Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many of us have been touched by a family member or friend who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. In fact, more than 5.3 million people in the United States are living with Alzheimer's, which translates into a new case every 70 seconds. As our Nation ages, more and more cases will develop each year and an estimated million new cases will be diagnosed annually by 2050. I am proud be a cosponsor of S. 1492, the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2009 which helps fund Alzheimer's disease research, gives assistance to caregivers, and increases public education about prevention of Alzheimer's. It is not just the elderly who are diagnosed with Alzheimer's. My good friend Diane Wolk of Castleton, VT, in her early fifties was diagnosed about a year and a half ago with early onset Alzheimer's. Instead of hiding her diagnosis or giving up hope, Diane now travels the State and the country sharing her experience with others. Through promoting education and early intervention, Diane helps patients and their family members recognize their symptoms and seek diagnosis and treatment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a story from the Burlington Free Press about Diane's courage and perseverance in the face of an overwhelming diagnosis. Marcelle and I are so proud of her, and of the inspiration she gives to Alzheimer's patients in Vermont and nationwide. She is a true hero.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the U.S. Constitution, the document by which we define ourselves as a nation, emphasizes freedom and equality. Its words have inspired generations of Americans to create a society that sustains those values: one that preserves our freedom and reminds its citizens that we are all created equally. Among those who are leading the fight to protect this constitutional guarantee of equality are the people of Vermont, who I have been proud to represent for the past 34 years. Vermonters have consistently led the charge to perfect our Union and to support the fight for equality and social justice. Vermont was the first State in our Union to outlaw slavery, and was also the first to adopt voting rights, regardless of property ownership. Vermont demonstrated its commitment to social justice years ago with the passage of inclusive hate crimes and employment nondiscrimination legislation. I hope our Federal Government will follow Vermont's lead with regard to these essential protections. Vermonters have led the Nation by protecting families and by ensuring that children are in stable, loving environments. This is because Vermonters believe that parents should be allowed to strengthen their commitments to one another. In 2000, Vermont took a crucial step when it became the first State in the Nation to allow civil unions for same- sex couples. Recently, Vermont took another step to help sustain the relationships that fulfill our lives by becoming the first state to adopt same-sex marriage through the legislative process without a court mandate to do so. I commend the Vermont State Legislature for its actions, and for setting aside partisan differences to serve the people of Vermont and to serve as an example for the Nation. Throughout the tumultuous debate on this issue, both chambers considered each side's viewpoint, and all points of view were heard. This was a real testament to our democratic process. Yet despite that debate, the Governor vetoed the legislation that was approved by the legislature. The Vermont State Legislature has the distinction of being a part- time body. They work within the very communities they represent on a daily basis. During the debate, these legislators listened to their neighbors, their friends, and their constituents. During this process, they realized that marriage equality was something the people of Vermont wanted. Some members of the State legislature ultimately decided to put aside their personal views. They did not want to have such an important issue decided by a single vote. They did not believe that one person should be able to prevent what Vermonters were seeking--equality for all its citizens. In the end, several of the legislators who originally voted against the bill cast their vote to override the Governor's veto. I believe that the actions of those legislators and the entire Vermont Legislature deserve our admiration. As a Vermonter who has been married for 47 years, I am a great fan of the institution of marriage. I believe it is important to encourage and to sanction committed relationships, and to provide for stable, supportive families. When Vermont passed legislation on same-sex marriage, it reaffirmed my fundamental belief we should not create second-class families who do not enjoy the protections other families have. Unfortunately this is still not the case in our Federal Government. With laws like the Defense of Marriage Act in effect, Vermont same-sex marriages are still treated differently. I believe it is time to repeal it, so that all Vermonters can be treated equally under the law. Vermont's State motto is depicted clearly on our State flag: ``Freedom and Unity.'' Today, same-sex couples in Vermont are now able to enjoy the same freedoms that opposite sex couples in Vermont enjoy. Same-sex couples now have the freedom to create and to preserve family unity, and to bring happiness and stability to their children and loved ones. I am proud to represent the people of Vermont and I commend them for having reached yet another milestone in the march toward equality.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are considering the nomination of Jeffrey Viken for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota. President Obama nominated Mr. Viken with the bipartisan support of both Senators from South Dakota, Senator Johnson and Senator Thune. Mr. Johnson, the distinguished senior Senator from South Dakota spoke just a moment ago about his strong support for this nominee. Even though we are almost at the last day of September, this is only the first Senate confirmation for a Federal district court judge, and the first to fill 1 of 74 current Federal trial court vacancies. There are more than 90 current vacancies throughout the Federal judiciary, and we are soon going to be at near record levels. I accommodated the Ranking Member and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee by postponing a hearing on Mr. Viken's nomination while we considered the recent Supreme Court nomination, or his nomination would have come to the full Senate earlier. But I am pleased that the committee unanimously reported the nomination at the beginning of this month by a voice vote. I think that the vote tonight, I can virtually guarantee you, will be an overwhelmingly positive vote. I hope it is a sign that we might finally, finally start making some progress on judicial nominations, and do it expeditiously. The Senate has to do a better job of restoring our tradition of regularly considering qualified, noncontroversial nominees to fill vacancies on the Federal bench without needless and harmful delays. As I look around this Chamber, I believe I have been here longer than anybody else who is presently on the floor. I saw my distinguished colleague Senator Inouye step off the floor, who has served here longer than I have. But I have been here 35 years. I have been here with both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I have never seen a situation where there is this kind of slow walking of nominations. We have got to go back to the way we have traditionally done it for the good of the country. I was briefly chairman of the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term. And even though we had the unfortunate experience of 61 of President Clinton's nominations being pocket filibustered by a then-Republican majority, when I came in during that less than a year and a half, we confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. I think it is an all-time record in speed in getting nominees through. That was by a Democratic majority with a Republican President. I do want to thank the Committee's ranking member, Senator Sessions. I see Senator Sessions on the floor. I do want to thank him. I had, as I said, agreed to hold back this nominee, the Viken nomination, because of the nomination for Sotomayor, to give time to prepare. But I do want to thank him. After we confirmed Judge Sotomayor to be a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, we moved quickly Mr. Viken's nomination through the committee at our business meeting on September 10 without an unnecessary holdover period. Unfortunately, now that it has been on the Senate Executive Calendar, it still has taken 2\1/2\ weeks to schedule Senate approval of a noncontroversial nominee who is probably going to be unanimously confirmed, and should be. Mr. Viken has a wide range of experience. He has been both prosecutor and defender. He is currently the Federal Defender for the combined districts of North Dakota and South Dakota. It is not just the population, but for those of us who come from New England, the area covered in these districts is enormous. