Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to commend the work of Bob and Beth Kennett. The Kennett's own the Liberty Hill Farm in Rochester, VT, where Beth runs a bed and breakfast on the farm, and Bob oversees the dairy operation of 70 cows. The Kennett's demonstrate to their guests that dairy farming in Vermont is more than a job or an industry; it's a way of life. Vermont's landscape is defined by the green pastures and silos that dot the hills. Our agricultural economy depends on the hundreds of millions of dollars dairy farmers bring to the State every year. Through the Kennett's combination of agri-tourism and dairying they are helping to ensure farming is not only a part of Vermont's past, but a vital part of Vermont's future.

I ask that a recent article about the Kennett's be printed in the Record.

The article follows:

[From the Burlington Free Press]

Just Asking To Survive

(By Erin Kelly)

Twenty-five years after they bought their small dairy farm

in Vermont's picturesque White River valley, Bob and Beth

Kennett find themselves alone.

``When we moved here, there were 11 farms shipping milk,''

said Beth Kennett, who helps her husband run a farm of 70

milk cows in Rochester, VT. ``We are now the last dairy farm

in our valley.''

Small dairy farms like the Kennetts' are disappearing

throughout America. In the last half-century, the percentage

of U.S. farms with milk cows has plunged from nearly 62

percent in 1954 to 4 percent in 2002, according to the

Department of Agriculture.

Farmers say that number will keep dropping if a federal

dairy subsidy expires as scheduled in October 2005.

At stake for the farmers is a way of life that in many

cases dates back generations. Suburbanites and urban dwellers

also have something to lose, farmers warn.

If the farms go, their green pastures will be replaced with

shopping malls and housing tracts. Fresh milk produced

locally could be replaced by milk shipped by tanker truck

thousands of miles from mega-dairy farms in the West.

``The consumer is not going to benefit if all the milk is

produced in just a few places,'' Beth Kennett said. ``Why not

have local milk for local markets?''

Small dairy farmers won a victory last month when the

Senate Appropriations Committee approved a plan to extend the

federal dairy subsidy to at least 2007, when it could

be renewed again as part of a new farm bill. The plan,

pushed by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Herb Kohl, D-Wis.;

and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., still must be approved by the

full Congress.

An effort to attach the subsidy to a Homeland Security bill

failed this past weekend, but lawmakers vowed to try again

this year.

The subsidy, which has cost taxpayers about $2 billion

since its passage in 2002, sends payments to dairy farmers

whenever the price of milk drops below a certain level,

basically guaranteeing farmers a minimum price. Small

farmers, those with about 130 cows or fewer, benefit most.

While some are pushing for the short-term extension of a

tax subsidy for dairy farmers, other dairy state lawmakers

want a different, long-term solution one that could raise the

price of a gallon of milk for consumers.

Instead of a taxpayer subsidy, the National Dairy Equity

Act would require milk processors to pay farmers a minimum

price for their milk.

If the proposal becomes law, consumers could pay as much as

20 cents more per gallon of whole milk, warns the

International Dairy Foods Association, which represents

processors. Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., says the group is

grossly exaggerating the cost as a scare tactic.

Ken Bailey, associate professor of dairy markets at

Pennsylvania State University, said even an increase of a few

cents could hurt sales of milk, which has dropped in

popularity. The percentage of raw milk being turned into milk

to drink declined from 40 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in

2000, with the rest used to make cheese or other dairy

products.

When the retail price of milk went up in May and June,

sales fell 3 percent, Bailey said.

``It doesn't make sense to design a whole federal policy

around a small and declining segment of the dairy market,''

Bailey said. ``What the federal government should be doing is

getting out the way and encouraging innovation and the

creation of new dairy products. In Europe, liquid yogurt

beverages are very popular. Our thinking is still stuck back

in the 1950s when everybody had a glass of milk with

dinner.''

Carl Greene, a sixth generation dairy farmer in Berlin,

N.Y., said that with a little help from Washington, he is

optimistic that the farm he works with his brother and father

will survive for a long time to come.

``Any help we get will make us more competitive,'' he said.

``We'll reinvest it back into the farm.''

Beth Kennett, who runs a bed and breakfast out of her

Rochester farmhouse to help make ends meet, said the city

folks who visit seem willing to help once they see what's at

stake. People need to realize that retail milk prices which

have stayed fairly steady at $2.62 to $2.76 a gallon over the

last eight years are a bargain and don't reflect the farmers'

true cost, Kennett said.

``Our guests, once they see the hard work that goes into

it, say they'd be more than happy to pay an extra nickel for

milk to keep Farmer Bob going,'' Kennett said. ``We're not

asking to make huge profits. We're just asking to

survive.''

I am pleased that in the waning days of the 108th Congress we can send H.R. 1417, the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, to the White House for the President's signature. I wish to thank Senator Hatch, as his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee comes to a close, for the important work we have done over the years to strengthen our Nation's intellectual property laws. When two Senators from different parties can collaborate as productively as we have on these issues, the legislative process is working the way it should.

This bill has been a massive, bicameral undertaking. Many of the provisions were technically complex, and extensive negotiations were necessary in order to iron out some of the more difficult provisions. In all of these details, recognition is owed to our colleagues in the House for ensuring that obstacles to this bill's passage did not become roadblocks. Chairman Sensenbrenner, in particular, played a crucial role in the development of this bill and in helping to pilot it through the other Chamber. Likewise, I wish to express my gratitude for the time, energy, and thoughtful contributions of Congressman Conyers, Congressman Smith, and Congressman Berman, without whom the result we have achieved today would simply not have been possible.

The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act will modernize and improve the process by which certain royalty rates, such as those for small webcasters, are determined.

As early as 2002, I noted in a Judiciary Committee hearing that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the current CARP procedures. Among some of the complaints, the Committee heard that many small webcasters could not afford to take part in CARP proceedings, despite their livelihoods hinging on the outcome. We also heard of many of the structural problems that plagued the process. In addition, I have been concerned that the current procedures are often hindered by unreasonable delays, and the outcomes subject to manipulation.

