Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.

Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 40.5 cents per mile.

We are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services. But the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit.

A representative of one organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that dozens of volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services.

As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging Federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services.

And the same is true for thousands of other non-profit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation.

By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 40.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by

volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.

This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress in nearly every respect. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill in 1999, and it is essentially the same provision that passed the Senate as part of the CARE Act.

At the time of the 1999 tax bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis.

Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce in the Senate the Reasonable Notice and Search Act. This bill is nearly identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1701. It addresses Section 213 of the USA-PATRIOT Act, the provision of that important statute passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that has caused perhaps the most concern among Members of Congress and the public. Section 213, sometimes referred to as the ``delayed notice search provision'' or the ``sneak and peek provision,'' authorizes the government in limited circumstances to conduct a search without immediately serving a search warrant on the owner or occupant of the premises that have been searched.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, secret searches for physical evidence were performed in some jurisdictions under the authority of Court of Appeals decisions, but the Supreme Court never definitively ruled whether they were constitutional. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act authorized delayed notice warrants in any case in which an ``adverse result'' would occur if the warrant were served before the search was executed. Adverse result was defined as including: 1. endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; 2. flight from prosecution; 3. destruction of or tampering with evidence; 4. intimidation of potential witnesses; or 5. otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. This last catch-all category could apply in virtually any criminal case. In addition, while some courts had required the service of the warrant within a specified period of time, the PATRIOT Act simply required that the warrant specify that it would be served within a ``reasonable'' period of time after the search.

It is interesting to note that this provision of the PATRIOT Act was not limited to terrorism cases. In fact, before the PATRIOT Act passed, the FBI already had the authority to conduct secret searches of foreign terrorists and spies with no notice at all under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Furthermore, the PATRIOT Act ``sneak and peek'' authority was not made subject to the sunset provision that will cause many of the new surveillance provisions of the act to expire at the end of this year unless Congress reenacts them. So Section 213 was pretty clearly a provision that the Department of Justice wanted regardless of the terrorism threat after 9/11.

Perhaps that is why this provision has caused such controversy since it was passed. In 2003, by a wide bipartisan margin, the House passed an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-

State appropriations bill offered by Representative Otter from Idaho, a Republican, to stop funding for delayed notice searches authorized under section 213. The size of the vote took the Department by surprise, and it immediately set out to defend the provision aggressively. Clearly, this is a power that the Department does not want to lose.

I raised concerns about the sneak and peek provision when it was included in the PATRIOT Act. I did not, and still do not, believe there had been adequate study and analysis of the justifications for these searches and the potential safeguards that might be included. I did not argue then, however, and I am not arguing now that there should be no delayed notice searches at all and that the provision should be repealed. I simply believe that this provision should be modified to protect against abuse. My bill will do four things to accomplish this.

First, my bill would narrow the circumstances in which a delayed notice warrant can be granted to the following: potential loss of life, flight from prosecution, destruction or tampering with evidence, or intimidation of potential witnesses. The ``catch-all provision'' in section 213, allowing a secret search when serving the warrant would ``seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial'' can too easily be turned into permission to do these searches whenever the government wants.

Second, I believe that any delayed notice warrant should provide for a specific and limited time period within which notice must be given--7 days. This is consistent with some of the pre-PATRIOT Act court decisions and will help to bring this provision in closer accord with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under my bill, prosecutors will be permitted to seek 7-day extensions if circumstances continue to warrant that the subject not be made aware of the search. But the default should be a week, unless a court is convinced that more time should be permitted.

Third, Section 213 should include a sunset provision so that it expires along with the other expanded surveillance provisions in Title II of the PATRIOT Act, at the end of 2005. This will allow Congress to determine if the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement has been correctly struck.

Finally, the bill requires a public report on the number of times that section 213 is used, the number of times that extensions are sought beyond the 7-day notice period, and the type of crimes being investigated with this power. This information will help the public and Congress evaluate the need for this authority and determine whether it should be retained or modified after the sunset.

These are reasonable and moderate changes to the law. They do not gut the provision. Rather, they recognize the growing and legitimate concern from across the political spectrum that this provision was passed in haste and presents the potential for abuse. They also send a message that Fourth Amendment rights have meaning and potential violations of those rights should be minimized if at all possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act. The bill is identical to the bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1507.

This bill would amend Sections 215 and 505 of the USA-PATRIOT Act to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. It would set reasonable limits on the Federal Government's access to library, bookseller, medical, and other sensitive, personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA'') and related foreign intelligence authority.