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and as Acting U.S. Attorney for South Dakota. He spent more than two decades in private practice. His nomination received a rating of ``well qualified,'' from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. I urge Senators to give him a strong bipartisan vote, and then do a better job of filling the rising number of judicial vacancies to ensure that justice is not delayed or denied to any American because of overburdened courts. I hope instead of withholding consent and threatening filibusters of President Obama's judicial nominees, the other side would work together to treat his nominees fairly, as I did with President Bush's nominees. I point out, by this time in President Bush's first term, we had already confirmed six of his nominations to the Federal circuit and district courts. Now, nine months into President Obama's first term, we have confirmed only one of his lower court nominees, despite the fact that President Obama made his first nomination two months earlier than President Bush did. We can do better. It is not just that the Senate can do better, the American people deserve better. After months of delay on September 17, the Senate finally confirmed Judge Gerard Lynch to serve on the Second Circuit. I know that circuit well. It covers the States of Vermont, New York, and Connecticut. Despite the fact that Judge Lynch's nomination was noncontroversial, despite the fact that it was reported out of the committee unanimously with the strong support of both Republican and Democratic members, it still took more than three months after his nomination was reported by the committee for the Senate to confirm it. Delayed. Delayed. Delayed. You would think there might be some controversy. But when we finally voted, the vote was 94 to 3. It was being held up for months because three Members out of 100 Senators wanted to hold it up? That is not being responsible. That is not showing the deference to the judiciary that we should show. Thirteen nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee remain pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar, seven of them from back before the last recess. Five of these nominations are for appointments to be Assistant Attorneys General at the Department of Justice. Five out of a total of 11 divisions at the Department remain without Senate- confirmed Presidential nominees--the Office of Legal Counsel, the Civil Rights Division, the Tax Division, the Office of Legal Policy, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division. Just think of that: nominees to head five out of a total of 11 divisions at the Justice Department are being held by Republicans even though the President has made the nominations and even though they have passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If any Senator does not like a nominee, vote against them. But let's have a vote up or down. President Obama made his first judicial nomination back in March. I remember it was snowing like mad. He nominated David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit. That nomination has been on the Executive Calendar since early June, even though it has the support of the senior most Republican in the Senate and one of the most distinguished Senators of either party who has ever served, Senator Lugar. The nomination of Judge Andre Davis to the Fourth Circuit was reported by the committee on June 4 by a vote of 16 to 3. We cannot get it considered by the Senate. The nomination of Judge Beverly Baldwin Martin to the Eleventh Circuit was reported unanimously from the committee by voice vote on September 10 and is strongly supported by the two Republican Senators from her State, but still we cannot get it scheduled or considered. Federal judicial vacancies will soon number 120 unless we start moving forward. I mention that just because we should have a history before us. At least the one bright spot is moving Mr. Viken's nomination. At a quarter past 5, it is Mr. Viken. By a quarter past 6, it will be Judge Viken. I congratulate him and his family. I remember him coming before our committee--a wonderful person, a wonderful family. I can see why the two Senators--the senior Senator, a Democratic Senator; the junior Senator, a Republican Senator--support him. He should be a judge. But then let's start moving these nominations a little more expeditiously. Mr. President, what is the time remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be run equally.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Monday, September 21, President Manuel Zelaya returned to Tegucigalpa, Honduras, for the first time since he was deposed and exiled in a June 28th coup d'etat, taking refuge in the Brazilian Embassy. His return has led to the installation of a curfew, violence between Zelaya's supporters and Honduran security forces, and troubling reports of the detention and physical abuse of his supporters. I am encouraged by reports that representatives of Roberto Micheletti, who currently occupies the Presidency, have met with President Zelaya. As divided as these two factions are, these talks need to continue in order to resolve this situation peacefully before the country descends into further bloody confrontations between civilians and police, or it leads to violent fractures within the military. I continue to believe that the proposal for the restoration of President Zelaya and early elections, put forward by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, has the best chance of resolving this conflict. Brute force, like that reported from Honduras this week, will achieve nothing but further polarization. If President Zelaya is guilty of violating the law, as some have maintained, there are constitutional procedures for dealing with that. But by abusing the law themselves and simply throwing him out of the country, those who claim to have acted in the interests of the Honduran people only compounded the country's problems. Honduras, an impoverished country that needs the support of the United States and its neighbors, can ill afford this crisis to continue.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Chair knows, I have long been a supporter of improving the quality of drinking water in rural America. There is a lot of work to be done. While small rural communities are home to fewer than 20 percent of America's population, they account for more than 85 percent of the Nation's community water systems, and are more likely than larger systems to report major drinking water violations. According to EPA data, 93 percent of the maximum contaminant level, MCL, and treatment technique, TT, violations reported in 2002 affected community water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. MCL and TT violations include higher than allowable levels of organic and inorganic contaminants such as arsenic, benzene, atrazine, lead, copper and nitrate. One significant reason for these high numbers is the lack of capacity among local elected officials to deal with the complexities of maintaining a safe and clean supply of drinking water. For this reason I have supported funding for RCAPs--six regional nonprofit organizations that help rural communities with facilities needs. The technical assistance and training activities the RCAPs provide focus on helping communities comply with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Last year alone, the RCAPs assisted more than 2,000 communities, leveraged over $200,000,000 in funding, conducted 78 training sessions for almost 2,000 community water officials, and assisted nearly 3 million people to access safe and clean water. Most of the communities the RCAPs work with have populations of less than 1,500. Funding for the RCAPs has been included in this bill for more than 20 years. I understand that the committee was limited by rules regarding earmarks, and I note that funding for the RCAPs is not included in the fiscal year 2010 Senate bill. However, I understand that the House bill includes funding for the RCAPs at the current rate and it my hope that in conference the Senate will move toward the House position on this.