Statements on the Conference Report for the DOJ Authorization Legislation
Final Passage of the Conference Report on H.R. 2215 21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act
October 3, 2002
148
Cong. Rec. S11063 (daily ed. November 14, 2002)
Mr. President,
I thank the Senate for voting today to end debate and to pass the bipartisan
21st Century Department of Justice Authorization Act conference report. I
commend the Majority Leader for bringing this important legislation the floor
and filing cloture in order for the Senate to take final action on the
conference report. I regret that consideration and a vote on final passage on
this important measure was delayed, but I thank the overwhelming majority of my
colleagues for supporting cloture and passage of the conference report.
This measure was passed by the House, by a vote of 400 to 4, last Thursday.
All Democrats were prepared to pass the conference report that same day last
week and any day this week. Given the Republicans’ objection to proceed to a
vote and given the refusal to agree to a time agreement, the Majority Leader was
required to file cloture. I am glad that the filibuster is over. This
legislation is truly bipartisan. It passed the House 400 to 4. The conference
report was signed by every conferee, Republican or Democrat, including Senator
Hatch and Representatives Sensenbrenner, Hyde, and Lamar Smith.
Senators
from both sides of the aisle spoke in favor of the legislation. In particular, I
thank Senator Hutchison for coming to the floor on Tuesday to support this
conference report. Senator Hutchison has spoken to me many times about the need
for more judgeships along the Texas border with Mexico to handle immigration and
criminal cases. The conference report includes three new judgeships in the
conference report for Texas, one more than was included in the bill reported to
the Senate by the Senate Judiciary Committee and passed by the Senate last
December.
I thank Senator Sessions for his statements on Tuesday and
today in support of this bipartisan conference report. Although he opposes
Senator Hatch’s legislation regarding automobile dealer arbitration, which
enjoys more than 60 Senate cosponsors and 200 House cosponsors and was included
in the conference report, Senator Sessions is supporting this conference report
because it will improve the Department of Justice and support local law
enforcement agencies across the nation. I appreciate Senator Sessions’ work on
the provisions in the conference report on the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences
Improvement Grants and the Centers for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama and
other States. Senator Brownback also spoke in favor of certain immigration
provisions in this bill that he worked on with Senator Kennedy, the Chairman of
the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. In particular, the
conference report includes language sought by Senators Conrad and Brownback to
reauthorize the program allowing foreign doctors educated in the United States
to remain here if they will practice in underserved communities. This is a
crucial provision to ensure that residents in some of our most rural states
receive adequate medical care. The conference report also contains another
important immigration provision to permit H-1B aliens who have labor
certification applications caught in lengthy agency backlogs to extend their
status beyond the sixth year limitation or, if they have already exceeded such
limitation, to have a new H-1B petition approved so they can apply for an H-1B
visa to return from abroad or otherwise re-obtain H-1B status. Either a labor
certification application or a petition must be filed at least 365 days prior to
the end of the 6th year in order for the alien to be eligible under this
section. The slight modification to existing law made by this section is
necessary to avoid the disruption of important projects caused by the sudden
loss of valued employees. At a time when our economy is weak, this provision is
intended to help. I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Brownback for their work
on this provision and their contributions to the conference report.
I
thank Senator Feinstein for her excellent speech earlier this week in support of
this conference report. Senator Feinstein has been a tireless advocate for the
needs of California, including the needs of the federal judiciary along the
southern border. She has led the effort to increase judicial and law enforcement
resources along our southern border. I am proud to have served as the chair of
the House-Senate conference committee that unanimously reported a bill that
includes five judgeships for the Southern District of California. Long overdue
relief for the Southern District of California could be on the way once this
conference report is adopted.
Senator Biden also contributed a great deal
to this conference report. He has fought doggedly to authorize a new Violence
Against Women Office at the Justice Department, and his efforts have borne fruit
in this legislation. He has also been one of the Senate’s best advocates for
reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which we do
here. In addition, he was a cosponsor of the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention,
and Treatment Act, and we have included many provisions from that bill in this
conference report.
I also would like to thank Senator Durbin for
statements on the Senate floor and his dedicated efforts to authorize a new
Violence Against Women Office, to expand the number of Boys and Girls Clubs in
our nation, and to create new judgeships in Illinois. Senator Kohl was a
tremendous help in our efforts to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, especially Title V of that Act, which provides for
crucial prevention programs for our nation’s youth. Senator Carnahan deserves
the credit for the inclusion of the Law Enforcement Tribute Act in this
conference report. That provision provides Federal assistance for local
communities seeking to honor fallen law enforcement officers. Without her
tireless work, we would not have been able to include that provision in this
conference report.