The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act responds to these concerns. It replaces arbitrators with full-time administrative judges, alleviating the massive financial burden of taking part in a CARP proceeding, and providing the process with continuity and stability. This bill also resolves long-standing disputes over the availability of discovery. Because discovery is available where it is needed, the Copyright Royalty Judges will have the information necessary to render a correct determination, but the costs of discovery will be kept to a minimum. Finally, this bill preserves the traditional role of the Register of Copyrights.

Again, I wish to thank my colleagues in the Senate and in the House for their hard work in guiding into law this important, complex piece of legislation. We work best when we work together, and I hope that in the final product of the CARP bill we will see reason to develop legislation across party lines, and between chambers, in the next Congress.

Mr. President, the tax bill conference report that will overwhelmingly pass the Senate today is an opportunity lost. This bill is a fiscally irresponsible giveaway full of hundreds of special interest provisions that will ultimately cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.

I voted in favor of the Senate version of this important legislation when it passed by an overwhelming vote of 92-5 back in May. What began as a legislative fix to bring our Tax Code into compliance with international trade laws has turned into a deficit busting give away to special interests. This conference report lacks the balance and restraint that was critical to passage of the Senate bill.

The math on how this bill adds to the deficit is simple. Repeal of the so-called FSC ETI tax breaks for U.S. multinational companies will increase revenue by $50 billion. Incredibly, the conferees could not help themselves but take the opportunity to not only spend that $50 billion but also spend another $100 billion with almost no comparable spending offsets--adding straight to the ballooning Federal budget deficit.

The conference report is being sold as a godsend for American manufacturing workers, yet Senate provisions to tie corporate tax breaks to actual job creation have been stripped. I have to chuckle when I hear the White House referring to this as the ``JOBS'' conference report.

I am also disappointed that the conferees chose to drop the Senate provision sponsored by Senator Landrieu to provide tax credits to employers who make up the pay that employees lose when they are called up for National Guard or Reserve duty. Senator Landrieu has eloquently and forcefully highlighted to the Senate over the past couple of days why this provision should not have been dropped from the final conference report. I agree with her outrage that the conferees included many special interest tax provisions--one even for ceiling fan manufacturers--but could not include a provision that helps the men and women who are serving their country.

Mr. President, I would like to focus the attention of the Senate on the recent devastation to many nations in the Caribbean as a result of a half a dozen hurricanes and tropical storms in the autumn of this year, 2004.

More than a thousand people have perished; many are still missing. Thousands of families are homeless and jobless. Non-governmental organizations such as the International Red Cross, the United Nations, and religious organizations, rushed to the scene with relief aid and volunteers to help the survivors. The United States Government has sent U.S. AID teams to assess the damage. Early estimates reveal hundreds of millions of dollars of physical damage to homes and businesses. On the Island of Grenada industries have been completely wiped out. There are riots in the streets of cities in Haiti where stockpiles of nonperishable food and potable water are diminishing fast.

In April, 2001 President Bush instituted the ``Third Border Initiative'' that anticipated a quick response by our government that would, in his words, ``. . . fund disaster preparedness and mitigation efforts to shield critical commercial and environmental infrastructure from natural disasters, such as hurricanes.'' This is important because it signals a focus not only on emergency assistance, but on trying to reduce the amount of damage caused by future hurricanes. In other words, the President was also signaling a welcome focus on rebuilding homes and businesses in a manner that is resistant to potential damage by hurricanes. These types of buildings would also reduce the dreadful death toll of future hurricanes.

We have an opportunity to aid our friends and partners in the Caribbean. The administration has attached a $50 million request for the Caribbean to a larger package of help for Florida and other States in the South hit by the rolling series of storms this summer and fall. Our colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives have requested an additional $50 million, so the total is $100 million for the Caribbean. Secretary Colin Powell recently visited Grenada and stated that the first aid will come in phases, starting with an emergency shipment of food, medicine, construction materials and other supplies, about a quarter of which will go to Grenada.

It is at this time that we have an opportunity to thoughtfully help the region. As Secretary Powell said, ``. . . that help was needed not simply to repair homes and schools, but also to restore the economic infrastructure of the country.'' He went on to say that, ``experts had begun discussing `creative suggestions' for how Grenada could diversify its agricultural output. . . .'' I agree with Secretary Powell that the time has come to try to better spend our assistance dollars. As is the case with weather disasters, economic disasters also ruin the hopes of families. As long as we are helping in the rebuilding efforts, we should try to make more permanent improvements in infrastructure.

The region needs many ``creative suggestions'' for its redevelopment. At the University of Vermont, the students and faculty have made many suggestions, from agriculture and food processing to sustainable permanent modular housing solutions utilizing recycled materials. One appropriate solution has been devised by world acclaimed architect Adam Kalkin. It is the Quikbuild Modular System. An example of this unique, sustainable housing solution is on display in the permanent collection of the Shelburne Museum, in Shelburne, Vermont.

This type of dwelling utilizes recycled cargo containers, many of which are being shipped down to the region with a full load; they will remain there empty without the cargo to fill them; and with no place to ship them. Each is an ecological disaster waiting to happen. They also present a great opportunity if we take advantage of using them.

Recycled containers may be converted into durable, sustainable, water-tight, hurricane-proof dwellings that can be used as permanent housing as well as field kitchens, medical triage units, schools, dormitories, as well as structures for commercial businesses and meeting places. Ten percent of the funds we provide should be for these more permanent housing solutions. It is imperative that the community planners consider mid-range and long-term solutions today as they manage the ``first response'' mission. We have seen in many regions around the globe that well-intentioned temporary and transitional housing ultimately becomes permanent housing. Priorities shift, money runs out and a new disaster knocks the old disaster off the front page. The inherent nature of shanty towns, full of permanent refugees, takes away the dignity and hope of their inhabitants.