I am pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

Millions of Patriotic Americans love our country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad, but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home.

Much of our Nation's strength comes from our constitutional liberties and respect for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for our two and a quarter century history. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values, are what make our country worth fighting for as we strive to win the war on terror.

Here at home, there is no question that the FBI needs ample resources and legal authority to prevent future acts of terrorism. But the PATRIOT Act went too far when it comes to the government's access to personal information about law abiding Americans.

Even though in the end I opposed the PATRIOT Act, there were many provisions that I did support. And even in those provisions I sought to amend when the bill was debated, there was often some change that I supported. For example, Congress was right to expand the category of business records that the FBI could obtain pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek a court order to obtain only travel records--such as airline, hotel, and car rental records--and records maintained by storage facilities. The PATRIOT Act allows any business records to be subpoenaed. I don't quibble with that change.

But what my colleagues and I do find problematic--and an increasing number of Americans who value their privacy and First Amendment rights agree with us--is that the current law allows the FBI broad, almost unfettered access to personal information

about law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism or spying.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act requires the FBI to show in an application to the court that the documents are ``sought for'' an international terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. There is no requirement that the FBI make a showing of individualized suspicion that the documents relate to a suspected terrorist or spy.

In other words, under current law, the FBI could serve a subpoena on a library for all the borrowing records of its patrons or on a bookseller for the purchasing records of its customers simply by asserting that they want the records for a terrorism investigation.

Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, librarians and booksellers have become increasingly concerned by the potential for abuse of this law. I was pleased to stand with the American Booksellers Association and the Free Expression Network over 2 years ago when we first started to raise these concerns.

Librarians and booksellers are concerned that under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seize records from libraries and booksellers in order to monitor what books Americans have purchased or borrowed, or who has used a library's or bookstore's internet computer stations, even if there is no evidence that the person is a terrorist or spy, or has any connection to a terrorist or spy.

These concerns are so strong that some librarians across the country have taken the unusual step of destroying records of patrons' book and computer use, as well as posting signs on computer stations warning patrons that whatever they read or access on the internet could be monitored by the federal government.

As a librarian in California said, ``We felt strongly that this had to be done. . . . The government has never had this kind of power before. It feels like Big Brother.''

And as the executive director of the American Library Association said, ``This law is dangerous. . . . I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy? There's no clear link between a person's intellectual pursuits and their actions.''

The American people do not know how many or what kind of requests Federal agents have made for library records under the PATRIOT Act. The Justice Department refuses to release that information to the public.

But in a survey released by the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, about 550 libraries around the Nation reported having received requests from Federal or local law enforcement during the past year. About half of the libraries said they complied with the law enforcement request, and another half indicated that they had not.

Americans don't know much about these incidents, because the law also contains a provision that prohibits anyone who receives a subpoena from disclosing that fact to anyone.

In testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft stated that as of September 18, 2003, the Department of Justice had never used Section 215. The Department has not made that claim in public testimony since then, leading many to speculate that the provision has now been used. Whether it has been used once, or dozens of times, the problem with the section remains--it is too broad and does not permit adequate judicial supervision. There is a potential for overreaching that Congress must address.

David Schwartz, president of Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops, the oldest and largest independent bookseller in Milwaukee, summed up well the American values at stake when he said: ``The FBI already has significant subpoena powers to obtain records. There is no need for the government to invade a person's privacy in this way. This is a uniquely un-American tool, and it should be rejected. The books we read are a very private part of our lives. People could stop buying books, and they could be terrified into silence.''

I would not claim that we have reached the point where people in this country are afraid to buy books, but section 215 is a tool that is unnecessarily broad. And it raises the specter of indiscriminate government snooping into the private lives of innocent citizens, which is an unnecessary distraction from the serious law enforcement work that is needed to fight terrorism.

It is time to reconsider those provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are un-American and, frankly, unpatriotic.

But my concerns with the PATRIOT Act go beyond library and bookseller records. Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek any records maintained by a business. These business records could contain sensitive, personal information--for example, medical records maintained by a doctor or hospital or credit records maintained by a credit agency. All the FBI would have to do is simply assert that the records are ``sought for'' its terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act goes too far. Americans rightfully have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their library, bookstore, medical, financial, or other records containing personal information. Prudent safeguards are needed to protect these legitimate privacy interests.

The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act is a reasonable solution. It would restore a pre-PATRIOT Act requirement that the FBI make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy while leaving in place other PATRIOT Act expansions of this business records power.

My bill will not prevent the FBI from doing its job. It recognizes that the post-September 11 world is a different world. There are circumstances when the FBI should legitimately have access to library, bookseller, or other personal information.

