Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am very upset that the Congress has been unable to pass legislation to prevent the termination of satellite television service to hundreds of thousands households in the United States. In September, I raised these concerns on the Senate floor in the hope of preventing these potential terminations of satellite service. The Senate Judiciary Committee got its job done in June. We reported out a great satellite television bill which would have expanded viewing options for satellite dish owners. The other body has also developed a very good satellite bill which I shall discuss in a moment.

However, history may repeat itself because Congress has not completed action on this legislation. I explained my concerns on the Senate floor when I reminded everyone that in ``1998 and 1999 over 2 million families were faced with the prospect of losing the ability to receive one or more of their satellite televisions network stations.''

These terminations of satellite service will begin just after midnight on December 31, 2004. The problem is that the Congress will be out of session during most of the time between now and that termination date. If we are in session for a small portion of that time, it will most likely be during a lame duck session of Congress after the November elections. There will be very little time to enact this satellite bill with the huge press of business yet to be completed.

Many Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states have vast areas where satellite dish owners receive network stations, such as ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox, from out-of-state stations because signals from their local stations are blocked by mountains or diminished by distance from TV broadcast towers. Thousands of these families do not have any other way to receive television signals except by satellite. They do not have access to TV stations over-the-air because mountain terrain blocks those signals, and distance from the broadcast towers weakens the signals. Many residents in those states do not have access to cable TV service because of the rough terrain or the low population density which makes it economically difficult for cable companies to invest in the needed cables. Without access to network stations via satellite because the satellite legislation did not pass, and because they do not receive service over-the-air, or via cable, thousands of families in those areas will lose national network service.

Since information about subscribers is proprietary it is difficult for me to tell you exactly how many families will be affected by this, but I assure you it is not a small number.

The Hatch-Leahy Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. All the Members of the Judiciary Committee supported that bill. Similar legislation in the other body entitled the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, if enacted, would also be a boon to public television, the satellite industry, the movie, music and television industries, and to satellite dish owners throughout America. Unfortunately, the time is rapidly approaching when it will be too late to act.

I am especially pleased that both the Senate and the House, H.R. 4518, bills contain a provision which I worked on with my colleagues from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu and Senator Gregg. We, along with Senator Jeffords, introduced legislation to ensure that satellite dish owners in every county in each of our States would be able to receive signals, via satellite, from our respective in-State television stations. While our two States represent a small television market as compared to some of the major population centers, this provision is nonetheless very important to residents in six of our collective counties two in Vermont and four counties in New Hampshire. The Senate bill, S. 2013, as reported in June by the Judiciary Committee also contains this provision, which was just included in H.R. 4518, the House bill.

In Vermont this will mean if one of these bills passes--that satellite dish owners in Bennington and Windham Counties will be able to receive all Vermont network stations in addition to the out-of-State network stations they now receive.

The Senate bill was introduced on January 21, 2004, by Chairman Hatch and was cosponsored by myself and Senators DeWine and Kohl. When the bill was reported out of committee on June 17, 2004, I noted that the bill does far more than just protect satellite dish owners from losing signals. I pointed out that the new satellite bill ``protects subscribers in every state, expands viewing choices for most dish owners, promotes access to local programming, and increases direct, head-to-head, competition between cable and satellite providers.''

I continued by saying that, ``easily, this bill will benefit 21 million satellite television dish owners throughout the Nation, and I am happy to note that over 85,000 of those subscribers are in Vermont.''

The Senate Judiciary Committee-reported bill, and the recently passed bill H.R. 4518, go far beyond protecting what current subscribers receive. As I mentioned in a September statement on the Senate floor, the bills allow additional programming via satellite through adoption of the so-call ``significantly viewed'' test now used for cable, but not satellite subscribers. That test means that, in general, if a person in a cable service area that historically received over-the-air TV reception from ``nearby'' stations outside that area, those cable operators could offer those station signals in that person's cable service area. In other words, if you were in an area in which most families in the past had received TV signals using a regular rooftop antenna, then you could be offered that same signal TV via cable. By having similar rules, satellite carriers will be able to directly compete with cable providers who already operate under the significantly viewed test. This gives home dish owners more choices of programming.

In the past, Congress got the job done. Congress worked together in 1998 and 1999 when we developed a major satellite law that transformed the industry by allowing local television stations to be carried by satellite and beamed back down to the local communities served by those stations. This marked the first time that thousands of TV owners were able to get the full complement of local network stations. In 1997 we found a way to avoid cutoffs of satellite TV service to millions of homes and to protect the local affiliate broadcast system. The following year we forged an alliance behind a strong satellite bill to permit local stations to be offered by satellite, thus increasing competition between cable and satellite providers.

