Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania to introduce legislation aimed at making our government more open and accountable to the American people. We are pleased to be joined by six other members of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch, Kohl, Biden, Feinstein, Sessions, Grassley, and by the new junior Senator from New York, Senator Clinton. Our bill closes two loopholes in the laws governing what government officials and those who lobby them must disclose. First, it amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require the President to report any gifts or pledges of $5,000 or more to a presidential library during the President's term in office. Second, it adds to the list of individuals who must register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 those who lobby on behalf of a client for a grant of executive clemency. This legislation builds on a hearing held by the Judiciary Committee on February 14, 2001, relating to the pardons granted by President Clinton in his last days in office. I said then that we needed to view these pardons as a whole and in their historical and constitutional context, not focus exclusively on one or two controversial cases. In this way, we could learn valuable lessons for the future. The legislation that we introduce today is a pragmatic and forward- looking response to customs and practices that long predate the last Administration. As I have noted before, the controversies surrounding President Clinton's pardons are not unique. Other presidents raised substantial funds for their libraries while still in office. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation opened its doors and began fundraising in February 1985, nearly four years before President Reagan left office. By November 1991, the Foundation had raised between $45 and $65 million. Much of that amount came in large lump sums from big corporations, a source of funding that reportedly dried up when President Reagan returned to private life. Fund raising for the Bush library also began while the president was still in the White House. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, in an article dated May 25, 1997, quoted former Bush aide Jim Cicconi as saying that fund raising for the library remained ``low key'' and ``very discreet'' until the president left office in 1993. Established in 1991, while the president was campaigning for reelection, the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation initially consisted of three people, including Mr. Cicconi and the president's son, George W. Bush. I should add that the donor lists for the Reagan and Bush libraries were not and have never been disclosed to the public, a failure of transparency for which President Clinton, but not his predecessors, has been roundly criticized. President Clinton was also not the first Chief Executive to grant clemency to friends or family members of major contributors. The very first pardon granted by the elder President Bush went to Armand Hammer, the late chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, who pleaded guilty in 1975 to making illegal contributions to Richard Nixon's reelection campaign. Not long before he received his pardon, Hammer gave over $100,000 to the Republican party and another $100,000 to the Bush-Quayle Inaugural Committee. The team of lawyers that won Hammer his pardon included former Reagan Justice Department official, Theodore Olson. While Mr. Olson's name is well-known now, he was recently nominated to be Solicitor General, it was more important at the time that he was a close friend of C. Boyden Gray, the White House Counsel, and Richard Thornburgh, the Attorney General. Let me note one more example from the end of the first Bush Administration: In January 1993, two days before leaving the White House, President Bush pardoned Edwin Cox, Jr., the son of a wealthy Texas oilman. The Cox pardon was lobbied for by Bill Clements, the former governor of Texas, who contacted James Baker, then White House Chief of Staff. Not surprisingly, Mr. Baker mentioned the Cox family largesse in a note to the White House Counsel, referencing Edwin Cox Sr. as a ``longtime supporter of the president's.'' The Cox family had in fact contributed nearly $200,000 to the Bush family's political campaigns and to other Republican campaign committees. Shortly after the president pardoned his son, Cox Sr. made a generous contribution to the Bush Presidential Library. His name is now etched in gold on the exterior of the Library alongside the names of other ``benefactors,'' those contributing between $100,000 and $250,000. I mention these Bush-era pardons because they demonstrate that pardons which have become controversial and appear improper given the confluence of insider lobbying and financial contributions are not unique to the end of President Clinton's term in office. The bill we introduce today will bring a greater degree of transparency into the clemency process and so reduce the appearance of impropriety that may otherwise attach to a presidential pardon. I thank Senator Specter for the thoughtful and even-handed manner in which he conducted the Committee's hearing last month, and commend him for seeking constructive and bipartisan solutions.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with Senator Jeffords to introduce legislation that will allow the National Guard to participate fully in international sports competitions. Currently, members of the National Guard are involved in a myriad of athletic and small arms competitions, but their authority for such activities is unclear. This legislation will make it easier for the Guard to support the competitions and allow them to use their funds and facilities for such events. This is basic but necessary legislation. The National Guard is already participating in these events. The Vermont National Guard hosted the 2001 Conseil International du Sport Militaire, CISM, World Military Ski Championships at the Stowe ski area this month. This military ski event united military personnel from more than 30 countries, promoting friendship and mutual understanding through sports. More than 350 international athletes competed in such events as the biathlon, giant slalom, cross country, and military patrol race. They tested their skill and mettle in the beautiful Green Mountains, where the recent nor'easter added to the already bountiful snow cover there. But it takes a lot more than a 3-foot base of powder to carry off these competitions. It takes clear authorities, regulations, and resources. This legislation will allows these important events to continue with full participation of the National Guard. I urge the Senate to join Senator Jeffords and me in sponsoring this legislation and moving it quickly through the legislative process. I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud, once again, to rise and offer my support for the Rural Rental Housing Act. This important legislation will help reaffirm the federal government's commitment to provide quality affordable housing in rural areas. I joined Senator Edwards in introducing this bill last year, and look forward to the opportunity to debate this issue in the 107th Congress. The need for a new federal program to encourage production, rehabilitation and acquisition of rural rental housing has never been more evident than it is today. Families in small towns across the country find themselves with fewer and fewer options for a safe and affordable place to live. In my home state of Vermont, like many other states across the country, housing costs have soared out of reach of most low-income families and rental vacancy rates have fallen to alarmingly low levels. For those people fortunate enough to find an available apartment it is increasingly difficult to