I have received pleas from the family members residing in the United States to help their loved ones. I have received a strong request from the Ambassador of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Ambassador Marina Valere, on behalf of the affected nations imploring us to also think about permanent housing solutions, that also respects their unique and fragile ecosystem. This request made clear that some portion of the aid package should be set aside for this purpose. Our friends in the Caribbean need permanent, safe, secure dwellings otherwise this crisis will repeat itself, year after year.

In addition to urgent emergency aid, America should help the survivors in the Caribbean to rebuild their communities with permanent housing solutions as well as rebuild their respective economies.

Mr. President, the conference report before the Senate today includes an important provision that will put a stop to the ill-advised attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to privatize jobs that are vital to keeping Americans safe. The conference report prohibits DHS from spending money to process or approve the privatization of Immigration Information Officer, Contact Representative, or Investigative Assistant positions. The House voted for this exact amendment earlier this year by a vote of 242-163, with 49 Republicans supporting it. The Senate voted 49-47 for this language. During the meeting of the conferees, both the Senate and House delegations voted in favor of this language.

Immigration Information Officers, IIOs, are responsible for screening applications for immigration benefits for fraud, and for performing criminal background checks on applicants. There are more than 1,200 IIOs and Contact Representatives around the nation, working for the Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, branch of DHS. The work they do in attempting to discover and prevent immigration fraud--and prevent dangerous people from abusing the immigration system--is clearly ``inherently governmental,'' making them an inappropriate target of a privatization effort.

As our Nation continues to face the threat of terrorism, CIS carries a heavy burden in its attempt to process immigration and naturalization applications while ensuring that terrorists--along with other fraudulent actors--do not abuse our immigration system. Information Officers have played a vital role in meeting this burden. Indeed, the agency's own job description requires that IIOs have the ``[s]kill to identify fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from appealing for benefits for which they are not eligible,'' a skill that is obviously all the more important in this era. They are also required by DHS to have ``[k]nowledge and skill in interviewing techniques and observation of applicants in order to determine if an applicant is misrepresenting the facts in order to appear eligible for a benefit.'' Weeding out potential fraud in our immigration system must remain a responsibility of government employees, especially when the perpetrator of the fraud may be a dangerous criminal or terrorist. This conference report will ensure that is the case.

I have a personal interest in this issue because about 100 fine Vermonters currently work as IIOs. I know the fine work they do, and I know that my staff and indeed all of our staffs rely on them and their counterparts throughout the country when we are seeking to help our constituents. I know that our Nation will be better off because these fine men and women will remain in their current positions.

Madam President, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act is a good bipartisan bill that will help State and local governments deal effectively with a serious law enforcement and mental health problem--the extent to which mentally ill individuals commit crimes and recidivate without ever receiving appropriate attention from the mental health, law enforcement, or corrections systems. The bill passed the Senate unanimously last year, and passed the House of Representatives in slightly revised form earlier today, by voice vote.

I have enjoyed working on this bill with Senator DeWine, who has shown commitment and leadership on this issue. I am also pleased that Senators Cantwell, Domenici, Durbin, Grassley and Hatch have joined Senator DeWine and I as cosponsors of this bill. And I very much appreciate the support of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, as well as Crime Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble and Ranking Member Bobby Scott, and Congressman William Delahunt.

Human Rights Watch released a report last year discussing the fact ``that jails and prisons have become the Nation's default mental health system.'' The first recommendation in the report was for Congress to enact this bill. Tonight we will follow that recommendation and send this bill to the President.

All too often, people with mental illness rotate repeatedly between the criminal justice system and the streets of our communities, committing a serious of minor offenses. The ever scarcer time of our law enforcement officers is being occupied by these offenders, who divert them from more urgent responsibilities. Meanwhile, offenders find themselves in prisons or jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for them. This bill will give State and local governments the tools to break this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the public safety, and mentally ill offenders themselves.

When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I held a hearing on the criminal justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties around our Nation. All of our witnesses agreed that people with untreated mental illness are more likely to commit crimes, and that our state mental health systems, prisons and jails do not have the resources they need to treat the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. We know that more than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, that about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and that up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious mental illness will come into contact with the American criminal justice system at some point in their lives. We know these things, but we have not done enough about them at the Federal level, and our State and local officials need our help.

The bill does not mandate a ``one size fits all'' approach to addressing this issue. Rather, it allows grantees to use the funding authorized under the bill for mental health courts or other court-based programs, for training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel, and for better mental health treatment in our communities and within the corrective system. Although the House did reduce the funding authorized by the bill from $100 million to $50 million, that amount will still be enough to make a real start at addressing this problem. This is an area where government spending can not only do good but can also save money in the long run--a dollar spent today to get mentally ill offenders effective medical care can save many dollars in law enforcement costs in the long run.

This bill has brought law enforcement officers and mental health professionals together, as we have seen at both of the hearings the Judiciary Committee held on this issue. I hope that it will provide much-needed support to our communities and make a difference for both law enforcement officers and the mentally ill.

Mr. President, we live in a nation of the most creative and inventive people in the world, but apparently some of my Republican colleagues do not appreciate them or their efforts. Thanks to the ingenuity, the inspiration, and the hard work of thousands of our fellow citizens, the United States enjoys the best in artistic expression and technological advancement, but that seems to mean little to those Senators. We enjoy the fruits of the labors of all the inventors and authors and artists--and of all the people who work in connection with them--not only as individuals but as a nation, but not everyone here recognizes the debt we owe them. In the twenty-first century, it is intellectual property that keeps this country at the forefront of the world economy, and what preserves our force as a global power, and I would think that those across the aisle would value the importance of that power.

Affording that intellectual property the most straightforward and reasonable protections, and giving law enforcement officials the resources to give those protections genuine power, would seem to be a sensible goal. Indeed, failing to do so would be unconscionable. In the United States, copyright industries alone account for 12 percent of the gross domestic product, and employ more than 11 million people. Those copyright industries have been adding workers at an annual rate that exceeds that of the economy as a whole by 27 percent, and those industries have achieved annual foreign sales and exports of almost $90 billion. But some Republicans are preventing the Senate from passing the most important intellectual property legislation before the Congress this year, and they are hiding behind anonymous holds. This is wrong.

