Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, on February 27, I spoke on the floor about the administration's new policy on landmines. It is a policy that some in the administration had leaked to the press the day before it was to be announced. And many believed it was being done to give it the most positive spin possible.

The reason I want to take some time to discuss it just prior to this recess is some Senator may be asked about it. I want them to know what the policy does and what it does not do.

The centerpiece of the policy is the administration's announcement that they will eliminate, in 6 years, all persistent or ``dumb'' landmines that remain lethal indefinitely.

First, let me say that any decision by this or any other administration to eliminate any type of landmine is a positive step. I concur with the administration on this. These indiscriminate weapons do not belong in the arsenal of the world's only superpower. Actually, they do not belong in the arsenal of any civilized nation. They do not differentiate between a child and a soldier. They are inhumane. They should be banned.

I have traveled to many parts of the world, sometimes in places where we use the Leahy War Victims Fund. I have seen those who have been crippled and disfigured by landmines.

My wife is a nurse. Before she retired, she was on a medical surgical unit. She has gone into some of the surgery wards in these countries where a child had a limb blown off, and it had to be reamputated to fit a prosthesis. It is terrible. And while there are military people on either side who are injured or killed, it is usually civilians. The vast number are civilians.

So the fact that the administration is pledging to get rid of these so-called dumb mines, including anti-vehicle dumb mines--albeit not until 2010--that is constructive. It sets a good example.

But what was not said in the press release, of course, is that the United States has not used this type of landmine for decades. We have not even used them in Korea along the demilitarized zone.

We have stockpiles of these mines around the world, but they are widely recognized by our military as posing not only an unacceptable danger to civilians, but also to our own troops. Once these mines are in the ground, they impede the mobility of our own forces. I cannot imagine any combat officer--certainly none trained by the United States--who would support using these indiscriminate weapons in this day and age.

So the bottom line is that the administration is saying: Since we do not use these mines, have not used these mines for decades, we will get rid of them, and we want the world to credit us for that.

Well, that is sort of like saying we are going to stop using leaded gasoline in the United States to reduce air pollution. Of course, we have not used leaded gasoline for years, so it really is not an issue.

What the administration says is that its new policy will ``help reduce humanitarian risk and save the lives of U.S. military personnel and civilians.'' But insofar as we do not use these mines, and have not used them for years, the claim is meaningful only to the extent that we can convince other nations to stop using them.

Now, to do that, the administration says it will seek a worldwide ban on the sale or export of dumb landmines. That is a positive announcement. But is it realistic?

We tried this back in 1994. We got nowhere because other nations refused to even discuss giving up their mines if we refused to give up ours. I have yet to hear anybody say why they believe the reaction of other nations, such as China, Russia, Pakistan, and India, is going to be any different this time.

After 2 years of reviewing the landmine policy, we say we are going to eliminate the mines we no longer use. But what the administration glosses over is that it has abandoned the key pledges the Pentagon made 6 years ago to phase out all antipersonnel mines outside of Korea by 2003, and in Korea by 2006. That would mean all the mines would be gone now, outside of Korea; and in Korea, the year after next. That used to be U.S. policy, until February 27.

That commitment included not only dumb mines but also self- destructing mines. And the commitment to find suitable alternatives to replace these self-destructing mines was painstakingly negotiated in 1998 between myself and the White House and the Pentagon.

The administration now defends its decision to abandon the pledge to phase out these weapons on the grounds that ``after they are no longer needed on the battle field, [these mines] detonate or turn themselves off, eliminating the threat to civilians.'' They say ``self-destructing landmines have been rigorously tested and have never failed to destroy themselves or become inert within a set time.''

Now, these self-destructing mines, these mines with timers, do pose less of a danger to civilians. If the world only used this type of mine, we would still have casualties of civilians, but there would be far fewer.

But it is not that simple. For one thing, the mines are also dumb. Once activated, they cannot distinguish between an enemy soldier and a fleeing refugee or a child trying to get out of harm's way any better than any other dumb mine.

If they are touched, they will explode. You could be the farmer trying to get his animals out of harm's way because a war is going on. These mines cannot distinguish between the farmer and an enemy gunner.

Secondly, we have only used this type of mine once and that was in the first Gulf War. We used them there because we had assurances from the Pentagon that they had been well tested and they would self- destruct so we did not have to worry about them.

Guess what. After that war, U.S. and British deminers discovered thousands of these mines that had not self-destructed as designed. They still needed to be disarmed. In fact, I had one leader in combat in the first gulf war who said: We did use them.

I said: Did you trust them to self-destruct?