afford the rent the market demands. Despite this trend, the federal government has continued to scale back their commitment to rural housing programs over the last decade. Money for production has dropped nearly 88 percent since 1990, and funding for subsidized housing has fallen by 73 percent since 1994. This decline has made it incredibly difficult to maintain the existing housing stock, little less produce the number of units need to meet demand. In Vermont four thousand rental units were built with federal assistance between 1976 and 1985, but during the next ten years this number fell to under two thousand--nearly half of what was produced the decade before, despite the rising need. Nationwide it is estimated that nearly 2.6 million households live in substandard conditions, often without proper plumbing, heat or electricity. The Rural Rental Housing Act will provide $250 million dollars for a new matching federal grant program to address this situation. These funds will complement existing programs run by the Rural Housing Service at Department of Agriculture and will be used in a variety of ways to increase the supply, the affordability, and the quality of housing for the most needy residents, the lowest income families and our elderly citizens. Most importantly, this program is designed to be administered at the state and local level and to encourage public- private partnerships to best address the unique needs of each state. I think it is time for the Senate to take action to address the needs of our country's most rural populations. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and I encourage my colleagues to add their support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Friday April 5, a distinguished retired Vermonter, Dr. George W. Albee will receive the American Psychological Association's Presidential Citation for the work he has done in the field of psychology over the last 50 years. Dr. Albee and his family moved to Vermont in the early 1970's, after a long and prolific career at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. He taught and wrote at the University of Vermont for the next 25 years, and was an active and influential member of Vermont's academic community. Dr. Albee's career began in a small office at APA's national headquarters in Washington in the early 1950's. In the fall of 1953, he went to Finland after landing a Fulbright Professorship at Helsinki University. He returned to accept a job in the Department of Psychology at Western Reserve University, and was named George Trumbull Ladd Distinguished Professor of Psychology in 1958. Under President Eisenhower, Albee was the Director of the Task Force on Manpower of the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health. The book that he wrote, coupled with the work and recommendations of the commission, helped lead to the establishment and development of community mental health centers. He also served as a consultant to the U.S. Surgeon General, the Peace Corps, and headed President Carter's Commission on Mental Health in 1977. Prior to moving to Vermont, Albee was elected President of the American Psychological Association where he served with distinction during a turbulent time of change in the psychological and psychiatric communities. He was always known in Vermont as a leader also willing to wade into controversy and fight for the causes he believed in. In 1977, he began an annual conference at UVM on the Primary Prevention of Psychopathogy, which over the years have brought scholars and policy makers from around the country and around the world to discuss ways to shape local state and national policies on a range of important public policy areas. In addition to his prolific writings, Dr. Albee taught thousands of undergraduate and graduate students at UVM. His contribution to Vermont and our nation has been profound. I am honored to consider him and his wife Margaret friends--and am proud that he has raised four children, all of whom are contributing in their own ways to making this world a better place. A previous award Dr. Albee received articulated better than I his contribution to the field of psychology. Its says: Dr. Albee has had an active role in plotting the direction and independence of professional psychology. He saw and articulated early the need for an independent profession of psychology, freed from the domination of older professions and older models. His ``Declaration of Independence for Psychology'' has been reprinted endlessly. His argument and clinical psychology students should be trained in a service center operated by psychology was widely accepted. His study of the nation's manpower needs and resources in mental health was one of the major influences in developing the community mental health center movement. He has been a frequent critic of the mental health establishment, but he has been as sharply critical of his own field when it seemed tempted to yield principle for power and status. At times of greatest crisis, however, George W. Albee has helped find ways of compromise which have held psychology together. I congratulate Dr. Albee for this award.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. If the leader will yield, will it be safe to say that in the next hour or so those who show up on the floor with a tuxedo or evening dress are those who want to fulfill their commitments, and those who are not would like to keep voting?

Mr. LEAHY. I will change within the hour.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is my honor and pleasure to inform my fellow Senators that this year marks the 21st anniversary of Community Food Resource Center, a New York City organization that has been a leader in the fight for improved nutrition and economic well- being for all Americans. CFRC's first project in 1980 was a school breakfast campaign. Since then, CFRC has been instrumental in shaping and promoting child nutrition programs. Because of CFRC's efforts, for example, New York City became the first major city to implement universal school meals on a large scale. I became familiar with CFRC because of my work on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. I have come to admire and respect the organization and its dedicated staff, and I feel honored to have had the chance to work with them. Whatever the issue, I can always count on CFRC to focus on the needs of those whose voices are rarely heard in the Capitol. I would like to highlight just a few of CFRC's many innovative programs. Its Community Kitchen of West Harlem provides meals to more than 600 people nightly. Its CookShop program encourages schoolchildren to eat more fruits and vegetables. Its senior dinner programs use school cafeterias after hours to provide nutritious meals, social activities and an intergenerational program. CFRC is also a leading advocate for government policies assisting low-income individuals and families. At a time when Food Stamp participation is declining nationwide, CFRC's Food Force project sends outreach workers with laptop computers to community-based sites to pre- screen thousands of needy New Yorkers. With TANF reauthorization approaching, CFRC's Welfare Made A Difference National Campaign is challenging the stereotypes that led to passage of the 1996 welfare law. CFRC is not only committed to making a difference, it is also effective. Each year, tens of thousands of New Yorkers benefit from CFRC's programs, and its advocacy has made a difference to millions of Americans. I hope that 21 years from now, this country no longer needs groups like CFRC. But if there are still those among us who are poor or hungry, I hope that CFRC is still here keeping their needs in the national conscience.