Because of those efforts, in Vermont and most other States, dish owners are able to watch their local stations instead of getting signals from distant stations. Such a service allows television watchers to be more easily connected to their communities as well as providing access to necessary emergency signals, news and broadcasts.

Mr. President, I hope we are able to work together to finish this important satellite television bill in the few remaining days of this Congress.

Mr. President, I have seen the television reports and the newspaper articles, and I have spoken with people who recently returned from Iraq. I have seen the escalating violence and the chaos that has engulfed parts of that country.

And like all Americans I have watched the death toll of our young men and women in uniform pass 1000. It is now more than 1050, with many thousands more who have been grievously wounded.

Yet to hear the President and Vice President talk, one would think that everything is going well. The President uses words like ``freedom is winning'' and ``we're making steady progress.''

There is no question that all of us here wish that were true, but unfortunately the rosy picture that the President paints on the campaign trail is misleading and wildly off base.

Even worse, the President's statements are contradicted by knowledgeable officials in his Administration, by leading Republicans in the Senate, and by a growing number of national security experts within his own administration.

Here are a few examples: Secretary of State Powell said that the situation in Iraq is ``getting worse.'' General Abizaid, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, said ``[w]e're going to have to fight our way all the way through elections,'' he said, ``and there'll be a lot of violence between now and then.'' Senator Hagel said ``The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq.'' And, according to a recent article in the Washington Post, a lengthening list of career military, intelligence and State Department officials believe that Iraq is a mess and things are getting even worse, raising the specter of civil war.

Faced with mounting evidence that things are going from bad to worse in Iraq, what does the President do?

First, he attacks the messenger of the bad news by calling the National Intelligence Estimate ``just guessing.'' Next, he ignores the problem by repeating the same old platitudes and wildly-optimistic rhetoric. Then he and his political allies accuse those who dare to disagree of giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. When all else fails, the President engages in a time-honored tradition here in Washington: He changes the subject and deflects attention.

This President and Vice-President are masters at changing the subject. They have attacked John Kerry's distinguished military record, even though neither of them saw combat and many others in the administration used family connections or deferments to avoid military service altogether. In fact, when asked about serving in Vietnam Vice President Cheney said that he ``had other priorities in the military service.''

Imagine what the President's campaign would be saying if John Kerry had said that.

Why do the President and Vice-President constantly change the subject when asked to explain why things are going so badly in Iraq? The answer is simple. They have been consistently wrong about Iraq, and the results speak for themselves.

The President was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, which cut short the U.N. weapons inspections and got us into Iraq in the first place. The Duelfer report found that Iraq got rid of its weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago, that Saddam Hussein did not have the means to develop a nuclear weapon, and that the U.N. inspections were working. Yet the White House insists that this devastating report by its own export somehow supports the President's decision to go to war.

The Vice President was wrong about our being greeted as liberators. Think about that statement, and compare it to the daily--actually, hourly--attacks against our troops in Iraq today.

The President was wrong about ``mission accomplished.'' More than 900 Americans have died since that famous photo op on the aircraft carrier.

The President was not only wrong, but it is hard to imagine what he was thinking, when he told the insurgents in Iraq to ``bring it on.''

The President was wrong about Iraqi oil revenues paying for the reconstruction. It is American taxpayers who are paying most of the costs.

And the President acts as if everything is on track for Iraqi elections in January even as the insurgency grows steadily worse and Secretary Rumsfeld is talking about holding elections in only parts of the country.

Despite being consistently wrong, the President's strategy stays the same--put the best face on it, insist that everything is going according to plan even though there is no plan, and attack the patriotism of anyone who dares to question or to criticize.

They have tried to keep the media from publishing photographs of the planeloads of flag-draped coffins of Americans who have died in Iraq.

They rarely even mention the casualties--American or Iraqi--since that, of course, would mean having to acknowledge the terrible price that is being paid day after day.

They treated the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as an aberration--the work of a few rogue recruits.

They have done their best to hide the policies to subvert the law that were approved at the highest levels of government, and the fact that Abu Ghraib was only one of several locations where foreign prisoners were humiliated, tortured, denied the most basic human rights, and even murdered.

