competing concerns and that we and Indonesia have common security interests. I would have supported their request if there were any sign that the Indonesian army is prepared to be accountable to the law for any of these heinous crimes. So far, there is not.

The conference agreement also requires a report on the status of the FBI investigation of the August 2002 murders of two American civilians and one Indonesian civilian in Timika, West Papua. Soon after the killings the Indonesian military tried to frame an innocent man. Then, when the police implicated the military in the attack, the investigation abruptly ended. Nothing happened for another year or so because the military actively impeded further efforts to investigate. Since then, the military has been more cooperative and one West Papuan individual has been indicted in the U.S. But he has yet to be indicted in Indonesia and responsibility for this heinous crime does not stop there. It is now more than three years since this tragedy and no one has been brought to justice.

Finally, the conference report requires a report on the humanitarian and human rights situation in West Papua.

Another item I want to mention is Nepal. We have once again put conditions on our military aid because of the King's undemocratic and repressive actions on February 1, and the army's continuing involvement in human rights violations. We detest the tactics of the Maoists, who forcibly recruit children, who engage in extortion, and brutalize civilians. But the King's actions have only made a political solution to the conflict in Nepal more elusive, and at great cost to democracy and the rule of law. The conference agreement provides $2.5 million for a U.S. contribution to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Office in Nepal, to monitor and report on human rights violations throughout the country.

The conference agreement also provides another $10 million for USAID's new Amazon Basin Conservation Strategy. This is a regional initiative that I am personally committed to, and I greatly appreciate the efforts that USAID has made to develop this strategy through an extensive process of consultations with governments and nongovernmental organizations.

The Amazon Basin encompasses nine countries and has global environmental, health and economic importance that dwarfs any other forest or river system in the world. We all have a responsibility to protect it. Brazil and Colombia are examples of countries that already have environmental laws and policies in place and protected areas and indigenous reserves. Coordinating with other donors, governments and civil society organizations, we can help build the capacity to strengthen, enforce, implement, and replicate these laws and policies throughout the region.

On a related matter, the conference report requires USAID to establish a new position of ``Advisor for Indigenous Peoples Issues.'' Indigenous peoples, from the Kalahari Desert in Botswana to the forests of Ecuador, are the most vulnerable people on Earth. Their land and traditional ways of life are under siege, and often their own governments are part of the problem, as was the case in our own country a century and a half ago. USAID, which works in these countries on issues that affect indigenous peoples, needs someone who is knowledgeable and has the responsibility to consult with indigenous peoples, advocate on their behalf in relation to USAID policies, programs and activities and coordinate with other federal agencies. I look forward to discussing this with USAID.

I want to mention a provision in this conference report that deals with reform at the multilateral development banks. There are several parts to this provision, but one that deserves special mention concerns the rights of whistleblowers. Too often at these institutions, people who complain about

waste, fraud or abuse are harassed, threatened, silenced, or demoted. That is the opposite of what should happen, and it is long overdue for whistleblowers to be given the protection and recourse they deserve. This provision, among other things, calls for independent adjudicatory bodies, including ``external arbitration based on consensus selection and shared costs''. I believe that access to external arbitration is long overdue, and I urge the World Bank and the other MDBs to act expeditiously to implement this and the other reforms called for in this provision.

The conference report provides $1.77 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC. While this represents a deep cut from the President's request, it reflects the tight budgetary constraints we faced. The conference allocation required us to cut nearly $2 billion from the President's total request and therefore many programs, including the MCC, were not fully funded.

I support the goals of the MCC, and I look forward to working with the new CEO Ambassador Danilovich. We know that foreign aid is most effective when governments are committed to fighting corruption and addressing the needs of their people, and when public officials, civil society and the private sector work together to reduce poverty.

I am pleased that the conference agreement includes language emphasizing the importance of strong participation from indigenous civil society organizations to help ensure that the MCC is responsive to local people's concerns. It is through the meaningful participation of civil society that democracy is strengthened, good governance is valued, and open discussions of how best to achieve national priorities are accomplished. The conference agreement requires the MCC to submit a report that details how contributions of indigenous civil society have been incorporated in completed compact negotiations.