He said: Heck no. Neither I nor anybody under my command would dare send our troops across a field where we have been told all these mines had self-destructed because we knew that a certain number of them would not.

Most importantly, Mr. President, by insisting we will continue to use our more expensive self-destructing mines, which the administration does, we give other nations an excuse to continue to use their cheap dumb mines. I don't know how many times I have talked to officials of other nations. I have said: Why don't you stop using land mines?

They have asked me: How can you, the most powerful nation history has ever known, tell us we should give up our land mines when you say you can't give up yours?

There is no answer to that.

There was strong opposition in the Pentagon when we passed my amendment--finally, in the end, every single Senator voted for it-- which banned the export of anti-personnel land mines. Now the Pentagon and everybody else brags about the step forward we took in banning the export of land mines. It was a good step. But when we had a chance to join the Ottawa process to ban these mines once and for all, we stepped back from it. And because of that, we made it easy for Russia and China, other countries, to do so.

In fact, I believe in our hemisphere there are only two countries that don't ban land mines--the United States and Cuba. Everybody else has. In fact, 150 nations, including every member of NATO except the United States, has joined the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines.

It is arrogance for our country to take such a unilateral attitude, for us to say: We know it is for your own good, get rid of land mines, but we won't.

Many times on this floor I have talked about flying in a helicopter along the Honduras-Nicaragua border at the height of the contra war. I stopped at a hospital on the Honduras side, an area carved out of the jungle. It was a very rudimentary hospital, with a small, separate unit for an operating room that was air-conditioned and sterile. The hospital part had a dirt floor, barracks, row after row of cots, in the corner, just some blankets.

A young boy stayed there, 12 years old or so. He had been living there for years since he lost his leg. He hobbled around on a homemade crutch. He was a peasant child who could not go to work in the jungle and help his family to get food because he was not up to it. He couldn't climb the steep trails. He had been out looking for food when he stepped on a land mine.

I asked him whether it was put there by the Sandinistas or the contras. He didn't know who they were. He didn't even know there was another country just over the mountains called Nicaragua. But he did know his life was changed. Unlike those of us who are privileged to serve in this body where, if we lost a leg we could continue to do our work, be paid the same, there would be some inconveniences, but we would make it. Not he. If he didn't have the floor of the hospital dormitory and if he didn't have the medics to give him some food, he had no place to go. There are thousands of people--thousands of children--like that.

After that, we started the Leahy war veterans fund, which to the credit of our Nation, does use $12 million a year to buy artificial limbs, wheelchairs, and other assistance for war victims. We have passed a law to ban the export of land mines.

But it is like trying to stop a flood. As long as people continue to make them, continue to use them, they are out there. We can't bring more pressure on China, one of the big makers and exporters of land mines, because they say, rightly so, the U.S. still uses them.

It is so frustrating. I come from a beautiful State, as does the Presiding Officer. I have hundreds of acres of my tree farm, wonderful fields and hills and mountain trails on which I can walk. My children and grandchildren do. It is so much fun. All you worry about is that you might trip and skin

your knee. You don't have to worry about a land mine.

Somebody said to me in one of these countries, when they were asking about land mines and why we didn't do more in the United States to get rid of them: How long would it take you in the United States to ban them if your children had to go to schools where they were told, you walk exactly between these two lines because, if you step over it, you might have your legs blown off? Or if you are like the teenage girl in Bosnia whose family sent her away at the beginning of the war so she would be safe and finally got word to her that it is safe to come back and she was running to her family and stepped on a mine. Her legs were blown off. I saw that young woman and talked with her in a hospital where the Doctors Without Borders and the Leahy War Victims Fund were helping her and other mine victims.

If this was happening in Washington down on The Mall, if this was happening on the playgrounds of America, we would be rising up and saying: Get rid of these things.

I have talked about this so many times that I am like a broken record. But I will keep talking about it as long as I am in the Senate. I will keep pushing and I will keep traveling around the world working with people who want to get rid of landmines. I will keep raising money for landmine victims, and I will keep trying to get rid of landmines.

I hope someday this wonderful country of ours, which I love and every one of us loves so much, will stand up and say: Enough. We will, by our own example--not by unilateral arrogance saying you get rid of them, but we won't--use the moral suasion of our Nation and get rid of landmines. Maybe then others will, too.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier this morning, an amendment offered by the senior Senator from Ohio was accepted by voice vote. At the time, I withheld from speaking on this amendment in order to expedite consideration of the budget resolution, but I would now like to take a moment to give my full statement.

This amendment addresses a serious shortfall in the President's foreign affairs budget: funding for international health programs.