They shut down distribution of a key security report, issued daily by a U.S. contractor--which U.S. personnel in Iraq have relied on for their own safety--because the news of escalating violence in these reports did not square with the spin being put out by the Pentagon and the White House.

Just as the President ignored those who predicted the widening anti- American insurgency, he has sugar-coated the rebuilding of Iraq.

A year ago, he asked the Congress to appropriate $19 billion immediately, in fact so immediately that he resisted every amendment designed to ensure the aid dollars would be well spent.

The President opposed my amendment to put Secretary Powell in charge of the reconstruction in Iraq, causing the Department of Defense to run the biggest nation-building venture since the Marshall Plan. And they bungled it miserably.

The President opposed an amendment that would have at least required that the aid be paid for out of the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans--not left for our children and grandchildren.

The President opposed an amendment that would have created tough criminal penalties for war profiteering in Iraq.

The President refused to consider any alternative approaches. His attitude was ``my way or the highway.'' And look at what a mess it has gotten us into. It has been nearly a year since the Iraq supplemental was signed into law, and only $1 billion of the $19 billion has been spent.

Of those funds, it is estimated that only 27 cents of every dollar has gone to benefit the Iraqi people. The rest has

ended up in the pockets of high-priced contractors and consultants, and to pay for insurance and security and other overhead costs.

There are serious consequences resulting from this administration's handling of the chaos in Iraq. One, which all Senators are increasingly hearing about from our constituents, is the possibility of a return to the draft. If Iraq continues on its downward spiral, there is growing concern that it may be necessary at some point to reinstate military conscription. I oppose returning to a military draft, I do not believe it is necessary, and I believe it would lessen our military effectiveness.

Yet the President needs to acknowledge to the American people that our entire military forces, including the active Army, the Reserves, and the National Guard, are stretched very thin right now because of the choices the President has made. The military is finding it difficult to get new recruits and has resorted to a backdoor draft, forcing personnel to remain in the service through so-called stop-loss orders.

The Pentagon at some point might decide that the only way to find new recruits--unless we pursue more sensible policies--would be through a draft. I sincerely hope not. This is only one of the many examples of the life-and-death choices that the Nation faces in prudently allocating our resources to combat terrorism.

A lot has been said about President Bush's consistency. His campaign advertisements boast that he is a strong leader because he `says what he means and he does what he says.'

What good is consistency when it means sending 140,000 Americans into a guerrilla war in a foreign land fueled by religious and ethnic hatred, without justification?

What good is consistency when it means spending upwards of $200 billion on a policy that has not made us any safer, and that has turned Iraq into a haven for terrorists eager to kill Americans who they see as foreign invaders out to destroy Islam itself?

What good is consistency when it squanders the good will that we need to effectively fight terrorism, to build a real coalition so the United States is not paying 90 percent of the cost and suffering 90 percent of the casualties?

What good is consistency, when all it really amounts to is hollow rhetoric that bears no relationship to the facts?

The President and Vice-President have been consistent alright-- consistently wrong. There is no value in that.

The President and Vice President constantly assert that we need to `stay the course.' My answer to that is that if you are captain of the ship and you are heading for an iceberg, you change course. You want to get to the same destination, but you do not want to plow into the iceberg to get there.

It is this President's rigid adherence to a misguided ideology that has gotten us into deep, deep trouble in Iraq.

The American people deserve better. They deserve competence and they deserve honesty. They deserve leaders who know the difference between a political decision, and the right decision.

Mr. President, as in years past, I am offering today two pieces of legislation that would close a loophole in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and as in years past I am pleased that I am joined by Senators Jeffords and Dodd.

The catalog of complaints about the 1996 act continues to grow, and as it becomes more apparent that this flawed statute is in need of repair, I grow ever more proud that I was one of five Senators to have voted against that law.

In the coming Congress, we will be revisiting the 1996 Act. While we should rightly examine the various provisions related to telephone competition, broadband, and subscriber television rates, there are other important issues that we need to address.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act contained a provision that allowed the Federal Communications Commission to preempt the decisions of local authorities as to the placement of cell phone towers. In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission seized on the legislative loophole, proposing an expansive new rule that prevented State and local zoning laws from regulating the placement of cellular and broadcast towers based on environmental considerations, aviation safety, or other locally determined matters. Local and State governments were no longer empowered to shape the appearance of their communities.

