Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure I fully understand. What is the request?

Mr. LEAHY. I am sorry. I thought there was a request to lay aside my amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. But then my--what is the parliamentary situation with my amendment? Maybe that is the best way to ask it.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Georgia spoke to me earlier. I do not want in any way to interfere with that. I do want to accommodate him. I just wanted to make sure, also for my own schedule, where we stood. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and of course I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. LEAHY. I understand.

Mr. LEAHY. My question would be this to the majority leader: Would he agree, in his experience, that nothing would focus the attention more of those executives who have defrauded their own companies and investors than the idea that they would actually go to jail for it, and not walk off with hundreds of millions of dollars?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I very much appreciate what my good friend, the distinguished majority leader, has said. I also compliment him for his leadership on corporate accountability. Sometime ago, he asked the Chairs of the various committees with possible jurisdiction in this area to get together and craft comprehensive legislation. I recall that meeting very well. I recall the majority leader--back at the time of Enron, before WorldCom and these other business scandals came forward--expressing his concern that not only is this a blight on the business community, it is a blight on our system of doing things. He also spoke about how terrible it was for those people, not only workers who had their pensions tied up in the fortunes of the companies they are working with and are relying on for truthfulness--what they assumed is the truthfulness--of the accounting statements of those companies, but also many other people who invest, whether it is a farmer in South Dakota or a merchant in a small town in Vermont who is putting savings in and hoping this will be part of his retirement. The majority leader made it very clear to all of us that we were to set politics aside, we were to set any kind of special interests aside, and we were to bring up the best legislation possible for the people of America. That was what Senator Daschle charged us to do, and that is what I am trying to do with this amendment. We have excellent accounting reform legislation, S. 2673, crafted by Chairman Sarbanes and the Senate Banking Committee. I commend Senator Sarbanes and the other members of the Banking Committee--for their bipartisan leadership. Senator Sarbanes had people on both sides of the aisle come out with this legislation, and I am proud to cosponsor it. My amendment is to add to Senator Sarbanes' legislation, not to detract from it. As he knows, I offered to add a criminal penalty and other provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. My amendment is cosponsored by Senator McCain and the majority leader, Senators Durbin, Harkin, Cleland, Levin, Kennedy, Biden, Feingold, Miller, Edwards, Boxer, Corzine, Kerry, Schumer and Brownback. Our amendment is identical to S. 2010, the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act that was reported unanimously by both Republicans and Democrats in the Judiciary Committee on April 25. Again, following the very clear direction the distinguished majority leader gave us when he said we have to protect the people of this country, we have to make sure corporate America can do its best to help our economy, this would create tough new penalties for securities fraud and would preserve evidence of fraud to make sure there is accountability for crimes that not only cheat investors but rob the markets themselves of the public trust. The markets have stolen the public's trust. According to press reports, President Bush has changed his mind on corporate reform and may support new penalties for corporate fraud, and I welcome the President's change of heart. The Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act creates tough, new, criminal penalties for corporate fraud, and Senator Daschle and I have written to the President asking for his support. The time for watching and hand-wringing is over. We have to take action to start the slow but critical process of restoring confidence in the books of our publicly traded companies. The collapse of Enron has become a symbol of a corporate culture where greed has been inflated and accountability devalued. Unfortunately, Enron is no longer alone. Joined by Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing, Tyco, Xerox, and, most recently, WorldCom, the misrepresentations about the financial health of our Nation's largest companies have shaken confidence in our financial markets. If we do nothing to learn and apply the repeated lessons of the last months, we are only going to compound the problem. That was obviously the belief of the unanimous Judiciary Committee vote when the committee approved S. 2010. Innocent consumers, investors, and employees depend on stock investments for their children's college funds, for their retirement nest eggs, and for their savings. Every week brings news of a new financial scandal. Just look at the effect on the stock market. It has been devastating. This has repercussions not just for companies that depend on our capital markets to grow their businesses and our economy, but certainly also for the average American family. More than one in every two Americans invest in our financial markets, and they are watching what we do here. They deserve action. Those who defraud investors should be held accountable for their crimes. The Leahy-McCain amendment, the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act, is all about accountability and transparency--two bedrocks of our market.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEAHY. What is the rule on recognition? Is it not the Senator who seeks recognition first?