I'd like to take a moment to explain how the safeguard in my bill would be applied. Suppose the FBI is conducting an investigation of an international terrorist organization. It has information that suspected members of the group live in a particular neighborhood. The FBI would like to obtain records from the library in the suspects' neighborhood. Under current law, the FBI could decide to ask the library for all records concerning anyone who has ever borrowed a book or used a computer, and what books were borrowed, simply by asserting that the documents are sought for a terrorism investigation. But under my bill, the FBI could not do so. The FBI would have to set forth specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a suspected terrorist. The FBI could obtain only those library records--such as borrowing records or computer sign-in logs--that pertain to the suspected terrorists. The FBI could not obtain library records concerning individuals who are not suspected terrorists.

So, under my bill, the FBI can still obtain documents that it legitimately needs, but my bill would also protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. I might add that if, as the Justice Department says, the FBI is using its PATRIOT Act powers in a responsible manner, does not seek the records of law-abiding Americans, and only seeks the records of suspected terrorists or suspected spies, then there is no reason for the Department to object to my bill.

The second part of my bill would address privacy concerns with another Federal law enforcement power expanded by the PATRIOT Act--the FBI's national security letter authority. The FBI does not need court approval to use this power.

My bill would amend section 505 of the PATRIOT Act. Part of this section relates to the production of records maintained by electronic communications providers. Libraries or bookstores with internet access for customers could be deemed ``electronic communication providers'' and therefore be subject to a request by the FBI under its NSL authority.

As I mentioned earlier, some librarians are so concerned about the potential for abuse by the FBI that they have taken matters into their own hands before the FBI knocks on their door. Some librarians have begun shredding on a daily basis sign-in logs and other documents relating to the public's use of library computer terminals to access the internet.

Again, safeguards are needed to ensure that any individual who accesses the internet at a library or bookstore does not automatically give up all expectations of privacy. Like the section

215 fix I've discussed, my bill would require an individualized showing by the FBI of how the records of internet usage maintained by a library or bookseller pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy.

Yes, the American people want the FBI to be focused on preventing terrorism. And, yes, it may make sense to make some changes to the law to allow the FBI access to the information that it needs to prevent terrorism. But we do not need to change the values that constitute who we are as a Nation in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We can protect both our Nation and our privacy and civil liberties.

An increasing number of Americans are beginning to understand that the PATRIOT Act went too far. Four States and over 350 cities and counties across the country have now passed resolutions expressing opposition to the PATRIOT Act. And it's not just the Berkeleys and Madisons of this Nation, but other States and communities with strong conservative and libertarian values, such as Alaska and cities in Montana, that have passed such resolutions.

I have many concerns with the PATRIOT Act. I am not seeking to repeal it, in whole or in part. In this bill, my colleagues and I are only seeking to modify two provisions that pose serious potential for abuse.

The privacy of law-abiding Americans is at stake, along with their confidence in their government. Congress should act to protect our privacy and reassure our citizens. The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act bill is a reasonable approach to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Computer Trespass Clarification Act of 2005, which would amend and clarify section 217 of the USA-PATRIOT Act. This bill is virtually identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 2783.

Section 217 of the PATRIOT Act addresses the interception of computer trespass communications. This bill would modify existing law to more accurately reflect the intent of the provision, and also protect against invasions of privacy.

Section 217 was designed to permit law enforcement to assist computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking. The original Department of Justice draft of the bill that later became the PATRIOT Act included this provision. A section by section analysis provided by the Department on September 19, 2001, stated the following: ``Current law may not allow victims of computer trespassing to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring unauthorized attacks as they occur. Because service providers often lack the expertise, equipment, or financial resources required to monitor attacks themselves as permitted under current law, they often have no way to exercise their rights to protect themselves from unauthorized attackers. Moreover, such attackers can target critical infrastructures and engage in cyberterrorism. To correct this problem, and help to protect national security, the proposed amendments to the wiretap statute would allow victims of computer attacks to authorize persons `acting under color of law' to monitor trespassers on their computer systems in a narrow class of cases.''

I strongly supported the goal of giving computer system owners the ability to call in law enforcement to help defend themselves against hacking. Including such a provision in the PATRIOT Act made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the drafters of the provision made it much broader than necessary, and refused to amend it at the time we debated the bill in 2001. As a result, the law now gives the government the authority to intercept communications by people using computers owned by others as long as they have engaged in some unauthorized activity on the computer, and the owner gives permission for the computer to be monitored--all without judicial approval.

