Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from California on Bonnie Campbell. As the one who has brought life into the Violence Against Women Act, it is remarkable that she cannot even get a vote in this Chamber on her judicial nomination. I have said on the floor, although we are different parties, I have agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said that in the Senate a nominee ought to get a vote, up or down, within 60 days. I urge in the time remaining in this session that he, as the head of his party, as their Presidential nominee, call the Republican leader of the Senate and say that all of these women, all of these minorities, in fact, all of the people who have been sitting here for well over 60 days waiting for a vote on their nomination, let them have a vote. Vote for them or vote against them. Bonnie Campbell deserves a vote. My guess is the reason she has not been brought for a vote is they know at least 80 of the 100 Senators would vote for her. It would be impossible to justify a vote against her because of her extraordinary qualifications. Again, if Governor Bush is serious when he says have a vote within 60 days, pick up the phone, call the Senate majority leader, reach him at the switchboard, 202-224-3121, and ask him to bring her to a vote. It is a very easy thing to do. I agree with the Senator on the Internet alcohol bill. That was included over my objection. It is unnecessary. It is dangerous to e- commerce. Adding Internet sales on alcohol demeans the issue of violence against women and sex trafficking that this bill is all about. It is demeaning to what is a good bill.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, the study was done by the non- partisan Citizens for Independent Courts. In fact, the former Republican Congressman from Oklahoma, Mickey Edwards, co-chaired that study. They found, without taking sides and without taking political stands, that women and minorities took longer to be confirmed by the Senate. Unfortunately, a lot of those women and minorities are not even getting a vote. Again I say if Governor Bush means it, pick up the phone and call 202-224-3121; ask the Senate switchboard to connect him to the Republican leader and say: You know, I have made it a tenet of my campaign that the Senate should vote on a nomination within 60 days. You can bring every one of these people to the floor for a vote, up or down, today. Let's do so. Who knows. We will find out how the Senate feels about them. Are they for them or are they against them? Right now, instead of voting yes or no, we vote ``maybe,'' by having one or two Senators in the dark of night put holds on these people. I see the distinguished Senator from Washington State, who has been one of the great leaders on the issue of violence against women, on sex trafficking, and on these other issues. I ask her, how much time does the Senator from Washington require?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield an extra 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, especially because of the tremendous work he has done along with the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack, on this subject. I think they have had to overcome so many obstacles and so many mysterious holds on their legislation. I, of course, yield 5 more minutes to the Senator.

Mr. LEAHY. I thought there might be more. You have to watch out for that fuzzy math.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I recall very well the incident of which the Senator from Maryland speaks. I am pleased this is a case where the perpetrator was arrested and prosecuted. One of the things I learned in my years as a prosecutor is that too often nobody wanted to pursue those cases. All that meant, of course, was that somebody else would be a victim. In this case, it was the Senator from Maryland. But from my experience, had the person not been apprehended, not been convicted, then someday it would be somebody else. So I commend the people of Baltimore who rallied to her. At least out of that sorry thing there was adequate prosecution. But we have so much violence against women that we never see. I recall so many times police officers seeing a badly battered woman, and where we would bring prosecution, but as I talked to her, I would find this had happened several times before in a domestic situation and that they had gone to law enforcement, and others, and had been turned back where nothing had been followed up on. We had a very aggressive program in my office where we would follow up on it. I have to think there are a number of deaths, though, that have occurred and do occur in places where it is not followed up on. This is something you do not see in the sunny ads and the perfect homes and domestic situations that we see on our television. The fact is, there are a lot of places in this country where there is enormous violence against women. I would add to the comments of my colleague, it goes across every economic strata, it goes across all social strata. This is not one thing that is just in poor neighborhoods or just in one ethnic group or another. This goes across the economic strata. It goes across good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods, large families and small families. But, unfortunately, many times it never comes to the attention of law enforcement. Regrettably, sometimes when it does, it is not followed up on. This act, itself, will help focus the attention of law enforcement on this. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey had asked to speak, and I know the Senator from Louisiana wishes to speak.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. Out of the 3 hours? We have not been in session 3 hours, Mr. President. The Senator from Vermont had a total of 3 hours. We went into session less than 3 hours ago.