Mr. LEAHY. On my amendment? May I be recognized on my own amendment which is pending before the Chair? Is that correct?

Mr. LEAHY. Would the managers of the amendment include the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky? Is he one of the managers?

Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Presiding Officer has recognized, however, the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, so people understand what the Leahy- McCain amendment is, it is the Corporate and Criminal Accountability Act. It is about accountability, and it is about transparency. I think everybody--investors, corporate managers, or anybody else--will tell you that accountability and transparency are the bedrock of our economy, of our markets. If one is going to invest in a company, one wants to know what the company does and what the books say. One wants to be able to rely upon their reports. Transparency will instill confidence, and accountability helps enforce transparency and forthright financial decisions. We do not just rely on the better angels of our nature; we rely on the fact that somebody is going to be there to enforce it. We cannot stop greed, but we can stop greed from succeeding. This bipartisan amendment is going to send wrongdoers to jail and save documents from the shredder, and that sends a powerful and clear message to potential wrongdoers: Don't do it. The measure enjoys wide support. The amendment is supported by law enforcement officials, regulators, and numerous whistleblowers, and consumer protection advocates. I have letters of support from these advocates, and I will, at the end of my statement, ask consent to print them in the Record. Let me summarize some of the provisions. This bipartisan amendment has three prongs to restore accountability: punishing and preventing fraud, preserving the evidence of fraud, and protecting victims of fraud. S. 2010, as unanimously reported, accomplishes these goals in a number of ways. It is going to create a tough new Federal felony for securities fraud for a 10-year maximum penalty. The idea of 10 years in the slammer is going to focus the attention of those who are more interested in taking their money and hiding it in offshore bank accounts. As one who was a prosecutor, I was surprised to learn that unlike bank fraud, health care fraud, and even bankruptcy fraud, there is no specific Federal crime of securities fraud to protect victims of fraud related to publicly traded companies. Can you imagine, Madam President, while all this talk has been going on, it turns out there is no specific crime of securities fraud. This bill would create such a felony with a tough 10-year jail sentence. The amendment provides for a review of the existing sentencing guidelines for fraud cases and for organizational misconduct to make them tougher as well. The new crimes and enhanced criminal penalties in this bill were worked out among Senators Hatch, Schumer, and me, and unanimously supported by the Judiciary Committee, and I thank Senators Hatch and Schumer for their support. The Leahy-McCain amendment also creates two new anti-shredding penalties which set clear requirements for preserving financial audit guides and close loopholes in current anti-shredding laws. These provisions close loopholes in current laws and set a clear requirement that corporate audit documents must be saved for 5 years. We, incidentally, picked that time period because that is the statute of limitation for most Federal crimes. These provisions are crucial in preventing recurrences of what happened at Arthur Andersen. These provisions will preserve evidence that helps law enforcement officers and prosecutors focus immediately on the evidence. It takes a few minutes to warm up the shredder, but it can take years for prosecutors and victims to put together a case without key documents. The amendment protects corporate whistleblowers. Senator Grassley and I worked out these bipartisan measures in the Judiciary Committee. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his assistance and his constant leadership over the years on whistleblower rights. When sophisticated corporations set up complex fraud schemes, corporate insiders are often the only ones who can disclose what happened and why. Unfortunately, the Enron case also demonstrates the vulnerability of corporate whistleblowers to retaliation under current law. This is a memo from outside counsel to Enron management. They were afraid there might be a whistleblower. It said: You also asked that I include in this communication a summary of the possible risks associated with discharging (or constructively discharging) employees who report allegations of improper accounting practices. Then he goes on to give them the good news: Texas law does not currently protect corporate whistleblowers. The supreme court has twice declined to create a cause of action for whistleblowers who are discharged. . . . In other words, if they dare tell about corporate misdeeds, fire them, it is not going to hurt. After this high-level employee of Enron reported improper accounting practices, the Enron executives were not thinking about firing the accountants who were doing wrong; they wanted to fire the whistleblower, their own employee. Why? Because they were pocketing the money. They were getting that money out to their bank accounts as fast as they could, and they did not want anybody to say so. The bipartisan whistleblower protections are supported by the National Whistleblower Center, the Government Accountability Project, and Taxpayers Against Fraud. They call S. 2010 ``the single most effective measure possible to prevent further