Senator Hatch and I, and many of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, have been working on this legislation for some time now-- most recently doing so late at night and through the weekends. We have done so because of the crushing need to ensure that the intellectual property laws are adequate to the legitimate and pressing concerns raised by many about the effectiveness of those laws. We have a package of strong and significant measures that would bolster protection of the intellectual property that drives our nation's economy and that would ensure law enforcement has the tools it needs to offer that protection. There was no reason not to send this package to the House immediately, and work with our colleagues there to ensure it became enacted into law, as soon as humanly possible.

In blocking this legislation, these Republicans are failing to practice what they have so often preached during this Congress. For all of their talk about jobs, about allowing the American worker to succeed, they are now placing our economy at greater risk through their inaction. It is a failure that will inevitably continue a disturbing trend: our economy loses literally hundreds of billions of dollars every year to various forms of piracy.

Instead of making inroads in this fight, we have the Republican intellectual property roadblock. It is a barrier that stands in the way of the CREATE Act, a noncontroversial bill the text of which has already passed both the Senate and House. The CREATE Act clarifies an important component of the Bayh-Dole Act that, when read literally by the courts, runs counter to Congress's intent. By failing to make this clarification Congress is creating a deterrent to forming the very same public-private research partnerships meant to be encouraged by that Act. These partnerships have proved incredibly beneficial to universities, the private sector, the American worker, and the U.S. economy. All are placed in jeopardy by Congressional inaction.

The roadblock has also scuttled the ART Act, a bill that passed the Judiciary Committee and then the full Senate by unanimous consent. This legislation would have provided new tools in the fight against bootleg copies of movies snatched from the big screen by camcorders smuggled into theaters. And it would have adopted a creative solution developed by the Copyright Office to address the growing problem of piracy of pre-release works. Our anonymous Republican friends have ensured that these problems are left unaddressed by the 108th Congress.

The PIRATE Act, too, passed the Senate by unanimous consent. That bill would have given to the Attorney General new tools in the fight against piracy of books, music, movies and other creative works. Senator Biden's Anticounterfeiting Act, which would have marked a step forward in the fight against software piracy, was also included in the intellectual property package. We can tell our software companies that they will have to wait at least another year for the remedies promised by this legislation. And it is important to note that the Business Software Alliance tell us that $29 billion in software was stolen in 2003 alone.

There are other noncontroversial provisions in this legislation as well, such as language that would help ensure that the Library of Congress is able to continue its important work in archiving our nation's fading film heritage. Some of America's oldest films--works that document who we were as a people in the beginning of the 20th century--are literally disintegrating faster than they can be saved.

None of these were partisan provisions. And when Senator Hatch and I put our names on the same piece of legislation, you can bet that the result is never a bill that veers very far to the right or the left. He and I have worked together to produce a great deal of good intellectual property policy over the years, and I am sorry to see that some on his side of the aisle have blocked our efforts at similar progress this year.

We can foresee the disappointing result of this roadblock: our copyright holders will suffer, our patent holders will suffer, and so too will the American worker. In yet another important area, the Republicans that control the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House, have failed to respond to the needs of the American people. That is a shame.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the passage of S. 2856, legislation that will restore the conservation funding commitment Congress and the administration made to farmers and ranchers in the 2002 farm bill. I applaud the leadership of Agriculture Committee Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Harkin for their leadership to correct the shortfall in conservation technical assistance funding. For the last 2 years I have worked to correct this problem and am pleased to join my colleagues in this effort.

Despite historic funding conservation levels in the 2002 farm bill, family farmers and ranchers offering to restore wetlands, or offering to change the way they farm to improve air and water quality continue to be rejected when they seek USDA conservation assistance. Producers are being turned away due to the Department of Agriculture's decision to divert over $200 million from working lands conservation programs to pay for the cost of administering the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, and the Wetlands Reserve Program, WRP, over the last 2 years. In particular, USDA diverted significant funds from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, the Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, FRPP, the Grasslands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, WHIP, to pay for CRP and WRP technical assistance.

The 2002 farm bill clearly intended USDA to use mandatory funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, to pay for conservation technical assistance. The plain language of the statute, the General Accounting Office, and every Member of Congress who had a hand in writing the farm bill support this interpretation of the farm bill.

Our legislation would override USDA's decision and prevent funds from working lands incentive programs like EQIP and WHIP from being used to pay for the technical assistance costs of CRP. The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation has already approved similar legislation, H.R. 1907, requiring each program to pay for its own technical assistance needs. Our legislation parallels that effort. Simply put our amendment would require the administration to honor the 2002 farm bill and mandate that technical assistance for each program is derived from funds provided for that program.

By providing more than $6.5 billion for working lands programs like EQIP and WHIP in the 2002 farm bill, Congress dramatically increased funds to help farmers manage working lands to produce food and fiber and simultaneously enhance water quality and wildlife habitat. For example, EQIP helps share the cost of a broad range of land management practices that help the environment, include more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides, and innovative technologies to store and reuse animal waste. In combination, these working lands programs will provide farmers the tools and incentives they need to help meet our major environmental challenges.

Full funding for working lands incentive programs like EQIP and WHIP is vital not only in helping farmers and ranchers improve their farm management, but also in meeting America's most pressing environmental challenges. Because 70 percent of the American landscape is private land, farming dramatically affects the health of America's rivers, lakes and bays and the fate of America's rare species. Most rare species depend upon private lands for the survival, and many will become extinct without help from private landowners. When farmers and ranchers take steps to help improve air and water quality or assist rare species, they can face new costs, new risks, or loss of income. Conservation programs help share these costs, underwrite these risks, or offset these losses of income. Unless Congress provides adequate resources for these programs, there is little reason to hope that our farmers and ranchers will be able to help to meet these environmental challenges.