Mr. LEAHY. That sounds a little closer to it. I am going to be reserving time for my own speech, but I have been withholding giving a speech because other Members on our side want to speak. I see the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maryland, my good friend.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from New Mexico time off my time. I yield to him for another purpose, and once he speaks, I am sure the Chair will understand the reason. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Kansas does not have to make any apologies with all the work he has done on this. I appreciate him being here. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LEAHY. We yield 10 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator would yield?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I will note the big difference between Judge Rader and Bonnie Campbell. I think Judge Rader is a very good judge. I supported him. Judge Rader got an opportunity to have a vote on his nomination, and he was confirmed. Bonnie Campbell, who was nominated way back in March, has never been given a vote. There is a big difference.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see my good friend, the Senator from Iowa, on the floor. I yield him 10 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the 6 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. LEAHY. May I have 30 seconds of the time I yielded to the Senator?

Mr. LEAHY. I will speak more on this in another venue, but I think it is safe to say VAWA would not be voted on today had it not been for the persistence of the Senator from Delaware. That persistence is something the public has not seen as much as those of us who have been in private meetings with him, where his muscle really counted. We would not have this vote today, and I suspect it will be an overwhelmingly supportive vote--that vote would not have been today were it not for the total and complete persistence of the Senator from Delaware, just as the vote on sex trafficking is to the credit of the Senators from Kansas and Minnesota.

Mr. LEAHY. How much time do I have?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I rise to tell you about a man I have known for many years now who is a credit to his profession and to his community. He is a consummate professional and an even finer human being. Tim Johnson has been bringing the news to Brattleboro, VT and beyond for more than 20 years now. It is clear that Vermonters know a good thing when they hear it. Tim, now the news director at WTSA, is a Brattleboro institution. In these times of huge media conglomerates and syndicated radio programs, Tim Johnson knows Brattleboro--he is a graduate of Brattleboro Union High School--and residents have come to rely on him for the news they care about. Time, on a typical day, will report on everything from lost pets, to school closings and national affairs. As Vermont's Senator for more than 20 years, I have had the pleasure of working with Tim throughout the years and I have come to appreciate his keen insights and his dogged pursuit of the facts. Tim has demonstrated an unflagging commitment to keeping his community informed and Brattleboro has been the better for it. While we hear so much about what is wrong with the media today, Tim Johnson is a shining example of what is right. I ask to have printed in the Record a profile of Tim Johnson from The Times Argus, dated October 1, 2000. The article follows: [From the Sunday Rutland Herald, Oct. 1, 2000] Tim Johnson: Radio Journalist Keeps an Ear on Brattleboro (By Susan Smallheer) Brattleboro.--The studios of WTSA in Brattleboro are on the second floor of an old Victorian home on Western Avenue. It's Tim Johnson's home away from home, sometimes for as long as 18 hours a day. He's even slept on a pull-out futon at the station. When he's home, though, he's in bed by 10 p.m.--unless there's a close Red Sox game--and up by 4 a.m., and at the station before 5 to prepare for the morning newscast. Johnson is the news director of Brattleboro's dominant radio station, WTSA-AM and FM. He works exhausting hours, both locked in the studio and then out on the streets getting the news. This is a radio newsman who gets a tan. (Well, a little tan.) Johnson, 43, has been on the air since he was a teenager at Brattleboro Union High School, working at WTSA's cross-town competition, WKVT. He was 17 and making $1.60 an hour when he started working weekend shifts at the station, and gradually left behind disc jockey chores for the newsroom. Johnson is a self-taught radio expert who never went to college, whose first broadcast challenge was to overcome a stutter. Friends say he overcame it by simple determination. ``The first word I stumbled over was Episcopal,'' he said. ``I mispronounced it three times.'' His own name, Arsenault, and the problems he has pronouncing it, helped persuade him to choose something simpler for on-air. Johnson has been chasing the news in southern Vermont for more than 20 years. No Rolodex for him. He has a memory for telephone numbers, perhaps a 1,000 or more. He goes to house fires, car accidents, board meetings, governor's appearances and homecoming football games. ``It's the personal pride of putting a good product out there,'' said Johnson, who puts the emphasis on community. ``We're one of the few radio stations that still do lost dog announcements,'' said Johnson, who fields telephone calls on such topics ``Is there softball tonight?'' and ``Is there school?'' and ``Is Brattleboro Bowl open tonight?'' He is also the technical wizard at the station, and the `scanner head.' He taught himself as the station switched to cyber. There is no such thing as a piece of tape in radio now; it's all digital. The high and mighty came calling at Western Avenue, or rendezvous on the road. His ``Live Mike'' van allows him to get news on the spot and broadcast it first. In the competitive Brattleboro news market, WTSA rules. ``You don't know how many people call me Mike,'' laughs Johnson over soup and