The conference report provides funds above the President's request for both the Inter-American Foundation and the African Development Foundation. The Congress strongly supports the work of these foundations which support local initiatives to increase income for Latin America's and Africa's poorest people.

I was very pleased that the conference report provides additional assistance for civilian victims of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We provide $5 million for the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund for assistance for Iraqi families and communities, which is named for Marla Ruzicka, the founder of Campaign for Civilian Victims of Conflict. Ms. Ruzicka died, at the age of 28, along with her colleague Faiz Ali Salim, in a car bombing in Baghdad on April 16, 2005. We also provide $2 million for assistance for Afghan families and communities that have suffered losses as a result of the military operations. By providing this assistance the United States is seeking to alleviate the suffering, as well as the anger and resentment, resulting from tragic mistakes that occur in the military operations.

I was also pleased that the conference report includes $15 million to support an initiative I sponsored to combat certain neglected diseases. Lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, intestinal parasites, schistosomiasis, leprosy, and trachoma cause terrible suffering and disfigurement among hundreds of millions of people in mostly tropical countries. In addition to providing additional funds to prevent and treat these diseases, this initiative seeks to develop a multilateral, integrated approach to coordinate and maximize donor contributions to control them. This is important because current efforts are poorly coordinated and underfunded. As with the infectious diseases initiative I sponsored nearly a decade ago, I look forward to working with USAID, other Federal agencies, the World Health Organization, and the relevant international technical and nongovernmental organizations to develop such an approach that has broad support.

I was disappointed that the amount provided for the Global Environmental Facility, $80 million, fell $27 million short of the U.S. pledge. I want to emphasize that this cut does not reflect any dissatisfaction on the part of the conferees with the GEF, which had taken steps to adopt management and transparency reforms advocated by the United States, but instead was due to budgetary constraints. As a strong supporter of the GEF I am hopeful that we can make up this shortfall in the fiscal year 2007 budget.

The conference report supports the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which aims to improve the capacity of developing countries to sustainably manage the extraction of natural resources and to monitor revenues generated from such extraction so they are used for purposes which benefit their people. This is an anti-corruption, good governance initiative spearheaded by the British Government, which responds to the longstanding practice in many developing countries of exploiting natural resources in a wasteful and environmentally destructive manner that benefits only the elites. The conference agreement provides $1 million for USAID to support EITI implementation and to strengthen the role and capacity of civil society organizations in the EITI process. This is another issue I look forward to discussing with USAID before funds are obligated.

Finally, I want to mention the funding in the conference report for USAID Operating Expenses, which was cut by $50 million below the administration's request. Again, this was the result of the budgetary constraints we faced, but it also reflects some concerns with USAID's management of appropriated funds. This cut will force USAID to make difficult choices, which should be the subject of consultations with the Appropriations Committees.

There are many other provisions in this conference report that I do not have time here to recount. I want to again thank my friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, who has been a pleasure to work with. I also thank our counterparts in the House, Congressman Kolbe and Congresswoman Lowey, and their capable staffs. I commend the Senate majority staff, Paul Grove, Tom Hawkins, Harry Christy, Bob Lester and LaShawnda Smith. They put in long hours and they held themselves to the highest standards. And for the minority, I thank Tim Rieser, Kate Eltrich and Jennifer Park.

Mr. President, I want to mention one other item in the Foreign Operations conference report. It does not earmark Foreign Military Financing funds for Timor-Leste, formerly East Timor, the world's newest democracy and a friend of the United States. However, we do not earmark funding for many of the countries for which FMF was requested, but we provide $241.7 million in FMF assistance to cover these needs, including for Timor-Leste. The administration's budget request included $1.5 million in FMF for East Timor. The fact that we did not earmark these funds for Timor-Leste should not be misinterpreted as an indication of any disagreement on the part of the conferees with the administration's request.

Mr. President, I am always concerned that when they speak of terrorism we are constantly adding new things to our laws to show how we are opposed to terrorists. Maybe it would be easier to just to pass a resolution 100 to 0 saying we are all opposed to terrorists. Of course, we are.

