Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I just ask consent to speak for a moment before we go to the Senator from Missouri without it detracting from her time. I am also delighted to see the Senator from Missouri here to offer and speak on her amendment. I want to add to what the Senator from Nevada said. He did his usual courtesy in providing for all Members on our side. The Senator from Missouri has been on the floor waiting to speak more today than has the Senator from Vermont as one of the managers. So it is only appropriate she proceed now. I commend the Senator from Missouri. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I may interrupt, I hope Senators who have amendments they want to bring down, and I hope they will because I think many of us would like to get some amendments that would be in a position to be voted on perhaps early tomorrow morning so we can start fairly quickly. As I said, we would have finished this bill last week had we not had ergonomics and other things interfering.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield the floor in a moment. I know the Senator from Texas wishes to speak, and I don't want to deny him that privilege. The Senator from New York was given a commitment by the Republican leadership to have a vote. Frankly, at the rate we are going, I don't see that commitment being fulfilled. I have been here 26 years and I have never seen an instance where the majority--and I have been here three times the majority and three times the minority--I have never seen an instance where the majority has given such a commitment that hasn't been carried out. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to make sure this will not be the first time in 26 years such a commitment was not carried out. This is a very serious matter. There are only 100 Members who represent a nation of over a quarter of a billion people; 100 Members have a special responsibility because we are a small number. One is a responsibility to always carry forth our commitment. The Senator from New York has a commitment. It should be carried out. Frankly, we are only 3 months into this Congress. On a bill as serious as this, we should not have to be debating keeping a commitment that is laid out in the Congressional Record but, rather, try to find how to get the votes and vote amendments up or down. I have amendments. I am prepared to go to vote with a 2- or 3-minute time agreement. Let's not delay on the Senate floor and then hold press conferences by the Ohio clock saying: We can't understand why this bill is taking so long; I guess we have to file cloture. The fact is, the bill could have been finished last week if people had let the votes occur.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield for the purpose of a question.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Iowa. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not have further matters. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this is an amendment to protect the identity of minor children in bankruptcy court records. My amendment permits a debtor to withhold the name of a minor child in the public records of the bankruptcy case. I submit this out of a sense of child safety. There is an unintended loophole, as the bill is written, in child safety. Sometimes bankruptcies occur when there have been a great deal of problems between parents. With that, nobody should know the name of the minor children. The closing loophole does not restrict the necessary flow of information regarding a debtor's financial records. The House of Representatives adopted a similar amendment authored by Congressman Mark Green during its debate on bankruptcy reform legislation. The amendment is a modest but important first step to protecting personal privacy and preventing criminal activity through the unnecessary disclosure of personal information in the public domain. When individuals file for bankruptcy, of course, they are required to disclose information regarding themselves and also their dependents. Most of this information is vital to ensuring the integrity of the bankruptcy process, but if you look at these forms, you realize a lot of this information is very personal, very detailed. Indeed, bankruptcy records contain all kinds of highly sensitive personal, financial, and medical information. I didn't realize how much information was in there while preparing for the bill. I was amazed at the amount of personal, financial, and medical information. More and more, Federal courts are making these court records that contain the very highly sensitive personal, financial, and medical information available for all to see, without any privacy safeguards, and are available on the Internet. Each Member can go on the Internet and get medical, personal, and privacy records on bankruptcy debtors. For example, schedule 1 has a document entitled ``The Current Income of Individual Debtors'' that requires a debtor to list his or her dependents' names, ages, and relationship to the debtor. Some of this information is very important to creditors. I don't have any question about that. It is also the type of information that some dangerous people could use to seek out and contact children. We have seen predators of children who have sought this information over the Internet. Any parent, any grandparent, or any Senator should worry about someone getting this information on children. My amendment simply protects minor children to unnecessary exposure from harm. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, has agreed to future hearings in the Judiciary Committee to consider the issue of personal information in paper and electronic court records and other governmental records. The manner in which all three branches of the Federal Government, Federal agencies, the Congress, and the judiciary protect the privacy and personal information that Americans are required to divulge is an important area that needs our attention. Earlier, we had a Leahy-Hatch amendment regarding protection of customer databases and consumer lists to prevent future ToySmart.com cases. We created omnibus bankruptcy proceedings as part of that Leahy- Hatch amendment, the first consumer privacy advocate in consumer law. Working together, we have proven that Republicans and Democrats can come together in commonsense matters. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on the Kennedy-Jeffords amendment on the bankruptcy bill, amendment number 39, with the vote to occur at whatever appropriate time the votes are being stacked.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and neighbor from Maine. I appreciate her willingness to work together on this. The Senator from Iowa is off the floor at the moment. He is in a meeting. But while we wait for the Senator from Iowa, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to modify, on behalf of the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, her amendment. I send that amendment to the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to send to the desk an amendment on the prohibition and disclosure of the identity of minor children.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I commend the Presiding Officer for her amendment to protect family fishermen. I know the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, also strongly supports it. It is the type of bipartisan amendment that can be agreed to on this side of the aisle. I have been checking around, and I do not find anyone over here who disagrees with it. I hope on the other side it can also be agreed to. If so, that is one we can move quickly to accept. I want the distinguished Presiding Officer to know I checked on this side and there are no objections to her amendment, which is a good one. However, I am disappointed that my good friend, the majority leader, has filed cloture on this bill. The Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, and I have been working to get amendments offered, filed, agreed to, if possible, and modified, if needed. We presented a good- faith list of about 15 amendments on our side of the aisle as of last Friday. We are awaiting a response. I know a number of amendments have been filed by Republican Senators, and we are trying to quickly clear them on our side if we can. I will continue to work to move forward on this. Amendment No. 41

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very fortunate to be one of only one hundred individuals chosen to represent my fellow Americans here in the Senate. As a result of this work, I have the opportunity to meet many, many people. Occasionally I have come to know people who are so giving of themselves, so devoted to their life's work, that they truly serve as an inspiration. I would like to take a few moments to recognize one such individual, Harold Howrigan of Fairfield, VT. Harold has been a dairy farmer in Vermont his entire life and has been a Director of the St. Albans Cooperative Creamery for over 20 years, as well as the long-time President of the co-op. He has been actively involved with dairy promotion on State, national, and international levels, and has worked with practically every dairy farm organization that I know, including Dairy Management Inc., the National Milk Producers Federation, the U.S. Dairy Export Council, the National Dairy Board, the Vermont Farm Bureau, and the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission. Harold and his wife, Anne--a former school teacher, who is still a very active tutor, mentor and volunteer in the cause of education have also devoted themselves to educating future generations about agriculture, starting with their five children--Harold, Lawrence, Michael, Bridget and Ellen--and their 12 grandchildren. They are very special friends of my wife Marcelle, my children and me. Most recently, Harold has been honored as the recipient of what some call the ``Nobel Prize'' of the dairy industry, the Richard E. Lyng award from the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. This award recognizes an individual for their ``distinguished service to dairy promotion and research.'' I can't think of another individual more deserving of this honor than Harold Howrigan. In a recent interview Harold said ``family farmers are the best, hardest working people in the world . . . it's a business and a way of living that is second to none in this country.'' I couldn't agree more and I thank Harold for the tremendous work he has done for the dairy industry in Vermont and across America, as well as the expert and unselfish counsel on agriculture he has provided to me and my staff over many years. I ask that an article about Harold be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the St. Albans (VT) Messenger, Feb. 26, 2001] To Harold Howrigan: Congratulations (By Emerson Lynn) Occasionally, something happens that is so right that when you learn about it, you pound the table and say, yes, that's what should have happened. That's our response to the news that Harold Howrigan was the recipient of the Richard E. Lyng Award for ``distinguished service to dairy promotion and research.'' The award, which is only given out periodically, is the industry's equivalent to the Nobel Prize. There is not a person in the industry, anywhere, who deserves the award more. That there may not be a kinder, more professional person alive is an aside, what made the award so appropriate is the incredible level of dedication he has made toward his profession, or, as he would say, his way of life. His name and the St. Albans Cooperative Creamery are synonymous. He's its president and has sat on its board for two decades. If there is an issue that involves the industry he is there, as he has been for all rounds with the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. He knows the politics of Washington and Montpelier as well as any insider and he is as respected there as he is here. But what shines through all this is the understanding that if the awards were not there his commitment would be no less. He's a fortunate man; he believes in what he does and would choose no other way of life. To Harold Howrigan, there is no higher calling than producing food for a hungry world and, in the process, keeping alive and vibrant a livelihood that's as healthy as the milk he produces. He knows better than most the value of the industry's $350 million that sustains our communities. And he understands the importance of pushing the industry's efforts far past Franklin County's borders. But what he understands best is the meaning of the words he once heard from his school's nun: ``Much has been given to you, and much will be expected from you.'' It can be safely said that he has met her expectations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that be set aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 20 introduced earlier this morning on current monthly income.