Only people who have a ``contractual relationship'' with the owner allowing the use of a computer are exempt from the definition of a computer trespasser under section 217 of the PATRIOT Act. Many people-- for example, college students, patrons of libraries, Internet cafes or airport business lounges, and guests at hotels--use computers owned by others with permission, but without a contractual relationship. They could end up being the subject of government snooping if the owner of the computer gives permission to law enforcement.

My bill would clarify that a computer trespasser is not someone who has permission to use a computer by the owner or operator of that computer. It would bring the existing computer trespass provision in line with the purpose of section 217 as expressed in the Department of Justice's initial explanation of the provision. Section 217 was intended to target only a narrow class of people: Unauthorized

cyberhackers. It was not intended to give the government the opportunity to engage in widespread surveillance of computer users without a warrant.

I should note that there is no specific evidence that the provision is being abused. But, of course, unless criminal charges are brought against someone as a result of such surveillance, there would never be any notice at all that the surveillance has taken place. The computer owner authorizes the surveillance, and the FBI carries it out. There is no warrant, no court proceeding, no opportunity even for the subject of the surveillance to challenge the assertion of the owner that some unauthorized use of the computer has occurred.

My bill would modify the computer trespass provision in the following ways to protect against abuse, while still maintaining its usefulness in cases of denial of service attacks and other forms of hacking.

First, it would require that the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizing the interception has been subject to ``an ongoing pattern of communications activity that threatens the integrity or operation of such computer.'' In other words, the owner has to be the target of some kind of hacking.

Second, the bill limits the length of warrantless surveillance to 96 hours. This is twice as long as is allowed for an emergency wiretap. With four days of surveillance, it should not be difficult for the government to gather sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant if continued surveillance is necessary.

Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to annually report on the use of Section 217 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Section 217 is one of the provisions that is subject to the sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act and will expire at the end of 2005. We in the Congress need to do more oversight of the use of this and other provisions of PATRIOT Act in order to evaluate their effectiveness.

The computer trespass provision now in the law as a result of section 217 of the PATRIOT Act leaves open the possibility for significant and unnecessary invasions of privacy. The reasonable and modest changes to the provision contained in this bill preserve the usefulness of the provision for investigations of cyberhacking, but reduce the possibility of government abuse. We must continually seek to balance the need for effective tools to fight crime and terrorism against the civil liberties of our citizens. The Computer Trespass Clarification Act strikes the right balance, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in Bankruptcy Litigation Act of 2005.

This legislation will provide much-needed protection--for consumers, creditors, workers, pensioners, shareholders, and small businesses--by reforming the rules governing venue in bankruptcy cases to combat forum shopping.

Quite simply, my bill will prevent corporate debtors from moving their

bankruptcy cases thousands of miles away from the communities and their workers who have the most at stake. And it will prevent bankrupt corporations from effectively selecting the judge in their own cases-- because picking the judge isn't far off from picking the verdict.

This Act is a positive step for fairness, responsibility, and justice. It implements a major recommendation from the October 1997 National Bankruptcy Review Commission report, and earned the support of prominent bankruptcy law professors and practitioners nationwide. The bill is also supported by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) and former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger (D); Brady C. Williamson, who served as chairman of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission; and major national bankruptcy organizations like the National Association of Credit Management and the Commercial Law League of America.

With the introduction of this Act, this body will now have an opportunity to consider this growing crisis, which effects so many consumers and workers, just as we are about to examine the issue of comprehensive bankruptcy reform.

Sadly, our current bankruptcy venue law has become a target for enormous abuse. It's a problem that is well documented by academics, most recently in a comprehensive book published just last week by UCLA Law Professor Lynn M. LoPucki, as well as by Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, who served as the reporter for the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, and Professor Jay L. Westbrook of the University of Texas Law School.

I have personal experience with the worst kind of forum shopping. During my service to the State of Texas as Attorney General, I argued that the Enron Federal bankruptcy court proceedings should be litigated in Houston. That seemed like the common sense argument, of course-- after all, Houston was where the majority of employees and others who were victimized by that corporate scandal called home.

Yet that's not where the case ended up. Instead, Enron was able to exploit a key loophole in bankruptcy law to maneuver their proceedings as far away from Houston as possible. They ended up in their desired forum in New York. See In re Enron Corp., 274 B.R. 327 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. 2002).

Enron used the place of incorporation of one of its small subsidiaries in order to file a bankruptcy claim in New York, and then used that smaller claim as the basis for shifting all of its much larger bankruptcy proceedings into that same court. The company had 7,500 employees in the Houston headquarters, but they filed for bankruptcy in New York, where Enron had only 57 employees.