For his part, Senator Feingold was able to include
his and Senator Hatch’s Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness
Act in this conference report. That bill will ensure that auto dealers will have
a level playing field in their disputes with the auto manufacturers.
Finally, I also thank Senator Reid for his helpful comments and support
throughout the debate on the legislation. Of course, our bipartisanship is
evidenced by our including authorization for additional judgeships not only in
California but also in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, North Carolina,
Illinois and Florida. I have tried to improve on the record we inherited.
In the six and one-half years that they controlled the Senate, the
Republican majority was willing to add only eight judgeships to be appointed by
a Democratic President, and most of those were in Texas and Arizona, States with
two Republican Senators. We have, on the other hand, proceeded at our earliest
opportunity to increase federal judgeships by 20, including in the border States
where they are most needed, well aware these positions will filled with
appointments by a Republican President who has shown little interest in working
with Democrats in the Senate. These include a number of jurisdictions with
Republican Senators.
I also commend the senior Senator from California
for her leadership on the “James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act,” the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program reauthorization, and the many anti-drug
abuse provisions included in this conference report.
She spoke eloquently on
the floor of the Senate regarding many of the important provisions she has
championed in this process. This conference report will strengthen our Justice
Department and the FBI, increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks,
prevent crime and drug abuse, improve our intellectual property and antitrust
laws, strengthen and protect our judiciary, and offer our children a safe place
to go after school. This conference report is the product of years of bipartisan
work. By my count, the conference report includes significant portions of at
least 25 legislative initiatives. This legislation is neither complicated nor
controversial. It passed the House overwhelmingly and in short order with a
strong bipartisan vote.
I thank my colleagues again for supporting the
cloture motion and final passage of this conference report so that all of this
bipartisan work and all the good that this legislation will do, will reach the
President’s desk. I particularly want to thank Senator Hatch, who worked very
hard to help construct a good, fair and balanced conference report as did all of
the conferees. Likewise, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Representative Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee for working with us to
conclude this conference report successfully.
The staffs of these
Members must also be thanked for working through the summer and over the last
month to bring all the pieces of the conference report together into a winning
package. In particular, the House Judiciary Committee staff has been enormously
helpful, including Phil Kiko, Will Moschella, Blaine Merritt, Perry Apelbaum,
Ted Kalo, Sampak Garg, Bobby Vassar, and Alec French. I would also like to thank
the staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee, including Bob Sweet
and Denise Forte. The Senate Judiciary Committee staff has shown its outstanding
professionalism and I want to thank Bruce Cohen, Beryl Howell, Ed Pagano, Tim
Lynch, Jessica Berry, Robyn Schmidek and Phil Toomajian, Makan Delrahim, Leah
Belaire, Michael Volkov, Melody Barnes, Esther Olavarria, Robert Toone, Neil
MacBride, and Louisa Terrell.
I appreciate that not all Members were or
could be conferees and participate in the conference, but after a full
opportunity to study the conference report passed last week in the House by a
vote of 400 to 4, I hope that even those Members who raised objection will
conclude that on the whole this is a good, solid piece of legislation. Although
the debate is over, I want to address the objections raised by a few Members to
this legislation. I thank these Members for coming to the floor to discuss their
views and concerns, and want to show them the respect they deserve by responding
to those objections. I should note that even in posing an objection to and
delaying passage of the conference report -- as is their rights as Senators --
these Members acknowledged that there were parts of this bill they liked or may
like upon review. Contrary to those who may argue that this legislation is not a
priority, it is. Congress has not authorized the Department of Justice in more
than two decades. While the Justice Department would certainly continue to exist
if we were to fail to reauthorize it, that is not an excuse for shirking our
responsibility now. I know that Senator Hatch and Representatives Sensenbrenner
and Conyers share my view. It is long past time for the Judiciary Committees of
the House and Senate -- and the Congress as a whole -- to restore their proper
oversight role over the Department of Justice.
Through Republican and
Democratic administrations, we have allowed the Department of Justice to escape
its accountability to the Senate and House of Representatives and through them
to the American people. Congress, the people’s representative, has a strong
institutional interest in restoring that accountability. The House has
recognized this, and has done its job. I am glad that we have done ours. I agree
with those Members who say that we need to give anti-terrorism priority, but not
lose sight of the other important missions of the Department of Justice. The
conference report takes such a balanced approach. Those critics who say that
there is nothing new in this legislation to fight terrorism, have missed some
important provisions in the legislation as well as my floor statements over the
past week outlining what the conference report contains to help in the
anti-terrorism effort.
