22 October 1998 Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: October 21, 1998 (Senate)] [Page S12852-S12859] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr21oc98-157] PASSAGE OF CERTAIN ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as this Congress draws to a close, much has been and will be said about what has and has not been accomplished. There is no getting away from the fact that Congress has dropped the ball on too many issues of vital importance to the American people. I need only mention campaign finance reform, a patients' bill of rights, and the failure to pass tough legislation on youth smoking. I have spoken often about the failure of [[Page S12853]] this Congress to live up to its constitutional advice and consent responsibilities with respect to nominations. In addition, this is the first year since enactment of the Congressional Budget Act that Congress has failed to pass a budget. There is much about the record of the 105th Congress with which I have been disappointed and with which the American people should find fault. In the area of criminal justice, I particularly regret Congress' failure to pass balanced juvenile crime legislation, the Democratic crime bills, S. 15 and S. 2484, or comprehensive legislation on behalf of crime victims. At the same time, I would like to highlight those important measures that we have been able to pass. The Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grant Act, The Care for Police Survivors Act and The Public Safety Officer Educational Assistance Act These three bills, which I cosponsored, became law this year. Together these measures make a significant package of legislation to benefit the families of those who serve in law enforcement. This past May, I had the privilege of speaking during National Police Week and the annual memorial activities for law enforcement officers and called for Congress to pass this legislation. We were able to complete action earlier this year on the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, which I introduced with Senator Hatch and Senator Campbell last January. Our bipartisan legislation is intended to save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by helping State and local law enforcement agencies provide their officers with body armor. Congress should do all that it can to protect our law enforcement officers. Far too many police officers are needlessly killed each year while serving to protect our citizens. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more than 40 percent of the 1,182 officers killed by a firearm in the line of duty since 1980 could have been saved if they had been wearing body armor. Indeed, the FBI estimates that the risk of fatality to officers while not wearing body armor is 14 times higher than for officers wearing it. Unfortunately, far too many state and local law enforcement agencies cannot afford to provide every officer in their jurisdictions with the protection of body armor. In fact, the Department of Justice estimates that approximately 150,000 State and local law enforcement officers, nearly 25 percent, are not issued body armor. A recent incident along the Vermont and New Hampshire border underscores the need for the quick passage of this legislation to provide maximum protection to those who protect us. On August 19, 1997, Federal, State and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New Hampshire had cornered Carl Drega, after hours of hot pursuit. This madman had just shot to death two New Hampshire state troopers and two other victims earlier in the day. In a massive exchange of gunfire with the authorities, Drega lost his life. During that shootout, all Federal law enforcement officers wore bulletproof vests, while some state and local officers did not. For example, Federal Border Patrol Officer John Pfeifer, a Vermonter, was seriously wounded in the incident. If it was not for his bulletproof vest, I would have been attending Officer Pfeifer's wake instead of visiting him, and meeting his wife and young daughter in the hospital a few days later. The two New Hampshire state troopers who were killed by Carl Drega were not so lucky. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. Protective vests might not have been able to save the lives of those courageous officers because of the high-powered assault weapons used by this madman. But the tragedy underscores the point that all of our law enforcement officers, whether Federal, state or local, deserve the protection of a bulletproof vest. I am relieved that Officer John Pfeifer is doing well and is back on duty. We all grieve for the two New Hampshire officers who were killed. With that and lesser-known incidents as constant reminders, I will continue to do all I can to help prevent loss of life among our law enforcement officers. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act creates a new partnership between the Federal Government and State and local law enforcement agencies to help save the lives of police officers by providing the resources for each and every law enforcement officer to have a bulletproof vest. Our bipartisan law created a $25 million matching grant program within the Department of Justice dedicated to helping State and local law enforcement agencies purchase body armor. I am proud to have been able to work with the Appropriations Committees to fund these grants this coming year. I was also glad that Congress passed the Care for Police Survivors Act, a measure I cosponsored with Senators Hatch. This bill authorizes additional counseling services under the Public Safety Officers Benefits program for families of law enforcement officers harmed in the line of duty. I am proud to have cosponsored the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 1996 and the extension of those educational benefits to the families of State and local public safety officials who die or are disabled in the line of duty with passage of the Public Safety Officers Educational Benefits Assistance Act this year. I would have preferred to send the President the original text of our legislation since it provided full assistance to these families, but the House of Representatives decided to impose a sliding scale means test to our bill. I am glad that we were finally able to pass some educational benefits this year. Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act I was delighted to join with Senator DeWine during National Crime Victims Rights Week in April to introduce S. 1976, The Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act. I welcomed the positive response and broad support that our bill received, including the active support of more than 50 groups, including the National Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the National Center for Hearing Disabilities, the American Association on Health and Disability, and many others. This Act, which was finally approved by the House in September, directs the Department of Justice to conduct research that will increase public awareness of the victimization of individuals with developmental disabilities and understanding of the nature and extent of such crimes. In addition, the Department must examine the means by which States may establish and maintain a database on the incidence of crime against individuals with disabilities. The need for this research is abundantly clear. Studies conducted abroad have found that individuals with disabilities are four to 10 times more likely to be a victim than individuals without disabilities. One Canadian study found that 67 percent of women with disabilities were physically or sexually assaulted as children. My own involvement with crime victims rights began more than three decades ago when I served as State's Attorney for Chittenden County, Vermont, and witnessed first-hand the devastation of crime. I have worked ever since to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the rights and dignity of victims of crime and domestic violence, rather than presents additional ordeals for those already victimized. This bill deals with a group of victims that we should not ignore. Over the last 20 years we have made strides in recognizing crime victims' rights and providing much needed assistance. I am proud to have played a role in passage of the Victims and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, the Victims of Terrorism Act of 1996, and the Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997. This bill is another step to assure recognition of the rights of, and assistance for, victims of crime. We could have done more. I regret that we were unable to achieve passage of the Crime Victims Assistance Act, S.1081, which I introduced last July with Senator Kennedy. This bill would provide crime victims with a comprehensive Bill of Rights: an enhanced right to be heard on the issue of pretrial detention and plea bargains, an enhanced right to a speedy trial and to [[Page S12854]] be present in the courtroom throughout a trial, an enhanced right to be heard on probation revocation and to give a statement at sentencing, and the right to be notified of a defendant's escape or release from prison. The Crime Victims Assistance Act would also strengthen victims' services by increasing Federal victim assistance personnel, enhancing training for State and local law enforcement and Officers of the Court, and establishing an ombudsman program for crime victims. Identification Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act I am pleased that we passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, in the form I developed with Senator Kyl as the Kyl- Leahy substitute to S.512. This bill penalizes the theft of personal identification information that results in harm to the person whose identification is stolen and then used for false credit cards, fraudulent loans or for other illegal purposes. It also sets up a ``clearinghouse'' at the Federal Trade Commission to keep track of consumer complaints of identity theft and provide information to victims of this crime on how to deal with its aftermath. Protecting the privacy of our personal information is a challenge, especially in this information age. Every time we obtain or use a credit card, place a toll-free phone call, surf the Internet, get a driver's license or are featured in Who's Who, we are leaving virtual pieces of ourselves in the form of personal information, which can be used without our consent or even our knowledge. Too frequently, criminals are getting hold of this information and using the personal information of innocent individuals to carry out other crimes. Indeed, U.S. News & World Report has called identity theft ``a crime of the 90's''. The consequences for the victims of identity theft can be severe. They can have their credit ratings ruined and be unable to get credit cards, student loans, or mortgages. They can be hounded by creditors or collection agencies to repay debts they never incurred, but were obtained in their name, at their address, with their social security number or driver's license number. It can take months or even years, and agonizing effort, to clear their good names and correct their credit histories. I understand that, in some instances, victims of identity theft have even been arrested for crimes they never committed when the actual perpetrators provided law enforcement officials with assumed names. Just last week, a woman accused of stealing the identity of a Burlington, Vermont woman was arrested in another Vermont town. Apparently, she used her victim's birth certificate and marriage license to access money in her victim's bank accounts. Now, her victim is left trying to clear their credit records. Our legislation provides important remedies for such victims of identity theft. Specifically, it makes clear that these victims are entitled to restitution, including payment for any costs and attorney's fees in clearing up their credit histories and having to engage in any civil or administrative proceedings to satisfy debts, liens or other obligations resulting from a defendant's theft of their identity. In addition, the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to keep track of consumer complaints of identity theft and provide information to victims of this crime on how to deal with its aftermath. This is an important bill on an issue that has caused harm to many Americans. I am glad that Senator Kyl and I were able to join forces to craft legislation that both punishes the perpetrators of identity theft and helps the victims of this crime. Finally, an amendment added in the House, at the joint request of Senator Hatch and myself, gives the United States Judicial Conference limited authority to withhold personal and sensitive information about judicial officers and employees whose lives have been threatened. Apparently, sophisticated criminals are able to use information set forth in publicly available financial disclosure forms to collect more