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass the Reserve Officers Association Modernization Act of 2009. I thank Senator Chambliss and Senator Pryor, cosponsors of this legislation and chairs of the U.S. Reserve Caucus, for their hard work and support of this legislation. This legislation makes several updates to the charter of the Reserve Officers Association, ROA, to more accurately reflect the organization's current operation. First, it adds the position of ``president elect'' to its constitution and bylaws. Additionally, under the legislation, the national executive committee is expanded to include three representatives from each of the seven branches of the uniformed services. This bill makes the first changes to the ROA charter since 1998 and will enable ROA to continue its good work. Since its founding in 1922, the ROA has worked on behalf of the National Guard and Reserves and their families. For over 85 years, ROA has remained committed to its original mission, to ``support and promote the development and execution of a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate National security.'' The Reserve Officers Association represents the Reserve components officers for the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, the Air and Army National Guard, Public Health Service, and the officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. As chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I have worked closely with groups like the Reserve Officers Association, ROA, to ensure that the National Guard and Reserves have access to more affordable health care, a greater influence in the military, adequate training facilities and supplies, and shorter troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Guard and Reserves provide an invaluable contribution to our Nation's military, our national security, and disaster relief efforts, and it is vital that we continue to support their needs. The Reserve Officers Association has provided a voice to the men and women that serve our country in the National Guard and Reserves. I am proud that today the Senate has demonstrated its support for the brave members of the National Guard and Reserves by passing this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, security and liberty are both essential in our free society. Benjamin Franklin wrote: ``Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' I have been mindful of this since the devastating attacks of September 11, and each time we have considered the USA PATRIOT Act. The American people of today and those of tomorrow--our children and grandchildren--depend on us to do our best to ensure both security and the preservation of our essential liberties. After September 11, the Government's power to gather information about those suspected of, or connected to, potential terrorists increased. Because such surveillance may, sometimes by mistake, sweep in U.S. citizens, we must vigilantly monitor these laws to ensure that they are implemented appropriately. This calls for public, judicial and congressional oversight to make sure we maintain the proper respect for security and liberty. After September 11, I introduced the USA PATRIOT Act, Patriot Act, to give the Government the tools needed to defend this country and aggressively pursue those who would do us harm. Even in those dark days, I insisted on oversight. Working with the then House Majority Leader, Republican Dick Armey, we included sunsets for some of the provisions of the bill that had the greatest potential to directly affect Americans. We debated the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for several months in 2005 and 2006. I again fought to protect the civil liberties and constitutional rights of Americans. Unfortunately, after a series of short extensions, the reauthorization of 2006 lacked sufficient constitutional protections over the vast authorities it granted to the Government. I had worked to secure increased oversight and to include new sunsets in the bill. With those sunsets expiring on December 31, 2009, we must once again consider the Patriot Act. Three provisions of the Patriot Act are slated to expire at the end of this year, including the authorization for roving wiretaps, the ``lone wolf'' measure, and orders for tangible things, commonly referred to as the ``library'' provision. In March, I sent Attorney General Holder a letter requesting the administration's views on these expiring provisions. I reiterated that request at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing in June. I have recently received a letter from the Attorney General urging us to extend the expiring authorities. I appreciate the President and the Attorney General's emphasis on accountability and checks and balances, and their willingness to consider additional ideas. Today I am introducing a bill with Senators Cardin and Kaufman that does just that. It will extend the authorization of the three expiring provisions. The bill also updates checks and balances by increasing judicial review of the use of Government powers that capture information on U.S. citizens, and augments congressional oversight. We propose increasing Government accountability through more transparent public reporting of the use of surveillance, and by requiring audits of how these vast authorities have been used since they were last reauthorized. In addition, we propose that, given their extensive use abuse and intrusiveness, we include a sunset for National Security Letters, NSLs. I introduced a bill in 2006, after the most recent Patriot Act reauthorization, to impose a sunset on NSLs. This sunset provision, combined with a comprehensive audit by the Inspector General, will help to hold the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, accountable in its use of this authority. In developing this bill, I worked closely with Senators Feingold and Durbin to protect the rights and privacy of Americans, and to expand oversight. Senators Feingold and Durbin have worked tirelessly over the years to protect the civil liberties of Americans, from the first debate over the Patriot Act in 2001, to the reauthorization in 2006, to the FISA Amendments Act enacted last year. I am pleased that Senators Cardin, Kaufman and I have adopted some of the concepts they proposed in the SAFE Act of 2005, and that were included in the broader Patriot Act reauthorization bill they introduced last week, the JUSTICE Act. I have long been concerned over the issuance and oversight of NSLs. National Security Letters are, in effect, a form of administrative subpoena. They do not require approval by a court, grand jury, or prosecutor. They are issued in secret, with recipients silenced, under penalty of law. Yet NSLs allow the Government to collect sensitive information, such as personal financial records. As Congress expanded the NSL authority in recent years, I raised concerns about how the FBI handles the information it collects on Americans. I noted that, with no real limits imposed by Congress, the FBI could store this information electronically and use it for large-scale, data-mining operations. We now know that the NSL authority was significantly misused. In 2008 the Department of Justice Inspector General issued a report on the FBI's use of NSLs revealing serious over-collection of information and abuse of the NSL authority. We should reconsider the breadth of the NSL authority. This bill would also impose more judicial oversight and higher standards on the issuance of NSLs. It would require the FBI to include a statement of facts articulating why the information it is seeking is relevant to an authorized investigation. The bill also addresses the constitutional deficiency recently identified by the Second Circuit Court of appeals in Doe