Let me repeat the highlights of what the
conference report does on this important problem. The conference report
fortifies our border security by authorizing over $20 billion for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to immigration,
naturalization, and alien registration. It also authorizes funding for Centers
for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Nevada,
Vermont and Pennsylvania, and adds additional uses for grants from the Office of
Domestic Preparedness to support State and local law enforcement agencies. These
provisions have strong bipartisan support. I thank Senator Sessions, Senator
Shelby and Senator Specter for supporting cloture on the conference report and
for final passage.
Another measure in the bill would correct a glitch in a
law that helps prosecutors combat the international financing of terrorism. I
worked closely with the White House to pass the original provision to bring the
United States into compliance with a treaty that bans terrorist financing, but
without this technical, non-controversial change, the provision may not be
usable. This law is vital in stopping the flow of money to terrorists. Worse
yet, at a time when the President is going before the U.N. emphasizing that our
enemies are not complying with international law, by blocking this minor fix, we
leave ourselves open to a charge that we are not complying with an
anti-terrorism treaty.
I agree with other Members that we should do more
to help the FBI Director in transforming the FBI from a crime fighting to a
terrorism prevention agency and to help the FBI overcome its information
technology, management and other problems to be the best that it can be. The
Judiciary Committee reported unanimously the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act, S.
1974, over six months ago to reach those goals, but this legislation has been
blocked by an anonymous hold from moving forward. This conference report
contains parts of that bipartisan legislation, but not the whole bill, which
continues to this day to be blocked to this day. Since the attacks of September
11 and the anthrax attacks last fall, we have relied on the FBI to detect and
prevent acts of catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American
people and the institutions of our country. Reform and improvement at the FBI
was already important, but the terrorist attacks suffered by this country last
year have imposed even greater urgency on improving the FBI. The Bureau is our
front line of domestic defense against terrorists. It needs to be as great as it
can.
Even before those attacks, the Judiciary Committee’s oversight
hearings revealed serious problems at the FBI that needed strong congressional
action to fix. We heard about a double standard in evaluations and discipline.
We heard about record and information management problems and communications
breakdowns between field offices and Headquarters that led to the belated
production of documents in the Oklahoma City bombing case. Despite the fact that
we have poured money into the FBI over the last five years, we heard that the
FBI’s computer systems were in dire need of modernization. We heard about how an
FBI supervisor, Robert Hanssen, was able to sell critical secrets to the
Russians undetected for years without ever getting a polygraph. We heard that
there were no fewer than 15 different areas of security at the FBI that needed
fixing.
The FBI Reform Act tackles these problems with improved
accountability, improved security both inside and outside the FBI, and required
planning to ensure the FBI is prepared to deal with the multitude of challenges
we are facing. We are all indebted to Senator Grassley for his leadership in the
area. Working with Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee
we unanimously reported the FBI Reform Act more than six months ago only to be
stymied in our bipartisan efforts by an anonymous Republican hold.
The
conference report does not contain all of the important provisions in the FBI
Reform Act that Senator Grassley and I, and the other members of the Judiciary
Committee, agreed were needed, but it does contain parts of that other bill.
Among the items that are, unfortunately, not in the conference report and are
being blocked from passing in the stand-alone FBI Reform bill by an anonymous
Republican hold are the following:
- Title III of the FBI Reform bill that would institute a career security officer program, which senior FBI officials have testified before our Committee would be very helpful;
- • Title IV of the FBI Reform bill outlining the requirements for a polygraph program along the lines of what the Webster Commission recommended;
- Title VII of the FBI Reform bill that takes important steps to fix some of the double standard problems and support the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which FBI Ethics and OPR agents say is very important; and
- Title VIII to push along implementation of secure communications networks to help facilitate FISA processing between Main Justice and the FBI. These hard-working agents and prosecutors have to hand-carry top secret FISA documents between their offices because they still lack send secure e-mail systems.
The FBI Reform bill would help fix may of these problems and I would hope we
would be able to pass all of the FBI Reform Act before the end of this Congress.
These should not be controversial provisions and are designed to help the FBI.