detailed personal information then used in carrying out threats against our judicial officers. This amendment is an important step to protect the lives of judges, and I am glad that we were able to accomplish this. The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act We were also able to pass a bill, H.R. 3494, to help protect children from sexual predators. Senator Hatch, Senator DeWine and I joined together to bring forward a bill that was both strong and sensible. The goal of H.R. 3494, and of the Hatch-Leahy-DeWine substitute, which passed both houses of Congress, is to provide stronger protections for children from those who would prey upon them. Concerns over protecting our children have only intensified in recent years with the growing popularity of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Cyberspace gives users access to a wealth of information; it connects people from around the world. But it also creates new opportunities for sexual predators and child pornographers to ply their trade. The challenge is to protect children from exploitation in cyberspace while ensuring that the vast democratic forum of the Internet remains an engine for the free exchange of ideas and information. The Hatch- Leahy-DeWine version of the bill meets this challenge. While no bill is a cure-all for the scourge of child pornography, our substitute is a useful step toward limiting the ability of cyber-pornographers and predators from harming children. The Crime Identification Technology Act Senator DeWine and I again joined forces to introduce the ``Crime Identification Technology Act,'' which was signed by the President on October 9, 1998. Our legislation authorizes comprehensive Department of Justice grants to every State for criminal justice identification, information and communications technologies and systems. I know from my experience in law enforcement in Vermont over the last 30 years that access to quality, accurate information in a timely fashion is of vital importance. As we prepare to enter the 21st Century, we must provide our State and local law enforcement officers with the resources to develop the latest technological tools and communications systems to solve and prevent crime. I believe this bill accomplishes that goal. The Crime Identification Technology Act authorizes $250 million for each of the next five years in grants to States for crime information and identification systems. The Attorney General is directed to make grants to each State to be used in conjunction with units of local government, and other States, to use information and identification technologies and systems to upgrade criminal history and criminal justice record systems. Grants made under our legislation may include programs to establish, develop, update or upgrade-- State, centralized, automated criminal history record information systems, including arrest and disposition reporting; Automated fingerprint identification systems that are compatible with the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Finger imaging, live scan and other automated systems to digitize fingerprints and to communicate prints in a manner that is compatible with systems operated by states and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Systems to facilitate full participation in the Interstate Identification Index (III); Programs and systems to facilitate full participation in the Interstate Identification Index National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact; Systems to facilitate full participation in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for firearms eligibility determinations; Integrated criminal justice information systems to manage and communicate criminal justice information among law enforcement, courts, prosecution, and corrections; Non-criminal history record information systems relevant to firearms eligibility determinations for availability and accessibility to the NICS; Court-based criminal justice information systems to promote reporting of dispositions to central state repositories and to the FBI and to promote the compatibility with, and integration of, court systems with other criminal justice information systems; Ballistics identification programs that are compatible and integrated with the ballistics programs of the National Integrated Ballistics Network (NIBN); [[Page S12855]] Information, identification and communications programs for forensic purposes; DNA programs for forensic and identification purposes; Sexual offender identification and registration systems; Domestic violence offender identification and information systems; Programs for fingerprint-supported background checks for non-criminal justice purposes including youth service employees and volunteers and other individuals in positions of trust, if authorized by Federal or State law and administered by a government agency; Criminal justice information systems with a capacity to provide statistical and research products including incident-based reporting systems and uniform crime reports; Online and other state-of-the-art communications technologies and programs; and Multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional communications systems to share routine and emergency information among Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. The future effectiveness of law enforcement depends on all levels of law enforcement agencies working together and harnessing the power of today's information age to prevent crime and catch criminals. One way to work together is for State and local law enforcement agencies to band together to create efficiencies of scale. For example, together with New Hampshire and Maine, the State of Vermont has pooled its resources to build a tri-state IAFIS system to identify fingerprints. Our bipartisan legislation would foster these partnerships by allowing groups of States to apply together for grants. Another challenge for law enforcement agencies across the country is communication difficulties between Federal, State and local law enforcement officials. In a recent report, the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice concluded that law enforcement agencies throughout the nation lack adequate communications systems to respond to crimes that cross State and local jurisdictions. A 1997 incident along the Vermont and New Hampshire border underscored this problem. During a cross border shooting spree that left four people dead including two New Hampshire State