v. Musasey. The Second Circuit found that the nondisclosure, or ``gag orders,'' issued under NSLs are a constitutional infringement. I have long maintained that position. The bill establishes a procedure whereby the recipient of an NSL has 21 days to notify the Government that it wishes to challenge the nondisclosure requirement. The Government then has 21 additional days to apply for a court order to compel compliance with the nondisclosure requirement. This scheme corrects the constitutional defects found by the Second Circuit. The bill would shift the burden of defending the need for a gag order to the Government. This bill also eliminates the NSL nondisclosure provision that allows the Government to ensure itself of victory by certifying that, in its view, disclosure ``may'' endanger national security or ``may'' interfere with diplomatic relations. The bill further strengthens judicial review of nondisclosure or ``gag orders'' associated with NSLs by imposing a one- year limitation on such orders. To protect on-going law enforcement investigations, it permits renewals of the nondisclosure orders in appropriate cases. The power of the government to collect records for tangible things under Section 215 of the original Patriot Act, commonly referred to as the ``library records'' provision, is another authority that I worked to reform during the last reauthorization. It is time to redefine the way we describe this authority to accurately reflect the broad scope of information it allows the government to collect. Section 215 allows the FISA court to secretly require any entity to produce any document or other tangible thing with a minimal standard of relevance and a presumption in favor of the Government's showing of relevance. This bill correctly identifies Section 215 orders as orders for ``tangible things'' as opposed to only for ``business records'' as it is in current law. This bill adopts the reasonable constitutional standard that I supported in 2006 for 215 orders. First, it would eliminate the presumption in favor of the government's assertion that the records it is seeking are relevant to its investigation. This bill would require the Government to make a connection between the records or other things it seeks and a suspected terrorist or spy before it is able to obtain confidential records such as library, medical and telephone records. Section 215 orders for tangible things permit the Government to collect an even broader scope of information than NSLs. For that reason, it is critical that the Government show that the records it seeks are both relevant to an investigation and connected to at least a suspected terrorist or spy. This bill would also establish more meaningful judicial review of Section 215 orders. First, it repeals the requirement in current law that requires a recipient of a Section 215 nondisclosure order to wait for a full year before challenging that gag order. There is no justification for this mandatory waiting period for judicial review, and this bill eliminates it. It also repeals a provision added to the law in 2006 stating that a conclusive presumption in favor of the Government shall apply where a high level official certifies that disclosure of the order for tangible things would endanger national security or interfere with diplomatic relations. These restraints on meaningful judicial review are unfair, unjustified, and completely unacceptable. I fought hard to keep these two provisions out of the 2006 reauthorization, but the Republican majority at that time insisted they be included. This bill will strengthen court oversight of Section 215 orders by requiring court oversight of minimization procedures when information concerning a U.S. person is acquired, retained, or disseminated. Requiring FISA Court approval of minimization procedures would simply bring Section 215 orders in line with other FISA authorities--such as wiretaps, physical searches, and pen register and trap and trace devices--that already require FISA court approval of minimization procedures. This is another common sense modification to the law that was drafted in consultation with Senators Feingold and Durbin. If we are to allow personal information to be collected in secret, the court must be more involved in making sure the authorities are used responsibly and that Americans' information and personal privacy are protected. Finally, this bill addresses concerns over the use of pen register or trap and trace devices ``pen/trap''. The bill raises the standard for pen/trap in the same manner as it raises the standard for Section 215 orders. The Government would be required to show that the information it seeks is both relevant to an investigation and connected to a suspected terrorist or spy. This section also requires court review of minimization procedures, which are not required under current law, and adds an Inspector General audit of the use of pen/trap that is modeled on the the audits of Section 215 orders and NSLs. I look forward to working with the members of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate, the House and with the administration as this bill moves forward, and I welcome the views of others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, security and liberty are both essential in our free society. Benjamin Franklin wrote: ``Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' I have been mindful of this since the devastating attacks of September 11, and each time we have considered the USA PATRIOT Act. The American people of today and those of tomorrow--our children and grandchildren--depend on us to do our best to ensure both security and the preservation of our essential liberties. After September 11, the Government's power to gather information about those suspected of, or connected to, potential terrorists increased. Because such surveillance may, sometimes by mistake, sweep in U.S. citizens, we must vigilantly monitor these laws to ensure that they are implemented appropriately. This calls for public, judicial and congressional oversight to make sure we maintain the proper respect for security and liberty. After September 11, I introduced the USA PATRIOT Act, Patriot Act, to give the Government the tools needed to defend this country and aggressively pursue those who would do us harm. Even in those dark days, I insisted on oversight. Working with the then House Majority Leader, Republican Dick Armey, we included sunsets for some of the provisions of the bill that had the greatest potential to directly affect Americans. We debated the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for several months in 2005 and 2006. I again fought to protect the civil liberties and constitutional rights of Americans. Unfortunately, after a series of short extensions, the reauthorization of 2006 lacked sufficient constitutional protections over the vast authorities it granted to the Government. I had worked to secure increased oversight and to include new sunsets in the bill. With those sunsets expiring on December 31, 2009, we must once again consider the Patriot Act. Three provisions of the Patriot Act are slated to expire at the end of this year, including the authorization for roving wiretaps, the ``lone wolf'' measure, and orders for tangible things, commonly referred to as the ``library'' provision. In March, I sent Attorney General Holder a letter requesting the administration's views on these expiring provisions. I reiterated that request at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing in June. I have recently received a letter from the Attorney General urging us to extend the expiring authorities. I appreciate the President and the Attorney General's emphasis on accountability and checks and balances, and their willingness to consider additional ideas. Today I am introducing a bill with Senators Cardin and Kaufman that does just that. It will extend the authorization of the three expiring provisions. The bill also updates checks and balances by increasing judicial review of the use of Government powers that capture information on U.S. citizens, and augments congressional oversight. We propose increasing Government accountability through more transparent public reporting of the use of surveillance, and by requiring audits of how these vast authorities have been used since they were last reauthorized. In addition, we propose that, given