In addition, USDA conservation programs promote regional equity in farm spending. More than 90 percent of USDA spending flows to a handful of large farmers in 15 mid-western and southern States. As a result, many farmers and ranchers who are not eligible for traditional subsidies, including dairy farmers, ranchers, and fruit and vegetable farmers, rely upon conservation programs to boost farm and ranch income and to ease the cost of environmental compliance. Unlike commodity subsidies, conservation payments flow to all farmers and all regions. But, the farmers and ranchers who depend upon these programs, farmers, and ranchers who already receive a disproportionately small share of USDA funds, have faced a disproportionately large cut in spending.

By passing this legislation Congress and the administration will correct the shortfall in conservation technical assistance funding by directing USDA to use CCC funds to provide technical assistance to USDA conservation program. This legislation restores the clear intent of the authors of the 2002 farm bill relating to the payment of conservation technical assistance.

Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Utah. He and I have worked very hard, and, as he mentioned, we worked closely with Chairman Sensenbrenner, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. LaHood in the other body. Yesterday was an extremely busy day as we met over and over again, well into last evening and again early this morning, to make it possible.

I think this is also a day to rejoice on the part of courageous people like Debbie Smith and Kirk Bloodsworth. Debbie waited years to see this day, but she remained steadfast in her commitment to help other people. Kirk Bloodsworth faced an ordeal that nobody should have to face. That is why parts of this bill are named for each of them. I hope this achievement brings some kind of closure for them.

Mr. President, on February 1, 2000, I came to the floor to call attention to the growing national crisis in the administration of capital punishment. I noted that since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the 1970s, 85 people had been found innocent and released from death row. And I urged Senators on both sides of the aisle, both those who supported the death penalty and those who opposed it, to join in seeking ways to minimize the risk that innocent persons will be put to death. A few days later, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act of 2000.

That was more than 4 years ago. During that time, many more innocent people have been freed from death row--the total is now 117, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. During that time, the Republican Governor of Illinois commuted all the death sentences in his State to life in prison, having lost confidence in a system that exonerated more death row inmates than it executed. During that time, we learned about problems at the Houston crime lab so serious that the city's top police official called for a moratorium on executions of the inmates who were convicted based on evidence that the lab handled or analyzed. And during that time, the bipartisan, bicameral coalition supporting the Innocence Protection Act has continued to grow.

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed the Justice For All Act of 2004, a wide-ranging criminal justice package that includes the Innocence Protection Act. The House bill also includes the Debbie Smith Act and the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act, which together authorize more than $1 billion over the next 5 years to eliminate the DNA backlog crisis in the Nation's crime labs and fund other DNA- related programs. Finally, the House bill includes crime victims' rights provisions that I sponsored with Senators Feinstein and Kyl, and which already passed the Senate earlier this year.

Today, at long last, the Senate is poised to pass the Justice For All Act and to send this important legislation to the President. I hope he will sign it, despite his Justice Department's continued efforts to kill this bill. The reforms it enacts will create a fairer system of justice, where the problems that have sent innocent people to death row are less likely to occur, where the American people can be more certain that violent criminals are caught and convicted instead of the innocent people who have been wrongly put behind bars for their crimes, and where victims and their families can be more certain of the accuracy, and finality, of the results.

This bill has been many years in the making, and there are many people to acknowledge and thank. Let me begin by thanking Kirk Bloodsworth, Debbie Smith, the Justice Project, and through them all the crime victims and the victims of a flawed criminal justice system who have made these changes possible. Without their commitment and dedication, these straightforward reforms simply would not have happened. Kirk and Debbie sat patiently, hour after hour, through our committee's work on this bill, and their presence was strong and eloquent testimony of the need for this legislation.

Part of this legislation is appropriately named for Kirk Bloodsworth. Kirk was a young man, just out of the Marines, when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. DNA evidence ultimately freed him and identified the real killer. He became the first person in the United States to be freed from a death row crime through use of DNA evidence. The years he spent in prison were hard years, and he was treated horribly even after he was released. He could have become embittered by all he has endured. But instead, he has chosen to turn his experience into something constructive, to help others, and one way he has chosen to help is by being part of the effort to enact this bill. Kirk and his wife, Brenda, are remarkable people, and I thank them both. I am proud to have come to know them through our work together on this constructive cause.

I want to commend the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who spearheaded this effort in the House. Chairman Sensenbrenner deserves high praise for steering this bill through some very rough patches to final passage. We would not be where we are today without his leadership, tenacity, and steadfast commitment to getting this done.

I also want to thank my longtime colleagues in this endeavor, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts and Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois. They have worked tirelessly over many years to pass the Innocence Protection Act, and they deserve much of the credit for building the strong support for the bill in the House.

I also want to acknowledge Senator Hatch, the chairman of our Committee, with whom I have debated these issues for years and with whom I have cosponsored many measures over the last 10 years. Had he continued to oppose these efforts we could never have been successful. Over the last couple of weeks he has focused on this bill, and the Judiciary Committee reported the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act under his leadership just a few weeks ago. I am grateful for his help in overcoming objections to

the bill from his side of the aisle. I know how hard he has worked to do that.

Thanks, too, to the many Members on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate and in the House, who have supported this legislation over this long struggle for reform. Working together, we have finally begun to address the many problems facing our capital punishment system. Here in the Senate, Senator Biden has championed additional funding for rape kit testing. Senators Kennedy, Kohl, Feingold, and Durbin have been longtime and steadfast proponents of sensible reform. Senators Feinstein and Specter were strong supporters of the Innocence Protection Act in the 107th Congress, and have been constructive partners in the effort in this Congress. Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Collins were early cosponsors of the Innocence Protection Act as well. Senator DeWine was a lead sponsor of the Senate DNA bill, and has made many important contributions. I have spoken to the majority leader a number of times over the last year having learned of his interest in these matters and thank him for allowing the Senate to turn to this important matter even as we approach adjournment of this session.