I commend Senator DeWine for his leadership on these key humanitarian issues. Compared to some of the other amendments offered today, it is not a large amount of money. But, it means life and death to literally millions of people.

This amendment provides $330 million for the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund. It is fully offset by reducing the amount that the Federal Government spends on administrative expenses by $330 million.

This reduction will not be painful. We do not micro-manage the process, and leave it to the administration to determine where to make these cuts. But, I can think of some places that the Administration might want to start.

For example, next year the administration plans to spend $5.5 billion on ``transportation of things''; $21.1 billion on ``supplies and materials'' for federal agencies--not including the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security; and about a billion dollars on printing costs.

If you want specifics on how to pay for this, one could come up with this scenario.

The administration is planning to increase the amount spent on ``supplies and materials'' for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, and Interior and the FDIC. Simply maintaining the FY04 levels for these agencies yields $158 million. Freezing certain non-defense agencies' budgets for printing costs at the FY04 levels, which would otherwise be increased, brings the total amount of offsets to $173 million.

To get the remaining $157 million, one can freeze a number of combinations of proposed FY04 increases for ``other services'' of non- defense agencies. This includes, but is not limited to, increases to the Departments of Commerce, Energy, the Judicial Branch, and the FDIC. The portions of the government that I just listed total $365 million so this is more than enough. When added to the ones listed above, this is $538 million in offsets.

The use of Function 920 to pay for these offsets, which are spread over a range of different functions, is appropriate in this case. This is the type of offset that Function 920 was established to accommodate.

These are not my numbers they are OMB's. I encourage my colleagues to read the Object Class Analysis documents for further information.

I could go on, but we get the point. There is enough flexibility in this budget to do a tiny bit of belt tightening in order to save lives overseas, build goodwill towards the United States, and reduce the conditions--poverty, sickness, and despair--that help terrorists gather fresh recruits.

It may mean a few less paper clips or a few less glossy brochures, but the savings will be well worth it.

The President's national security strategy recognizes the essential role of foreign aid. But while we read about the importance of foreign aid, we don't see it throughout the President's budget request.

Most of us have praised the President's budget for significant increases for the Millennium Challenge Account--MCA--and to combat HIV/ AIDS. However, I have serious concerns because a portion of these increases are paid for by robbing other essential programs, like health care and food aid. Our amendment would restore some of these cuts.

Putting AIDS aside, the President's budget cuts essential international health programs by 11.4 percent.

It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases like measles, which kills 1 million children--not 100,000 or 200,000--but 1 million children each year. Measles can be prevented with a simple vaccine that costs pennies. Yet in many poor countries they cannot get it.

The President's budget would cut programs to combat measles and other infectious diseases like SARS, ebola and malaria, by 24 percent.

The President's budget would cut programs for vulnerable children by 64 percent. These programs help provide the basic necessities of life to orphans, street children, and children whose lives have been turned upside down by war.

Child survival and maternal health programs are also cut. These are the programs that provide lifesaving child immunizations. They also help to reduce needless pregnancy-related deaths each year. Six hundred thousand women die from pregnancy related causes. Almost all of these deaths could be prevented.

We should be moving aggressively to increase funding for these successful programs--not reduce funding.

This is not a partisan issue. Over the past 6 years, Democrats and Republicans have worked side-by-side to increase funding for international health. Funding for AIDS is going up, but it is going up at the expense of programs to combat other diseases which also cause millions of deaths. Preventable deaths. And curable diseases. This is unacceptable.

We cannot save every life. Our international health budget is less than the health budget of my own tiny State of Vermont. The President's budget would cut it even more. Our amendment would at least protect these programs from further cuts.

Less than 1 percent of the Federal budget is used to combat the conditions that cause poverty around the world. This is woefully inadequate. It shortchanges America's future. It invites insecurity.

One would have thought that if September 11 taught us anything, it was that business as usual is no longer tolerable. As I have said before, the President deserves credit for the Millennium Challenge Account and for increasing funding for HIV/AIDS.

But, I ask Senators to look behind the curtain to see these are funded. Some is new money. Sadly, some is from cuts to other essential humanitarian programs.

If we are going to lead, and especially if we are going to ask others to do more, we are going to have to stop playing shell games with the foreign aid budget. Leadership is good policy. Leadership means resources.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday the Judiciary Committee met in public session to discuss how best to proceed with the investigation into the theft and dissemination of confidential Judiciary Committee computer files. Over the last several weeks and months Democratic Senators have shown great patience with the process.