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. All Members of the Senate have, by nature, two residences--in our home States, of course, and wherever they reside during the time we are in session serving in the Senate. I feel very fortunate to have my residence in Vermont, a beautiful State. It is out in the country on a dirt road with a gorgeous view. I also am fortunate that my residence here is in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In that regard, I believe I am represented, at least temporarily, by two friends from Virginia, the distinguished senior Senator, Mr. Warner, whom I have known for decades and with whom I have been close personal friends, and the current occupant of the Chair, the newest Senator from Virginia, a former Governor, Mr. Allen. In that regard, I wish a happy birthday to the current occupant of the Chair, Senator Allen, and wish him many more such birthdays. I realize that he is in a difficult position. Under the rule, he cannot respond to this. But I did want to do that and tell him how much my family and I enjoy our temporary residence in the beautiful Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. President, I am going to offer, at some appropriate point, two amendments. I understand that the distinguished chairman and others have adopted this basically no-amendment posture. They can always vote these down. But one of my amendments would clarify when a debtor's current monthly income should be measured. The current monthly income is a cornerstone of the bill's controversial means test provision. No matter whether one is for or against the means test, the provision should be at least as clearly drafted as possible. My amendment would avoid unnecessary future litigation by clarifying that current monthly income is measured from the last day of the calendar month immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing. Under section 102 of the bill, a presumption of abuse--requiring dismissal of the bankruptcy case or conversion to chapter 13--arises when a chapter 7 debtor has a defined level of ``current monthly income'' available, after necessary expenses, to pay general unsecured debt. ``Current monthly income'' is defined in the bill as the debtor's ``average monthly income . . . derived during the 6-month period preceding the date of determination.'' It is ambiguous in defining what that 6-month period is. Since accuracy of the schedule is of vital importance, and subject to audit, it is important that we know exactly what it is. My amendment would resolve the ambiguity and deal with full calendar months of income data, and to give a cutoff date prior to the bankruptcy filing. My other amendment would be on the separated spouse and the means test safe harbor. On page 17, line 8, the language should mirror the other safe harbor provisions in the bill. The way it is set up in the bill, as currently drafted, is provided by the distinguished chairman, the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware, and others. Even though parents might legally be separated, if one spouse files for bankruptcy, the income of the other spouse would count to determine whether the parent's income exceeds the means test for the purposes of the safe harbor, for access to chapter 7. What this means is if a battered spouse flees her home with her children, she can be denied bankruptcy relief regardless of her circumstances because in the Hatch-Biden, et al, bill, her husband's income would be counted, even though she receives no money from him. I cannot think of anything that is more antiwoman, antichild, or antifamily. I ask unanimous consent that my two amendments be filed and be available for consideration at the appropriate time and in the appropriate sequence because I do want to correct this antiwoman, antichild, and antifamily result, something I do not think is intended by the drafters of the bankruptcy law, but it is just one more example of some of the things that should be corrected in this bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment clarifies when a debtor's current monthly income should be measured. The debtor's current monthly income is the cornerstone of the bill's means test provision which has become quite controversial. Whether one supports or opposes the means test, I think everybody should agree, for or against it, that it ought to be as clearly drafted as possible. Assuming that passed as it is now, my amendment would avoid what I think would be unnecessary future litigation or would clarify that currently monthly income is measured from the last day of the calendar month immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing. Allow me tell you what this means. Under the bill's current language, currently monthly income could be the 6-month period ending on the date the debtor's schedules were prepared, which could be a substantial time before the case was filed, or it could be the filing date, or it could be some later date, such as the time of a hearing on a motion to convert or dismiss the case based on the debtor's ability to pay. So it becomes a moving target. Since accuracy of the schedules is of vital importance and subject to audit, it is important that debtors and their counsel be given clear direction as to the time on which income must be averaged. My amendment would resolve the ambiguity so as to deal with full calendar months of income data and to give a cutoff date prior to the bankruptcy filing. As amended, this definition would apply to average monthly income derived during the 6-month period ending on the last day of the calendar month immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing. Everybody would know where we are. That is a relatively simple amendment. I think actually if one looks back on this, it would seem to be a drafting error. That is why I brought it up earlier this morning: more to improve the bill so we are not stuck with a bill that, if it does pass, we find ourselves litigating for the next year or two on issues none of us intended, whether for or against the bill. That is what it is. I hope Senators will take a look at it.