recurrences. . . . '' The measure lengthens the statute of limitation by extending it from the earlier of 1 year from discovery or 3 years from the fraud to 2 years from discovery or 5 years from the fraud. Senators Feinstein and Cantwell worked hard to craft a fair compromise on this provision in the Judiciary Committee. Indeed, the last two SEC Chairmen from both parties, Arthur Levitt and Richard Breeden, both agreed that the current short statute of limitations is unfair to fraud victims. Attorney General Christine Gregoire testified before the Judiciary Committee in the Enron State pension fund litigation that the current short statute has forced some States to forego claims against Enron. In Washington State alone, the short statute of limitations could cost hard-working State employees--firefighters and police officers-- nearly $50 million in lost Enron investments. Last week, Xerox announced it was restating its revenue back 5 years by $6.4 billion. Madam President, as a law student, I remember sitting in the gallery listening to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Dirksen, give his well-known speech: ``A billion here and a billion there, and soon you're talking about real money.'' Imagine a corporation claiming they made a mistake in their revenue of $6.4 billion for the past five years. The disclosures raise the specter of innocent investors who, through no fault of their own, will be barred from recouping losses. We make the debt from security law violations nondischargeable in bankruptcy. We protect fraud victims by amending the bankruptcy code to make judgments and settlements based upon security law violations nondischargeable. Corporate leaders should not be allowed to take the money, run, file bankruptcy, and keep from ever paying any securities fraud judgment. The State security regulators strongly support this change. You cannot have one set of rules which say if you steal $500 from a store, you can go to jail. But if you steal $50 million from the corporate boardroom, keep the money. That makes no sense. Everywhere I went in the State of Vermont last week, people were saying: If I committed an act, if I stole something, if I cash a bad check for $100, I run the risk of going to jail. But what do you do if you get $50 million or $100 million? You are home free. Criminal conduct deserves criminal penalties. Corporate CEOs who rob their company, who rob the pension funds of their employees, who rob the trust of the American people, are criminals. They ought to go to jail. The steel bars, maybe that will give a conscience to some of these people like Kenneth Lay and others who obviously do not have one. This gives prosecutors, the investigators, and victims the tools to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. The people who are involved in such massive criminal activity ought to pay. The American people ought to know they will have to pay. If they don't, there will be a whole lot more fraud. I ask unanimous consent to have a number of letters printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate the distinguished majority leader introducing this amendment and yielding to me. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002, a bipartisan bill that will amend judicial discipline procedures to ensure fair consideration of judicial misconduct complaints. I am pleased to have Senator Thompson as a cosponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to moving this bill through the Senate. While I am introducing legislation addressing judicial misconduct, I want to be clear that the vast majority of judges serve honorably. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I take a special responsibility for evaluating nominees to ensure they are fit to serve. Despite the scrutiny judicial nominees undergo, however, we have faced situations when judges have acted improperly. Some have even been convicted of criminal offenses. In the late 1980s, the Senate convicted three Federal judges who were impeached by the House. This bill does not alter the Congress' responsibility to impeach and convict judges where necessary, but it does refine the process--originally created by Congress in the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, by which aggrieved citizens can bring complaints that can be evaluated through an impartial review. Under the framework codified by this bill, a person with a complaint about a judge's conduct may file a written complaint with the clerk of the court of appeals for the judge's circuit. The chief judge must review the complaint and either dismiss it, if it meets certain narrow criteria, or refer it to a panel of judges from the circuit. The judge who is the subject of the complaint retains the right to present evidence and argue before the panel. The circuit council may certify the judge's misconduct of disability and request that the judge voluntarily retire, but may not order removal from office. A complainant or judge aggrieved by an action of a judicial council can petition the Judicial Conference for review. And if a complaint is dismissed, the judge who was its subject may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred during the investigation. If a judicial council determines that an Article III judge has acted in a way that might constitute grounds of impeachment, it must certify such determination to the Judicial Conference, which can in turn refer that determination to the House of Representatives. With very limited exceptions, all matters related to judicial misconduct investigations must be confidential and not disclosed by any person in any proceeding. This provision protects judges who are accused