Last week, the chairman of our committee made the report of the Sergeant at Arms into this matter publicly available. For days, Senators have been consulting about the follow-up investigation that is now needed. Over the last few weeks a number of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, have acknowledged that these matters, now documented in the report of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, warrant further consideration by law enforcement officials. Along with other Senators, I have reached across the aisle to urge all Senators to now join us in a request for a special counsel to conduct the investigation necessary to complete action and assure accountability for this unprecedented partisan espionage within the Senate. Yesterday I renewed that invitation to join in our request for the appointment of a special counsel of the highest integrity and independence to follow up on this matter.

I had hoped that we could move forward together, and yesterday we did achieve a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary, which has now joined in requesting a criminal investigation by an independent prosecutor.

On Wednesday, March 10, nine Senators on the committee sent a letter to the Justice Department seeking the appointment of special counsel in this matter. Thursday morning, March 11, nine Republican Senators wrote to Chairman Hatch and noted:

[W]e are now certain that only a determination by a

professional prosecutor as to whether any laws were violated

will bring this matter to a just and timely resolution.

Yesterday all members on the Judiciary Committee endorsed having a professional prosecutor free from politics consider these matters without regard to partisanship.

Last night Republicans and Democrats joined in another letter to the Justice Department to request ``appointment of a prosecutor of the highest integrity and independence to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute all potential crimes related to the access and dissemination of Judiciary Committee staff files'' outlined in the report by the Senate Sergeant at Arms.

Someone who is removed from politics is essential. As we outline in our March 10 letter, many of us are concerned that it be special counsel and that the Attorney General recuse himself from the process for a number of reasons. In the March 12 letter from Senators Schumer, Graham, Durbin, Chambliss, Kennedy and DeWine, they likewise note that the prosecutor handling the matter must be ``free from all conflicts and appearances of conflict.'' They suggest that Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been given responsibility for the investigation of the lead of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, would be an ``ideal candidate'' and that his mandate is a good model for that of the prosecutor to whom is assigned responsibility for investigation of the matter of the Judiciary Committee computer files.

With respect to the Sergeant at Arms' report, I, again, thank him and his staff for operating in a nonpartisan way and in the best tradition of the Senate. The report shows, without question, that the secret surveillance and stealing of confidential computer files was calculated, systematic and sweeping in its scope. After reading the report, there is a lot more that we do know: We know that more than 4,000 computer files were stolen. We know that the stealing of Democratic computer files occurred over an extended period of time, from at least 2001 into 2003. We know that numerous staff members of Republican Senators and Republican Senate leadership were aware of this activity. We know that what was done was improper, unethical and likely criminal.

However, after reading the report, there is still a lot that we do not know. We do not know how the computer files and the information contained therein were exploited. We do not know whether the stolen computer files or the information in them were shared with the Department of Justice directly or indirectly. We do not know whether they were shared with the White House directly or indirectly. We do not know whether they were shared with any of the nominees. We do not know what stolen files or information contained therein was shared with partisan advocacy groups on the right. Those are among the questions that a special counsel with the tools to conduct a criminal investigation and compel testimony and information may discern. Indeed, the Sergeant-at-Arms report acknowledges many of its limitations and those on the authority of that office to get all the facts.

I hope Senators who care about accountability and the rule of law, and those interested in repairing the damage by this unprecedented spying campaign will support our request for the prompt appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct the criminal investigation into the theft of our computer files that is still needed. I hope the Justice Department will move quickly, properly assign this matter, and conduct an investigation to get to the bottom of the unprecedented wrongdoing that we have suffered.

I ask unanimous consent that copies of the letters of March 10, March 11 and March 12 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last night the Senate confirmed two more Federal judicial nominees of President Bush: Judge Louis Guirola to the Southern District of Mississippi and Neil Wake to the District of Arizona. With these confirmations, the Senate has now confirmed 173 judicial nominees of this President. That is more than during the entire four years of the first term of President Reagan, from 1981 through 1984, and just two fewer than were confirmed in all 4 years of President Clinton's second term in office from 1997 through 2000. We have reduced the number of vacancies in the Federal courts to 43, the lowest number in more than 13 years.

These two confirmations bring to four the number of judicial nominees confirmed in the first few weeks in session this year. The American people should remember that the Republican Senate leadership in 1996 allowed only 17 judicial nominees of President Clinton to be confirmed all year. I remain confident that with the cooperation of the administration, the Senate this year will be able to match the total from that Presidential election year, the last year of President Clinton's first term. We are well ahead of the pace Republicans achieved in 1996. The four judges confirmed so far this year is four more than were confirmed on this date in 1996.