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Thompson and Lieberman in cosponsoring this legislation to improve the Federal Election Campaign Act, known as FECA. This legislation would increase criminal penalties for knowing and willful campaign finance violations, direct the Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines for violations, and clarify parts of FECA. This legislation is important to ensure that we have an enforcement structure that would deter knowing violations of the laws now on the books. Questions about the financing of the 1996 Federal elections have been the subject of multiple, expensive, overlapping, and repeated congressional hearings. In 1997, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held 32 days of hearings, calling 70 witnesses, at a cost of $3.5 million to investigate campaign finance violations relating to the 1996 Federal elections. The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has been investigating campaign finance violations since June 1997, including over 45 days of hearings. The Senate Judiciary Committee held its own series of hearings in the 106th Congress on the 1996 campaign finance investigations. Needless to say, all of these committees have spent countless hours investigating, collecting and reviewing documents, and holding hearings on alleged campaign finance abuses in the 1996 campaign. This legislation is one of the most constructive products to come out of those investigations. Indeed, in a report to then-Attorney General Reno, the former Chief of the Campaign Finance Task Force at the Department of Justice, Charles LaBella, recommended reforms in the campaign finance laws, including the increased penalties and clarifications to certain parts of the FECA embodied in this legislation. This bill would authorize felony prosecutions of knowing and willful FECA violations involving improper contributions aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year. It would also increase the statute of limitations to 5 years, which is the standard statute of limitation for Federal offenses. In addition, the bill would direct the Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines. Finally, the bill would clarify that foreign nationals who are not permanent residents may not donate to a candidate or political party as well as make clear that the FECA's prohibition on conduit contributions applies to any type of donation. I am glad to join in cosponsoring this legislation again, as I did in the last Congress, and urge its prompt passage. To the extent that we are frustrated by campaign finance abuses, I believe passage of this legislation is a better use of this body's time than the open-ended fishing expedition into open and closed cases.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many of us have advanced or supported campaign finance reform legislation for many years, but without having the votes to prevail or even to obtain a full debate. Successful legislation to reform campaign finance laws usually has had to follow on the heels of particular campaign finance scandals, such as the Watergate affair. It is different this time. The reason that campaign finance reform has been given a prominent and early place on the Senate's calendar is that sufficient support has risen up from the grassroots to ensure that this debate takes place. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have signed petitions or called their representatives in Congress. Rallies have been mounted in cities and towns from coast to coast. And Senators McCain and Feingold have built enough political capital for this bill that, in a very real sense, on this issue they have become the public's messengers to the Congress. I commend our Senate leaders, as well as Senators McCain and Feingold, for creating a framework for this debate that has contributed to its constructiveness. This is the kind of open debate that was usual when I joined the Senate 26 years ago but that has become rarer in recent years. The Senate tends to be at its best in open debate like this. Washington has spent much of the first 3 months of this year fulfilling President Bush's perceived mandate to make the Nation safer for huge corporations. Let us count some of the ways. First, Congress rushed to make its first order of business the repeal of the Department of Labor's 10-year quest to refine and implement ergonomics regulations to make workplaces safer for the American people. Next Congress spent weeks on a bankruptcy bill that lobbyists had convinced us to skew so that it would further increase the record profits of credit card companies. And now, in rapid-fire succession, the White House is rolling back one environmental protection after another, affecting the very air we breathe and the water we drink. At last, with this debate, we are finally tackling one of the true priorities of the American people: the mandate that Senator McCain earned with his extraordinary grassroots campaign to reform the way we finance our elections. We all owe Senators McCain and Feingold a debt for their dedicated and persistent support of such an important and necessary improvement to our election process, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of their bill. The main component of the McCain-Feingold bill is a giant step toward eliminating soft money from the electoral process. The raising and spending of soft money proliferated tremendously since we last amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1979. In 1984, both political parties raised $22 million in soft money. In the 2000 election cycle, they raised $463 million in soft money alone. The political parties raised more than 20 times as much in soft money last year than they did in 1984. The hundreds of millions of dollars that flow into campaigns without any accountability increase the likelihood that money will have a corrupting influence on our electoral system. The American people are being bombarded with television advertisements, mailings and newspaper ads funded by soft money. Often, the amount of money being spent by candidates themselves is dwarfed by the amount of soft money spent by others in their own races. The ban on soft money that the McCain-Feingold bill demands is an essential step to diminish the tremendous amount of money pouring into campaigns. Some opponents of the bill claim that banning soft money is unconstitutional. Senators McCain and Feingold have taken extra measures to ensure that the provisions in this bill comply with the Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo. The court ruled that the Constitution permits the Government to regulate the flow of money in politics to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. Political service remains a worthy calling, but anyone who enters it these days encounters a campaign fundraising system that is debilitating and demeaning and distasteful. The fact that we so clearly have ineffective checks on the spiraling cost of campaigns and on the way campaigns are financed has tarnished our institutions of Government as well as the people we elect to those institutions. It is important to bring our election process and Government back to the time when elected officials felt accountable to all of the people they represent, not disproportionately to the wealthy few. Our present system gives the wealthy a huge megaphone for expressing their views, while other Americans--the ``financially inarticulate''--are left without an effective voice. That is why I have felt it important to take steps on my own to increase Vermonters trust in how I conduct my campaigns. Though not required by law I have disclosed every nickel in contributions I have ever received since I first ran for the Senate in 1974, and I used no political action committee money in my last two election campaigns. Passing the McCain-Feingold bill--without any amendments