troopers, Vermont and New Hampshire officers were forced to park two police cruisers next to one another to coordinate activities between Federal, State and local law enforcement officers because the two States' police radios could not communicate with one another. The Vermont Department of Public Safety, the Vermont U.S. Attorney's Office and others have reacted to these communication problems by developing the Northern Lights proposal. This project will allow the northern borders States of Vermont, New York, New Hampshire and Maine to integrate their law enforcement communications systems to better coordinate interdiction efforts and share intelligence data seamlessly. Our legislation would provide grants for the development of integrated Federal, State and local law enforcement communications systems to foster cutting edge efforts like the Northern Lights project. In addition, our bipartisan legislation will help each of our States meet its obligations under national anti-crime initiatives. For instance, the FBI will soon bring online NCIC 2000 and IAFIS which will require states to update their criminal justice systems for the country to benefit. States are also being asked to participate in several other national programs such as sexual offender registries, national domestic violence legislation, Brady Act, and National Child Protection Act. Currently, there are no comprehensive programs to support these national crime-fighting systems. Our legislation will fill this void by helping each State meet its obligations under these Federal laws. The Crime Identification Technology Act provides a helping hand without the heavy hand of a top-down, Washington-knows-best approach. Unfortunately, some in Congress have pushed legislation mandating minute detail changes that States must make in their laws to qualify for Federal funds. Our bill rejects this approach. Instead, we provide the States with Federal support to improve their criminal justice identification, information and communication systems without prescribing new Federal mandates. Interstate Identification Index (III) Compact I am also pleased that Congress finally passed the ``National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact,'' or Federal-State Interstate Identification Index ``III'') Compact, for exchange of criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes. This Compact is the product of a decade-long effort by Federal and State law enforcement officials to establish a legal framework for the exchange of criminal history records for authorized noncriminal justice purposes, such as security clearances, employment or licensing background checks. Since 1924, the FBI has collected and maintained duplicate State and local fingerprint cards, along with arrest and disposition records. Today, the FBI has more than 200 million fingerprint cards in its system. These FBI records are accessible to authorized government entities for both criminal and authorized noncriminal justice purposes. Maintaining duplicate files at the FBI is costly and leads to inaccuracies in the criminal history records, since follow-up disposition information from the States is often incomplete. Such a huge central database of routinely incomplete criminal history records raises significant privacy concerns. In addition, the FBI releases these records for noncriminal justice purposes (as authorized by Federal law), to State agencies upon request, even if the State from which the records originated or the receiving State more narrowly restricts the dissemination of such records for noncriminal justice purposes. The Compact is an effort to get the FBI out of the business of holding a duplicate copy of every State and local criminal history record, and instead to keep those records at the State level. Once fully implemented, the FBI will only need to hold the Interstate Identification Index (III), consisting of the national fingerprint file and a pointer index to direct the requestor to the correct State records repository. The Compact would eliminate the necessity for duplicate records at the FBI for those States participating in the Compact. Eventually, when all the States become full participants in the Compact, the FBI's centralized files of state offender records will be discontinued and users of such records will obtain those records from the appropriate State's central repository (or from the FBI if the offender has a Federal record). The Compact would establish both a framework for this cooperative exchange of criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes, and create a Compact Council with representatives from the FBI and the States to monitor system operations and issue necessary rules and procedures for the integrity and accuracy of the records and compliance with privacy standards. Importantly, this Compact would not in any way expand or diminish noncriminal justice purposes for which criminal history records may be used under existing State or Federal law. Overall, I believe that the Compact should increase the accuracy, completeness and privacy protection for criminal history records. In addition, the Compact would result in important cost savings from establishing a decentralized system. Under the system envisioned by the Compact, the FBI would hold only an ``index and pointer'' to the records maintained at the originating State. The FBI would no longer have to maintain duplicate State records. Moreover, States would no longer have the burden and costs of submitting arrest fingerprints and charge/disposition data to the FBI for all arrests. Instead, the State would only have to submit to the FBI the fingerprints and textual identification data for a person's first arrest. With this system, criminal history records would be more up-to-date, or complete, because a decentralized system will keep the records closer to their point of origin in State repositories, eliminating the need for the States to keep sending updated disposition information to the FBI. To ensure further accuracy, the Compact would require requests for criminal history checks for noncriminal justice purposes to be submitted with fingerprints or some other form of positive identification, to avoid mistaken release of records. [[Page S12856]] Furthermore, under the Compact, the newly-created Council must establish procedures to require that the most current records are requested and that when a new need arises, a new record check is conducted. Significantly, the newly-created