I also remember when it was written and attributed to Benjamin Franklin at a time when he and other Founders of this great Nation faced the hangman's noose. Had they failed in their efforts to create a democracy instead of trade, their liberties for security deserve neither.

We should go very slowly when we want to make changes on the great rift.

The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee is absolutely right. We should oppose this amendment.

We made a major change in the habeas corpus laws a few years ago when we were looking at that to see how that works.

This is not the time nor the place nor the bill to willy-nilly--that is really what it is--make this change in the habeas corpus law. There are just too many things going on--whether it is the reports in the press about us using secret prisons that had been abandoned by the old Soviet Union following criticism of every President, Republican or Democrat, in my lifetime, that we are now using that, to questions that are raised and appropriately raised about Guantanamo.

I have heard it said here that the Red Cross has available to them all prisoners, that the press has available to them all prisoners--we have found that isn't so--and prisoners are spirited out in the middle of the night to these secret prisons.

Let us stand as a country that believes in the rule of law.

I hope we stand with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania in opposing this amendment.

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the order for debate entered into on this conference report?

Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Kentucky. I praise him and his staff.

Mr. President, ten years ago today, in what was by all accounts a barbaric miscarriage of justice, Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight of his Ogoni colleagues from the delta region of Nigeria were hanged after being convicted by a biased military tribunal.

Those of us who knew Mr. Saro-Wiwa remember him as a thoughtful, passionate, nonviolent advocate for the rights of the Ogoni people. His arrest, conviction and hanging by the corrupt and brutal Abacha government outraged the world and resulted in Nigeria's suspension from the British Commonwealth, and a United Nations investigation which concluded that Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues had been denied due process in violation of international and Nigerian law. The UN recommended financial relief for their families and improvements in the living conditions of the Ogoni people and the other minorities in the delta region.

Unfortunately, none of the UN's recommendations have been carried out, the environmental, economic and social conditions there have gotten worse, and ten year's later the Ogoni Nine remain convicted of a crime for which they were unfairly tried.

Today, I am honored to submit, on behalf of myself and Senators Kennedy, Obama, Feingold, Durbin, and Dodd a resolution calling on the Government of Nigeria to conduct a thorough judicial review of this travesty.

By this resolution we remember Ken Saro-Wiwa and the others who were executed, and we honor their courage and their nonviolent commitment to social justice. In addition to calling for a judicial review and just compensation to the survivors if a miscarriage of justice is found, we urge the Nigerian government, international donors, and international oil companies operating in the Niger delta to increase assistance significantly to improve the lives of the people who live there. It is unconscionable that after all the billions of dollars in oil that have been extracted from that area, these people continue to suffer daily from the polluted water and soil and the gas flaring and are living in squalor.

And we call on the Nigerian Government to ensure that its security forces receive the necessary training and discipline to prevent the violations of human rights that the Ogoni have suffered for so many years.

The volatile situation in the Niger delta has been ignored for far too long. It cannot be resolved by force. It cannot be resolved by lip service. There are serious environmental issues and urgent economic and social needs. Ken Saro-Wiwa's example of nonviolence stands today as it did a decade ago as a model for the Nigerian government, the people of the Niger delta, and the international community to join together to finally address them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Sexton of my staff be granted privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, Senator Specter and I have introduced a comprehensive court security measure, S. 1968, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005, CSIA. Our bill responds to requests by the judiciary for a greater voice in working with the United States Marshals Service to determine their security needs. It enacts new criminal penalties for the misuse of restricted personal information to harm or threaten to seriously harm judges, their families or other individuals performing official duties. It also enacts criminal penalties for threatening judges and Federal law enforcement officials by the malicious filing of false liens, provides increased protections for witnesses, and makes available new resources for State courts to improve security for State and local court systems. Finally, it extends life insurance benefits to bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges, and health insurance to surviving spouses and families of Federal judges.