designed to weaken it or destroy it--is a fundamental step all of us can take to fix a system that is in dire need of repair. Vermonters and all Americans want to have faith in the campaign and election process. They want to believe that their Government is working in the public's interest, not on behalf of the special interests. Eliminating unregulated soft money will help to give elections and the Government back to the people. I hope the Senate will not let this opportunity for reform slip away. I hope the Senate will approve this important and long-awaited bill and will refrain from adding any amendments that would jeopardize or kill this important effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Thompson and Lieberman in cosponsoring this legislation to improve the Federal Election Campaign Act, known as FECA. This legislation would increase criminal penalties for knowing and willful campaign finance violations, direct the Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines for violations, and clarify parts of FECA. This legislation is important to ensure that we have an enforcement structure that would deter knowing violations of the laws now on the books. Questions about the financing of the 1996 Federal elections have been the subject of multiple, expensive, overlapping, and repeated congressional hearings. In 1997, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held 32 days of hearings, calling 70 witnesses, at a cost of $3.5 million to investigate campaign finance violations relating to the 1996 Federal elections. The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has been investigating campaign finance violations since June 1997, including over 45 days of hearings. The Senate Judiciary Committee held its own series of hearings in the 106th Congress on the 1996 campaign finance investigations. Needless to say, all of these committees have spent countless hours investigating, collecting and reviewing documents, and holding hearings on alleged campaign finance abuses in the 1996 campaign. This legislation is one of the most constructive products to come out of those investigations. Indeed, in a report to then-Attorney General Reno, the former Chief of the Campaign Finance Task Force at the Department of Justice, Charles LaBella, recommended reforms in the campaign finance laws, including the increased penalties and clarifications to certain parts of the FECA embodied in this legislation. This bill would authorize felony prosecutions of knowing and willful FECA violations involving improper contributions aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year. It would also increase the statute of limitations to 5 years, which is the standard statute of limitation for Federal offenses. In addition, the bill would direct the Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines. Finally, the bill would clarify that foreign nationals who are not permanent residents may not donate to a candidate or political party as well as make clear that the FECA's prohibition on conduit contributions applies to any type of donation. I am glad to join in cosponsoring this legislation again, as I did in the last Congress, and urge its prompt passage. To the extent that we are frustrated by campaign finance abuses, I believe passage of this legislation is a better use of this body's time than the open-ended fishing expedition into open and closed cases.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to support the amendment offered by Senators Torricelli, Corzine, and Durbin. I believe that allowing candidates the opportunity to let their message be known to the public, through television ads, without having to raise an obscene amount of money to finance those advertisements is a needed step toward truly reforming our campaign finance system. During the 2000 election broadcasters' advertising prices soared precisely when airtime was most valuable to candidates. Due to this dramatic increase in prices the broadcasters earned record profits from political advertising. David Broder of the Washington Post articulated the need for TV advertising price relief. He writes, ``Common sense tells you that if the TV bill remains . . . exorbitant, politicians will continue the `money chase' under any rules that are in place.'' The rules to which Mr. Border refers are the rules drafted in the campaign finance reform bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 1 minute and the Senator from Utah have 1 minute.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Was there not time reserved of 1 minute before the vote?

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

Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from Kentucky. Mr. President, our amendment protects the identity of minor children in bankruptcy court records. It permits a debtor to withhold the name of a minor child in the public record, especially as these records go on the Internet where anybody who wants the names and addresses of children can find them. To prevent fraud, it permits the judge, or trustee, or an auditor to review a child's name in a nonpublic record. The amendment is modest, but it is a first step in protecting personal privacy and protecting criminal activity through the unnecessary disclosure of personal information. We know, unfortunately, that there are people who prey on children who are out there. What my friend from Utah and I are trying to do is to prevent their access to these names.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if the Senator from Delaware amends that to also add 1 minute for the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have tried over the last several weeks to improve this bankruptcy legislation through the legislative process. We were able to have an informative hearing and a productive Committee markup. Unfortunately, the Committee did not provide a Committee report to inform other Senators of what was good about the bill and what prompted eight members of the committee to vote against it. This important matter was, instead, rushed to the floor last week. Last Monday we began debating the bill, but on Tuesday, the first day the bill was open to amendment, the Republican leadership abandoned work on the bill. Instead, the Republican leadership chose to shift the Senate's attention to overriding the ergonomics rule that had been developed by the Department of Labor over the past decade. On Wednesday we returned to the bankruptcy bill but beginning on Thursday and carrying through until Tuesday of this week, the main focus of the debate were the competing budgetary amendment on providing a lockbox for Medicare. That too is an exceedingly important topic and one on which a majority of the Senate voted to adopt the Democratic lockbox proposal. That proposal is not in the bill because after the vote the Republican side invoked the Budget Act and the chair ruled that the amendment, although supported by a majority of the Senate was not consistent with the technical requirements of the Budget Act. That debate was a major disruption in our efforts to otherwise improve the bankruptcy bill. Beginning last Wednesday and continuing through today I have offered amendments to improve the bill and urged others with amendments to do the same. There has never been an effort to filibuster this debate or this bill. The only threat of a filibuster I can recall is when the Republican chairman of the Banking Committee spoke against certain amendments. That threat was overcome and with the commitment of Senator Grassley and the cooperation of Senator Hatch, we were able to obtain votes on the Schumer predatory lending amendment and in relation to the Durbin amendment. I thank both Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch for their cooperation in this regard. In fact, once