During the debate on this conference report, some Members complained it included
provisions that were not contained in either the Senate or House bills. Now,
each of the proposals we have included are directly related to improving the
administration of justice in the United States. We were asked to include many of
them by Republican members of the House and Senate. Let me give you some
examples. The conference report reauthorizes the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program, which President Bush has sought to eliminate. On March 4 of this year,
Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein sent me a letter asking me to include an
authorization for SCAAP - which was not authorized in either the House- or
Senate-passed bill - in the conference report. That proposal had been considered
and reported by the Judiciary Committee but a Republican hold has stopped Senate
consideration and passage. I agreed with Senator Kyl that we should authorize
SCAAP. I still believe that it is the right thing to do. In addition to
including the reauthorization of SCAAP, the conferees also authorized an
additional judge for Arizona. Members have been arguing for years that their
States need more judges. We took those arguments seriously, and added another
new judge for Arizona on top of the two that were added in 1998 and the third
that was added in 2000. As I said before, we have added 20 additional judicial
positions in this conference report. Some have been critical of the conference
report’s authorization of funding for DEA police training in South and Central
Asia, and for the United States-Thailand drug prosecutor exchange program. I
believe that both of these are worthy programs that deserve the Senate’s
support.
I have listened to President Bush and others in his
Administration and in Congress argue that terrorist organizations in Asia,
including Al Qaeda, have repeatedly used drug proceeds to fund their operations.
The conferees wanted to do whatever we could to break the link between
drug trafficking and terror, and we would all greatly appreciate the Senate’s
assistance in that effort.
Beyond the relationship between drug
trafficking and terrorism, the production of drugs in Asia has a tremendous
impact on America. For example, more than a quarter of the heroin that is
plaguing the northeastern United States, including my State of Vermont, comes
from Southeast Asia. Many of the governments in that region want to work with
the United States to reduce the production of drugs, and these programs will
help. It is beyond me why any Senator would oppose them. Some have complained
that the conference report demands too many reports from the Department of
Justice and that this would interfere with the Department’s ongoing
counterterrorism efforts. It is true that our legislation requires a number of
reports, as part of our oversight obligations over the Department of Justice. I
assure the Senate, however, that if the Department of Justice comes to the House
and Senate Judiciary Committees and makes a convincing case that any reporting
requirement in this legislation will hinder our national security, we will work
out a reasonable accommodation.
I think, however, that such a turn of
events is exceedingly unlikely, as no one at the Department has mentioned any
such concerns. Some Members have complained that the conference report includes
pieces of legislation that had not received Committee consideration. Let me deal
with some of the specific proposals that have been cited.
- The Law Enforcement Tribute Act was mentioned as a provision not considered by the Judiciary Committee, but this is incorrect. In reality, the Committee reported that bill favorably on May 16. Its passage has been blocked by an anonymous Republican hold.
- Complaints have been made about inclusion of the motor vehicle franchise
dispute resolution provision in the conference report for bypassing the
Committee. But, again, that is incorrect.
The Judiciary Committee fully considered this proposal and reported Senator Hatch’s Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act last October 31. It has been stalled from the Senate floor by anonymous Republican holds.
- A section allowing FBI danger pay was cited as a proposal that bypassed Committee consideration, but, again, the Judiciary Committee did consider this proposal as part of the original DOJ Authorization bill, S.1319.
- Some have complained that the Federal Judiciary Protection Act, which is included in the conference report, had not come before the Committee, but on the contrary, this legislation , S.1099, was passed the Judiciary Committee and the Senate by unanimous consent last year and in the 106th Congress, as well.
- A complaint was raised on the floor about a provisions on the U.S. Parole Commission being included in the conference report. That was included because the Bush Administration included it in its budget request.
- A complaint was also raised about the conference report’s provision establishing the FBI police to provide protection for the FBI buildings and personnel in this time of heightened concerns about terrorist attacks. Contrary to the critics, this proposal was considered by the Judiciary Committee as part of the FBI Reform Act, S.1974, which was reported unanimously on a bipartisan basis but has been blocked by an anonymous hold.
- Similarly, a complaint was made on the floor about bypassing the Committee with the provision in the conference report for the FBI to tell the Congress about how the FBI is updating its obsolete computer systems. Again, this is incorrect. This provision was included in the FBI Reform Act, S.1974, which was considered by the Judiciary Committee and unanimously reported without objection.
- Some critics have complained that the conference report includes intellectual property provisions that have passed neither the House or the Senate. It is not for lack of trying to pass these provisions through the Senate, but anonymous Republican holds have held up for months passage of the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, S. 407. This legislation has passed the House on three separate times in three consecutive Congresses. Let us get it passed now in the conference report.
- The conference report also contains another intellectual property matter, the Hatch-Leahy TEACH Act, to help distance learning. Contrary to the critics’ statements, this passed the Senate in June, 2001.