Council must establish privacy enhancing procedures to ensure that requested criminal history records are only used by authorized officials for authorized purposes. Furthermore, the Compact makes clear that only the FBI and authorized representatives from the State repository may have direct access to the FBI index. The Council must also ensure that only legally appropriate information is released and, specifically, that record entries that may not be used for noncriminal justice purposes are deleted from the response. Thus, while the Compact would require the release of arrest records to a requesting State, the Compact would also ensure that if disposition records are available that the complete record be released. Also, the Compact would require States receiving records under the Compact to ensure that the records are disseminated in compliance with the authorized uses in that State. Consequently, under the Compact, a State that receives arrest-only information would have to give effect to disposition-only policies in that State and not release that information for noncriminal justice purposes. Thus, in my view, the impact of the Compact for the privacy and accuracy of the records would be positive. I am pleased to have joined with Senators Hatch and DeWine to make a number of refinements to the Compact as transmitted by to us by the Administration. Specifically, we have worked to clarify that (1) the work of the Council includes establishing standards to protect the privacy of the records; (2) sealed criminal history records are not covered or subject to release for noncriminal justice purposes under the Compact; (3) the meetings of the Council are open to the public, and (4) the Council's decisions, rules and procedures are available for public inspection and copying and published in the Federal Register. Commissioner Walton of the Vermont Department of Public Safety supports this Compact. He hopes that passage of the Compact will encourage Vermont to become a full participant in III for both criminal and noncriminal justice purposes, so that Vermont can ``reap the benefits of cost savings and improved data quality.'' The Compact is also strongly supported by the FBI and SEARCH. We all have an interest in making sure that the criminal history records maintained by our law enforcement agencies at the local, State and Federal levels, are complete, accurate and accessible only to authorized personnel for legally authorized purposes. This Compact is a significant step in the process of achieving that goal. I know that the Justice Department, under Attorney General Reno's leadership, has made it a priority to modernize and automate criminal history records. Our legislation will continue that leadership by providing each State with the necessary resources to continue to make important efforts to bring their criminal justice systems up to date. school resource officers Congress also recently passed a provision originally introduced by Representative Mahoney of Connecticut and which we later included in S. 2484, the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998, a comprehensive anti-crime bill cosponsored by Senators Daschle, Biden, Moseley-Braun, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Reid, Bingaman, Dorgan, Murray, Dodd and Torricelli. This bill authorizes use of COPS funds for school-based partnerships between local schools and local law enforcement, and for School Resource Officers. These are career police officers with full police authority who are deployed in and around elementary schools, middle schools and high schools to identify and combat school-related crime and disorder problems. The police and the schools work together. They combat gangs and drugs, and perhaps more important, they are there to know and be known by the kids. With their training, the police officers can often spot the initial warning signs so that problems can be stopped before they even start. They can give real-life lessons to likely victims and to kids who are starting down the wrong path. And they can help in developing community justice initiatives and in training students in conflict resolution and other means of preventing crime. When local communities come up with ideas that work, we in the Congress should assist the rest of the country in putting their own programs in place. The more that we can do to head off crime at an early stage, the more money we will save, and the safer we will make our communities. This is a small but a significant step. It was not long ago that Republicans fought hard to prevent the COPS program from being adopted and when they tried to keep the President from putting 100,000 additional police officers on the street. It is a real pleasure to see them come around and join with us in expanding what has proved to be a good program that really works. International Crime and Anti-Terrorism Amendments I am pleased that the Senate passed our Improvements to International Crime and Anti-Terrorism Amendments of 1998, and I am hopeful the House will do the same today so that this bill can be signed into law this year. This bill reflects the top international law enforcement priorities of the Departments of Justice, Treasury and State. Crime and terrorism directed at Americans and American interests abroad are part of our modern reality. The bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are just the most recent reminders of how vulnerable American citizens and interests are to terrorist attacks. Not all of these attacks are with bombs. As a result of improvements in technology, criminals now can transfer funds with a push of a button, or use computers and credit card numbers to steal from American citizens and businesses from any spot on the globe. They can strike at Americans here and abroad. The playing field keeps changing, and we need to change with it. This bill does exactly that by giving our law enforcement agencies new tools to fight international crime and terrorism. I initially introduced certain provisions of this bill on April 30, 1998, in the ``Money Laundering Enforcement and Combating Drugs in Prisons Act of 1998,'' S. 2011, with Senators Daschle, Kohl, Feinstein and Cleland. Again, on July 14, 1998, I introduced with Senator Biden, on behalf of the Administration, the ``International Crime Control Act of 1998,'' S. 2303, which contains many of the provisions set forth in this bill. Virtually all of the provisions in the bill were included in another major Democratic