the Senate had an opportunity to consider it, we voted to adopt the Schumer amendment. Despite the lack of a filibuster threat or a filibuster, the Republican Senate leadership filed a cloture petition on Monday afternoon. There was no need for cloture then or on Wednesday when, with the support of the Senate leadership, cloture was invoked. I voted against cloture. I voted against it because I reject the use of cloture as a time management tool. I believe that cloture is properly reserved in the Senate to those circumstances where unreasonable delay or a filibuster are interfering with the work of the Senate. Unfortunately, over the last 6 years the Republican leadership has abused the cloture process to avoid considering amendments and to interfere with the Senate doing its work. In my view, the invocation of cloture this week on this bill was unnecessary and unfortunate. It signals a retreat from the progress shown by Senate adoption of S. Res. 8 in January and threatens a return to the dark days of the last few Congresses when cloture became a regular instrument, rather than the last resort, of Senate leadership. Through the legislative process, through our hearing and Judiciary Committee markup and by means of amendments being adopted on the Senate floor, we have made some progress. It is sufficient for me to support the bill. I had hoped and worked for a more open process. I wanted to be able to moderate the bill, improve it and be able to support it. I supported the bankruptcy bill that passed the Senate 97 to one in the 105th Congress. I even supported the bankruptcy bill that passed the Senate in the last Congress given the progress we showed during Senate consideration and in hopes that we would be able to continue to improve the bill in cooperation with the House. I vote for this bill in that same spirit-- to move the process forward and improve our legislative product. Unfortunately, last year the conference that resulted was under the auspices of the Foreign Relations Committee and not the Judiciary Committee and the product that resulted was changed and tilted too harshly against American consumers and working people. That was the modified bill that I voted against last year, that was the bill the President vetoed, and that was the bill that was the basis for S. 220 and S. 420 this year. I am encouraged that we have included some privacy protection in the bill. The Leahy-Hatch amendment adopted by the Judiciary Committee to deal with the Toysmart.com-type situation and customer information of bankrupt companies is a good start. It is something I have worked on for some time and thank Senator Hatch for his joining with me in that effort. I am pleased that we were also able to add some protection today for shielding the identity of children whose names appear in bankruptcy records. By a vote of 99 to none, the Senate agreed to adopt our amendment. I thank Senator Hatch for joining with me in that effort, as well. I filed amendments to do more to enforce financial privacy laws and protections. Unfortunately, the bill still falls short in this regard. I am encouraged that we have made progress in assuring access to health clinics. Senator Schumer is to be commended for his steadfast efforts in this regard. The Schumer-Leahy amendment that the Senate adopted by a bipartisan vote with 80 Senators in favor last year was dropped in S. 220 and S. 420. I again want to commend Senator Hatch for working with Senator Schumer to include a modified version of Senator Schumer's amendment in the bill. I am encouraged that the Senate beat back an attempt to table the Kohl-Feinstein amendment and their sensible cap on the homestead exemption has been included in the bill. Throughout the debate Republican supporters have indicated that a key outstanding issue is the homestead exemption cap. That question was answered today when the Senate adopted the Kohl-Feinstein amendment today. I was pleased that we adopted the Bingaman LIHEAP amendment, which I cosponsored, and the Carnahan energy cost amendment. I am pleased that the Leahy amendment on separate spouses to protect battered women was adopted by a bipartisan majority of Senators and I thank them. I am encouraged that we were able to make other improvements in the measures included in the managers' package. We started work on that package last Friday. Unfortunately Republican delay prevented its adoption before the cloture vote on Wednesday. I regret that we have not made the progress that we should have, and that we have made in the past, in terms of providing consumers with greater disclosures and protections to help them avoid overextending their credit and consumption. Early in the debate I took the bill's supporters at face value when they argued that we need this bill to help small businesses. Those claims began this debate and were repeated today. In between I gave them the chance to shown that they meant it by voted for a small business amendment that would have allowed small businesses, as already defined in the bill, priority over large corporate creditors. That amendment was unfortunately, and in my view unwisely, rejected. We have also heard claims from the outset of this debate and through today that the bill is needed to address the $500 a family ``tax'' that bankruptcy abuse loads onto each American family. I have been asking how this bill benefits the average American family and where that ``tax refund'' is achieved. I have heard only silence from the other side. I have noted in this year's debate and in debates past that billions of dollars in benefits that are expected to flow to credit card companies and other large corporate creditors, hundreds of millions to individual companies. What I have been asking is where this bill or those corporations' practices will pass those benefits on ordinary Americans. Again, I have heard only silence. In fact, the benefits of this bill will flow to the profits of those large corporate interests. There is no provision in this bill to lower annual fees for credit cards, for example. There is no provision to lower interest rates for consumers. If this bill will benefit creditors to the tune of $5 billion or over the next several years, then why have then made no commitment to pass those benefits through to their customers and American consumers? Instead, what this bill does is require American taxpayers through our taxpayer-financed bankruptcy courts to assist creditors in their debt collection efforts and requires consumers to do more paperwork and confront more rules and hurdles and government bureaucracy to file for bankruptcy. I will continue to work in good faith with Chairman Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, Senator Biden and others who strongly support S.420. I will continue to work through the legislative process to improve this measure, to add balance, moderation and fairness. I hope to be able to support the final legislative product after a productive conference. I trust that this Congress, the Senate conferees will support the Senate position where we have made improvements to the bill and not so easily abandon those advancements in our discussions with our House counterparts. Had we done that in the 105th Congress, three years ago, we would already have a reformed bankruptcy law. Unfortunately, that was not the position of Republican Senate conferees in those days. I commend all Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard this year to improve this bill. I commend those who have participated in our debates and discussions. I especially appreciate the help I received in managing this bill from Senator Schumer, who consented to manage from time to time when I could not and who is the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee of jurisdiction, and Senator Reid, who