their extensive use abuse and intrusiveness, we include a sunset for National Security Letters, NSLs. I introduced a bill in 2006, after the most recent Patriot Act reauthorization, to impose a sunset on NSLs. This sunset provision, combined with a comprehensive audit by the Inspector General, will help to hold the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, accountable in its use of this authority. In developing this bill, I worked closely with Senators Feingold and Durbin to protect the rights and privacy of Americans, and to expand oversight. Senators Feingold and Durbin have worked tirelessly over the years to protect the civil liberties of Americans, from the first debate over the Patriot Act in 2001, to the reauthorization in 2006, to the FISA Amendments Act enacted last year. I am pleased that Senators Cardin, Kaufman and I have adopted some of the concepts they proposed in the SAFE Act of 2005, and that were included in the broader Patriot Act reauthorization bill they introduced last week, the JUSTICE Act. I have long been concerned over the issuance and oversight of NSLs. National Security Letters are, in effect, a form of administrative subpoena. They do not require approval by a court, grand jury, or prosecutor. They are issued in secret, with recipients silenced, under penalty of law. Yet NSLs allow the Government to collect sensitive information, such as personal financial records. As Congress expanded the NSL authority in recent years, I raised concerns about how the FBI handles the information it collects on Americans. I noted that, with no real limits imposed by Congress, the FBI could store this information electronically and use it for large-scale, data-mining operations. We now know that the NSL authority was significantly misused. In 2008 the Department of Justice Inspector General issued a report on the FBI's use of NSLs revealing serious over-collection of information and abuse of the NSL authority. We should reconsider the breadth of the NSL authority. This bill would also impose more judicial oversight and higher standards on the issuance of NSLs. It would require the FBI to include a statement of facts articulating why the information it is seeking is relevant to an authorized investigation. The bill also addresses the constitutional deficiency recently identified by the Second Circuit Court of appeals in Doe v. Musasey. The Second Circuit found that the nondisclosure, or ``gag orders,'' issued under NSLs are a constitutional infringement. I have long maintained that position. The bill establishes a procedure whereby the recipient of an NSL has 21 days to notify the Government that it wishes to challenge the nondisclosure requirement. The Government then has 21 additional days to apply for a court order to compel compliance with the nondisclosure requirement. This scheme corrects the constitutional defects found by the Second Circuit. The bill would shift the burden of defending the need for a gag order to the Government. This bill also eliminates the NSL nondisclosure provision that allows the Government to ensure itself of victory by certifying that, in its view, disclosure ``may'' endanger national security or ``may'' interfere with diplomatic relations. The bill further strengthens judicial review of nondisclosure or ``gag orders'' associated with NSLs by imposing a one- year limitation on such orders. To protect on-going law enforcement investigations, it permits renewals of the nondisclosure orders in appropriate cases. The power of the government to collect records for tangible things under Section 215 of the original Patriot Act, commonly referred to as the ``library records'' provision, is another authority that I worked to reform during the last reauthorization. It is time to redefine the way we describe this authority to accurately reflect the broad scope of information it allows the government to collect. Section 215 allows the FISA court to secretly require any entity to produce any document or other tangible thing with a minimal standard of relevance and a presumption in favor of the Government's showing of relevance. This bill correctly identifies Section 215 orders as orders for ``tangible things'' as opposed to only for ``business records'' as it is in current law. This bill adopts the reasonable constitutional standard that I supported in 2006 for 215 orders. First, it would eliminate the presumption in favor of the government's assertion that the records it is seeking are relevant to its investigation. This bill would require the Government to make a connection between the records or other things it seeks and a suspected terrorist or spy before it is able to obtain confidential records such as library, medical and telephone records. Section 215 orders for tangible things permit the Government to collect an even broader scope of information than NSLs. For that reason, it is critical that the Government show that the records it seeks are both relevant to an investigation and connected to at least a suspected terrorist or spy. This bill would also establish more meaningful judicial review of Section 215 orders. First, it repeals the requirement in current law that requires a recipient of a Section 215 nondisclosure order to wait for a full year before challenging that gag order. There is no justification for this mandatory waiting period for judicial review, and this bill eliminates it. It also repeals a provision added to the law in 2006 stating that a conclusive presumption in favor of the Government shall apply where a high level official certifies that disclosure of the order for tangible things would endanger national security or interfere with diplomatic relations. These restraints on meaningful judicial review are unfair, unjustified, and completely unacceptable. I fought hard to keep these two provisions out of the 2006 reauthorization, but the Republican majority at that time insisted they be included. This bill will strengthen court oversight of Section 215 orders by requiring court oversight of minimization procedures when information concerning a U.S. person is acquired, retained, or disseminated. Requiring FISA Court approval of minimization procedures would simply bring Section 215 orders in line with other FISA authorities--such as wiretaps, physical searches, and pen register and trap and trace devices--that already require FISA court approval of minimization procedures. This is another common sense modification to the law that was drafted in consultation with Senators Feingold and Durbin. If we are to allow personal information to be collected in secret, the court must be more involved in making sure the authorities are used responsibly and that Americans' information and personal privacy are protected. Finally, this bill addresses concerns over the use of pen register or trap and trace devices ``pen/trap''. The bill raises the standard for pen/trap in the same manner as it raises the standard for Section 215 orders. The Government would be required to show that the information it seeks is both relevant to an investigation and connected to a suspected terrorist or spy. This section also requires court review of minimization procedures, which are not required under current law, and adds an Inspector General audit of the use of pen/trap that is modeled on the the audits of Section 215 orders and NSLs. I look forward to working with the members of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate, the House and with the administration as this bill moves forward, and I welcome the views of others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Am I correct that at 12:30 we will go to the nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, prior to going to that, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to remember one of Vermont's greatest citizens, dairy farmer, and American, my good friend, Harold Howrigan. Harold passed away at the age of 85 at his home in Fairfield, VT, on September 7, 2009. He was surrounded by his loving family, long and extended and wonderful family. Harold was a family man. This large extended family included his wife of 56 years, Ann, and three sons and two daughters, 12 grandchildren. He had an optimist's outlook on life. He had a knack for storytelling that cast a spell over everyone in his presence. Many of his stories were about growing up in a family with