falsely of wrongdoing while also ensuring confidentiality for those with legitimate complaints. The bill also forbids judges who have been convicted of a State or Federal felony and have exhausted all available means for direct review of that conviction from hearing or deciding cases or accruing credit toward retirement benefits, unless the judicial council of the circuit determines otherwise. This measure, like many of the measures in this legislation, was recommended in 1993 by the nonpartisan National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal. Some may question whether this bill raises separation of powers concerns. It does not. This bill is narrowly tailored, as was the 1980 law that this bill amends, to ensure that Congress gives the judiciary the powers it needs to regulate itself while preserving its constitutional role in the impeachment process. The general scheme we established in 1980 has worked well, and has conformed with our constitutional principles. This bill simply seeks to improve that system where it has shown to be lacking. To give one example, experts in this area have suggested that many litigants and interested parties are unaware of the existence of these procedures--to rectify that, we create a separate chapter within title 28 of the U.S. Code to promote knowledge and use of these procedures. It also clarifies the authority of the chief judge of a circuit and the standard by which a compliant can be dismissed as frivolous, and makes explicit that complaints can be referred to a five-member panel for examination. Highly similar legislation has already been reported from the House Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate review and support this bill, and that we can make it law this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed a bill which I introduced, the Patent and Trademark Authorization Act of 2002, which was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last week without objection. I appreciate that Senators Hatch, Cantwell, Reid, Bennett and Carper joined with me in co-sponsoring this bill This bill, the Patent and Trademark Authorization Act of 2002, will send a strong message to America's innovators and inventors that the Congress intends to protect and enhance our patent system. The PTO serves a critical role in the promotion and development of commercial activity in the United States by granting patents and trademark registrations to our Nation's innovators and businesses. The costs of running the PTO are entirely paid for by fees collected by the PTO from users, individuals and companies that seek to benefit from patent and trademark protections. However, since 1992 Congress has diverted over $800 million of those fees for other government programs unrelated to the PTO. This bill sends a strong message that Congress should appropriate to the PTO a funding level equal to these fees. The reason for this is simple: the creation of intellectual property by Americans, individuals and businesses, is a massive positive driving force for our economy and is a huge plus for our trade balance with the rest of the world. In recent years, the number of patent applications has risen dramatically, and that trend is expected to continue. Our patent examiners are very overworked, and emerging areas such as biotechnology and business method patents may overwhelm the system. If fully implemented as intended, this bill can greatly assist the PTO in issuing quality patents more quickly, which means more investment, more jobs and greater productivity for American businesses. The House of Representatives has passed a bill, H.R. 2047, which contains some similar provisions but just for fiscal year 2002 regarding the authorization of appropriations. That bill, H.R. 2047, was also passed by the Senate but amended to include the text of S. 1754, as reported out of the Judiciary Committee. This will provide the Congress the greatest opportunity to get this reform on the President's desk for signature. Note that the Judiciary Committee reported out a substitute bill, with the assistance of Senator Hatch, which simply moved back some dates in S. 1754, as originally introduced. I am including a short explanation of S. 1754, as reported. This explanation also applies to the version of H.R. 2047 as passed by the Senate. Section 1 of the bill sets forth the title, ``The Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002.'' Section 2 authorizes Congress to appropriate to the PTO, in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2008, an amount equal to the fees estimated by the Secretary of Commerce to be collected in each of the next 5 fiscal years. The Secretary shall make this report to the Congress by February 15 of each such fiscal year. This bill thus sets forth the goal, strongly supported by users of the patent system, that the PTO should have a budget equal to the fees collected for each year. In recent years, the appropriations' committees have not provided annual appropriations equal to the fees collected. This bill sets forth the wishes of the committee, and now the Senate as a whole, that the PTO be funded at levels determined by the anticipated fee collections. Section 3 of the bill directs the PTO to develop, in the next three years, an electronic system for the filing and processing of all patent and trademark applications that is user friendly and that will allow the Office to process and maintain electronically the contents and history of all applications. Of the amount appropriated under section 2, section 3 authorizes Congress to appropriate not more than $50 million in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for the