salad at the Jolly Butcher, a popular see-and-be-seen restaurant a mile from the station. With his distinctive deep voice, people instantly recognize Johnson, and his relaxed personality invites conversation, ``You can't brush anybody off; they might think you're a snob and word gets around fast in a town like Brattleboro,'' said Johnson, who seems to enjoy the attention. At The Jolly Butcher, the jolly chef teases Johnson about the station's recent lobster-eating contest, which raised money for the Winston Prouty Center, a school and day care center for handicapped children. As he leaves, Johnson is hugged by Windham County Side Judge Trish Hain, who once worked for him as an assistant news editor at WKVT. Everybody, it seems, knows him. He's chairman of the board of directors of BCTV, Brattleboro's heavily watched community television station. He's moderator for his hometown, serving Vernon as a steady hand during marathon town meetings. He's also the Windham County director of the emergency alert system, which accounts for the second of two beepers on his belt. And he recently became the moderator for the Brattleboro Union High School district. He's also a justice of the peace and Vernon's representative to the Windham Regional Commission. Johnson relishes the pace, but health problems have forced him to scale back to 55-60 hour work weeks. He's devoting more time now to his wife, family, and three grandchildren, not to mention their dog Loretta. Both he and Sue, the activities programmer at the special needs unit at the Vernon Green Nursing Home, were married before, he said, and family means a great deal to both of them. Johnson divorced in his 20s, and his only child, 3-year-old son Jeremiah, was murdered 18 years ago in Texas by his ex- wife's drunken half-brother. Johnson says his grief almost destroyed him. But his renewed interest in his Christian religion has made him forgive his former brother-in-law, who is out of prison after serving most of a 10-year sentence. ``I forgive him. In God's eyes he's forgiven. But do I think he's a nice person? No. ``I don't believe in the death penalty. I'm a death penalty opponent,'' he says. Religion helps him, he says, deal with his personal tragedy and job stress. And he uses his voice--``I sing tenor''--in the choir of the South Vernon Advent Christian Church, where both his grandfathers were pastors. Back after lunch, Johnson makes a few calls to get the proverbial sound bite to flesh out a story from the AP about an issue in the governor's race relating to homosexuality and public education. This afternoon, he will even do double duty, cueing up CDs for a missing DJ, expertly flipping through the playlist, selecting a song to fit the time slot and sliding it into the stacked CD players, all with seconds to go. He dashes between music and news, cueing up disks and editing the sound bites he garnered from Vernon NEA President Angelo Dorta, all at amazing speed. He's in his element.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we all in the Senate and the House have been saddened by the death of Bruce Vento. Congressman Vento came to the Congress 2 years after I did. We served together and worked together on many issues. He belonged, proudly, to a sort of informal Italian-American caucus. We would talk about from which parts of Italy our families had come, and we became close friends. I remember talking with Bruce when he was first diagnosed with cancer. I told him he was in my prayers, my wife's prayers, our family's prayers. He was a good man. I was sad when I heard him announce he would not run for reelection because of his illness. Of course, we have been notified of his death. There are Senators and House Members who come here who, under the old saying, some are show horses and some are workhorses. He was a workhorse. One of his priorities during his last year in Congress was the plight of the Hmong people, many of whom settled in Minnesota. They are people from Laos who had fought with the United States and its allies in the Vietnam war and came to the United States afterwards. They very much wanted to become citizens here but had great difficulty learning English because they come from a culture that does not have a written language. Bruce Vento was the primary House sponsor of the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act, a bill that passed the House and Senate earlier this year and became law. This bill waives the English language requirement for naturalization, and provides special consideration for the civics requirement for Hmong veterans and their spouses and widows. It has been a small concession on our part in return for the great sacrifices these men made in fighting for the American cause in Southeast Asia. I am pleased that with the help of Senators Wellstone, Feingold, Hagel, McCain, and others the bill became law before the Congressman's untimely death earlier this week. There is another bill that addresses an outstanding issue in the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act. H.R. 5234, cosponsored by Congressman Vento, will extend the benefits of the new law to widows of Hmong veterans who died in Laos, Thailand, or Vietnam. The bill was passed by voice vote in the House on September 25. The Senate companion bill is strongly bipartisan with seven Democrats and five Republicans joining Senator Wellstone as sponsors. I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to lift the hold they have on this bill and allow it to pass so we can complete our work on this important issue. We can do this in Bruce Vento's memory, but we can also rectify an injustice that has been done to the Hmong people who have come to this country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the House of Representatives has, again, thwarted the will of a bipartisan majority of the Congress. After strong votes in both the House and Senate to lift sanctions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba, the Republican conferees on the Agriculture appropriations bill have added a