Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. It was not objected to by you, and it was accepted.

Mr. LEAHY. If I might respond to that, if we were doing this right, we would not have brought out something put together behind closed doors. I am not accusing the Senator from Connecticut of doing that, but we suddenly have this thing plopped on our desks as people are leaving for the long-promised recess, and we are told: Here, we just have to put this all together right now. It is not the way to do it. We have not had hearings. We have not done anything like that. I think had we had those hearings, had we discussed it, you would have found a vast majority of Americans would assume the Secret Service carries out their law enforcement functions.

Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Maine would yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, we have the Secret Service in Homeland Security, but carved out is a separate entity, partly because of their criminal jurisdiction and the fact that their oversight is in the Judiciary Committee. I would ask if by the same logic that because they are there, they must suddenly come under this new committee, do we also bring the Attorney General's office under this new committee for oversight because they prosecute the cases brought by the Secret Service? Do we bring the U.S. attorneys? Maybe the Attorney General and the U.S. attorney should be brought into this new homeland security committee for confirmation, for oversight, or budget and everything else because, after all, they have criminal jurisdiction and the Secret Service goes to them. Or do we have a bifurcated thing where the Secret Service criminal jurisdiction, which does come under the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorneys for prosecution, suddenly say: Well, we can watch what they are doing in the Judiciary Committee, but maybe we shouldn't be watching because maybe it should be somewhere else where there is none of the 56 years of experience watching over it? It seems to me what we are doing is trying to set up an organizational chart for the sake of organizational charts. I might say, maybe this is one of the problems with putting this thing together behind closed doors, without the input of the people most directly involved, without any hearings. And suddenly as the airplanes are revving up and the smell of jet fuel is in the air, we are saying: Quick, we have to do it, forget the 56 years, forget what has worked. Forget the fact that it is working. Forget the fact that it works extremely well. Forget all those criminal cases that they handle. We have an idea to fill out some new chart and, therefore, go forward with it. Forget the proud tradition of the Secret Service. Forget all the experience, all the things they have done. Forget the prosecutors they have to go to. But, by golly, we are going to have a nice new chart. There is more I could say but I shan't. I think maybe we ought to vote and see where we stand.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine, in asking the question actually gives my answer, because if the issue is simply where are they sitting, that determines jurisdiction. The Secret Service, for years and years, would have been under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee because they are in the Treasury Department. They have been in the Treasury Department forever. But the jurisdiction has been under the Judiciary Committee because of their unique law enforcement aspects. Now, the Senator from Maine says, quite properly, we should not put the Attorney General under this committee, even though these various groups, various entities for criminal prosecution have to go to the U.S. attorney but because the Attorney General is under the Department of Homeland Security. By the same token, when the Secret Service was in Treasury, everybody knew, because of the criminal jurisdiction and involvement, they would be under the jurisdiction of a committee that deals all the time with criminal law, with the courts, and with title 18. This is title 18 in my hand, the Federal Criminal Code and Rules. Taking up the whole middle part of this is Secret Service jurisdiction. Do we want to make them better? Do we want proper oversight? Do we want to say, by golly, look at this, we came out with this closed door item and put it out here and immediately the Senate has saved the world--no hearings, nothing? Here it is. I am far more interested in having the Secret Service be the best it can be. I am far more interested in making sure we are giving them the proper criminal codes they need. I am far more interested in making sure, when they are investigating crime, they can do their best. I think what Senator Hatch and I are trying to save the Senate from doing is making a very serious mistake with the Secret Service, just to fill out an organizational chart. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Utah in the Chamber. I will yield in a moment. But I point out, in talking about the number of places Secretary Ridge may have to appear, he has only come to the Judiciary Committee once in each of the last 2 years. It is not like he is coming often. But the point is, the Secret Service has 56 years of experience of making sure it works right. We are going to throw that overboard because we got this brand-new color-coded organizational chart for the Senate. My goodness, ladies and gentlemen, you can rest easy tonight, there will be no more terrorism because the Senate has a new organizational chart. Whoop-de-do.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will speak for 3 to 4 minutes on the Kyl amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry: Was there time reserved for the Senator from Vermont prior to the vote?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I seek recognition in my own right.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this is an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley. We did this because 3 years ago, a law was passed requiring the Attorney General to report on the FBI translators program, why it was failing, and how he is going to fix it. The Attorney General has never followed the law and submitted that report. Our amendment requires the Attorney General to submit a report on FBI translators within 30 days of enactment of this act. Senator Grassley, of course, is well known as being one of the most vigilant people on FBI oversight issues. Last week the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General released an unclassified version of its Audit of the FBI's Foreign Language Program. The report shows that despite concerns expressed for years by some of us in Congress and by former FBI contractors, among others, and despite an influx of tens of millions of dollars to hire new linguists, the FBI foreign language translation unit continues to be saddled with growing backlogs, systemic difficulties, security problems, too few qualified staff, and an astounding lack of organization. What is the use of taping thousands of hours of conversations of intelligence targets in foreign languages if we cannot translate the material promptly, securely, accurately and efficiently? The administration owes Congress and the American public an explanation as to why it has repeatedly failed to take the necessary steps to fix these serious intelligence failings. Almost 3 years ago, Congress required the Attorney General to report upon where the FBI translators program was failing and how he was going to fix it. The Attorney General has never submitted that report. To make sure that report is delayed no more, and to respond to the Inspector General's recommendations, Senator Grassley and I have offered the Translator Reports Act of 2004 as an amendment. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friend from Iowa, who has been ever- vigilant on FBI oversight issues. Our amendment requires the Attorney General to submit a report on FBI translators within 30 days of enactment of the National Intelligence Reform Act. It also adds further reporting requirements that will be crucial to understanding whether or not the FBI is capable of fixing, and has fixed, the problems outlined by the Inspector General. This report will allow Congress to meet the 9/11 Commission's directive that Congress exercise greater oversight over the counterintelligence and counterterrorism needs of the executive branch. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand my amendment regarding translators, No. 3945, is now before the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Has the Senator from Maine completed her statement?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after 9/11, there was broad agreement that the absence of an accurate, reliable, and comprehensive terrorist watch list was a serious deficiency. Unfortunately, 3 years later, we still have not accomplished this important task. My amendment, which has been modified to reach an agreement with Senators Collins and Lieberman, addresses this deficiency. It requires a report to Congress on the watch list, specifically on the standards in place to ensure we have a list that is reliable and accurate, and that we have procedures for determining threat levels and the consequences to listed individuals. It also mandates a process for individuals erroneously listed on the ``Automatic Selectee'' and ``No- Fly'' lists to have their names removed. Finally, it would require an assessment of the privacy and civil liberty implications of using these lists. It is critical that we have a complete, accurate and consolidated watch list, but we also need to be mindful of our liberties in the process. We know that one of the most senior and respected Members of this Senate who for decades has taken the same flight was told he could not board because he was, apparently, on some kind of terrorist list. They said: Of course, it is an obvious error, and we will get it cleared up. But repeatedly when he tried to get on the same plane, he was continually stopped. Now, as a Member of the Senate, after six or seven times of this happening, and after calls from the White House, the head of Homeland Security and others, the problem was finally corrected. Can you imagine what it is like if you are Jane Smith or John Jones from a small town somewhere in this country, but you have to travel on business and your name is there, and you lose important clients, you lose important business, or you are unable to get home to visit a friend or a family member, and you probably cannot pick up the phone and call the White House and say, ``Look, this is the sixth or seventh time I have been mistakenly barred from traveling. Please fix it''? Now, there are other concerns I would like to have addressed, but this modified version reflects the agreement with Senators Collins and Lieberman. Mr. President, I believe the modified amendment is at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent it be in order to call up my amendment No. 3915 and that it be so modified.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chair of the committee for her cooperation and help, and also commend her and her distinguished ranking member for moving this far along. Amendment No. 3916, As Modified Mr. President, a major weakness uncovered after 9/11 was the failure of Government agencies to share information with one another. The 9/11 Commission recommended a government-wide information system to ensure that we connect the dots. The Commission also recommended that the ``[p]rotection of privacy rights should be one key element'' of implementing the system. Given the sweeping powers that Congress is about to grant for building an information sharing system, we have to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. After all, we fought a Revolution to guarantee our privacy. The distinguished Presiding Officer and the distinguished chair know, because they come from New England, that the Revolution was fought on our soil. We all agree we must maximize this information, but we must also maximize the protection of personal information. And we need assurances that private information will be protected before we build the system, not after. We certainly do not want to repeat what happened with CAPPS II, when $100 million of taxpayer money was spent on deploying a system that then subsequently collapsed because we failed to adequately account for civil liberties and privacy concerns. My amendment, which has been modified to reach an agreement with Senators Collins and Lieberman, would require that we take advantage of available privacy-enhancing technology that would prevent unauthorized dissemination of information. It also requires the Administration to fulfill its obligations to report to Congress on plans for the network before spending funds to build it. This oversight is critical to ensuring the network maximizes security while balancing civil liberties and privacy. Senators Collins and Lieberman have agreed to accept this important amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up amendment No. 3916, and that it be modified.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there is no objection to this amendment from the managers of the bill.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have an amendment No. 3913, which I will soon withdraw. It is on the subpoena powers of the civil liberties board created in this bill. We have worked hard to strengthen the powers of the board both at the committee level and then here on the floor, and I believe we have made great progress. We added teeth to this oversight body and fought against efforts to weaken it. I think the goal of this amendment, which is to give the board enforcement power for its subpoena authority, is an important one. However, in order to expedite the passage of this bill, I will withdraw the amendment now. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue next year. But I also understand the need to expedite the passage of this bill. There may be another time to bring this up. I will withdraw the amendment now, though I look forward to working with my colleagues on the issue next year. I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing legislation to renew and extend family farmer bankruptcy protection through June 30, 2005. Senator Grassley and I introduced the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act, S. 2864, to retroactively renew and temporarily extend these protections that our farmers have come to rely upon because Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code expired on January 1, 2004. Representative Tammy Baldwin and Representative Nick Smith have introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. But our bipartisan legislation is just a short-term fix. We need to stop playing politics and permanently reauthorize the Chapter 12 family farmer protections. Too many family farmers have been left in legal limbo in bankruptcy courts across the country because Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code is still a temporary measure. This is the eleventh time that Congress must act to restore or extend basic bankruptcy safeguards for family farmers because Chapter 12 is still a temporary provision despite its first passage into law in 1986. Our family farmers do not deserve these lapses in bankruptcy law that could mean the difference between foreclosure and farming. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from many representatives of family farmers that underscores the need for renewing the Chapter 12 bankruptcy protections be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. It is time to end this absurdity and make these bankruptcy protections permanent. Everyone agrees that Chapter 12 has worked. It is time for Congress to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a stable safety net for our Nation's family farmers. I will continue to work with Senator Grassley, Senator Feingold, Representative Baldwin, Representative Nick Smith and others on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation that once and for all assures our farmers of permanent bankruptcy protections to help them keep their farms. In the meantime, the House of Representatives should quickly pass the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act and end the current lapse in basic bankruptcy protections for our family farmers. October 6, 2004. Hon. Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: The undersigned organizations urge immediate passage of S. 2864 that reinstates Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions of our nation's family farmers. Since January 1, 2004 farmers facing serious financial problems resulting from low commodity prices, increasing production costs, and natural disasters have not been able to consider filing a Chapter 12 bankruptcy. The need for a separate bankruptcy code that enables farmers to stay on the land while reorganizing their debt is as urgent now as it was in 1986 when initially enacted by Congress. This lapse in coverage results in farmers having to face foreclosure and liquidation. Instead, Chapter 12 would offer farmers the opportunity to negotiate with their creditors. This benefits the farm family, their creditors and rural businesses. Please act quickly. Every day that Congress delays on Chapter 12 has a direct cost to our nation's family farmers and rural communities. Sincerely, American Corn Growers Association. Association of Chapter 12 Trustees. Community Food Security Coalition. Family Farm Defenders. Farm Aid. Farm Wives United (New York). Federation of Southern Cooperatives. Livestock Marketing Association. National Bankruptcy Conference. National Catholic Rural Life Conference. National Family Farm Coalition. National Farmers Union. New York Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (NYSAWG). Northeast States Association for Agricultural Stewardship (NSAAS). Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI-USA). Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural. Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (SSAWG). Soybean Producers of America. Women, Food, and Agriculture.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up and passing the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004. I have been working to reform the copyright royalty arbitration procedures for several years. As early as 2002, I noted in a Judiciary Committee hearing that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the current law. In particular, we heard the testimony of Frank Schliemann of Onion River Radio of Montpelier, VT. Mr. Schliemann noted that many small webcasters could not afford to take part in CARP proceedings, even though their livelihoods would depend on the outcome. We also heard from Billy Strauss, president of Websound, another small webcaster in Brattleboro, VT. Mr. Strauss noted many of the structural problems that plagued the old CARP procedures. In addition, I have been concerned that the current procedures are often hindered by unreasonable delays, and the outcomes subject to manipulation. The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act responds to these concerns. It replaces arbitrators, who serve for only one CARP procedure and are paid by the parties, with full-time administrative judges. As a result, the financial burden of taking part in a CARP procedure is alleviated. In addition, all parties can rest assured that there will be continuity and stability in the resolution of these proceedings. At the same time, this bill preserves the traditional role of the Register of Copyrights. This bill also resolves longstanding disputes over the availability of discovery. Because discovery is available where it is needed, the copyright royalty judges will have the information necessary to render a correct determination but the costs of discovery will be kept to a minimum. I am pleased to have cosponsored with Senator Hatch the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House bill. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Smith, and Congressman Berman for their leadership in this matter. We believe that in adopting this version of the House bill, H.R. 1417, we will be able to move to final passage without delay. It is time these important reforms were implemented.