Overview

This Committee has had a relatively productive week and I hope that continues this morning and afternoon. I thank the Chairman for holding a hearing on post-conviction DNA testing, which is a significant part of the Leahy-Smith-LaHood-Delahunt Innocence Protection Act, and also the focus of a bill Senator Hatch plans to introduce. I compliment all members of the Committee who participated in that hearing on Tuesday and thank Senator Feingold for the continuing leadership he shows in these matters.

In addition, we had a good hearing in the antitrust subcommittee on the proposed merger of United and U.S. Airways. Senator DeWine and Kohl were right to move ahead promptly with a hearing on that matter, which has important implications for Vermont, upstate New York and many other jurisdictions represented on this Committee and around the country. It is obviously a matter of great interest to many members of the Committee.

Unfortunately, our judicial nominations hearing did not proceed yesterday. I remain hopeful that it will still go forward this afternoon and that another handful of nominees will be considered for vacancies in Illinois, Florida, Maine and the Ninth Circuit. I thank Senator Grassley for changing his schedule in order to be available to chair the hearing this afternoon.

This morning we have the opportunity to report some of the nominees from the nominations hearing held last month. I regret that Bonnie Campbell was not included on today’s agenda. I recall the strong endorsement of her home state Senators, both Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley. Many of us know Ms. Campbell as a former Iowa Attorney General and more recently as the head of the Violence Against Women Office at the U.S. Department of Justice. I think that she will make an outstanding judge. I will continue to work to have her reported to the Senate by this Committee so that she may be confirmed. I thank the Chairman for also including the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshal nominees on today’s agenda.

Digital Signatures Bill Conference

Yesterday the House overwhelmingly endorsed our conference report on the digital signatures legislation by a vote of 426 to 4. I signed the conference report along with Senator Hatch on behalf of the Judiciary Committee and it is my hope that all members of the Committee will support the conference report when it is considered by the Senate. I was willing to accommodate Senator Abraham’s request for a change on the wording of the effectiveness date provision so that he could also sign the conference report just before it was filed last Thursday. I know that many members of this Committee have been interested in this measure from its outset and many were instrumental in helping us pass the Leahy-Abraham substitute to S.761 by unanimous consent last November. The final conference report is not a perfect bill and not the bill any one of us might have designed. But it is a good product and one deserving of support, in my view. It is of very significant interest to our emerging economy and electronic commerce. We have worked effectively in a bipartisan and bicameral way under the leadership of Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings and Chairman Bliley and Congressman Dingell.

Violence Against Women Act

I am please to see the agenda this week includes a place for the bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act on which Senator Biden and Senator Hatch have been consulting. We have all received encouragement this week from Vice President Gore and the First Lady to move forward on this important measure and I am delighted that we can do so in a bipartisan manner.

Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act

I had asked last month, in connection with National Police Week, that the Committee take up S.2413, the bill that I introduced with Senators Campbell, Hatch, Thurmond, Kohl, Schumer and others to improve our Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act by reauthorizing the program for another 3 years, raising the annual appropriation to $50 million and guaranteeing to jurisdictions with populations less than 100,000 a fair share of these resources. The President endorsed the bill and urged action when he spoke at the National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service on the West Front of the Capitol.

I look forward to the Committee acting on this bill along with other bipartisan and consensus measures before July 4.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System Bill

Another bipartisan measure on which we ought to be able to proceed promptly is the bill that I am working on with Senator Hatch and others to authorize federal reimbursement of states for their costs in serving as the point of contact for Brady Act background checks. This would fund the federal mandate imposed by that law. I thank the Chairman for scheduling a hearing on this matter next week and hope that we can develop broadranging support for our NICS Partnership Act.

Internet Security Legislation

In addition to introducing the Internet Security Act, S.2430, I have spent some time considering amendments to S.2448. I would hope that we could develop a consensus bill from our various bills and proposals and report it to the Senate for consideration. That has been my suggestion to the Chairman and I look forward to working with him on this important area of mutual concern. I think that when we roll up our sleeves and work together, as we have on intellectual property matters and as we did on civil asset forfeiture reform, we can be successful.

Subpoenas

The Committee is continuing with its regular diet of subpoenas. The agenda lists a resolution for a subpoena to the Secretary of State for documents related to Elian Gonzalez, though I understand that we will not be asked to vote on that today. I will put in the record my seperate remarks concerning the wisdom and propriety of that subpoena.

I want to bring to the Committee’s attention a significant event that occurred this week. I have cautioned this Committee that we should not be demanding documents and testimony involving ongoing criminal matters because doing so risks that prosecutions may be compromised and political agendas will appear to take precedence over effective and fair law enforcement. Nevertheless, this Committee has approved subpoenas in a number of ongoing criminal cases, including Wen Ho Lee, Peter Lee (who remains on probation and has litigation pending), multiple campaign finance cases and investigations, and the Loral/Hughes matter.

Earlier this week, the Chairman and I as well as Chairman Grassley and Senator Toricelli received requests for documents from the defense attorney for Wen Ho Lee. He has asked for a transcript of the June 8, 1999 closed hearing with the Attorney General as well as a 65-page report on Wen Ho Lee prepared by Senator Specter’s staff and documents relating to an interview with William Lueckenhoff, the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Albuquerque office.

Senator Specter’s 65-page report contains a devastating critique of the Justice Department’s handling of this case, including references to points in the investigation when the FBI’s Albuquerque Office “concluded that the investigation should not be pursued.” (Report on the Investigation of Espionage Allegations Against Wen Ho Lee, March 8, 2000, at p. 46). This and other references in Senator Specter’s report provide important road-maps for defense counsel in his search for exculpatory material. For example, the report says that:

-“the FBI investigation was inept”(p. 2);

-“the Department of Energy was incredibly lax in failing to understand and pursue obvious evidence”(p. 14);

- “the DOE and FBI investigation was characterized by additional inexplicable lapses (p. 20); and

- “the Attorney General and the Department of Justice failed to follow the standards of the Supreme Court of the United States” (p. 26).

As I noted in my statement on the floor regarding the Wen Ho Lee matter, we should be careful about conducting a review of the Wen Ho Lee matter “in view of the pending criminal case ... to avoid any prejudice to the parties or suggest political influence on the proceedings.” (RECORD, March 7, 2000, at S1226).

Counsel for Mr. Lee notes that he is refraining at this time from requesting additional “material gathered or created by the Subcommittee.” But, we can anticipate that this defense lawyer will leave no stone unturned to do a good job for his client. One of the consequences of proceeding as this Committee has chosen, by intruding into open criminal matters, is that we are now being asked to provide assistance to those responsible for criminal defense in such a matter. Our Committee’s actions have not made the prosecutor’s job any easier in the Wen Ho Lee case. The fact that this Committee, our staffs and possibly Members may be drawn into discovery in this pending criminal matter is doubly unfortunate.