provision to prohibit public financing which makes it virtually certain that few, if any, sales will actually occur. It is bad for America's farmers, bad for the people of Cuba, and bad foreign policy. Even worse, the conferees would codify the restrictions on travel to Cuba, a position which is at odds with the fundamental right of every American to travel freely. Senator Dodd and I introduced legislation earlier this year that would lift the ban on travel to Cuba. It is ironic--or I should say it is outrageous--that Americans can travel to North Korea, or Syria, or Vietnam, but not Cuba. What a hypocritical, self-defeating, anachronistic policy. Senator Dodd spoke eloquently last Friday about this misguided provision and I want to associate myself with his remarks. I will not take more time today. But I want to say that this is a terrible decision, a partisan decision, a decision driven by politics, and one of the many, many reasons why the election on November 7 is so important. It is far past time that we inject some intelligence and bipartisanship into our foreign policy. This Congress has had its chance. It has fallen short in too many ways to count. This decision on Cuba is just another example of the 106th Congress' failures to do what is right for America, and right for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to note my deep disappointment that hate crimes legislation has been dropped from the Department of Defense authorization bill in conference, despite the fact that both the Senate and the House have voted to include it. This is a major step backward for our commitment to civil rights. The Senate passed the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000, sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Gordon Smith, on June 20 by a strong bipartisan vote of 57-42. This legislation would strengthen current law by making it easier for federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. It also focuses the attention and resources of the federal government on the problem of hate crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability. The Senate bill also shows full respect for principles of federalism. It strengthens Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a back-up, but not a substitute, for state and local law enforcement. It has received strong bipartisan support from state and local law enforcement organizations across the country, support that is particularly significant to me as a former prosecutor. On September 13, the House voted 232-192 to instruct their conferees to agree to the Senate language, showing that a strong bipartisan majority of the House also wanted to strengthen and expand our laws against hate crimes. But the conferees have now ignored the will of both the Senate and the House. They have dropped the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which has the support of not just the Congress but the President and the American people. Their objection cannot be that this legislation is unimportant. Hate crimes affect more than just their victims and their victims' families--they inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim beyond a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. When James Byrd, Jr. was dragged behind a pickup truck and killed by bigots in Texas for no reason other than his race, many African-Americans throughout the United States surely felt diminished as citizens. When Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in Wyoming because he was gay, many gay people throughout the United States felt less safe on our streets and in their homes. These crimes promote fear and insecurity that are distinct from the reactions to other crimes, and House and Senate have both agreed that they should have distinct punishments. The conferees' objection cannot be that this legislation is unnecessary. Bigotry and hatred are corrosive elements in any society, but especially in a country as diverse and open as ours. We need to make clear that a bigoted attack on one or some of us diminishes each of us, and it diminishes our Nation. As a Nation, we must say loudly and clearly that we will defend ourselves against such violence. All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they choose. In the past we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for more than 100 years. The hate crimes amendment this Senate approved and the House endorsed continues that great and honorable tradition. The conferees' objection cannot be that this legislation is unconstitutional. This bill accomplishes a critically important goal-- protecting all of our citizens--without compromising our constitutional responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts of violence and threats of violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it. As Justice Holmes wrote, the Constitution protects not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with it. As Justice Holmes wrote, the Constitution protects not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it. The conferees' objection cannot be that this legislation has not been properly examined. In addition to gaining the approval of the Senate and the House this year, similar legislation passed the Senate last year. It has been the subject of great discussion in the general public and in the halls of Congress. It is long past time to act on this legislation. Finally, the conferees's objection cannot be that hate crimes are rare occurrences. In addition to the terrible murders of Mr. Byrd and Mr. Shepard, the last years have seen the murder of former Northwestern basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong and others in a bigoted Illinois shooting spree, the terrible sight of small children at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles fleeing a gunman who sprayed the building with 70 bullets from a submachine gun, and racially-motivated crimes in the Pittsburgh area by both African-American and white offenders. And these are just some examples of a wider phenomenon of hate-based crimes. I would like to thank Senators Kennedy and Gordon Smith for their exhaustive efforts on behalf of hate crimes legislation. I regret that their efforts and the will of the House and Senate have been frustrated.