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the other body just passed their version of the Satellite Home Viewer Act under suspension of the rules. H.R. 4518, the W.J. (Billy) Tauzin Satellite Television Act of 2004, is a strong bill. During this process, I have heard from many Vermonters who are concerned about not being able to receive Vermont stations over satellite. Others have been concerned about possibly having their ability to receive certain stations terminated. One reason for these strong concerns is that Vermont has the highest percentage in the Nation of TV owners who receive programming using satellite dishes. One reason for this is our beautiful mountains and valleys which make it more difficult to receive TV signals using regular antennas. The Hatch-Leahy Satellite Homer Viewer Extension Act of 2004 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. All the members of the Judiciary Committee supported that bill. In the other body, members of both the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee worked together in a bipartisan fashion to craft a comprehensive bill which will be good for consumers and for the affected industries. That bill, if enacted, will be a boon to public television, the satellite industry, the movie, music and television industries, and to satellite dish owners throughout America. I am especially pleased that it contains a provision which I worked on with my colleagues from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu and Senator Gregg. We, along with Senator Jeffords, introduced legislation to ensure that satellite dish owners in every county in each of our States would be able to receive signals, via satellite, from our respective in-State television stations. While our two States represent a small television market as compared to some of the major population markets, nonetheless this provision is very important to residents in six of our collective counties--two in Vermont and four counties in New Hampshire. The Senate bill, S. 2013, as reported in June by the Judiciary Committee also contained this provision just included in H.R. 4518. In Vermont this will mean that satellite dish owners in Bennington and Windham Counties will be able to receive all Vermont network stations in addition to the out-of-State network stations they now receive. It is very important that in the waning days of this Congress that the Senate enact this satellite legislation. In 1998 and 1999 over 2 million families were faced with the prospect of losing the ability to receive one or more of their satellite television network stations. Back then, Congress acted and not only protected access to those stations but also expanded consumer opportunities to receive more programming options. Families who own satellite dishes may end up being the big losers if provisions of that act are not extended. Many Midwestern and Rocky Mountain States have vast areas where satellite dish owners receive imported network stations such as ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox. Thousands of these families do not have any other choices. They do not have access to TV stations over-the-air because of mountain terrain or distance from the broadcast towers. They do not have access to cable because of the rough terrain or the lack of population density which makes it economically impossible for cable companies to invest. Without access to network stations via satellite, over-the-air, or cable, those families will no longer be able to receive national news programming or other network TV programming. If Congress does not reauthorize provisions of current law by December 31, 2004, hundreds of thousands of households will lose satellite access to network TV stations. Since information about subscribers is proprietary it is difficult for me to tell you exactly how many families will be affected by this, but I assure you it is not a small number. The Senate Judiciary Committee got its job done in June. We reported a great bill out of committee without a single amendment and without a single nay vote. That bill was introduced on January 21, 2004, by Chairman Hatch and was cosponsored by myself and Senators DeWine and Kohl. When the bill was reported out of committee on June 17, 2004, I noted that the bill does far more than just protect satellite dish owners from losing signals. I pointed out that the new satellite bill ``protects subscribers in every state, expands viewing choices for most dish owners, promotes access to local programming, and increases direct, head-to-head, competition between cable and satellite providers.'' I continued by saying that ``easily, this bill will benefit 21 million satellite television dish owners throughout the nation, and I am happy to note that over 85,000 of those subscribers are in Vermont.'' The Senate Judiciary Committee-reported bill, and the recently passed bill H.R. 4518, go far beyond protecting what current subscribers receive. The bills allow additional programming via satellite through adoption of the so-called ``significantly viewed'' test now used for cable, but not satellite subscribers. That test means that, in general, if a person in a cable service area that historically received over- the-air TV reception from ``nearby'' stations outside that area, those cable operators could offer those station signals in that person's cable service area. In other words, if you were in an area in which most families in the past had received TV signals using a regular rooftop antenna then you could be offered that same signal TV via cable. By having similar rules, satellite carriers will be able to directly compete with cable providers who already operate under the significantly viewed test. This gives home dish owners more choices of programming. In the past, Congress got the job done. Congress worked well together in 1998 and 1999 when we developed a major satellite law that transformed the industry by allowing local television stations to be carried by satellite and beamed back down to the local communities served by those stations. This marked the first time that thousands of TV owners were able to get the full complement of local network stations. In 1997 we found a way to avoid cutoffs of satellite TV service to millions of homes and to protect the local affiliate broadcast system. The following year we forged an alliance behind a strong satellite bill to permit local stations to be offered by satellite, thus increasing competition between cable and satellite providers. We also worked with the Public Broadcasting System so they could offer a national feed as they transitioned to having their local programming beamed up to satellites and then beamed back down to much larger audiences. Because of those efforts, in Vermont and most other States, dish owners are able to watch their local stations instead of getting signals from distant stations. Such a service allows television watchers to be more easily connected to their communities as well as providing access to necessary emergency signals, news and broadcasts. I hope we are able to work together to finish this important satellite television bill in the few remaining days of this Congress.