Many people have been generous with their time and expertise and experience over the years. Steve Bright, Bryan Stevenson, George Kendall, Jim Liebman, Larry Yackle, Scott Wallace, and Kyl O'Dowd have offered useful and important suggestions on how to improve State indigent defense systems. Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck have been invaluable resources on the intricacies of post-conviction DNA testing. Ron Weich has offered superb legal counsel to both Republican and Democratic Senators and their staffs as we have worked on this bill. Pat Griffin's masterful advice has also been invaluable.

I have already mentioned the Justice Project, a nonprofit organization dedicated to criminal justice reform, which has been a staunch supporter of this bill from the beginning. I particularly want to recognize the contributions of my good friend Bobby Muller, as well as John Terzano, Cheryl Feeley, Laura Burstein, Cynthia Thomet, and Peter Loge.

Finally, I want to thank several staff members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees who worked tirelessly, some for years, to accomplish this goal. I commend the Chief Counsel to Chairman Sensenbrenner, Phil Kiko. He was instrumental in keeping the process moving over the past year. His hard work, fairness and judgment helped fulfill his chairman's dogged determination to get this done and make these needed changes. Also on the chairman's staff, I acknowledge the efforts of Jay Apperson and Katy Crooks. I want to express my deep gratitude to Mark Agrast, former counsel for Representative Delahunt, and his successor, Christine Leonard.

In the Senate, I want to acknowledge several Judiciary Committee staff members who made immeasurable contributions during this long and challenging effort. On Chairman Hatch's staff, I want to thank Bruce Artim, Brett Tolman, and Michael Volkov, a former detailee, for investing so much of their time and expertise in helping us to arrive at this moment. My staff and I appreciate the contributions of Neil MacBride, Jonathan Meyer, and Louisa Terrell on Senator Biden's staff, David Hantman on Senator Feinstein's staff, and Robert Steinbuch with Senator DeWine.

On my own staff, I want to express my appreciation to an entire team of talented and dedicated attorneys and staff who have devoted themselves so long to this effort and to this commitment to justice. Julie Katzman, a senior counsel on my staff, has devoted innumerable hours over the past 4\1/2\ years to accomplishing this goal, and I want to extend my deeply felt gratitude to her. Tara Magner began as a law clerk, and later as my counsel has dedicated herself to this effort with superb results. Beryl Howell, my former general counsel, guided this effort for years, and Bruce Cohen, my Chief Counsel, guided all of their efforts. Tim Rieser, Luke Albee, David Carle, and more all supported and contributed to this extraordinary effort.

I also want personally to thank the Senate Legislative Counsel, in particular Bill Jensen and Matt McGhie, who labor in obscurity to produce the legislative text that is being constantly revised to reflect the understanding reached during this arduous process.

This bill is a rare example of bipartisan cooperation for a good cause. It reflects many years of work and intense negotiation. No one who has worked on this bill is entirely satisfied with everything in it, but that is what the legislative process is all about finding the substantive, meaningful, middle ground that a broad majority can support.

The Justice For All Act is the most significant step we have taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country. DNA is the miracle forensic tool of our lifetimes. It has the power to convict the guilty and to exonerate the innocent. And as DNA has become more and more available, it also has opened a window on the flaws of the death penalty process. This is a bill to put this powerful tool into greater use in our police departments and our courtrooms. It also takes a modest step toward addressing one of the most frequent causes of wrongful convictions in capital cases, the lack of adequate legal counsel. These reforms, to put it simply, will mean better, faster, fairer criminal justice.

I thank each one of my colleagues in both bodies who worked hard to resolve conflicts and congratulate them on this legislative achievement.

Mr. President, I appreciate the managers of the resolution adopting this amendment. It achieves the goals of an amendment filed by my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Texas, that I cosponsored. The language in the managers' amendment will make explicit that the shared jurisdiction over ``government information'' that is provided by rule 25 to the Judiciary Committee is not adversely affected by this resolution. I thank the Senator from Texas for his leadership on this matter and the managers for working with us to clarify the resolution.

Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, I said at the beginning of this debate that after reforming the executive branch's intelligence and homeland security agencies, we needed to put our own house in order. We can now say that after years of demanding that other institutions reorganize and improve their performance, we have demanded the same of ourselves. And we succeeded.

This is no small achievement for the Senate, the cooling saucer of American politics. We are very averse to change here.

We respect history in this institution. But today we avoided making the mistake of falling victim to it. Learning from our mistakes prior to 9/11, we have changed the way we do business. This is a great accomplishment.

We recognized the need to reform the way we conduct oversight over the most important issues of our day: intelligence and homeland security.

I want to thank my good friend, Senator Reid. I have greatly enjoyed working with him, and have marveled at his prodigious talents in resolving particularly contentious conflicts.

We have accomplished this difficult task thanks in large part to his honest brokering and commitment to respecting the concerns of each and every Senator. He is fair-minded, and he is effective. I look forward to working with him more often.

Let me also take a minute to thank his capable staff. Rich Verma, Gregg Jaczko, and Gary Myrick, who worked on a truly bipartisan basis with my staff. Their expertise on these issues, and their patience with Harry and me, are truly commendable. They deserve a great deal of credit for managing the Working Group and cobbling together for us the many suggestions made by our Members.

I would also like to thank my staff: Kyle Simmons and Robert Karem. Both of these outstanding gentlemen were with me from the beginning of this process and we would not be at this point without them. I would also like to thank Mike Solo. He jumped right in to masterfully produce this product and also helped steer it to passage on the floor. Finally, my thanks to John Abegg and Brian Lewis for their counsel and able assistance.

I want to thank the members of the Congressional Oversight Working Group themselves for their many good ideas, and for their patience and willingness to work on a bipartisan basis to do something that is very difficult, but also very worthwhile.

Not every Senator will be happy with the result of the Senate working its will on this resolution.

Some Members will complain this reform goes too far. Others will complain it does not go far enough.

I believe we have struck an appropriate balance of reform that improves our ability to conduct oversight of intelligence and homeland security during a very serious time for our country.

