| Cryptome DVDs are offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome 12-years collection of 46,000 files from June 1996 to June 2008 (~6.7 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,000 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost.

Web | cryptome | jya.com | eyeball-series.org | cryptome.cn

22 October 1998

    [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.

                              ____________________