One of the provisions of CSIA extends the ``sunset'' of a provision first enacted in the ``Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998'' that grants the Judicial Conference of the United States the authority to redact information from a judge's mandatory financial disclosure in circumstances in which it is determined that the release of the information could endanger the filer or the filer's family. The Specter-Leahy bill also extends the protections of this provision to the family members of filers.

The misuse of this redaction authority has been a matter of some concern to me. I appreciate that the Judicial Conference is seeking to improve its practices. I offer this amendment to S. 1558, which is drawn from CSIA, because none of us wants to see judges or their families endangered. The redaction authority need not expire if there is agreement that it should be continued by reauthorization for another 4-year period before another sunset. Instead, if the Senate adopts our amendment and the House accepts the Senate

bill, the authority will be extended without interruption. I hope that the House will join us without delay both in extending the redaction authority and in expanding the scope of its protections to include family members.

I also hope that we will move quickly to pass the other important provisions of CSIA so that we can better protect the dedicated women and men throughout the judiciary in this country who do a tremendous job under challenging circumstances.

Today, I am pleased that the Senate is passing S. 1095, the Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005, which is the latest of the bipartisan efforts that Senator Cornyn and I have made to improve the lives of Americans through effective and efficient government. The Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005 will strengthen our ability to combat the escalating problem of counterfeiting worldwide. In order to effectively fight intellectual property theft, we need stiff penalties for counterfeiters and those who are caught with counterfeit goods with the intent to traffic their false wares. Ours is a short bill--indeed, it is only two pages long-- but it will have powerful global implications in the fight against piracy.

Counterfeiting is a growing problem that costs our economy hundreds of billions of dollars every year and has been linked to organized crime, including terrorist organizations. According to the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition, counterfeit parts have been discovered in helicopters sold to NATO, in jet engines, bridge joints, brake pads, and fasteners in equipment designed to prevent nuclear reactor meltdowns. The World Health Organization estimates that the market for counterfeit drugs is about $32 billion each year.

Several years ago, Senator Hatch joined me in sponsoring the Anti- counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996, which addressed counterfeiting by amending several sections of our criminal and tariff codes. That law made important changes, particularly by expanding RICO, the Federal antiracketeering law, to cover crimes involving counterfeiting and copyright and trademark infringement. Then, as now, trafficking in counterfeit goods hurts purchasers, State and Federal Governments, and economies at every level.

Perhaps most disturbingly, the U.S. Customs Service reports that terrorists have used transnational counterfeiting operations to fund their activities: The sale of counterfeit and pirated music, movies, software, T-shirts, clothing, and fake drugs ``accounts for much of the money the international terrorist network depends on to feed its operations.''

Last year, as in years past, I worked with Senator Allen on an amendment to the Foreign Operations bill that provides the State Department with vital resources to combat piracy of U.S. goods abroad. The bill we ultimately passed included $3 million for this important purpose. Yet more work both at home and abroad remains. When you consider that the economic impact of tangible piracy in counterfeit goods is estimated to be roughly $350 billion a year and to constitute between 5 percent and 7 percent of worldwide trade, a few million dollars is a worthwhile investment.

We have certainly seen how this form of theft touches the lives of hard-working Vermonters. Burton Snowboards is a small company, whose innovation has made it an industry leader in snowboarding equipment and apparel. Unfortunately, knockoff products carrying Burton's name have been found across the globe. Vanessa Price, a representative of Burton, testified about counterfeiting at the Judiciary Committee's March 23, 2004, hearing on this topic. In addition to learning about the economic costs of counterfeiting, I asked her after the hearing about the risks posed to consumers by these goods. Her answer was chilling: ``In the weeks since my Senate testimony, I discovered a shipment of counterfeit Burton boots for sale through a discount sports outfit . . . After examining the poor quality of the counterfeit boots, we determined that anyone using the boots for snowboarding risks injury due to a lack of reinforcement and support in the product's construction.''