On intelligence oversight, I am pleased the Senate not only accepted our suggested reforms of the Select Committee on Intelligence, but also improved upon them by agreeing to modify the sequential referral of defense-related intelligence legislation to the Armed Services Committee so the process is more cooperative.

The working group wanted to improve the structure of the Committee to allow Members more time to become experts and give them many tools to do their jobs. And we have done that.

Let me briefly summarize just a couple of our reforms:

Improved and enhanced the Intelligence Committee;

Included 9 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission;

Members now have a stronger Committee;

Without term limits, Members can better develop the expertise needed to conduct effective oversight;

Clarified jurisdictional lines and improves the coordination of military intelligence matters between the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.

Appropriations jurisdiction over oversight is currently dispersed throughout multiple subcommittees. We have created an Intelligence Subcommittee of Appropriations to consolidate the roughly 80 percent of the intelligence budget that will come under the jurisdiction of the national intelligence director.

This subcommittee will help the Appropriations Committee to live up to its responsibility to exercise oversight over the national intelligence budget.

This legislation consolidates widely dispersed appropriations for non-military intelligence under a single Subcommittee.

Allows the National Intelligence Director to work with only one Subcommittee to approve his budget.

Improves intelligence oversight by creating two sets of eyes on the budget and activities of the assets under the National Intelligence Director.

Jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security was too dispersed. Roughly 25 Congressional Committees or Subcommittees claimed jurisdiction over Homeland Security yesterday. We have cut that number down significantly.

The Senate worked its will on this Resolution, and in the end it significantly consolidated jurisdiction over Homeland Security.

Some will think the Senate went too far. Others will think the Senate hasn't gone far enough.

We introduced a Resolution that dramatically consolidated jurisdiction in the new Committee. In an open process, the Senate worked its will and decided that the overlapping functions of certain agencies required exceptions.

While there have been some changes to our proposal, we have not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have taken great strides towards a level of consolidation many of us would have thought impossible only weeks ago.

This reform puts the Homeland Security Committee in charge of those who prepare to defend against terrorist attacks and those who respond to terrorist attacks. This is the most important work the Department does.

Protecting the Homeland is the core function of the Department, and the Homeland Security Committee will acquire jurisdiction over the core entities of the Department that do just that.

Among other programs, the Homeland Security Committee will acquire jurisdiction over the following Directorates:

Office of the Secretary--Responsible for integration of terrorist threat warning, preparedness, and response. This alone is a huge responsibility.

Undersecretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

Undersecretary for Science and Technology--Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear defense research; and Homeland Security technology development.

Undersecretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response--FEMA; National Domestic Preparedness Office; Integrated Hazard Information System; and Domestic Emergency Support Teams.

Undersecretary for Management.

We have consolidated all of this on top of the existing jurisdiction of the Government Reform Committee, including the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. President, I believe the Senate has accomplished a great deal today. We have strengthened our Intelligence oversight, created a Homeland Security Committee under the new Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, and stood up a new Intelligence Appropriations Subcommittee.

I hope our Colleagues will pay attention to the reform we have enacted as they consider their Committee assignments for the 109th Congress. The American people will be better served by these reforms. And the Senate as a whole will benefit from their improved expertise and authorities over these critical policy matters.

We have no more important charge than keeping the American people safe, and today we have improved our ability to do just that.

Mr. President, as we near the end of this session, I am disappointed to report that Congress seems content to let the issue of foreign prisoner abuse linger without effective congressional oversight. Some have argued that continuing to investigate this matter will drag it out, and have the effect of preventing us from putting the scandal behind us. I disagree. We have to uncover the full truth in order to ensure that such abuses are not repeated. I am sorry to report that each week brings new allegations that reveal how much we still do not know.

Last week, I spoke on this floor about a recent Los Angeles Times article that raised troubling new allegations about the abuse of Afghan detainees in Gardez, including the death of one detainee that was never reported up the chain of command. The article revealed what appears to be a complete disregard for established Army procedure among certain units in Afghanistan.

I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on October 1, 2004, asking him several questions about the allegations raised in the news article. I asked Secretary Rumsfeld to explain how the special forces base at Gardez was allegedly allowed to operate with no recordkeeping requirements or standing operating procedures--an allegation that was corroborated by a U.S. Army investigator in Afghanistan. I asked whether any official policy allowed special forces units to suspend normal recordkeeping requirements while operating in Afghanistan or Iraq. I asked if there is an official policy to allow special forces units to detain prisoners in local Afghan jails or other undisclosed facilities. I asked Secretary Rumsfeld for a prompt response and hope that he delivers one soon.

Even without the answers to these questions, we now know that senior officials in the White House, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort, and even ignore our international agreements on torture and the treatment of prisoners. I am dismayed to report that some Members of Congress are now attempting to make it much easier for the administration to circumvent our treaty obligations. The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, H.R. 10, was recently introduced by the House Republican leadership. Sections 3032 and 3033 of that bill would make it official U.S. policy to exclude certain non-citizens from the protection of the Convention Against Torture, a treaty to which the United States is a party. To enact such language after the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib and other locations would further undermine the once distinguished reputation of the United States as a world leader on human rights.

Reports of the administration's support of these provisions are conflicting. Last week, Speaker Hastert's office claimed that the Justice Department ``wants and supports'' the provisions. The Justice Department declined to offer an official endorsement of sections 3032 and 3033, but claimed that it favored any ``provisions that will better secure our borders and protect the American people from terrorists.'' In an attempt to reconcile these statements, Senator Kennedy and I sent Attorney General Ashcroft a letter on October 1 urging him to repudiate the Department's support for these sections. We were pleased to learn this week that the White House went on record in opposition to the provisions, but we still await a reply from the Attorney General definitively stating the position of the Department of Justice.