remains a great help in some many ways on so many matters. I congratulate Senator Schumer, Senator Kohl, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Feingold for the improvements they have been able to make. I thank Senator Hatch for his courtesy to Senator Durbin on his alternative amendment and thank Senator Grassley for his courtesy to Senator Schumer with respect to his predatory lending amendment. I thank Senator Biden for his support of our efforts to have this matter considered by the Judiciary Committee. I thank the staffs of all Senators who participated in this debate for their hard work and, in particular, the staffs of Senators Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, Daschle, and Reid and the staffs of Senators Hatch, Grassley and Sessions. In particular, I want to thank the following staff: Makan Delrahaim, Renee Augustine, Rita Lari, Kolan Davis, Ed Haden, Melody Barnes, Jim Greene, Victoria Bassetti, Jeff Miller, David Hantman, Tom Oscherwitz, Jennifer Leach, Bob Schiff, Ben Lawsky, Natacha Blain, Jim Williams, Mark Childress, Jonathan Adelstein, Eddie Ayoob, Peter Arapis, Liz McMahon, and Greg Cota. I appreciate the exceptional work of my counsel Ed Pagano, who has labored long and hard to help improve this bill. Although bankruptcy filing had been going down over the last two years, I have seen recent reports that link this bill with an expected rise in such filings. Unfortunately, the effect of House passage of its bill has been to generate fear in the public that people had better file for bankruptcy now rather than wait for the harsh and onerous new burdens contemplated in that bill and, unfortunately, in the Senate bill. I can understand if bankruptcy lawyers feel an obligation to advise their clients of the possibility that the terms and paperwork and costs of filing for bankruptcy may soon change. Indeed, a principal reason Senator Feinstein successfully opposed the Wyden-Smith amendment was a similar argument with respect to California utilities--that a prospective change in the law would force them into premature and possibly unnecessary bankruptcies. In much the same way that the Bush administration's talk about weakness in the economy has served to drive the market down, shatter consumer confidence and contribute to a further weakening, this drive for exacting requirements of those on the brink of insolvency seems to be accelerating bankruptcy filings and contributing to the economic downturn. That is an immediate and unfortunate byproduct of this effort. Perhaps it is appropriate that we end this phase of the debate today, on March 15. It is on this day that we are reminded to beware the Ides of March. There remains much about this bill that counsels caution. Unless it is further moderated and balanced in discussions between the Houses or at the insistence of the President, enactment of a bill like the one the Senate is voting on today will be the start of a process that will likely consume several years. Just as the overreaching that occurred in so-called immigration reform and welfare reform and telecommunications reform have required us to revisit those matters and still require corrections, so, too, the bankruptcy bill as currently constituted will result in hardships and consequences that will require us to return to these matters again and again in the days, months and years ahead. In addition, I expect we will be hearing more about this bill and the lobbying efforts and the contributions by the bill's corporate beneficiaries as soon as next week, when campaign finance reform is debated.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that we finally adopted the amendments in the managers' package to improve this bill. I thank the efforts of Senators Hatch, Daschle, Grassley, and Reid. For the information of my colleagues, we adopted the following amendments to improve this bill. We adopted an amendment by Senator Baucus to resolve an ambiguity regarding involuntary bankruptcies. We adopted an amendment by Senator Boxer to provide that public education expenses are treated equally with private education expenses in the bill's means-test. We adopted an amendment by Senator Feinstein regarding bankruptcy petition preparers. We adopted an amendment by Senator Jack Reed calling for a General Accounting Office review of the bill's reaffirmation provisions. We adopted an amendment by Senator Feingold to make Federal Election Commission fines and judges non-dischargeable in a bankruptcy proceeding. We adopted another amendment by Senator Feingold to clarify that the Federal Election Commission has jurisdiction over insolvent Political Action Committees. We adopted an amendment that I offered to clarify the definition of current monthly income in the bill's means-test to prevent unnecessary litigation. We adopted another Leahy amendment to allow a person who has successfully completed a chapter 13 plan and paid off all her creditors to file another chapter 13 plan if some unforeseen economic disaster-- such as a job loss or high medical expenses--hits that person within two years of the first chapter 13 completion. We adopted a third Leahy amendment to modify the requirements for debtors to file tax returns to only Federal returns or transcripts to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary court storage costs. We adopted an amendment by Senator Schumer and Senator Grassley on corporate business reorganizations to prevent a single creditor from alleging fraud to delay the reorganization and to clarify that debts from violations of the False Claims Act are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. We adopted an amendment by Senator Wellstone to clarify that the companies in bankruptcy must fulfil their legal obligations as sponsors and administrators of health care and other benefit plans. We adopted an amendment by Senators Reid and Ensign to authorize a bankruptcy judgeship for Nevada the fastest growing state in the nation. We also adopted, at the request of Senators Biden and Carper, an authorization for an additional bankruptcy judgeship for the District of Delaware, which has the heaviest caseload of bankruptcy cases in the country. We accepted a colloquy between Senator Levin and Senator Grassley to ensure that spikes in gasoline prices will be taken into account in the bill's means-test. We adopted an amendment by Senators Kohl and Kennedy to require that back pay awards are given the same priority as regular wages in bankruptcy proceedings. We adopted an amendment by Senator Gramm, which Senator Sarbanes has cleared as the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, making corrections to the bill's financial contract provisions. We adopted an amendment by Senators Bond and Kerry to improve the bill's small business provisions. We adopted an amendment by Senator Kennedy to include health insurance costs in the bill's means-test. We adopted an amendment by Senator Collins and Senator Kerry on family fisherman protection in bankruptcy. We adopted an amendment by Senators Sessions, Leahy, Specter, and Biden regarding appeals of bankruptcy cases. I am glad we made these important bipartisan changes to improve this bill and add more balance and fairness to it. Amendment No. 59, As Further Modified

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just so Senators know, that included the Baucus, Feingold, Feinstein, Leahy, Schumer, Wellstone, Leahy, Ensign/ Reid, Leahy, Kohl/Kennedy, Levin/Grassley, Biden/Specter/Sessions/ Leahy, Collins/Kerry, Gramm of Texas, Reed of Rhode Island, Kennedy, Leahy, Bond/Kerry, Boxer, and Grassley amendments. amendment no. 30, as modified