anti-crime bill, the ``Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act,'' that I introduced last month. The International Crime and Anti-Terrorism Amendments bill provides discretionary authority for investigations and prosecutions of organized crime groups that kill or threaten violence against Americans abroad, when in the view of the Attorney General, the organized crime group was trying to further its objectives. This should not be viewed as an invitation for American law enforcement officers to start investigating organized crime around the world, but when such groups are targeting Americans abroad for physical violence and the Attorney General believes it is necessary, we must act. The bill also expands current law to criminalize murder and other serious crimes committed against state and local officials who are working abroad with Federal authorities on joint projects or operations. The penalties for murder against such state or local officials, who are acting abroad under the auspices of the Federal Government, are the same as for Federal officers, under section 1119 of title 18, United States Code, and would therefore authorize imposition of the death penalty. While I oppose the death penalty, I also oppose arbitrary distinctions in its operation, and there is no principled basis to distinguish between penalties for murder of Federal versus non-Federal officials, who are both acting under the auspices of the Federal Government. These provisions are crafted to avoid an unwarranted intrusion into foreign affairs. The authority of the Attorney [[Page S12857]] General to bring these prosecutions is limited so as not to interfere with the criminal jurisdiction of the foreign nation where the murder occurred. Thus, this authority will be exercised only in the rare circumstance in which the Attorney General believes the foreign country is not adequately addressing the crime, and where we must take action. The bill contains provisions to protect our maritime borders by providing realistic sanctions for vessels that fail to ``heave to'' or otherwise obstruct the Coast Guard. No longer will drug-runners be able to stall or resist Coast Guard commands with impunity. The provision includes additional sanctions for resisting ``heave to'' orders and for lying to law enforcement officers about a boat's destination, origin and other pertinent matters. The Coast Guard tells me this provision will be a tremendous help in protecting our shores from illegal drugs and other contraband. The bill also makes sure that drug kingpins and terrorists criminals will not be able to come and go as they please and use the United States as a marketplace or recruiting ground. It provides specific authority to exclude from entry into our country international criminals and terrorists, including those engaged in flight to avoid foreign prosecution, alien smuggling, or arms or drug trafficking under specific circumstances. While it would block such criminals, the bill is carefully crafted to ensure that the Attorney General has full authority to make exceptions for humanitarian and similar reasons. The bill has two important provisions aimed at computer crimes: it provides expanded wiretap authority, subject to court order, to cover computer crimes, and also gives us extraterritorial jurisdiction over access device fraud, such as stealing telephone credit card numbers, where the victim of the fraud is within our borders. We cannot stop international crime without international cooperation, however. This bill facilitates such cooperation by allowing our country to share the proceeds of joint forfeiture operations, to encourage participation by foreign countries. It streamlines procedures for executing MLAT requests that apply to multiple judicial districts. Furthermore, the bill addresses the essential but often overlooked role of state and local law enforcement in combating international crime, and authorizes reimbursement of state and local authorities for their cooperation in international crime cases. The bill helps our prosecutors in international crime cases by facilitating the admission of foreign records in U.S. courts. Finally, it will speed the wheels of justice by prohibiting international criminals from being credited with any time they serve abroad while they fight extradition to face charges in our country. These are important provisions that I have advocated for some time. They are helpful, solid law enforcement provisions. Working together with Senator Hatch, we were able to craft a bipartisan bill that will accomplish what all of us want, to make America a safer and more secure place. Authorization of the Department of Justice and Implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act I was pleased to work with Senator Hatch on the Hatch-Leahy substitute amendment to H.R. 3303, the Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably and that I had hoped would be enacted before the end of this Congress. The last time Congress properly authorized spending for the entire Department of Justice was in 1979. This 19-year failure to properly reauthorize the Department has forced the appropriations committees in both houses to do both jobs of reauthorizing and appropriating money for the Department. This bill reaffirms the authorizing jurisdiction and responsibility of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. I commend Senator Hatch and Congressman Hyde for working in a bipartisan manner to bring the important business of re-authorizing the Department back before the Judiciary Committees. Regular reauthorization of the Department should be part and parcel of the Committees' traditional role in overseeing the Department's activities. One of the provisions that the Hatch-Leahy substitute removed from the House-passed version of the bill relates to the compliance date and so-called ``grandfather date'' in the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), commonly called the ``digital telephony law.'' As part of H.R. 3303, the House extended the compliance date for two years and the ``grandfather date'' for almost six years, until October 2000. I have long resisted the efforts and urging of many to tamper with the provisions of CALEA. This law was carefully crafted, after months of negotiation, to balance privacy rights and interests, law enforcement needs, and the desire of business and consumers for innovation in the telecommunications industry. I have so far resisted legislative