This kind of blatant forum shopping makes a mockery of our laws. The common-sense legislation that I've introduced today will combat such egregious forum shopping by requiring that corporate debtors file where their principal place of business or principal assets are located, rather than their state of incorporation, and forbidding parent companies from manipulating the venue by filing first through a subsidiary.

Bankruptcy venue abuse is not just bad for our legal system; it hurts America's consumers, creditors, workers, pensioners, shareholders, and small businesses. Under current law, corporate debtors effectively get to pick the court in which they will file for bankruptcy. As a result, creditors can be forced to litigate far away from the real-world location, where costs and inconveniences associated with travel are prohibitive.

This troubling loophole also serves to unfairly enable corporate debtors to evade their financial commitments. It badly disables consumers, creditors, workers, pensioners, shareholders, and small businesses from pursuing and receiving reasonable compensation from bankruptcy proceedings.

Current law allows debtors to forum shop and thereby to pick jurisdictions likely to rule in their favor. If debtors get to pick the jurisdiction, then bankruptcy judges have a disturbing incentive to compete with other bankruptcy courts for major bankruptcy cases, by tilting their rulings in favor of corporate debtors and their attorneys.

The examples are numerous. Here are three of the most prominent incidents: Polaroid. In October 2001, Boston-based Polaroid filed for bankruptcy in Delaware, listing assets at $1.9 billion. Polaroid's top executives claimed that the company was a ``melting ice cube,'' and arranged a hasty sale for $465 million to a single bidder. The court refused to hear testimony as to the true value of the company and closed the sale in only 70 days. The top executives went to work for the new buyer and received millions of dollars in stock. Meanwhile, disabled employees had their health-care coverage canceled. The so- called ``melting ice cube'' became profitable the day after the sale became final.

K-Mart. In January 2002, failed top executives delivered Michigan- based K-Mart to the bankruptcy court in Chicago, which reportedly had been actively soliciting large corporate debtors to file there. With a workforce of 225,000, K-Mart had more employees than any company that had ever filed bankrupt nationwide. The Chicago judge let the failed executives take tens of millions of dollars in bonuses, perks, and loan forgiveness. Bankruptcy lawyers also profited, pocketing nearly $140 million in legal fees. But some 43,000 creditors received only about ten cents on the dollar.

Worldcom. Worldcom perpetrated one of the biggest accounting frauds in history, inflating its income by $9 billion. Although based in Mississippi, Worldcom followed Enron into the New York bankruptcy court, where its managers received the same lenient treatment. No trustee was appointed; indeed, five months after the case was filed, the directors in office when the fraud occurred still constituted a majority of the board. They chose their own successors. A Top Worldcom executive used money taken from the company to build an exempt Texas homestead, and Worldcom took no action. That executive then used the homestead to buy his way out of his problems with the SEC. Meanwhile, creditors--mostly bondholders--lost $20 billion.

This is not the first time we have addressed this important issue. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on July 21, 2004, entitled ``Administration of Large Business Bankruptcy Reorganizations: Has Competition for Big Cases Corrupted the Bankruptcy System?,'' and Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) has previously led efforts to champion bankruptcy venue reform in the House. During the 107th Congress, Senator Durbin introduced S. 2798, the Employee Abuse Prevention Act of 2002, joined by Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, and Rockefeller, while Congressman William D. Delahunt (D-MA) introduced the same bill in the House; section 205 of that legislation would have reformed bankruptcy venue law.

I believe we must take steps to respond to this important problem. The American people deserve better from our legal system. All bankruptcy cases deserve to be handled fairly and justly, and no corporate debtor should be allowed to escape responsibility by fleeing to another venue. It is high time that we take up this much-needed reform.

I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, in both support and the introduction of the Risk- Based Homeland Security Funding Act. I think this is simply urgent. It is fundamental to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as Senator Lautenberg mentioned.

Quoting language that was in that Commission report:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

Quoting further:

[F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a

program for general revenue sharing.

In fact, I believe we should relabel the bill. I had a little argument with my colleague from New Jersey. I think we ought to call it the Common Sense Homeland Security Act. It is only common sense. I think there is a consensus among all those who seriously contemplate this issue that we need to be smart and strategic about how we allocate our limited homeland security resources.

This is not a local issue, although people will often argue that we are trying to speak only from parochial interests. I think you have to think about this as protecting America where we are most vulnerable. It is a national issue.