The two nominees confirmed last night had their hearings this year but two others, J. Leon Holmes and Judge Dora Irizarry, had hearings last year, were reported by the Judiciary Committee last year, and still have not been scheduled for a vote by the Republican leadership. Democrats have been ready to debate and vote on these nominees for many months. They have generated some controversy and will need to be debated before the vote, but there is no Democratic ``hold'' on either nomination of which I am aware and no Democratic objection to a full and fair debate on each as far as I know.

If I could respond.

May I ask the Senator from Illinois a question?

I ask the Senator from Illinois if he was aware of the fact the

committee in conference, even though there was bipartisan support for the war profiteering amendment that was based word for word on what we used after World War II, after the Korean war, I was told the leadership in the House said they were under orders from the White House to remove the war profiteering.

Did the Senator from Illinois know the White House came in and said what was generally called the Halliburton amendment had to be taken out of the committee of conference?

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the budget resolution that the Senate is voting on today. We have been presented a fiscally irresponsible budget that calls for record budget deficits and deep cuts in programs for education, first responders, veterans, and the environment. I find it difficult to pin point exactly how this budget benefits the hard working Americans who are being asked to pay for this reckless fiscal plan.

This budget plan does nothing to address the growing Federal debt that we are preparing to pass onto our children and grandchildren. In fact, this budget calls for a record $477 billion deficit this year, on top of the record $450 billion deficit last year. We have a responsibility to bring accountability back to the budget process. The $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that we have enacted over the past three years have not fulfilled any of their promise--they have not done anything to curb our growing economic problems; they have not continued the budget surpluses we reached under the previous administration; and they have not restored confidence in the fiscal decisions of our Government.

Perhaps even more disturbing, this budget fails to reflect the spending realities that face our country in the coming years. The endemic long-term deficits forecast in this budget will significantly add to the Federal debt that is expected to top $15 trillion by 2014. This five-year budget plan also contains no funds for our continuing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The costs for these operations are so excessive--an estimated $280 billion over ten years--that including them in the budget would produce an unfathomably large national budget. Where will the money come from for future requests? The hope to cut the deficit continues to move farther and farther from reality.

Once again, this Congress is poised to enact a fiscally irresponsible budget

plan offered by this administration. Time after time the President and many of my Republican colleagues have shown that they do not care about the long-term effects his policies have on our financial future. After record budget surpluses during the final years of the Clinton administration, the Bush administration has sent Congress three budgets in a row that have turned record surpluses into record deficits. The President's own budget predictions call for the Government to be a record $521 billion in the hole in 2004. This budget resolution is full of red ink for as far as the eye can see. With the retirement of the first of the baby boom generation just four years away, we can no longer afford to continue on the President's path of fiscal irresponsibility.

Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I ask the distinguished leader if he would amend his unanimous consent request for it to be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this point.

Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, there will be a request for a rollcall vote, and I assume the leader would join in that, that there would be a request for a rollcall vote on the two judges, 10-minute rollcall votes so we are only here for 11 minutes, and everybody will be out on the second one. I only ask to protect my rights to ask for those rollcall votes.

I tell my distinguished friend from Tennessee, I have talked with the Senator from Arizona and he has no objection to that.

I will ask for the yeas and nays on the first one. I am perfectly content to have a voice vote on the second one.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleagues Senator Daschle of South Dakota and Senator Graham of South Carolina in support of this critical budget amendment on the readiness of our National Guard and Reserves. This amendment will allocate resources in the country's long-term budget to implement a comprehensive health insurance program for the 800,000 citizen-soldiers who serve in the National Guard and Reserves.

Last year, the Senate recognized that 20 percent of the Nation's military reserve--over 150,000 citizens waiting to answer the call-to- duty--did not possess health insurance. During a vote here on the Senate floor, 85 senators collectively agreed that this was unwise, and more importantly, unconscionable that citizen soldiers ready to fight for their country would arrive for service in less than perfect health because they were uninsured.

As a response to this clear problem, we passed a stopgap health insurance program that allowed reservists to receive fully reimbursed health insurance through TRICARE as soon as they received their orders and maintain that insurance after they had been deactivated.

The centerpiece of the program passed in Congress last year was a provision to allow drilling members of the Guard and Reserve to buy into the TRICARE program on a cost-share basis if they were between jobs or did not have access to health insurance through their employers.

This program guarantees that every member of the Guard and Reserve is covered either through TRICARE or a civilian program. However, the final defense bill last year authorized the program only through the end of this calendar year. This amendment would expand funding for this program for the next 5 years.

More troubling, critical portions of our original proposal, embodied in S. 852, the Comprehensive Guard and Reserve Health Benefits Act, dropped out during the final negotiations.