electronic filing system. The PTO is working on this electronic system. In section 4, the bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to annually report to the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the progress made in implementing its strategic plan. The PTO issued a short version of its ``21st Century Strategic Plan'' on June 3, 2002, which is available on their website. The bill also contains two sections which will clarify two provisions of current law and thus provide certainty and guidance to the PTO as well as inventors and businesses. Section 5 of S. 1754 expands the scope of matters that may be raised during the reexamination process to a level which had been the case for many years. In background, Congress established the patent reexamination system in 1980 for three purposes: to attempt to settle patent validity questions quickly and less expensively than litigation; to allow courts to rely on PTO expertise; and, third, to reinforce investor confidence in the certainty of patent rights by affording an opportunity to review patents of doubtful validity. This system of encouraging third parties to pursue reexamination as an efficient method of settling patent disputes is still a good idea. However, by clarifying current law this bill increases the discretion of the PTO and enhances the effectiveness of the reexamination process. It does this by permitting the use of relevant evidence that was considered by the PTO, but not necessarily cited. Thus, adding this new language to current law will help prevent the misuse of defective patents, especially those concerning business method patents. It permits a reexamination based on prior art cited by an applicant that the examiner failed to adequately consider. Thus, this change allows the PTO to correct some examiner errors that it would not otherwise be able to correct. In a sense it deals with In re Portola Packaging, 110 F.3rd 786, Fed. Cir. 1997, in a manner which should reduce the number of cases which will be handled in Federal court in a manner that fully protects the rights of interested parties, and the public interest. Thus, section 5 does not change the basic approach of current law but rather eliminates a presumption which could be wrong, allowing for mistakes to be fixed without expensive litigation. Section 6 of the bill modestly improves the usefulness of inter partes reexamination procedures by enhancing the ability of third-party requesters to participate in that process by allowing such a third party to appeal an adverse reexamine decision in Federal court or to participate in the appeal brought by the patentee. This may make inter partes reexamination a somewhat more attractive option for challenging a patent in that a third party should feel more comfortable that the courts can be accessed to rectify a mistaken reexamination decision. This section should increase the use of the reexamine system and thus decrease the number of patent matters adjudicated in Federal court. I look forward to working with the other body to assure that this bill becomes law as soon as possible. I appreciate the work of Herb Wamsley of the Intellectual Property Owners Association on this bill, and of Marla Grossman who worked with us in this effort. Also, I want to thank Mike Kirk of the American Intellectual Property Law Association for his help on these patent fee matters over the years.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the distinguished majority leader has made an excellent suggestion. I also wish to express my appreciation to him for bringing up S. Res. 292 and doing so in a bipartisan fashion. I also express my appreciation to the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee who worked so very hard to move on this resolution as quickly as they did. I appreciate the distinguished majority leader requesting that we have such a resolution. He is absolutely right. I have to assume that the Ninth Circuit will now hear this case en banc, and I have to hope the decision will not be upheld.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President. I am pleased the Senate is considering today S. 2621, a bill I introduced earlier this month with Senator Biden that is also cosponsored by Senators Hatch and Schumer. This bill is intended to clarify that an airplane is a vehicle for purposes of terrorist and other violent acts against mass transportation systems. A significant question about this point has been raised in an important criminal case and deserves our prompt attention. On June 11, 2002, a U.S. district judge in Boston dismissed one of the nine charges against Richard Reid stemming from his alleged attempt to detonate an explosive device in his shoe while onboard an international flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001. The dismissed count charged defendant Reid with violating section 1993 of title 18, United States Code, by attempting to ``wreck, set fire to, and disable a mass transportation vehicle,'' Section 1993 is a new criminal law that was added, as section 801, to the USA PATRIOT Act to punish terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against, inter alia, a ``mass transportation'' vehicle or ferry, or against a passenger or employee of a mass transportation provider. I had urged that this provision be included in the final anti-terrorism law considered by the Congress. A similar provision was originally part of S. 2783, the ``21st Century Law Enforcement and Public Safety Act,'' that I introduced in the last Congress in June, 2000 at the request of the Clinton administration. The district court rejected defendant Reid's arguments to dismiss the section 