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a conferee last year on the satellite television bill, I worked hard to include, along with several of my colleagues, a provision that would have ensured that the benefits of that bill would also be shared by rural Americans through a loan guarantee program. Those benefits include providing local-into-local television over satellite--which simply means that rural Americans would be able to receive their local network stations over satellite if they owned a satellite dish, along with the full range of weather, movie, superstation, sports and a host of other channels. We wanted to ensure that rural Americans would get the same level of television service over satellite as urban Americas would enjoy. As it turns out, urban Americans can now receive the full array of local network channels over satellite--but the great majority of rural Americans can not. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Banking Committee objected to the provision--at the end of last year--that would have helped finance such service to rural areas and we have been unable to resolve this matter. At the time I was very worried this would happen which is why I discussed it at some length on the floor. I want to stress, once again, to all of my colleagues that this is very important to our constituents. We need to work together so that we can resolve this problem and make sure that rural America is not left in the dark. I am here today, to again stand with rural Americans. I have already mentioned on the floor several times that if we tried to hold a Conference on this issue that we would be unable to pass the bill this year. I said few weeks ago that we simply do not have time to go through the formal Conference process. The e-signature Conference, for example, took many months. As I have warned everyone before--we do not have time for a Conference. However, if we work together we can easily finish a bill that will actually work and get local television stations carried over satellite. With a few improvements to the House-passed or to the Senate-passed bills we can get this job done for rural America. We need to make sure that the federal guarantee can cover providing high-speed Internet access to rural Americans. As long as we are going to help finance a satellite we should get the biggest benefit out of it by having it also help break down the digital divide. Also, some of the bill provisions consist of such atypical, and onerous, credit requirement that I do not think that any lenders will want to participate. I have two basic concerns with the proposed language, and have serious concerns about the extraneous House provisions on cell telephones and the like. I also understand through lobbyists that efforts are being made to include language that would take away FCC authority to approve the new ``Northpoint'' technology that could provide local-into-local television in many areas of the country. My understanding is that some of the satellite providers are concerned that Northpoint could compete with them. In terms of the credit provisions of the bill, I am worried that potential borrowers may have long-term existing contractural obligations or security agreements whose contract terms would be abrogated by this law if they were to participate in this loan guarantee program. If they received a guaranteed loan under the bill, their lenders could pull back existing credit lines for violating their contracts by complying with the new law. With respect to the default language, even a minor default could lead to liquidation which would reduce the ability of the United States to protects its own interests and, in addition, could trigger unnecessary defaults on loans or projects which the borrower may have with the United States, or other lenders. The additional problem with the superpriority bankruptcy language is that it is a backdoor ``taking'' of property because it would take the property rights of creditors that have other prior perfected security interests in the borrower's property. These contract property rights--which would be destroyed after the fact--could be very valuable and the bill could take them away. Mr. President, I have provided language to most interested offices some months ago to resolve these points which may appear at first blush to be technical but, in fact, could make it impossible for this program to work. I have also proposed language to ensure that rural Americans are able to receive high-speed Internet access under this bill. The section on prerequisites for the loan does not list high-speed Internet access as a purpose for the guarantee. I recommend adding ``high-speed Internet access'' to that section so that the Board could approve a guarantee which would include that purpose, as a secondary consideration. I have pointed out before on the Senate floor that, ``computers are on a development path that improves performance by a factor of 10 every five years,'' according to Scientific American. However, without high-speed linkage of these constantly improving computers rural America will be left behind. In America, there is a growing disparity between the digital ``haves'' and ``have-nots'' as portions of our society get left behind at the same lightning pace at which the Internet develops. I would like the bill changed so that we can close the ``digital divide'' that keeps rural America from fully participating in America's economic boom under President Clinton. I know that some are fighting to keep this disparity--but this disparity between rural and urban America is self-defeating as the Internet becomes an increasingly important thread of our business and social fabric. So I hope all my colleagues will join with me in working together to get this program in operation before Congress goes out of session.