Our economic assets are at stake. In New Jersey, that 2-mile stretch Senator Lautenberg spoke about in his comments has the Port of Newark, which is really what is often labeled the Port of New York. Mr. President, 80 percent of all of the incoming cargo containers that come into that east coast port are in Newark and Elizabeth. So you hear about the Port of New York and New Jersey. It is really the Port of New Jersey and Elizabeth. And that is in that 2-mile stretch.

Then on the other end of that 2-mile stretch is Liberty International or Newark Airport, which is, depending on which year and the number of flight landings, the third or fourth busiest airport in America--the busiest airport in the metropolitan region of New York and New Jersey.

In between, there are rail lines, chemical plants, oil refineries, all the economic assets that are important to the economic distribution of assets across the east coast.

It is incredible, as Senator Lautenberg talked about, that this particular area is seeing these cuts. Newark is getting cut 17 percent from 2004 to 2005, and, unbelievably, Jersey City is getting cut 64 percent, from $17 million down to about $6 million in homeland security, State, and local grants. It is very hard to justify. You look at your constituents and say we are talking about the threat-based allocation of risk, and we see these kinds of cuts given the kind of serious concerns that we have.

It is a national issue, it is not just a New Jersey issue because if that airport and that port come down, it has a major long-term impact on the economy of the Nation. It is important. I note, as Senator Lautenberg did, the Senator from Virginia has ports that have a major impact on more than just Virginia's economic well-being. The airports have more than just an economic impact on the individual State. We have to think about what the ripple impact is as we go forward. So we have to prioritize.

I am pleased the President cited almost the same language in his budget yesterday. Concentrating Federal funds for State and local homeland security assistance programs on the highest threats and vulnerabilities and needs is the Presidential goal. We need to translate that into specific legislative authority so we do not come up with formulas that are revenue sharing based.

Forty percent of the funds currently allocated are based on just equal allocation to the States. Nice idea, but we ought to do that in other areas, not with regard to homeland security where we ought to deal with the national economy, the national strategic interests of the country. So I hope we can take this act, this commonsensical approach, and implement it.

By the way, I also wonder why we are cutting 30 percent to our State and local communities. The first responders are the first line of defense in protecting the American people and in responding to these attacks. We certainly saw that in the 9/11 case.

I hope we can have a strong debate in Congress about how we are allocating within the expenditures we have with regard to homeland security. In my view, there is too much ignoring of the reality of the need to fund our local responders, making sure their communications equipment can talk to each other, making sure they have the kinds of equipment that would be able to respond, as was so heroically done by the people who responded to the 9/11 tragedy.

All this has to be put in the context of real-life experiences, though. And Senator Lautenberg talked about that. Seven hundred people in our community died. This is a hot issue in the State of New Jersey because it impacted families, and it still is very much a live part of their community. People want to see action. They want to see changes as we go forward. And they want to see us be particularly focused on those places where there are risks.

It is hard for New Jerseyans to understand when you put the city of Newark on the highest alert, singled out, along with New York City and Washington, DC, one day, and then get your homeland security funds cut by 20 percent or so 6 months later when the allocation comes out according to a formula, as apposed to thinking about where risks are. It is hard for the people not only in Newark, but we have Hamilton, NJ, which had a post office that was the site where all the anthrax letters were sent out. We had to shut it down. We spent $60 million cleaning up that post office, just like we had to clean up the Hart Building here in Washington.

And people say, I do not really understand why we are not concerned about what is going on with regard to risk in New Jersey when we have these kinds of practical realities: 700 of our citizens, orange alerts for Newark, Hamilton post office, and I could go on and on. There are a number of instances--Atlantic City, where the way the formula works is, if you are not a town of 225,000 people, you do not get considered for these grants. We have about 40,000 people in Atlantic City, but that does not take into account the people who come and visit there, which is about 100,000 on average a day; and then all the people who work there, which is about another 40,000. So you are getting up toward those numbers. And on peak days it can be 300,000 people. It is the second highest concentration of casinos in the country.

I think we need to bring common sense to where we are focusing homeland security dollars. I think that is what this act is about. I am thrilled that we have Michael Chertoff who is stepping in as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I do not think there is a smarter guy, a more objective, intellectually honest individual. I think he will push forward with commonsense approaches to allocation and recommendations.

Finally, this bill does not cover other programs. It does not include the COPS Program, fire grants, other things where you need to be reflective of the needs of general revenue sharing approaches. This is dealing with homeland security the same way we deal

with national security. There we identify what we think the threats are and apply the resources to match those needs.