1993 charge on grounds that (1) the penalty provision does not apply to an `'attempt,'' and (2) an airplane is not engaged in ``mass transportation,'' ``Mass transportation'' is defined in section 1993 by reference to the ``the meaning given to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, U.S.C., except that the term shall include schoolbus, charter and sightseeing transportation. Section 5302(a)(7), in turn, provides the following definition: ``mass transportation'' means ``transportation by conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter or sightseeing transportation.'' The court explained that ``commercial aircraft transport large numbers of people every day'' and that the definition of ``mass transportation'' ``when read in an ordinary or natural way, encompasses aircraft of the kind at issue here,'' U.S. v. Reid, CR No. 02-10013, at p. 10, 12 (D. MA, June 11, 2002). Defendant Reid also argued that the section 1993 charge should be dismissed because an airplane is not a ``vehicle,'' The court agreed, citing the fact that the term ``vehicle'' is not defined in section 1993 and that the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 4, narrowly defines ``vehicle'' to include ``every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land.'' The emphasis in the original opinion. Notwithstanding common parlance, the district court relied on the narrow definition to conclude that an aircraft is not a ``vehicle'' within the meaning of section 1993. The new section 1993 was intended to provide broad Federal criminal jurisdiction over terrorist and violent acts against all mass transportation systems, not only bus services, but also commercial airplanes, cruise ships, railroads and other forms of transportation available for public carriage. The bill the committee reports today would add a definition of ``vehicle'' to section 1993 and clarify that an airplane is a ``vehicle'' both in common parlance and under this new criminal law to protect mass transportation systems. Specifically, the bill would define this term to mean ``any carriage or other contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land, water or through the air.'' On June 20, 2002, less than two weeks after the bill was introduced, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bill for consideration by the Senate. I urge the Senate to act promptly and pass this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Elliff, who is detailed to my committee office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the course of the proceedings today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday's Washington Post provides yet another example of why it is so urgent that we act to pass S. 1974, the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act. This bill was unanimously reported out of the Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2 months ago. Apparently an anonymous Republican Senator has operated to block Senate passage of this bill which, as I said, passed unanimously from the Judiciary Committee. Normally, I would be willing to wait for the time when some of these holds finally get dropped off, but I thought it was important for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know about this. It is troubling to me that an anonymous Republican Senator would block passage of what is a bipartisan bill, a bipartisan bill to improve the FBI, the Nation's leading counterterrorism agency, at the same time the President has sought bipartisan efforts to pass his proposed homeland security reorganization. I hope the White House will ask their fellow party members why they would hold up this legislation. I urge the Republican Member or Members with the hold on this legislation to remove the hold and allow us to discuss whatever issue on the merits they may have. The press reported yesterday that two new FBI whistleblowers have come forward and provided information which might be crucial to the FBI's antiterrorism efforts. At least one of those whistleblowers has also provided information to the staff of the Judiciary Committee that suggests that, in its rush to beef up its translation capabilities after September 11, the FBI may have relaxed both quality control and its own security standards. The Post also reports that some of the allegations made by this whistleblower have been verified, but still, even though verified, the woman who raised these concerns, who raised these legitimate security issues post-September 11, was fired by the FBI for ``disruptiveness,'' their words. Because the Department of Justice inspector general is looking into this matter, Senator Grassley and I sent a letter to his office based upon what we learned about the incident. This whistleblower makes allegations that amount to far more than just a ``he-said, she-said'' internal office dispute. Rather, her allegations raise significant security issues that should be addressed as part of the inspector general's review. The letter Senator Grassley and I sent posed specific questions we hope the inspector general will examine as part of his investigation, including whether the reaction to this woman's report is likely to chill further reporting of security breaches by FBI employees. What we are concerned about is, if you have an FBI agent who is aware of a security breach, will they be willing to come forward and tell about that, or will they fear they may be fired? It is not a good management practice for the FBI to fire the person who reports a security breach while nothing happens to the person who allegedly committed the breach. That could mean if you commit a breach, you might get away with it, but if you report it, you are out of here. That is a concern we have. That is not the way it should be. That is precisely the kind of culture Judge Webster found helped FBI Supervisory Agent Robert Hanssen to get away with spying for the Russians. He got away with that spying for 20 years. 