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.

                          ____________________