Next Friday, October 15, is the deadline imposed by a Federal judge for the administration to turn over or identify all documents relating to the treatment of prisoners held by the United States at military bases and other detention facilities overseas. In his order, Judge Hellerstein stated: ``No one is above the law: not the executive, not the Congress, not the judiciary.'' I could not agree more. Unfortunately, this administration has continually ignored my requests for these documents--I will not be surprised if it refuses to comply with this court order. I would note that the original Freedom of Information Act request for these documents was submitted in October 2003, a year ago. Any embarrassment their release may cause now--less than 3 weeks before the Presidential election--is due to the administration's own stonewalling.

As the 108th Congress comes to a close, many questions about the prison abuse scandal will undoubtedly remain unanswered. Several Pentagon investigations are now complete, but none of them paint a complete and unbiased assessment of the prisoner abuse scandal. This Senate, and in particular the Judiciary Committee and Governmental Affairs Committee, failed to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. I have said many times there needs to be a thorough, independent investigation of the actions of those involved, from the people who committed abuses, to the officials who set these policies in motion. Perhaps in the new year, with a new Congress, the administration in power will be ready to seek the full truth about this scandal and begin the process of restoring honor to our nation.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters to Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft, both dated October 1, 2004, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that late last night the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2714 with the Leahy-Hatch amendment to reauthorize the highly successful Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. I thank the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for joining me on this amendment. This bipartisan legislation now goes to the president for his signature into law.

Our amendment contains the same legislative language as the Campbell- Leahy-Hatch Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, S. 764. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 15, 2003, and has been awaiting consideration by the House of Representatives since then.

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

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

Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by providing more help to state and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, 60 municipalities have been fortunate to receive funding for the purchase of 1,905 vests.

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

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, this does not preclude other matters that might be worked out either by consent or otherwise during that time; is that correct?

I will not object.

Mr. President, I have been in a lot of discussions today by phone, with my staff, and elsewhere, on H.R. 5107, something referred to as the innocent protection act and by others as the DNA act.

I think we are close. In some ways, it is like the perils of Pauline, you are up the hill, down the hill, if we can excuse, at 10 minutes of 8 in the evening, mixed metaphors.

But this is a bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the other body, from the most conservative to the most liberal Members of the other body. Then there is just a little difference, or at the last moment the Department of Justice comes up with some little thing they just thought of.

After a while, one wonders if even with the proven, overwhelming support--polls show overwhelming support for it; the other body has passed it overwhelmingly. I would guess if we actually had a vote in this body, 80 to 90 Members would vote for it. There are always a couple of Members who have some reason for holding it up. I hope we get rid of that. I hope we are coming closer.

I only wanted to say this for my colleagues both in the House and in the Senate who have been working with me and my staff today and working with people everywhere, from church groups to prosecutors' groups throughout yesterday and late last night and throughout today, I am hoping we can settle. That is why I asked the question of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, to make sure we reach such an agreement at some point and we can move forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, back in June the Senate took a strong step to support intellectual property on the Internet by updating the Government's most important tool in the fight against piracy: its enforcement authority. Unfortunately, the Bush administration, which likes to talk a good game, is apparently not interested in having the tools it needs to do the job. This administration has done nothing, as far as I know, to help enact important intellectual property legislation. As a consequence, congressional Republicans are holding up and resisting important legislation.

The Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act, S. 2237, allows United States Attorneys' Offices to bring a civil action against a large-scale copyright infringer. For some unimaginable reason, the Justice Department, which cannot issue enough press releases about its newly-minted Intellectual Property Task Force, has taken no interest in or action on this legislation. Apparently, the Ashcroft Justice Department rejects having the law enforcement authority to stop large-scale infringers and protect America's intellectual property from piracy. A Justice Department that has reinterpreted treaties and contorted the law to claim vast and unfettered authorities for this executive has little interest in assembling legislatively enacted tools for copyright protection and to stop piracy.

For a number of reasons having to do with law enforcement priorities, resources and other considerations, prosecutors rarely decide to bring criminal charges even against flagrant infringers. I have encouraged the Department to be more aggressive both internationally and here at home and have praised them when they have acted against infringers. I have worked hard to provide additional resources to our international efforts.

The PIRATE Act is another important effort in this fight. It provides alternative civil enforcement, authority. When a U.S. Attorney's Office sees a need for enforcement, but determines that a criminal case is not justified, the PIRATE Act would afford the Government a civil law route and civil law remedies. There are times when civil proceedings and remedies are more appropriate. Until we enact the PIRATE Act, they are unavailable. Presently, very few criminal cases are brought and no civil cases can be brought by the Government for these violations of Federal law. When you consider that the copyright industry employs over 11 million people in the United States, hamstringing the Federal Government by limiting it to criminal enforcement is unthinkable.

The Justice Department has appropriately refocused many resources of the FBI and the Criminal Division on preventing and investigating terrorism cases, leaving even fewer resources for protecting the intellectual property that is such a critical economic engine in this country. The PIRATE Act will enable other resources, outside the Criminal Division of the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney's Offices, to help protect intellectual property. This bill removes legal obstacles to the Justice Department's effective use of the resources it has at its disposal to fight piracy. The Attorney General should be fighting for this initiative. Unfortunately, the Bush administration and its Attorney General are missing in action.

The logic of the PIRATE Act and the reasoned approach it takes to Government enforcement of intellectual property rights is compelling. Consider that during this divisive session of Congress in which partisanship was pervasive, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate passed the PIRATE Act without a single dissenting voice.

I urge the Bush administration to get with the program. If you want to talk the talk and pretend to support the protection of intellectual property rights, then walk the walk and work to clear the Republican opposition so that Congress can enact the PIRATE Act. Then use that authority as appropriate to help end the theft of intellectual property that is an enormous drag on our economy and so unfair to the artists who created the works by which others illegally profit.

The Ashcroft Justice Department issued a veto threat to the SAFE Act before a single hearing and before any markup of that legislative proposal. The PIRATE Act has passed the Senate and we still await the first word from the Justice Department providing its views on this legislation. The lack of support for enactment of civil enforcement tools by the Department of Justice is most revealing.