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. FBI reform 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 possible. Even before those attacks, the Judiciary Committee's oversight hearings revealed some very serious problems at the FBI that needed strong congressional action to fix. We continue this oversight of the Department of Justice and the FBI. 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--billions of dollars--into the FBI over the last 5 years, we heard the FBI's computer systems were in dire need of modernization. In fact, most children in grade school in my State have access, many times, to better computer systems. We heard about how an FBI supervisor, Robert Hanssen, was able to sell critical secrets to the Russians, undetected for years, and he never even had a polygraph. We heard that there were no fewer than 15 different areas of security the Justice Department needed to fix at the FBI. The FBI Reform Act tackles these problems with improved accountability, improved security both inside and outside the FBI, and required planning to ensure that the FBI is prepared to deal with a multitude of challenges we are facing. As I said, it was unanimously reported by both Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. It reflects our determination to make sure the FBI is as good and strong as it can be--probably more important, as good and as strong as America needs it to be. That reform bill is a long stride toward the goal. The case reported in yesterday's Washington Post and the matters raised by Minneapolis Field Office Agent Coleen M. Rowley in her May 21, 2002 letter and subsequent testimony critiquing the handling of the Moussaoui case by FBI Headquarters personnel provide case studies for many of the precise issues that S. 1974, the FBI Reform Act, addresses and why its passage is so critical in the FBI's effort to fight terrorism. The Leahy-Grassley bill expands whistle-blower protections to ensure that FBI whistle-blowers get the same protections as other government employees. The FBI is currently exempted from the Whistleblower Protection Act, and its employees are only protected by internal Department of Justice regulations. For example, while Special Agent Rowley's letter to the FBI Director and the Inspector General is protected under these regulations, three of the five people to whom she sent her letter were Members of Congress and are not covered under the current regulations. Moreover, her testimony at the June 6 Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, and before any other committee or subcommittee of the Congress, is not protected under the current regulations. Even a report or complaint to her immediate FBI supervisors would not be protected under the current regulations. That is why the FBI Director's personal guaranty, and the Attorney General's assurances, that she would be protected against retaliations is so important. The Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act would extend whistleblower protection for FBI employees to all these disclosures. The FBI Reform Act would also put an end to statutory restrictions that contribute to the ``double standard,'' where senior management officials are not disciplined as harshly for misconduct as line agents are. Agent Rowley complained about this double standard, as have other FBI agents who have helped the Judiciary Committee craft solutions to the FBI's problems. The bill would provide expanded statutory authority for the DOJ Inspector General to investigate internal problems at the FBI and help design comprehensive, systematic solutions. It would create the Career Security Officer Program that Judge Webster and FBI officials have endorsed to prevent security breaches. These are not partisan provisions. The FBI Reform Act is the result of bipartisan oversight hearings which the Judiciary Committee has conducted over the last year. It was reported out of Committee unanimously. Now, when it reaches the Senate floor, it is being blocked anonymously. The future of the FBI is too important for politics. Too many Americans depend on it for their safety. On June 7, 2002, I delivered a statement that highlighted Republican holds on four important bipartisan pieces of legislation, including important anti-terrorism legislation aimed at curbing terrorist bombings. Less than a week later, the United States Embassy in Karachi, Pakistan was bombed. The next morning, the Senate passed my bill, S. 1770, to deal with that issue. I now appeal to the Republican Senator or Senators blocking the FBI Reform Act to remove your hold so that we may pass this bill. The American people deserve action, not politics as usual. Senator Grassley and I would never be seen as ideological soulmates, but we are joined together in wanting to improve this aspect of the FBI, and we have had key Republicans and key Democrats join us. Let the bill go forward. The American people deserve this action, not politics as usual. I ask unanimous consent that yesterday's Washington Post article and the letter I sent with Senator Grassley to the Justice Department inspector general be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments--I withdraw that. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for no more than 3 minutes on the Leahy-Hatch amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. What is the parliamentary situation?