- The Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act, S. 320, contained in this conference report, was passed by the Senate at the beginning of this Congress, in February, 2001. It is time to get this done. The criticism made on the floor that the juvenile justice provisions in the conference report never passed the House or Senate is simply wrong. The conference report contains juvenile justice provisions passed by the House in September and October of last year, in H.R. 863 and H.R. 1900. The criticism that the conference report contains criminal justice improvements that were passed by neither the House or the Senate glosses over two important points: First, that many of the provisions were indeed passed by the House, and, second, that others have been blocked from Senate consideration and passage by anonymous Republican holds. Let me give you some examples.
- The conference report contains the Judicial Improvements Act, S. 2713 and HR 3892, that passed the House in July, 2002, but consideration by the Senate was blocked after the Senate bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee.
- The Antitrust Technical Corrections bills, H.R. 809, had the same fate. After being passed by the House in March, 2001, and reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, consideration was blocked in the Senate.
CONCLUSION. This conference report is a comprehensive attempt to ensure the administration of justice in our nation. It is not everything I would like or that any individual Member of Congress might have authored.
It is a conference report, a consensus document, a product of the give and take with the House that is our legislative process. It will strengthen our Justice Department and the FBI, increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks, prevent crime and drug abuse, improve our intellectual property and antitrust laws, strengthen and protect our judiciary, and offer our children a safe place to go after school. The conference report merits the support of the United States Senate to help the Justice Department and the American people.
####
Statement of Representative Lamar SmithFinal Passage of the Conference Report on H.R. 2215
21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act
September 26,
2002
148 Cong. Rec. H6745 (daily ed. September 26,
2002)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time. This
legislation contains several bills originated by the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism and Homeland Security. The Juvenile Offender Accountability Act, the
Law Enforcement Tribute Act, and the Body Armor Act will help make America
safer. Additionally, this legislation increases penalties for threatening
Federal judges and other Federal officials, and for threatening witnesses,
victims and informants. An immigration provision I sponsored benefits the
high-tech sector. It allows high-tech workers with H1–B visas who apply for an
extension beyond their normal 6 years to extend their stay in the U.S. while
their application is pending. This legislation provides for three additional
judgeships in Texas, two permanent district judges in the western district and
one temporary district judge in the eastern district. Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to support this conference report. Mr. Speaker, Section 11030 A of
the conference report will permit H–1B aliens who have labor certification
applications caught in lengthy agency backlogs to extend their status beyond the
6th year limitation or, if they have already exceeded such limitation, to have a
new H–1B petition approved so they can apply for an H–1B visa to return from
abroad or otherwise re-obtain H–1B status. Either a labor certification
application or a petition must be filed at least 365 days prior to the end of
the 6th year in order for the alien to be eligible under this section. The
slight modification to existing law made by this section is necessary to avoid
the disruption of important projects caused by the sudden loss of valued
employees. This corrects a problem created in the American Competitiveness in
the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 106–313)(AC21). The provision, as it was
originally written, allowed for extensions of H–1B status beyond the usual 6
years, but required that a labor certification be filed more than 365 days
before the end of the 6th year and that an immigrant petition, the next step in
the long line to permanent residency, be filed before the end of the 6 year as
well. When it passed AC 21, Congress intended to protect foreign nationals and
the companies who sponsor them from the inequities of government bureaucracy
inefficiency. This specific provision was put in place to recognize the lengthy
delays at INS in adjudicating petitions, rather than DOL. But since that time,
DOL has slowed down its own processing, and the provision as it was originally
written has become useless for many otherwise qualified applicants. This
correction allows for those in H–1B status to get extensions beyond the six
years when a labor certification was filed before the end of the fifth year,
without regard to the ability to file an immigrant petition within the next
year. The conferees intends that those who are about the exceed their six years
in H–1B status should not be subject to the additional requirement of having to
file the immigrant petition by the end of the sixth year, which is simply
impossible when DOL has not finished its part in the process. This recognizes
that these individuals are already well-valued by their companies, have
significant ties to the U.S. and whose employers have to prove that they are not
taking jobs from U.S. workers. It also is meant to permit those who have
exceeded their six year limitation to return to H–1B status. The conferees
intend for this provision to allow those who already exceeded the 6-year
limitation to have a new H–1B petition approved and obtain a visa to return from
abroad or otherwise re-obtain H–1B status. In addition, the compromise reached
with the Senate on Title IV of Division B of this legislation relating to the
Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) gives the Attorney General discretion about
where to place the VAWO in the organizational structure and chain of command of
the Department of Justice as did the version contained in the House passed
bill.
###