We need to bring common sense to this. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. It is very straightforward and a simple reflection of the 9/11 Commission Report, a reflection of the words the President put in his budget report. I think it is appropriate as to how we should move forward with regard to funding for homeland security allocations.

Mr. President, I rise to again introduce a bill that will strengthen U.S. nonproliferation efforts. It is supported by the Administration and several of my colleagues. This bill represents the fourth installment of Nunn-Lugar legislation that I have offered since 1991.

In that year, Sam Nunn and I authored the Nunn-Lugar Act, which established the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. That program has provided U.S. funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle their enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, means of delivery and related materials. In 1997, Senator Nunn and I were joined by Senator Domenici in introducing the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, which expanded Nunn-Lugar authorities in the former Soviet Union and provided WMD expertise to first responders in American cities. In 2003, Congress adopted the Nunn-Lugar Expansion Act, which authorized the Nunn-Lugar program to operate outside the former Soviet Union to address proliferation threats. The bill that I am introducing today would strengthen the Nunn-Lugar program and provide it with greater flexibility to address emerging threats.

To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated or destroyed: 6,564 nuclear warheads; 568 ICBMs; 477 ICBM silos; 17 ICBM mobile missile launchers; 142 bombers; 761 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 420 submarine missile launchers; 543 submarine launched missiles; 28 nuclear submarines; and 194 nuclear test tunnels.

The Nunn-Lugar program also facilitated the removal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these three nations emerged as the third, fourth, and eighth largest nuclear powers in the world. Today, all three are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn- Lugar program. In addition, Nunn-Lugar is the primary tool through which the United States is working with Russian authorities to identify, safeguard and destroy Russia's massive chemical and biological warfare capacity.

These successes were never a foregone conclusion. Today, even after more than 12 years, creativity and constant vigilance are required to ensure that the Nunn-Lugar program is not encumbered by bureaucratic obstacles or undercut by political disagreements.

During Secretary Rice's confirmation hearing with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18, 2005, I asked Dr. Rice if she and the Administration supported this legislation, to which she responded ``Yes we do.'' Secretary Rice and President Bush have long argued that there needs to be maximum flexibility granted to the Administration to execute a global, focused and timely effort to fight proliferation. In view of the Administration's strong support for this bill, I look forward to working with the Armed Services Committee to enact it.

I have devoted much time and effort to overseeing and accelerating the Nunn-Lugar program. Uncounted individuals of great dedication serving on the ground in the former Soviet Union and in our government have made this program work. Nevertheless, from the beginning, we have encountered resistance to the Nunn-Lugar concept in both the United States and Russia. In our own country, opposition often has been motivated by false perceptions that Nunn-Lugar money is foreign assistance or by beliefs that Defense Department funds should only be spent on troops, weapons, or other war-fighting capabilities. Until recently, we also faced a general disinterest in non-proliferation that made gaining support for Nunn-Lugar funding and activities an annual struggle.

The attacks of September 11 changed the political discourse on this subject. We have turned a corner--the public, the media, and political candidates are paying more attention now. In a remarkable moment in the first presidential debate last year, both President Bush and his opponent agreed that the number one national security threat facing the United States was the prospect that weapons of mass destruction would fall into the hands of terrorists.

While the Administration has noted its support for this bill, the 9/ 11 Commission also weighed in last year with another important endorsement of the Nunn-Lugar program, saying that ``Preventing the proliferation of [weapons of mass destruction] warrants a maximum effort--by strengthening counter-proliferation efforts, expanding the Proliferation Security Initiative, and supporting the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.'' The Report went on to say that ``Nunn-Lugar . . . is now in need of expansion, improvement and resources.''

My bill would underscore the bipartisan consensus on Nunn-Lugar by streamlining and accelerating Nunn-Lugar implementation. It would grant more flexibility to the President and the Secretary of Defense to undertake proliferation projects outside the former Soviet Union. It also would eliminate Congressionally-imposed conditions on Nunn-Lugar assistance that in the past have forced the suspension of time- sensitive nonproliferation projects. The purpose of the bill is to reduce bureaucratic red tape and friction within our government that hinder effective responses to nonproliferation opportunities and emergencies.

For example, recently Albania appealed for help in destroying 16 tons of chemical agent left over from the Cold War. Last August, I visited this remote storage facility. Nunn-Lugar officials are working closely with Albanian leaders to destroy this dangerous stockpile. But this experience also is illustrative of the need to reduce bureaucratic delays. The package of documents related to the mission took some 11 weeks to be finalized and readied for President Bush. From beginning to end, the bureaucratic process to authorize dismantlement of chemical weapons in Albania took more than three months. Fortunately, the situation in Albania was not a crisis, but we may not be able to afford these timelines in future nonproliferation emergencies.