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month the Food and Drug Administration issued new consumer guidance, warning pregnant women, women of childbearing age, nursing mothers, and young children not to eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish in order to avoid exposure to methylmercury. I commend the FDA for issuing this guidance, which is important information for the most vulnerable members of our population. Unfortunately, despite acknowledging the problem of mercury contamination in large fish, the FDA still has not revised its so-called ``action level,'' which is important data for consumers and local governments, nor do they enforce this level. There is a lot more to be done to protect the public, and after so many years of delays, we should not wait any longer. That is why Senator Harkin and I are introducing important legislation today to promote food safety and protect thousands of Americans, especially pregnant women and young children, from the serious risks of methylmercury. The ``Mercury-Safe Seafood Act of 2001'' requires the Food and Drug Administration to establish a formal tolerance for safe methylmercury levels in seafood. It mandates seafood testing to ensure compliance, along with public education and health advisories to inform the public. Mercury is a dangerous poison that is still not fully regulated in the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, and other sources spew 150 tons of mercury into the atmosphere each year. Although new and expected EPA rules address much of this pollution, full compliance and large emission reductions are still years away. Much of this mercury returns to earth with rain to pollute our waterways. It accumulates in fish as methylmercury, especially in large predatory species, and is passed on to the humans who eat these fish. Methylmercury is a powerful neurotoxin that affects the human central nervous system. It is especially harmful to pregnant women, infants, and young children, where even small doses can cause permanent damage to their developing brains and nervous systems. Last year's comprehensive report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury,'' estimates that 60,000 newborns each year may be at risk from prenatal mercury exposure. Two weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control released preliminary results from an ongoing study showing that 10 percent of American women may have potentially hazardous levels of mercury. This means that a lot more newborns may be at risk. This is a public health problem we cannot ignore. Certain commercial seafood species--large predators such as swordfish, shark, mackerel, and tuna--can have dangerously high levels of methylmercury contamination. Food and Drug Administration data throughout the 1990's showed numerous fish samples with high mercury levels, exceeding FDA's own action level and presenting a direct hazard to consumers. FDA stopped testing for mercury in 1998, which means they have no way to enforce their action level. Yet recent testing by independent organizations still shows high mercury levels in some fish species. FDA's action level of 1.0 part per million was established in 1979 using information from the 1970's, without regard for the greater vulnerability of pregnant women, infants, and children. More recent studies have highlighted the damaging effects of mercury, especially for these populations. In 1997, EPA's ``Mercury Study Report to Congress'' recommended a level five times more strict than FDA's action level, and this was confirmed by last year's National Academy of Sciences report. FDA's current action level, even if there were sampling and enforcement, is not stringent enough to protect the most vulnerable American consumers from mercury. Last month the General Accounting Office released a report on seafood safety, at the request of Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar. That report confirms that FDA has not acted vigorously enough to address the issue of mercury in seafood. This bill seeks to remedy these problems. It amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require a tolerance level for methylmercury in seafood, with special attention to pregnant women, infants, and children. This will replace FDA's outdated and unenforced action level with a formal tolerance that must be enforced. It mandates ongoing sampling of mercury levels to ensure compliance. This will restart the testing which FDA stopped three years ago. It mandates public education and health advisories to ensure the public is aware of the new standards and of the risks of mercury contamination in seafood. It requires consideration of last year's National Academy of Sciences report, which clearly shows the need for prompt, strong action. Finally, it authorizes modest appropriations to support not only FDA's sampling and public education but also the efforts of our States to protect our citizens from methylmercury in freshwater fish. I enjoy fishing and I love eating fish. This legislation is not meant to harm the fishing industry--it is meant to help bring the safest fish to market for the American consumer. Most importantly, this bill will protect pregnant women and young children who may now unknowingly be exposed to high levels of mercury. No one can dispute the science that tells us mercury is toxic and unsafe at certain levels in fish. We need to bring those levels down. But, until we do, we also need to keep the food supply safe for all Americans--especially those most at risk. We have a responsibility to protect the American public, especially our children. Until such time as mercury emissions are drastically reduced and seafood is no longer contaminated, we must take this action to protect Americans from this dangerous pollutant.. The American Public Health Association has endorsed this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month the Food and Drug Administration issued new consumer guidance, warning pregnant women, women of childbearing age, nursing mothers, and young children not to eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish in order to avoid exposure to methylmercury. I commend the FDA for issuing this guidance, which is important information for the most vulnerable members of our population. Unfortunately, despite acknowledging the problem of mercury contamination in large fish, the FDA still has not revised its so-called ``action level,'' which is important data for consumers and local governments, nor do they enforce this level. There is a lot more to be done to protect the public, and after so many years of delays, we should not wait any longer. That is why Senator Harkin and I are introducing important legislation today to promote food safety and protect thousands of Americans, especially pregnant women and young children, from the serious risks of methylmercury. The ``Mercury-Safe Seafood Act of 2001'' requires the Food and Drug Administration to establish a formal tolerance for safe methylmercury levels in seafood. It mandates seafood testing to ensure compliance, along with public education and health advisories to inform the public. Mercury is a dangerous poison that is still not fully regulated in the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, and other sources spew 150 tons of mercury into the atmosphere each year. Although new and expected EPA rules address much of this pollution, full compliance and large emission reductions are still years away. Much of this mercury returns to earth with rain to pollute our waterways. It accumulates in fish as methylmercury, especially in large predatory species, and is passed on to the humans who eat these fish. Methylmercury is a powerful neurotoxin that affects the human central nervous system. It is especially harmful to pregnant women, infants, and young children, where even small doses can cause permanent damage to their developing brains and nervous systems. Last year's comprehensive