Customers and businesses lose out to counterfeiters in other ways, too. SB Electronics in Barre, VT has seen its

capacitors reverse engineered and its customers lost to inferior copycat models. Vermont Tubbs, a furniture manufacturer in Rutland, has seen its designs copied, produced offshore with inferior craftsmanship and materials, and then reimported, so that the company is competing against cheaper versions of its own products. And Hubbardton Forge in Castleton, VT has seen its beautiful and original lamps counterfeited and then sold within the United States at prices--and quality--far below their own. This is wrong. It is unfair to consumers who deserve the high quality goods they think they are paying for, and it is unfair to innovators who play by the rules and deserve to profit from their labor.

The Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005 will help to combat this growing scourge. It amends the definition of trafficking in the counterfeit law to criminalize the possession of counterfeit goods with the intent to sell or traffic in those goods, as well as to include any distribution of counterfeits with the expectation of gaining something of value--criminals should not be able to skirt the law simply because they barter illegal goods and services in exchange for their illicit wares. Finally, the bill's new definition will criminalize the importation and exportation of counterfeit goods, as well as of bootleg copies of copyrighted works into and out of the United States.

By tying off these loopholes and improving U.S. laws on counterfeiting, we will be sending a powerful message to the criminals who belong in jail, and to our innovators.

Mr. President, counterfeiting threatens the American economy, our workers, and our consumers. I am pleased that the Senate has today taken an important step towards beating back that threat, by passing S. 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.'' Senator Specter is the principal cosponsor, and I know that he shares with me the conviction that this bill that will give law enforcement improved tools to fight counterfeit trademarks, and that it could work a significant change in the efforts to combat this type of theft. So are all our cosponsors, and I thank them: Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow, and Voinovich.

It is all too easy to think of counterfeiting as a victimless crime, a means of buying sunglasses or a purse that would otherwise strain a monthly budget. The reality, however, is far different. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, counterfeiting costs the U.S. between $200 billion and $250 billion annually. In Vermont, companies like Burton Snowboards, Vermont Tubbs, SB Electronics, and Hubbardton Forge--all of which have cultivated their good names through pure hard work and creativity--have felt keenly the damage of intellectual property theft on their businesses. This is wrong. It is simply not fair to the businesses who innovate and to the people whose economic livelihoods depend on these companies.

The threat posed by counterfeiting is more than a matter of economics. Inferior products can threaten the safety of those who use them. When a driver taps a car's brake pedals there should be no uncertainty about whether the brake linings are made of compressed grass, sawdust, or cardboard. Sick patients should not have to that they will ingest counterfeit prescription drugs and, at best, have no effect. The World Health Organization estimates that the market for counterfeit drugs is about $32 billion each year. Knock-off parts have even been found in NATO helicopters. What's more, according to Interpol, there is an identifiable link between counterfeit goods and the financing of terrorist operations.

S. 1699 makes several improvements to the U.S. Code. The bill strengthens 18 U.S.C. 2318, the part of the criminal code that deals with counterfeit goods and services, to make it a crime to traffic in counterfeit labels or packaging, even when counterfeit labels or packaging are shipped separately from the goods to which they will ultimately be attached. Savvy counterfeiters have exploited this loophole to escape liability. This bill closes that loophole.

The bill will also make counterfeit labels and goods, and any equipment used in facilitating a crime under this part of the code, subject to forfeiture upon conviction. Any forfeited goods or machinery would then be destroyed, and the convicted infringer would have to pay restitution to the lawful owner of the trademark. Finally, although the bill is tough, it is also fair. It states that nothing ``shall entitle the United States to bring a cause of action under this section for the repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended to deceive or confuse.'' It is truly just the bad actors we want to punish.

Those who profit from another's innovation have proved their creativity only at escaping responsibility for their actions. As legislators it is important that we provide law enforcement with the tools needed to capture these thieves. I am committed to this effort, and will continue to sponsor legislation that will support law enforcement in the protection of the intellectual property rights that are so important to the American economy and its creative culture.

I agree with the Senator.