nine other siblings, reared by William and Margaret Howrigan on their hillside farm in Vermont. I can think of more than one occasion when Marcelle and I would be there. We would be listening to one of these stories, and I knew that we might be late for the next thing, but I didn't want it to end. I wanted to hear what else he had to say. Harold was a man who seemed to accomplish more each year than most of us do in a lifetime. He built his Fairfield, VT farm to over 1,000 acres, including the land that had been worked by his family since the mid 1800s. It is now tended by the next generation of Howrigans. I remember him as a dynamic man, as genuinely comfortable in his public duties as he was in the dairy parlor or out splitting wood. In addition to running the farm and tending to the family he loved so much, he accepted leadership roles in dozens of civic and agricultural organizations from local to national in scope. He moderated the Fairfield town meeting right up to this year. The town meeting is a sacred institution in Vermont. A town wants to make sure they have the very best and the fairest and the most knowledgeable to be their moderator. It also helps when you have somebody with an Irish sense of humor. This is a position of distinction in any Vermont town. He was director of the St. Alban's Cooperative Creamery for 25 years and president for another 20. He was appointed by three Governors, both parties, to the Vermont Milk Commission. He was also a local and national leader among maple sugar makers. He served on University of Vermont advisory boards and on county commissions. All the while he tended the fire in the Fairfield sugar house each year and he got the cows milked each day and sang for 60 years on the choir at church. The church, of course, is named, as you would expect in a town full of Irish immigrants and descendants, St. Patrick's. Nationally, he was a director of the National Milk Producers Federation for 20 years and chairman of the National Dairy Board. In addition to his work on dairy, he was a local and national leader for the maple industry, a prolific sugar maker. I know Marcelle and I and our children, when we were having something at the farm that called for maple syrup--and in our family, that is just about anything from English muffins to pancakes--everybody's eyes would light up if we knew it was Howrigan syrup. Notwithstanding his prodigious service to his community, his profession and his country, his greatest impact was probably felt through his personal relationships with his family and what he considered, I think, all of Vermont, his extended family. As a friend, he was a trusted adviser on agricultural issues over several decades. I know Senator Jeffords also valued his friendship and advice and Governors consulted him regularly. But as dad and grandpa to a large, active family, he cultivated two new generations of Vermont dairy farmers and maple sugar makers. We could talk about all the different things he did, but it still does not give a picture of the man. He was known for a deep and spirited Irish pride, a sentiment I obviously share. I find myself comparing that other great Irish American and dear friend, Teddy Kennedy, whose recent loss I also mourn. But I also treasure the trip my wife Marcelle and I took with Harold to Ireland. There he felt he was truly in the Promised Land. We would walk about the streets of Dublin or small towns nearby. He was so proud of his family's Irish heritage, he never stopped smiling throughout his visit. The day of his funeral, last week, Marcelle wore an Irish pin we purchased with him in Ireland. I, of course, wore a green tie in his honor. I watched his grandsons wearing some of the Irish ties Harold had owned. I listened to his son and daughter and grandchildren talk about him, capturing him in his stories and his nature. I think about the very last conversation I had with him just weeks before he died. In all these things, he never asked for anything for himself. He always asked me to watch out for other people. He led by quiet example and hard work and kindness and love. I, along with the State of Vermont and many across the United States and across the Atlantic, will miss Harold. He was a dear friend, truly a great American. Similar to all Vermonters, I express my sympathy to his family and I say: Goodbye, Harold, my dear friend. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, these videotapes that are the excuse for this amendment understandably have offended most who have heard about them, including me. I detest the stupidity and crassness that they depict. If people have acted improperly, they should be fired, and if they have acted illegally, they should be prosecuted. Period. The Obama administration has been equally critical. ACORN is not the reason for my vote. There is not even an ACORN office in my entire State. Nor, for that matter, is there any reason to believe that this group ever has or ever would have any interest or expertise in applying for competitive grants under the programs funded in this Interior appropriations bill. Everyone--except perhaps many of the casual observers who are the target audience of the orchestrated anti-ACORN frenzy--knows that score-at-any-price partisanship is being mixed in an unseemly way with public policy. For more than a year--since long before these videotapes were made-- it has been well known that a partisan project has been launched to demonize ACORN. ACORN in several ways has made easy work of that. To me, this knee-jerk injection of politics into the competitive grant process is the real issue here. Congress should not compound the wrongful and stupid actions depicted on these videos by deciding to set political standards for competitive Federal grants. Federal agencies use a nonpartisan review process to award grants to the most competitive applicants. Just as I would be against banning other specific organizations on the right or on the left from applying for competitive grants, I believe it is harmful, even though popular, to approve an amendment such as this. It is unseemly to allow use of a partisan playbook to run roughshod over long-established competitive grant procedure. The admittedly few votes that were cast against this amendment, against the tide of popular opinion, have at least made it more likely that in calmer moments months or years from now, there may at least be some thought invested before Congress again acts to inject raw political partisanship from the left or from the right--into the competitive grant mechanisms of Federal agencies.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is Constitution Day. Two hundred twenty-two years ago today, the Constitutional Convention finished its work and proposed our fundamental charter. With this vote, the Senate will finally begin fulfilling one of its most important constitutional duties by granting consent to the President's lifetime appointment to the Federal judiciary. This is the first Federal circuit court judge the Senate has confirmed all year. The Senate has yet to confirm a single district court judge. Judicial vacancies have spiked and could approach 120 soon. We all know Judge Lynch is an outstanding judge and will make an excellent circuit judge. His nomination has been on the calendar awaiting Senate action for more than 3 months. I am glad his wait is finally over. The President made a good nomination, and the Senate should grant consent so that Judge Lynch's appointment may finally proceed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today marks the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the Constitution by the States that assembled in Philadelphia. The constitutional design of our three branches of Government has provided for collaboration in protecting this fundamental balance. Earlier this week, when I addressed the Chief Justice and the Judicial Conference of the United States, I noted the anniversary of the signing of our Constitution. This anniversary deserves more attention than it has received, and I was heartened to see that one of Vermont's great newspapers, The Caledonian-Record, also saw fit to note this anniversary in a recent editorial. The Caledonian- Record noted, ``Our Constitution is timeless and the most relevant guide to continuing our freedoms. Millions of Americans have died in its defense. Celebrate it!'' As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee I am constantly reminded of the Constitution's continued importance and relevance to our daily lives. From the first amendment, which protects newspapers like The Caledonian-Record, to the rights of Americans to vote, the Constitution is the cornerstone of our democracy. We all must remember how fortunate we are to enjoythe rights our Founders embedded in our guiding document. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our Nation's antitrust laws exist to protect consumers. These laws promote competition, which ensures that consumers will pay lower prices, and receive more choices of higher quality products. The vast majority of the companies doing business in the U.S. are subject to the Federal antitrust laws. A few industries have used their influence to obtain a special, statutory exemption from the antitrust laws, and the insurance industry is one of them. In the markets for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance, patients and doctors are paying the price, as costs continue to increase at an alarming rate. As the insurance industry prospers behind its exemption, patients and small businesses suffer. I am pleased to introduce today the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009, which will repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance providers. The health care industry is the subject of a great deal of debate. There are many proposals to bring competition to health insurance providers. While we are debating these solutions, we should not lose sight of the fact that the health insurance industry currently does not have to play by the same, good-competition rules as other industries. That is wrong, and this legislation corrects it. The lack of affordable health insurance plagues families throughout our country, and the rising prices that hospitals and doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance drains resources that could otherwise be used to improve patient care. Antitrust oversight in these industries will provide consumers with the confidence that insurance companies are operating in a competitive marketplace. There is simply no justification for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance companies to be exempt from Federal laws prohibiting price fixing. Subjecting health and medical malpractice insurance providers to the antitrust laws will enable customers to feel confident that the price they are being quoted is the product of a fair marketplace. This bill will prohibit the most egregious anticompetitive conduct--price fixing, bid rigging and market allocations--conduct that harms consumers and drives up health care costs. In the 110th Congress, I introduced a much broader repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act with Senator Lott. While Congress did not reach consensus on that legislation, surely in this environment of rising health care costs, we can agree on this more narrowly tailored repeal. Insurers should not object to being subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else. If they are operating in an appropriate way, they should have nothing to fear. American families, doctors and hospitals rely on insurance. It is important to ensure that the prices they pay for this insurance are established in a fair and competitive way. I look forward to repealing the antitrust exemption in the health insurance and medical malpractice insurance industries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our Nation's antitrust laws exist to protect consumers. These laws promote competition, which ensures that consumers will pay lower prices, and receive more choices of higher quality products. The vast majority of the companies doing business in the U.S. are subject to the Federal antitrust laws. A few industries have used their influence to obtain a special, statutory exemption from the antitrust laws, and the insurance industry is one of them. In the markets for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance, patients and doctors are paying the price, as costs continue to increase at an alarming rate. As the insurance industry prospers behind its exemption, patients and small businesses suffer. I am pleased to introduce today the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009, which will repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance providers. The health care industry is the subject of a great deal of debate. There are many proposals to bring competition to health insurance providers. While we are debating these solutions, we should not lose sight of the fact that the health insurance industry currently does not have to play by the same, good-competition rules as other industries. That is wrong, and this legislation corrects it. The lack of affordable health insurance plagues families throughout our country, and the rising prices that hospitals and doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance drains resources that could otherwise be used to improve patient care. Antitrust oversight in these industries will provide consumers with the confidence that insurance companies are operating in a competitive marketplace. There is simply no justification for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance companies to be exempt from Federal laws prohibiting price fixing. Subjecting health and medical malpractice insurance providers to the antitrust laws will enable customers to feel confident that the price they are being quoted is the product of a fair marketplace. This bill will prohibit the most egregious anticompetitive conduct--price fixing, bid rigging and market allocations--conduct that harms consumers and drives up health care costs. In the 110th Congress, I introduced a much broader repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act with Senator Lott. While Congress did not reach consensus on that legislation, surely in this environment of rising health care costs, we can agree on this more narrowly tailored repeal. Insurers should not object to being subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else. If they are operating in an appropriate way, they should have nothing to fear. American families, doctors and hospitals rely on insurance. It is important to ensure that the prices they pay for this insurance are established in a fair and competitive way. I look forward to repealing the antitrust exemption in the health insurance and medical malpractice insurance industries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the amended Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, S.1494. I appreciate the commitment of Senator Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to work with me to strengthen this important legislation. The bill the Senate has approved recognizes the shared jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence, in several legislative areas. The first opportunity to review this legislation arose on August 5, shortly before the Senate was scheduled to recess, and in the midst of the debate on the confirmation of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. At that time, I recognized several provisions in the bill that fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, as well as issues about which the committee shares an interest with the Select Committee on Intelligence. Since that time, Senator Feinstein and I, as well as our staffs, have engaged in serious negotiations concerning these provisions. We negotiated agreements regarding exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, as well as numerous reporting requirements, such as a significant, new requirement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, an agency clearly under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and an important new cybersecurity oversight provision. The amendment to the intelligence authorization bill agreed to today identifies the Judiciary Committee as a recipient of relevant reporting provisions, narrows the operational files FOIA exemption for information provided by intelligence agencies to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, and strikes a FOIA (b)(3) exemption for terrorist identity information. Senator Feinstein has told me she is also committed to ensuring that the Judiciary Committee will receive reports required by the bill's section 340, cybersecurity