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Landmine Elimination Act of 2001. I am joined by Senators Collins, Bingaman, Crapo, Conrad, Specter, Feinstein, Rockefeller, McConnell, Kerry, Sarbanes, Dorgan, Jeffords, Reed, Harkin, Mikulski, Murray, Feingold, Torricelli, and Durbin. This legislation does three things. It expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should field currently available weapons, other technologies, tactics and operational concepts which provide suitable alternatives to landmines. It is our view that such alternatives exist and are, in fact, better suited than mines to protect United States Armed Forces in today's fast-moving battlefield. This view is shared by many active and retired military officers. The bill calls on the United States to end its use of mines, and to join the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines as soon as possible. It also codifies the U.S. moratorium on mine exports, which has been in effect since 1992 and is official United States policy. Finally, it establishes an inter-agency working group to develop a comprehensive plan for expanded mine action programs, including programs to assist mine victims. Mr. President, the havoc wreaked by landmines throughout the world is well known. They have been responsible for by far the majority of casualties of NATO and peacekeeping forces in the Balkans. They were a cause of American casualties in Somalia. They maimed and killed thousands of our troops in Vietnam. And, most often, they cripple and kill innocent civilians, thousands and thousands each year. In 1992, the United States became the first country to stop exporting landmines. That led other countries to take similar action, and in 1994 President Clinton called for an international treaty banning the weapons. That treaty, which came into force in 1998, has been signed by 139 countries and ratified by 110. The United States is not among them, because of concerns at the time about Korea and the fact that the treaty would require the United States to stop using most of its anti-vehicle mines. Those were not frivolous concerns, although I do not believe either issue was fully understood or examined when the decision was made, and I have worked to obtain the funds to develop alternatives to mines. Over the past year, however, I and others have spent a great deal of time discussing these issues with both active and retired military officers. These discussions have revealed a number of interesting facts, which I intend to discuss with Secretary Rumsfeld, the Joint Chiefs, President Bush and others. Most importantly, I and others have become convinced that landmines are inconsistent with current U.S. military doctrine. They are neither cost effective nor compatible with our highly mobile forces, and in fact they pose serious logistical problems and dangers for our troops. We can do better, and we should be working together to get rid of these outdated weapons. It is not necessary to waste years developing costly new alternatives. We have the ``smart'' weapons and other technologies to more effectively protect our Armed Forces. I look forward to the day when the United States joins the Treaty, because I am convinced that without U.S. participation and leadership the Treaty will never achieve its promise. But having said that, I have never regarded the Treaty as a kind of ``holy grail'' of landmines. My interest in this issue, which dates to 1989 when I met a young Honduran boy who had lost a leg from a mine, has always been to achieve a mine- free world. That is an ambitious goal, but it is the right goal. And regardless of when the U.S. joins the Treaty, we can develop a mine- free military. Ironically, when that happens, the United States, which at times has been unfairly blamed for causing the mine problem, will become the world's leader on this issue. We will have ended not only our use of anti-personnel mines, which the Treaty prohibits, but also of anti- vehicle mines, which, while not prohibited by the Treaty, are responsible for the indiscriminate deaths and injuries of countless innocent people. I look forward to an opportunity to work with the Department of Defense and the White House to develop a common approach, because the issue is no longer whether we develop a mine-free military, but when. It is a far more political issue than a military issue, and it is time to leave past disagreements and disappointments behind and work together on this common goal. The problem of landmines continues to be an issue of deep concern to people across this country and around the world. This week, hundreds of people from dozens of countries are in Washington to focus attention on this issue. Among them is Her Majesty Queen Noor, who I am honored to call a friend and who has been an eloquent advocate for a mine-free world and particularly for assistance for mine victims. One of the purposes of this legislation is to develop more effective programs to address the urgent needs of mine victims. It is one thing for a person who has lost an arm or a leg from a mine to obtain an artificial limb. It is another to get the counseling and training to be able to earn income in poor countries where the disabled are often ostracized. We need to do what we can to help mine victims reintegrate into the social and economic life of their communities. I want to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, who, like other legislation I have sponsored on landmines span the political spectrum. This is not and has never been a partisan issue. It is a humanitarian issue. If landmines were a problem in our own country, they would have been prohibited years ago. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Landmine Elimination Act of 2001. I am joined by Senators Collins, Bingaman, Crapo, Conrad, Specter, Feinstein, Rockefeller, McConnell, Kerry, Sarbanes, Dorgan, Jeffords, Reed, Harkin, Mikulski, Murray, Feingold, Torricelli, and Durbin. This legislation does three things. It expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should field currently available weapons, other technologies, tactics and operational concepts which provide suitable alternatives to landmines. It is our view that such alternatives exist and are, in fact, better suited than mines to protect United States Armed Forces in today's fast-moving battlefield. This view is shared by many active and retired military officers. The bill calls on the United States to end its use of mines, and to join the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines as soon as possible. It also codifies the U.S. moratorium on mine exports, which has been in effect since 1992 and is official United States policy. Finally, it establishes an inter-agency working group to develop a comprehensive plan for expanded mine action programs, including programs to assist mine victims. Mr. President, the havoc wreaked by landmines throughout the world is well known. They have been responsible for by far the majority of casualties of NATO and peacekeeping forces in the Balkans. They were a cause of American casualties in Somalia. They maimed and killed thousands of our troops in Vietnam. And, most often, they cripple and kill innocent civilians, thousands and thousands each year. In 1992, the United States became the first country to stop exporting landmines. That led other countries to take similar action, and in 1994 President Clinton called for an international treaty banning the weapons. That treaty, which came into force in 1998, has been signed by 139 countries and ratified by 110. The United States is not among them, because of concerns at the time about Korea and the fact that the treaty would require the United States to stop using most of its anti-vehicle mines. Those were not frivolous concerns, although I do not believe either issue was fully understood or examined when the decision was made, and I have worked to obtain the funds to develop alternatives to mines. Over the past year, however, I and others have spent a great deal of time discussing these issues with both active and retired military officers. These discussions have revealed a number of interesting facts, which I intend to discuss with Secretary Rumsfeld, the Joint Chiefs, President Bush and others. Most importantly, I and others have become convinced that landmines are inconsistent with current U.S. military doctrine. They are neither cost effective nor compatible with our highly mobile forces, and in fact they pose serious logistical problems and dangers for our troops. We can do better, and we should be working together to get rid of these outdated weapons. It is not necessary to waste years developing costly new alternatives. We have the ``smart'' weapons and other technologies to more effectively protect our Armed Forces. I look forward to the day when the United States joins the Treaty, because I am convinced that without U.S. participation and leadership the Treaty will never achieve its promise. But having said that, I have never regarded the Treaty as a kind of ``holy grail'' of landmines. My interest in this issue, which dates to 1989 when I met a young Honduran boy who had lost a leg from a mine, has always been to achieve a mine- free world. That is an ambitious goal, but it is the right goal. And regardless of when the U.S. joins the Treaty, we can develop a mine- free military. Ironically, when that happens, the United States, which at times has been unfairly blamed for causing the mine problem, will become the world's leader on this issue. We will have ended not only our use of anti-personnel mines, which the Treaty prohibits, but also of anti- vehicle mines, which, while not prohibited by the Treaty, are responsible for the indiscriminate deaths and injuries of countless innocent people. I look forward to an opportunity to work with the Department of Defense and the White House to develop a common approach, because the issue is no longer whether we develop a mine-free military, but when. It is a far more political issue than a military issue, and it is time to leave past disagreements and disappointments behind and work together on this common goal. The problem of landmines continues to be an issue of deep concern to people across this country and around the world. This week, hundreds of people from dozens of countries are in Washington to focus attention on this issue. Among them is Her Majesty Queen Noor, who I am honored to call a friend and who has been an eloquent advocate for a mine-free world and particularly for assistance for mine victims. One of the purposes of this legislation is to develop more effective programs to address the urgent needs of mine victims. It is one thing for a person who has lost an arm or a leg from a mine to obtain an artificial limb. It is another to get the counseling and training to be able to earn income in poor countries where the disabled are often ostracized. We need to do what we can to help mine victims reintegrate into the social and economic life of their communities. I want to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, who, like other legislation I have sponsored on landmines span the political spectrum. This is not and has never been a partisan issue. It is a humanitarian issue. If landmines were a problem in our own country, they would have been prohibited years ago. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.