As I said when I introduced this legislation during our November session last year, I wanted to have the benefit of the Administration's views and my colleagues' input. Since then, I am pleased that Senators Domenici, Hagel, Reed, Biden, Levin, Collins, McCain and Obama have all signed on as co-sponsors. The Administration has now stated that they support this bill. I look forward to working in Congress to enact it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Local Community Radio Act of 2005. This bill would allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to license Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations and eliminate the requirement that the FCC perform further testing on the economic impact of Low Power FM radio. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect stations that provide radio reading services, which some have suggested are more susceptible to interference then other stations because they are carried on a subcarrier frequency. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Leahy and Cantwell who are co- sponsors of the bill. I thank them for their support. A similar bill was introduced in the 108th Congress and passed out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

In January 2000, the FCC launched Low Power FM radio service to ``enhance locally focused community-oriented radio broadcasting.'' Low Power FM stations are just that--low power radio stations on the FM band that generally reach an audience within a 3.5 mile radius of the station's transmitter. In rural areas, this signal may not reach many people, but it provides rural citizens with another media outlet-- another voice in the market. In urban areas, this signal may reach hundreds of thousands of people and provide not just local content, but very specific neighborhood news and information.

Localism is increasingly important in today's changing media landscape. Rampant ownership consolidation has taken place in the radio industry since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since that time, many Americans have complained that the large media conglomerates fail to serve local communities' interests and seem to use their local station license as a conduit to air national programming. Low Power FM was introduced, in part, to respond to such complaints.

Between May 1999 and May 2000, the Commission received over 3,400 applications for Low Power FM stations from non-commercial educational entities and community organizations. However, before the Commission could act on many of the applications for this new community service, broadcasters frightened legislators into halting the full implementation of Low Power FM. Broadcasters masqueraded their true concerns about competition from a real local radio broadcaster in thinly veiled claims of interference.

Due to the broadcasters' subterfuge, Congress added language to a 2000 appropriations bill requiring the FCC to hire an independent engineering firm to further study broadcasters' claims of interference. I am not happy to report that after spending almost two years and over 2 million dollars, the independent study revealed what the FCC and community groups had said all along: LPFM will do no harm to other broadcasters. Perhaps, we should send a bill to the National Association of Broadcasters.

That brings us to the future of Low Power FM. The FCC, as required by the appropriations language, reported the study's findings to Congress last February and recommended full implementation of Low Power FM. This bill simply follows the FCC's recommendation: begin licensing Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect full power stations that provide radio reading services. It is estimated that about 1.1 million people in the U.S. are blind, and it is important to ensure this helpful radio reading service remains interference free.

The enactment of this bill will immediately make available a number of Low Power FM frequencies. By some estimates, Congress' legislation delaying the full implementation, which mostly affected metropolitan areas, led to the elimination of half the Low Power FM applications filed during 2000.

For example, Congress' action eliminated the LPFM slot in Fresno applied for by El Comite de los Pobres. The group had hoped to address the dearth of local programming for the Latino community by airing bilingual coverage of local issues. New Orleans' Music Business Institute's application was eliminated as well. The Music Business Institute teaches young people how to get into the music business. The Institute had planned to use the station to help start the musical careers of local artists, and to educate listeners about the city's jazz and blues musical heritage.

There are some wonderful LPFM stations that are up and running. A recent article published in The Nation called these stations, ``beacons of grassroots democracy.'' The article discussed WRFR in Rockland, Maine: ``Shunning the canned programming approach of Rockland's two Clear Channel stations, WRFR offers an array of local talent, tastes and interests, and was recently named Maine station of the year by a state music association. Although country music, a Maine favorite, is heavily represented, hardly any WRFR deejay restricts himself to a single era, genre or Top-40 play list.''

In 2000, the Southern Development Foundation established a Low Power FM station in Opelousas, Louisiana, which sponsors agriculture programs, leases land to farmers, raises money for scholarships for needy kids and helps citizens learn to read. The station director told a local community newsletter: ``You've got local radio stations that are owned by larger companies. There should be some programming concerning the music that is from here, and the people from here. But there's not.''

I ask the broadcasters to come clean and join us in promoting LPFM. More good radio brings about more radio listening--and that's good for all broadcasters. Therefore, in the interests of would-be new broadcasters, existing broadcasters, but most of all, the listening public, I urge the enactment of the Local Community Radio Act of 2005.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.