Section 2(b)(1)(B) authorizes U.S. Attorneys to pursue civil in rem forfeiture proceedings against ``any property used, in any manner or part, to commit or to facilitate the commission of a violation of subsection (a).'' The intent of this language is to provide attorneys and prosecutors with the authority to bring a civil forfeiture action against the property of bad actors who are facilitating trafficking or attempts to traffic in counterfeit marks. The forfeiture authority in Section 2(b)(1)(B) cannot be used to pursue forfeiture and seizure proceedings against the computer equipment, website or network of responsible Internet marketplace companies, who serve solely as a third-party to transactions and do not tailor their services or their facilities to the furtherance of trafficking or attempts to traffic in counterfeit marks. However, these Internet marketplace companies must make demonstrable good faith efforts to combat the use of their systems and services to traffic in counterfeit marks. Companies must establish and implement procedures to take down postings that contain or offer to sell goods, services, labels, and the like in violation of this act upon being made aware of the illegal nature of these items or services.

It is the irresponsible culprits that must be held accountable. Those who profit from another's innovation have proved their creativity only at escaping responsibility for their actions. As legislators it is important that we provide law enforcement with the tools needed to capture these thieves.

It is also my understanding that the U.S. Sentencing Commission recently promulgated new Federal sentencing guidelines to count for the changes in how intellectual property crimes are committed. Could the Senator from Pennsylvania clarify for the Record why we have authorized the U.S. Sentencing Commission to further amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements for crimes committed in violation of Title 18, section 2318 or 2320, of the United States Code?

I thank Senator Specter for that clarification. As he is aware, we have received over a dozen letters in support of S. 1699, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent to have several of these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it has been very heartening to see such overwhelming support for this important bill. Counterfeiting is a threat to America. It wreaks real harm on our economy, our workers, and our consumers. This bill is a tough bill that will give law enforcement improved tools to fight this form of theft. The bill is short and straight-forward, but its impact should be profound and far-reaching.

Some of our most important legislation is produced not only when we reach across the aisle in the name of bipartisanship, but, when we work across chambers and reach true consensus. I would also like to thank Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow and Voinovich for their cosponsorship. Counterfeiting is a serious problem that does not lend itself to a quick and easy solution. This legislation is an important step towards fighting counterfeiting. I hope we can build on the success of this law.

Mr. President, methamphetamine abuse has increased exponentially in recent years, expanding geographically to reach all corners of the United States. In recent years, the problem has made its way to Vermont. I am concerned about escalating methamphetamine abuse and have worked with other interested Senators to find ways to combat this growing problem.

With Senator Feinstein taking the lead, on July 28, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported out the Combat Meth Act, S. 103, with a committee amendment. I worked with Senator Feinstein and the other members of the committee to reach this result.

In September, I worked with Chairman Shelby and Senator Mikulski to take the unusual action of including the Combat Meth Act as an amendment to the Commerce Justice Science appropriations bill. I did this to accommodate Senator Feinstein's request and to try to make progress on this measure. By that action the Senate approved the Combat Meth Act, S. 103, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, as an amendment and then in passage of the bill. House conferees would not agree to the Senate bill. Without agreement on such an authorization, it was not retained in the appropriations conference report.

Last Thursday, I honored the request of Senator Feinstein and worked to clear the Combat Meth Act, S. 103, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, for passage by the Senate as a freestanding bill. It is clear on the Democratic side. It has been clear for days. All Senate Democrats are ready to pass that measure. It is being prevented from passage by an anonymous objection from the Republican side of the aisle.

The Senate's bipartisan bill focuses directly on providing law enforcement and prosecutors the tools they told us they needed. These include putting precursor chemicals behind the pharmacy counters, monitoring and regulating the quantities that can be bought in a 30-day period, and making it harder to smuggle such ingredients into the United States. The Senate bill focuses on prevention, regulation, monitoring, and treatment. Our bill would make it harder for people to enter the nightmarish world of methamphetamine use and abuse, harder for other countries and companies to profit from methamphetamine misery, and easier for law enforcement to combat this problem on the ground.

I know that Senator Feinstein has been working tirelessly for years to do something about this important issue. She has been tenacious and dedicated, and I respect her leadership in this area. She and Senator Talent know that I have tried to accommodate them and to facilitate passage of this legislation.