Missing in the final package was eligibility for employed members of the Guard and Reserve to sign up for the cost-share TRICARE program. This took away health insurance options for our reservists and a necessary mechanism to make the mobilization process easier by eliminating the need for reservists to switch back and forth between health insurance plans when they are activated.

The final compromise also shortchanged families of activated reservists who wanted to maintain their civilian health insurance while their loved ones were activated.

That provision would have substantially reduced some of the intense disturbances these long separations create. We crafted this provision to have only marginal costs compared to the size of the benefit for Guard members, reservists and their families.

This amendment will help fund the full program set forth in S. 852: Early health insurance, TRICARE access for all, reimbursements to families for keeping civilian health insurance, and maintaining full TRICARE after deployment. It truly is a comprehensive package. It is, I want to note, the exact same legislation that received an overwhelming 85 to 10 favorable vote during our debate on the defense bill.

The Department of Defense has slow-rolled implementation of the program turned into law last year. They are still not opening up the cost-share program to eligible service-members. Passing this amendment this year on the budget resolution sends a signal to DOD that they need to move ahead more aggressively. But, more importantly, this amendment assures the 130,000 men and women in the Guard and Reserve serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, or at home, and the entire Guard and Reserve force, that we are going to take significant steps to ensure that they are ready to meet the challenges ahead. We are not going to let our Guard down.

To reiterate, this amendment will allocate resources in the long-term budget to implement a comprehensive health insurance program for the 800,000 citizen soldiers who serve in the National Guard and Reserve.

We recognized in the Senate last year that 20 percent of the Nation's military reserve--over 150,000 citizens waiting to answer the call to duty--did not possess health insurance. Think of that, over 20 percent of the military reserve, 150,000 people, with no health insurance. That is unwise and it is also unconscionable these citizen soldiers do not have health insurance.

We passed a stopgap health insurance program that allowed reservists to receive fully reimbursed health insurance through TRICARE as soon as they receive their orders and maintain that insurance after they have been deactivated.

Missing in the final package was eligibility for members of the Guard and Reserve to sign up for the cost-share TRICARE program. We have crafted a provision at only marginal cost compared to the size for members of the Guard and Reserve, and this will help fully fund the program set forth--early health insurance, TRICARE access for all, reimbursements to families for keeping civilian health insurance, and maintaining full TRICARE after deployment.

We need to do this. We cannot continue to ask these men and women to go overseas to serve, basically full time, and have part-time benefits. They are full-time soldiers. They should be treated that way.

Madam President, the United States has from its inception recognized the importance of intellectual property laws in fostering innovation, and vested in Congress the responsibility of crafting laws that ensure that those who produce inventions are able to reap economic rewards for their efforts. Today, Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, and I introduce the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement, CREATE, Act of 2004,'' legislation that will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our nation's patent laws.

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

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

However, the Federal circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the legislation. The ``CREATE Act'' does exactly that by ensuring that non- public information is not considered ``prior art'' when the information is used in a collaborative partnership under the Bayh-Dole Act. The bill that my colleagues and I are today offering also includes strict evidentiary burdens to ensure that the legislation is tailored narrowly in order to solely fulfill the intent of the Bayh-Dole Act. I ask that my colleagues support the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004.''

Madam President, the United States has from its inception recognized the importance of intellectual property laws in fostering innovation, and vested in Congress the responsibility of crafting laws that ensure that those who produce inventions are able to reap economic rewards for their efforts. Today, Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, and I introduce the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement, CREATE, Act of 2004,'' legislation that will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our nation's patent laws.

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

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

However, the Federal circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the legislation. The ``CREATE Act'' does exactly that by ensuring that non- public information is not considered ``prior art'' when the information is used in a collaborative partnership under the Bayh-Dole Act. The bill that my colleagues and I are today offering also includes strict evidentiary burdens to ensure that the legislation is tailored narrowly in order to solely fulfill the intent of the Bayh-Dole Act. I ask that my colleagues support the ``Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004.''

Mr. President, with the advent of the digital age, we had great hopes that the possibility of distributing music, films, books, and software on the Internet would bring us an unprecedented variety of content online with ever-increasing ease. Unfortunately, those hopes have not yet been realized. The very ease of duplication and distribution that is the hallmark of digital content has meant that piracy of that content is just as easy. The very real--and often realized--threat that creative works will simply be duplicated and distributed freely online has restricted, rather than enhanced, the amount and variety of creative works one can receive over the Internet. Part of combating piracy includes offering a legal alternative to it. Another important part is enforcing the rights of copyright owners. Senator

Hatch and I have been working with artists, authors, and software developers to create an environment in which copyright is protected, so that we can all enjoy American creativity, and so that copyright owners can be paid for their work.