modifications not because implementation of this law has been problem-free. Far from it. Implementation of this important law has certainly been slower than any of us anticipated. For example, the Department of Justice issued its final notice of capacity in March 1998, over two years late. Capacity requirements are integrally involved with setting appropriate capability standards and building CALEA-compliant equipment. Thus, the delay in release of the final capacity notice has also delayed the ability of telecommunications carriers to achieve compliance with the capability assistance requirements. In addition to significant delays, implementation of CALEA has been fraught with controversy and debate. Currently pending before the FCC, for example, are proceedings to determine the sufficiency of an interim standard adopted in December 1997 by industry for wireline, cellular and broadband PCS carriers to comply with the four general capability assistance requirements of the law. This interim standard was developed in accordance with CALEA's direction that the telecommunications industry take the lead on figuring out technical solutions for implementing the law. Such industry standards provide ``safe harbors'' under the law. While the FBI criticizes the interim standard for failing to include certain surveillance functions (referred to as the ``punch list'' items), civil liberties groups criticize the interim standard for failing to protect privacy by including surveillance functions for location information and packet-mode call content information. We recognized in CALEA that these are complicated issues, which require intensive time and technical expertise to resolve. The law consequently authorizes the FCC to review alleged deficiencies in, or establish under certain circumstances, technical requirements or standards for compliance with the CALEA capability assistance requirements. Uncertainty over the outcome of the disputed interim standard has resulted in further delays in developing technical solutions. Indeed, because of the delays in implementation of CALEA, neither the House or the Senate provided any new direct appropriations into the Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. The Explanation of Managers for the Omnibus Appropriations bill makes clear that should funding be necessary in the upcoming fiscal year, the Attorney General is expected to spend the unobligated funds currently available in the fund. Even if the FCC were to issue its decision and settle the disputes today, compliance with the interim standard would not be achievable for some time because of the development cycle for standardized products and services after promulgation of standards. Therefore, the conferees for the Omnibus Appropriations bill urged the FCC ``to act quickly to resolve this issue.'' I join in this direction and also urge the FCC to resolve the pending petitions regarding the interim standard promptly. Should the FCC determine that the FBI is correct and that all, or substantially all, the punch list items are required to be incorporated into the compliance standard, the FBI may have won a battle but in the long run--given the potential costs associated with the punch list items--lost the proverbial war. Carriers would bear the costs of complying with those punch list items for equipment, facilities, and services [[Page S12858]] deployed or installed after January 1995, unless the cost is so high, compliance is not reasonably achievable. Then the Government would have to pay for retrofitting, subject to available appropriations and prioritization by law enforcement. Absent such Government payment, which would make compliance ``reasonably achievable,'' CALEA directs that the equipment, facilities, and services at issue will be ``deemed to be in compliance with such capability requirements.'' 47 U.S.C. 1008(b)(2)(B). I therefore strongly urge carriers to provide the FCC with all necessary cost information associated with the punch list items so that the agency is able to make determinations on whether compliance is reasonably achievable. We anticipated when we passed CALEA that debates and delays over implementation issues would occur. Congress therefore established processes at the FCC and in the courts to hear all sides, resolve differences, and grant extensions where necessary and warranted. CALEA expressly authorizes the FCC to extend the compliance date of October 1998, one of the dates extended by the House in its version of H.R. 3303. On September 11, 1998, the FCC released a decision exercising its authority and extending the CALEA compliance date until June 30, 2000. This is a few months shy of the extension approved by the House. This action shows that the FCC process we set up in CALEA to resolve problems that may arise with the law's implementation works. The agency's decision on extension of the compliance date has given me renewed confidence in its ability to carry out the responsibilities we gave the agency under CALEA. The House-passed version of H.R. 3303 also extended the ``grandfather date.'' Let me explain the significance of this date. CALEA authorizes $500 million for the Federal Government to pay telecommunications carriers for the reasonable costs of retrofitting equipment, facilities or services deployed by January 1, 1995 to comply with the capability requirements. Any such equipment not retrofitted at Government expense is deemed to be compliant, or ``grandfathered,'' until the equipment is replaced or undergoes significant upgrade in the ordinary course of business. Carriers have raised concerns that due to significant changes in the telecommunications infrastructure as well as the deployment of new equipment and services since 1995, they may be ineligible for any reimbursement under this ``grandfather'' clause. Carriers have sought an extension of the ``grandfather date'' until 2000. Before we take such a step and extend the grandfather date, we should fully consider the possible unintended consequences. The ``grandfather date'' was set at a time earlier than the compliance date in order to give telecommunications carriers every incentive to find and implement the most efficient and cost-effective solutions to ensure the requisite law enforcement access. In addition, Congress fully contemplated that at some point carriers--not the Government--would bear the costs of CALEA compliance. Setting the grandfather date at January 1995 was intended to be a privacy-enhancing mechanism by