report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury,'' estimates that 60,000 newborns each year may be at risk from prenatal mercury exposure. Two weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control released preliminary results from an ongoing study showing that 10 percent of American women may have potentially hazardous levels of mercury. This means that a lot more newborns may be at risk. This is a public health problem we cannot ignore. Certain commercial seafood species--large predators such as swordfish, shark, mackerel, and tuna--can have dangerously high levels of methylmercury contamination. Food and Drug Administration data throughout the 1990's showed numerous fish samples with high mercury levels, exceeding FDA's own action level and presenting a direct hazard to consumers. FDA stopped testing for mercury in 1998, which means they have no way to enforce their action level. Yet recent testing by independent organizations still shows high mercury levels in some fish species. FDA's action level of 1.0 part per million was established in 1979 using information from the 1970's, without regard for the greater vulnerability of pregnant women, infants, and children. More recent studies have highlighted the damaging effects of mercury, especially for these populations. In 1997, EPA's ``Mercury Study Report to Congress'' recommended a level five times more strict than FDA's action level, and this was confirmed by last year's National Academy of Sciences report. FDA's current action level, even if there were sampling and enforcement, is not stringent enough to protect the most vulnerable American consumers from mercury. Last month the General Accounting Office released a report on seafood safety, at the request of Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar. That report confirms that FDA has not acted vigorously enough to address the issue of mercury in seafood. This bill seeks to remedy these problems. It amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require a tolerance level for methylmercury in seafood, with special attention to pregnant women, infants, and children. This will replace FDA's outdated and unenforced action level with a formal tolerance that must be enforced. It mandates ongoing sampling of mercury levels to ensure compliance. This will restart the testing which FDA stopped three years ago. It mandates public education and health advisories to ensure the public is aware of the new standards and of the risks of mercury contamination in seafood. It requires consideration of last year's National Academy of Sciences report, which clearly shows the need for prompt, strong action. Finally, it authorizes modest appropriations to support not only FDA's sampling and public education but also the efforts of our States to protect our citizens from methylmercury in freshwater fish. I enjoy fishing and I love eating fish. This legislation is not meant to harm the fishing industry--it is meant to help bring the safest fish to market for the American consumer. Most importantly, this bill will protect pregnant women and young children who may now unknowingly be exposed to high levels of mercury. No one can dispute the science that tells us mercury is toxic and unsafe at certain levels in fish. We need to bring those levels down. But, until we do, we also need to keep the food supply safe for all Americans--especially those most at risk. We have a responsibility to protect the American public, especially our children. Until such time as mercury emissions are drastically reduced and seafood is no longer contaminated, we must take this action to protect Americans from this dangerous pollutant.. The American Public Health Association has endorsed this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, James Madison said that if men were angels, no government would be necessary. But because people and governments are fallible, he added, ``experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.'' The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA), a modern improvement in American government, has proved itself as a vital precaution that has served the people well in defending their right to know what their government is doing--or not doing. Friday is the 250th birthday of James Madison and, appropriately, this is also the day that we commemorate FOIA's 35th anniversary. I am not sure that we could pass FOIA if it were offered in Congress today, but thank heaven it is firmly etched by now in our national culture. Just this month a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court affirmed FOIA's mandate of broad disclosure, noting that full agency disclosure would ``help ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society.'' FOIA may be an imperfect tool, but as one foreign journalist observed, ``in its klutzy way, it has become one of the slender pillars that make America the most open of modern societies.'' In recent years records released under FOIA have revealed the government's radiation experiments on human guinea pigs during the Cold War, the evidence that the Food and Drug Administration had about heart-valve disease at the time it approved the Fen-Phen diet drug, the Federal Aviation Administration's concerns about ValuJet before the 1996 crash in the Everglades, radiation contamination by a government- run uranium processing plant on nearby recreation and wildlife areas in Kentucky, the government's maltreatment of South Vietnamese commandos who fought in a CIA-sponsored army in the early 1960's, the high salaries paid to independent counsels, and the unsafe lead content of tap water in the nation's capital. Five years ago we updated FOIA's charter with the Electronic Freedom of Information Act that I proposed as a way to bring the law into the information age, recognizing that technology is dramatically changing the way government handles and stores information. The ``E-FOIA'' law directs federal agencies to make the information in their computer files available to citizens on the same basis as that in conventional paper files. We also took this as an opportunity to encourage agencies to use technology and the Internet to make government more accessible and accountable to its customers, the citizens. For instance, we now have the technology to translate government records into Braille or large print or synthetic speech for people with sight or hearing impairments, and the new law promotes that. Electronic records also make it possible to offer dial-up access to citizens over the Internet so they can have instant direct access to unclassified information stored in government computer banks. This is far easier for Vermonters than having to travel to Washington to visit an agency's public reading room. Information is a valuable commodity, and the federal government is the largest single producer and repository of data on topics ranging from agriculture to geography to labor statistics and the weather. Better and timelier access to this information helps lubricate our economy. FOIA today is healthy, but only constant vigilance will keep Congress from needlessly whittling away its promise to the American people. We fought back one such effort last year, and new carve-out proposals are already in the air. FOIA gives each American the power to ask--and the government the obligation to answer--questions about official actions or inaction. We can count on a government agency to tell us when it does something right, but we need FOIA to help tell us when it does something wrong. Of all the laws that fill our law libraries, none better than FOIA breathes life into the first words in our Constitution, ``We the people of the United States'' and into our First Amendment rights to petition our government. This is a law to celebrate, to use, and to defend.