In the coming months we will be discussing numerous responses to this problem. One critically important part of the attack on this problem will be to bring the resources and expertise of the United States Attorneys' Offices to bear on wholesale copyright infringers. For too long these attorneys have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof. In the world of copyright, a criminal charge is unusually difficult to prove because the defendant must have known that his conduct was illegal and he must have willfully engaged in the conduct anyway. For this reason prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this was an intolerable predicament.

Some steps have already been taken. The Allen-Leahy amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, on Combating Piracy of U.S. Intellectual Property in Foreign Countries, provided $2.5 million for the Department of State to assist foreign countries in combating piracy of U.S. copyrighted works. By providing equipment and training to law enforcement officers, it will help those countries that are not members of OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, to enforce intellectual property protections.

Senator Hatch and I are investigating another needed response to this problem that would give the Attorney General the authority to bring a civil action against copyright infringers. This authority would not supplant either the criminal provisions of the Copyright Act, or the remedies available to the copyright owner in a private suit. Rather, it would allow the Government to bring its resources to bear on this immense problem, and to ensure that more creative works are made available online, that those works are more affordable, and that the people who work to bring them to us are paid for their efforts.

We hope to introduce a bill on this matter soon, and we look forward to continuing our efforts to bring our country's law enforcement tools into the 21st century, just as our technologies have advanced.

Madam President, over the past week, we have all watched the images of killings, chaos, and looting in Haiti. I am sad for the Haitian people. Once again, their leaders and the international community have failed them, and the poorest and the most vulnerable are enduring the greatest suffering.

I am also deeply disappointed with the Bush administration. Over the past several years, this administration ignored the simmering problems in Haiti and hoped they would somehow resolve themselves. That approach obviously backfired. Things have spiraled out of control. We now have a full-blown crisis on our hands, accusations that the administration helped to engineer a

coup of President Aristide, and the deployment of thousands of U.S. Marines into a difficult situation. Bringing change to Haiti will now be a far more dangerous and costly undertaking. Moreover, the U.N. or some other impartial organization will have to conduct an investigation to answer nagging questions about Aristide's departure.

I recognize that many administration officials did not support President Aristide. I can understand that view, as I also lost confidence in him. There is no question that serious allegations of corruption and abuse surround President Aristide and his associates and that these issues should have been dealt with. President Aristide and other Haitian leaders should be held accountable for their actions. Having said that, we should not forget the courage that President Aristide displayed when he first spoke out against the excesses of the brutal and corrupt dictatorship of Jean-Claude Duvalier.

But this administration did not want to make the effort to help clean up the Haitian Government, build a reform-minded opposition, and restructure the economy.

Instead, the Bush administration simply disengaged. During his first year in office, President Bush reduced aid to Haiti by about 25 percent. Concerned with the growing problems in Haiti, Senator Dodd and I sent a letter to USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios in February 2002, urging an overhaul of our foreign aid program to Haiti. The response to our letter was essentially: ``Thanks for writing. We have a limited budget, but we will remain `flexible' in our approach.'' The results of this flexible approach speak for themselves.

To be fair, USAID was under heady pressure to absorb activities that the State Department should have funded. USAID does not deserve the blame for an administration-wide policy failure.

During the last month, United States policy toward Haiti crystallized around the goal of getting rid of President Aristide. For all the administration's tough talk aimed at President Aristide, this White House has embraced corrupt leaders with far less democratic credentials than President Aristide when it has suited its purpose. This episode is yet another reminder of how the contradictory policies and rhetoric of this administration are damaging U.S. credibility around the world.

In some respects, President Aristide's departure begins a new chapter for Haiti. In other ways, it is not clear just how new it is. For the third time in 20 years, a Haitian leader has been forced into exile, and at least for the third time in 90 years, the U.S. military has intervened in Haiti.

What is to show for years of interventions and hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. assistance? Haiti remains one of the poorest and most corrupt countries on Earth, facing a myriad of complex problems. Removing President Aristide will not solve these entrenched problems, but it may provide a way forward.

The United States has compelling reasons to help. Haiti is just a few hundred miles away from our shores, and the social turmoil there could easily spread to the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, and elsewhere in our neighborhood. The United States has a long relationship with Haiti and many Haitian Americans live in the United States. Perhaps most importantly, we have a moral responsibility to help a nation where so many have been suffering for so long.