oversight. I appreciate Senator Feinstein's support for these improvements. The intelligence authorization bill includes several reporting requirements that involve areas of long-standing interest and jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The amended bill ensures that the Judiciary Committee is a recipient of those reports. Section 336 of the bill directs the Director of National Intelligence to provide a comprehensive report on all measures taken by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and by elements of the intelligence community to comply with the provisions of applicable law, international obligations, and executive orders relating to the detention or interrogation activities of the intelligence community. These include compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005; the Military Commissions Act of 2006; common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; the Convention Against Torture; Executive Order 13492, relating to lawful interrogations; and Executive Order No. 13493, relating to detention policy options. The amendment to the intelligence authorization bill modifies section 336 to ensure that to the extent that the report addresses an element of the intelligence community within the Department of Justice, it shall be submitted, along with associated material, to the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate. I fought for years to obtain information about the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies and practices, and the legal advice from that administration authorizing those policies and practices. The last administration refused to give this information to Congress, instead issuing secret legal advice that misconstrued our laws and international obligations with regard to the treatment of people in our custody. Years later we found out that the administration had sanctioned cruel interrogation techniques, including torture. It is imperative that the Judiciary Committee be fully informed of the extent to which the government is complying with our laws and international treaties relating to detention and interrogation in order to be able to conduct proper oversight and ensure that our government cannot shield policies that authorize practices in violation of our laws. The Judiciary Committee is an important partner in this oversight. Section 407 of the bill establishes a new office of inspector general of the intelligence community to conduct independent investigations, inspections, audits and reviews on programs and activities conducted under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. Under this new authority, the inspector general is required to submit a semiannual report to the Director of National Intelligence summarizing its activities. The amendment incorporated into S.1494 modifies the reporting provision to require the inspector general to submit reports that focus on Government officials to the committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives with jurisdiction over the department that official represents. Section 407 of the bill creates an entirely new inspector general with significant authority and responsibility in the intelligence community. That authority will implicate agencies within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, including the Department of Justice and components of the Department of Homeland Security. I believe this modification to the bill provides an important recognition of the Judiciary Committee's need to be involved in the investigations and activities of this new inspector general. Another significant new provision is section 445 of the bill, report and assessment on transformation of the intelligence capabilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which creates a broad new reporting requirement for the FBI. The Judiciary Committee has always had primary oversight over the FBI. As the FBI takes on more responsibility in the areas of intelligence and national security, its policies and practices in these areas must be subject to the oversight of Congress. The Intelligence Committees have particular expertise that make them an important partner in this oversight. However, it is the Judiciary Committee that has the primary legislative and oversight responsibilities over the FBI. I am very pleased that the amendment adopted today contains several important improvements that I recommended to strengthen FOIA. I am particularly pleased that the bill, as amended, deletes a broad and unnecessary exemption to FOIA's disclosure requirements for terrorist identity information. No one would quibble with the notion that our government can--and should--keep some information secret to protect our national security. But, in the case of terrorist identity information, our government has successfully withheld this sensitive information under the existing FOIA exemptions for classified and law enforcement information. In addition, the many instances of mistaken identities and other errors on terrorist watchlists and ``no-fly'' lists make it clear that FOIA can be a valuable tool to help innocent Americans redress and correct mistakes on these lists. Lastly, the revised bill also narrows the exemption to FOIA's search requirements for operational files information that the Nation's intelligence agencies share with the ODNI. The bill now makes it clear that operational files that are already exempt from these search requirements retain this exemption under circumstances where the files are disseminated to the ODNI. This carefully crafted compromise will help ensure both effective information sharing among our intelligence agencies and the free flow of information to the American public. I believe the amendment strengthens this legislation by recognizing the value and significance of the shared jurisdiction in many areas of national security between the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. I appreciate Senator Feinstein's cooperation in adopting these improvements. In a letter sent to me today, Senator Feinstein has also committed to continuing to work with the Judiciary Committee in the area of cyber matters. I will ask to have her letter printed in the Record. The agreement to proceed with the intelligence authorization bill today includes a commitment to ensure that the Judiciary Committee receives reports required by the bill's section 340, cybersecurity oversight. The Judiciary Committee has long engaged in oversight and legislative activity regarding cyber threats and cybersecurity. Senator Feinstein and I have worked together in the Judiciary Committee for many years on these issues, and we both recognize the shared jurisdiction and responsibilities of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees with regard to oversight of cyber matters and cybersecurity. As Senator Feinstein has described it, section 340 of the bill is intended to provide a preliminary framework for executive and congressional oversight of cybersecurity programs, as defined in the section, to ensure that these programs are consistent with legal authorities, preserve reasonable expectations of privacy, and are subject to independent audit and review. Section 340 of the bill creates several reporting requirements with regard to the executive and congressional oversight of cybersecurity programs. These include Presidential notifications to Congress, reports to Congress and the President from the head of a department or agency with responsibility for cybersecurity programs, in conjunction with the inspector general of that department or agency, and a joint report to Congress and the President from the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security and the inspector general of the intelligence community on the status of the sharing of cyber threat information within one year. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Feinstein in the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate to ensure strong oversight and legislation with regard to cyber matters. I am pleased the Senate today will pass the amended Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The progress that Senator Feinstein and I have made to improve this bill demonstrates the success we can have when we work together constructively. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to which I referred printed in the Record.