giving carriers the additional incentive to interpret the capability assistance requirements narrowly since compliance with non- grandfathered equipment or services was on their ``dime.'' Extending the grandfather date by almost six years to the year 200 may have the unintended consequence of undercutting these important policy considerations. While CALEA requires that equipment, facilities or services deployed after January 1995 comply with capability assistance standards at the carriers' expense, to ensure fairness and promote innovation, the law provides a ``relief valve.'' Specifically, carriers are authorized to petition the FCC to determine whether compliance for such non- grandfathered equipment, facilities or services is ``reasonably achievable'' or whether compliance would impose significant difficulty or expense on the carrier or users of the carrier's systems. As I noted above, if the FCC decides compliance is not reasonably achievable, under 47 U.S.C. 1008(b)(2)B), the carrier is ``deemed to be in compliance'' unless the Attorney General prioritizes its needs, evaluates the importance of the surveillance feature to laws enforcement's mission, and determines that reimbursement is justified. I appreciate the circumstances under which telecommunications carriers are seeking extension of the grandfather date and their concern over the costs of CALEA compliance for individual companies and ratepayers. As I have already noted, the cost implications of the punch list are significant in evaluating whether compliance is ``reasonably achievable,'' regardless of the specific grandfather date. Should the cost of CALEA compliance and of the punch list become excessive, I urge the industry not to assume that extension of the grandfather date is the only means to achieve a fair resolution of the costs of CALEA compliance. I look forward to a continued dialogue with the telecommunications industry and the Department of Justice to ensure that the implementation of CALEA is fair and maintains the careful balance of privacy, innovation and law enforcement interests that we intended. important crime issues not addressed Despite the passage of these important bills, we could have done better. When you look at the Democrat-supported ``Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act,'' for example, you see too much unfinished work. You see comprehensive reform of the juvenile justice system, including sensible provisions dealing with youth and guns, grants for youth violence courts and other innovative programs for youth. You see comprehensive anti-gang provisions, from stopping the ``franchising'' of youth gang to penalties for witness intimidation and the use of body armor or laser sighting devices by criminals. You see comprehensive assistance to State and local law enforcement, from more cops on the beat to improved funding to stop violence against women to funds and technology for rural areas. You see weapons against the hate crimes that shock the conscience of the Nation, against the growing problem of cargo theft, against violence and intimidation of judges and others in the law enforcement community, against involving minors in illegal drugs. You see tough money laundering provisions that recently were praised by FBI Director Freeh as excellent tools against not only the drug kingpins, but also international terrorists like Usama bin Laden, the man believed to be responsible for the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. You see an arsenal of other weapons against criminals both here and abroad. And lest we lose sight of the victims of crime, you see a Bill of Rights for the victims of crime, backed by the money, personnel and technology necessary to make those rights a reality. In the end, of the ten titles in the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act, which I proposed with a number of other Democrats, Congress managed to adopt only the title on Criminal History Records in its entirety, along with bits and pieces of others. The list of titles not adopted largely defines the work that remains for a more productive Congress. I have put these important provisions squarely on the table and stand ready, as always, to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to fine-tune them and to do as much as we can for the American people. citizens protection act While Congress failed to enact many provisions outlined in the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act that would have done much to assist the work of law enforcement officers, Congress was placing unnecessary and ill-advised obstacles in the path of effective interstate and international prosecutions, just the type of prosecution that is most difficult, most complex, and most important to the safety and welfare of the American people. This unfortunate bill, the Citizens Protection Act, H.R. 3396, was added by the House to the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill, H.R. 4276. Although its most offensive provisions have been trimmed off, a version of this bill, with a delayed effective date, is now in the Omnibus Appropriations measure at the insistence of the House Republican leadership over the protests not only of the Department of Justice, but also the President and senior Members of both parties in the Senate. As the Washington Post noted in an October 18 editorial: [[Page S12859]] One might expect that criminal justice legislation that is opposed by the president, the attorney general and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee would not be blithely slipped into the statute books. But prudence was long ago a casualty of this budget process. I hope that the next Congress will show more wisdom and turn away from such mischief to serious work on the unfinished work of the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act, and other nonpartisan, pro-law enforcement legislation. The criminal justice legislation that I have summarized represents a number of good, solid measures. Enactment of these provisions will have a real effect on the lives of Americans. Even amid the debris of a Congress that has botched so many opportunities to help the American people, I am glad to have squeezed through these significant criminal justice measures in the logjam of the last weeks of the session. Far more than satisfaction, however, I feel a determination that we in Congress can, should and must do better next time. We owe it to the people who sent us here. ____________________