The United States, France, and others must work with the United Nations, the Organization of American States to help fill the power vacuum in Port-au-Prince. The international community must also come up with a substantial aid package to help the Haitian people get back on their feet.

This will be a long, slow process. If we are to succeed in meeting the challenge of recovery and rebuilding in Haiti, the United States and the international community must stay engaged. Most of all, the Haitians themselves must take responsibility, especially the religious and political leaders. But we must take care not to overlook a key group that must be involved in this process--middle-class Haitians who have left the country over the past few decades.

As Garry Pierre-Pierre, editor in chief of the Haitian Times, points out in Monday's Wall Street Journal, involving Haiti's middle class is essential. He writes:

The international community has to bring the country's

middle class not merely to the table, but back to Haiti. This

middle class has been fleeing Haiti for the U.S., where it

has consolidated itself, for the last 30 years. We should

look to that group, the Haitian diaspora, educated at the

best schools in the U.S. and Canada, to help lead the country

out of its perpetual cycle of violence and misery.

I agree with Mr. Pierre-Pierre, and believe that the administration should heed his advice.

We have missed one opportunity after another in Haiti. It is time for us to make the most of this unfortunate situation.

I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced letters in the Record.

Madam President, I proudly rise today to join my colleagues Senators Campbell, Hatch and Allard to introduce a resolution to designate May 15, 2004, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. We submit this resolution to keep alive in the memory of all Americans the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who lost their lives serving their communities.

I commend Senator Campbell for his leadership in this issue. This marks the eighth year running, I believe, that he and I have joined forces to introduce the resolution to commemorate National Peace Officers Memorial Day. As a former deputy sheriff, Senator Campbell has experienced first-hand the risks faced by law enforcement officers every day while they protect our communities. His knowledge in this area is a true asset to the U.S. people.

I also want to thank each of our Nation's brave law enforcement officers for their unwavering commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens. They are real-life heroes, too many of whom too often give the ultimate sacrifice, and they remind us of how important it is to support and respect our State and local police.

Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who guard our communities do so at great risk. Each year, 1 in 15 officers is assaulted, 1 in 46 officers is injured,and 1 in 5,255 officers is killed in the line of duty in the United States every other day. After the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, 72 peace officers died while trying to ensure that their fellow citizens in those buildings got to safety. That act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of this country.

In 2003, 146 enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 237 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction including better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved training, longer prison terms for violent offenders, and advanced emergency medical care. And, in total, more than 17,100 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice.

During the 108th Congress, we have improved the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits (PSOB) program by making law the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act (Public Law 108-182), which allows survivors of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes while participating in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activities to qualify for Federal survivor benefits. The Senate also passed the Campbell-Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act (S. 764), which will extend through FY 2007 the authorization of appropriations for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program that helps State, tribal and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. The House has yet to act on this important measure that will continue our efforts to ensure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. This week, the Senate added to the gun liability bill by a vote of 91-8 the Campbell- Leahy Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (S. 253). This measure would establish national measures of uniformity and consistency to permit trained and certified on-duty, off-duty or retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in most situations so that they may respond immediately to crimes across State and other jurisdictional lines, as well as to protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals. The support for such bills that will keep our law enforcement officers is there, but we need to do more.

We Vermonters this National Peace Officers Memorial Day will remember our brave State Police Officer, SGT Michael Johnson, who was killed last Father's Day while trying to stop a suspect leading two other State troopers on a high-speed chase. Sergeant Johnson was not even on duty, but he went out nonetheless to help his fellow troopers that Sunday afternoon after hearing their trouble on his radio. He had just deployed a set of tire spikes across the interstate when the suspect swerved to avoid the spikes and struck him. Johnson left behind a beloved wife and three children, as well as hundreds of police officers who called him ``brother.'' Words seem insufficient to acclaim the brave sacrifice of the man

who was so admired by his family, community and the Vermont State Police force.

National Peace Officers Memorial Day will provide the people of the United States with the opportunity to honor the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by our police forces. More than 15,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington to join with the families of their fallen comrades who, by their last full measure of devotion to their responsibilities and the right and security of their fellow citizens, have rendered a dedicated service to our Nation. I look forward to passage of this important resolution, a fitting tribute for this special and solemn occasion.

Mr. President, Senator Campbell and I have worked on this for some time. I serve in the Judiciary Committee where it passed nearly unanimously. Having served in law enforcement, I know what it is like.

Our bipartisan amendment will establish national standards for law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms so that they may respond immediately to crimes across State and other jurisdictional lines, as well as protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals.

I look forward to the Senate approving our bipartisan amendment today to make our communities safer and to better protect law enforcement officers and their families.