I fought this proposed rule and was joined by many Vermonters, including former-Governor Dean, the Vermont Environmental Board, mayors, zoning officials, and numerous others. We took our case to the Supreme Court and filed an amicus brief, arguing that the preemption of that local power to regulate land use was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. It is unfortunate that the Court would not hear that case. It is time to give that control back to the local governments by enacting my legislation.

The two bills that we are reintroducing today will not tip the scales, but they will even them out a bit. They will allow local officials to use State and local regulations to work with the Federal Government in order to develop the best solutions for the placement of cell phone and broadcast towers.

Communities across the country understand the growing demand for cellular services will result in new towers, and they welcome the improvement in service that this increased infrastructure will bring. However, they also want to make sure that their towns do not become little more than pincushions for new cellular towers. These goals are not mutually exclusive.

I thank again Senator Jeffords and Senator Dodd, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to speak on the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment. So far as we were eviscerating the Judiciary Committee, I thought possibly I might say a word or two.

I would like to have 10 minutes.

I assure the Senator from Kentucky I wish to speak on the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the expressions of the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Georgia, and the Senator from Massachusetts. I am a strong supporter of the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment. It would retain the majority of immigration jurisdiction for the Judiciary Committee, not just because we like that but because that is where the experience is and that is where it ties in the best.

As Senator Chambliss pointed out this morning, just as the Commerce Committee retained the Coast Guard because of the long tradition of the Coast Guard being there and the expertise for it, and EPW is retaining the Transportation Security Administration, by the same token, the Judiciary Committee should retain core immigration issues.

We should not burden the Homeland Security Committee with immigration and citizen refugee matters. That is not the purpose of the new committee. There are some aspects of immigration law and policy that will raise homeland security issues--some--but we have to note that immigration is an extraordinarily broad area. It is an important economic issue and, as President after President has said, in one way or the other, it is often a moral issue. This is the country that has the Statue of Liberty beckoning us all. This is the country that brought my grandparents here not speaking any English but making a new life.

The Judiciary Committee has decades of experience in business immigration issues, refugee policy, and naturalization. As written, the resolution before us would take those issues, which are not homeland security issues, and give them to the Governmental Affairs Committee.

I ask: Does it make sense for the Governmental Affairs Committee to oversee and legislate on the H-1B visa program which employers use to bring in highly skilled foreign workers? That is not a homeland security issue. Does it make sense for that committee to be responsible for the refugee program? That is something Judiciary and Foreign Relations oversee and do a very good job of. I don't think it is in the interest of the Senate or, for that matter, of immigrants for sole jurisdiction over immigration matters to be transferred to a committee with a homeland security mandate.

We should be conscious of the security aspects of immigration policy, of course, but we also need to retain our national commitment to legal immigration--the thing that brought my grandparents to this country. Immigrants like my grandfather and grandmother enrich our economy and our culture. It is important for us not to see immigration solely through the prism of national security.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remaining time be allocated equally to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I totally agree with the Senior Senator from Utah in this battle. Senator Hatch and I have worked very closely on this issue. This is an amendment cosponsored principally by Senator Hatch and myself and Senators Sessions, Specter, and Biden. It is not a partisan amendment by any means. It is not ideological. It just makes good sense.

In the resolution before the Senate we look at the new committee, the homeland committee and governmental affairs committee, but we have four exceptions for good reasons. Section 101, we take the Coast Guard out of that. We take the Transportation Security Administration, we take the Federal law enforcement training sector, and we take the revenue functions of the Customs Service. But we have to make one other exception, and that exception is the U.S. Secret Service.

The Secret Service operates under Title 18 of the United States Code, that title of the United States Code of criminal law. Every one of these yellow tabs in the criminal code is one more area under criminal law, criminal code, where the Secret Service operates. The distinguished Senator from Utah said it is not just the protection service by any means, even though that is what we see in the news. They enforce many of the criminal laws, many of the laws related to the counterfeiting of U.S. currency and other financial instruments. They carry out criminal investigations. Criminal law enforcement function is the cornerstone of what the Secret Service does.

I first got involved with the Secret Service when I was a State's attorney of Chittenden County in Vermont. That was over 38 years ago. We had a counterfeiting case we were prosecuting under State law. For the expertise, for help in the investigation, we called in the Secret Service. The Secret Service was involved immediately. Even though it was a State case, a State prosecutor, the Vermont State police, the Burlington City Police, the expertise came at a moment's notice from the U.S. Secret Service. They stayed throughout that case. They made sure we had the expertise. They made sure they gave us all their knowledge of how one of these cases would be tried. Incidentally, we won that case.

Years later, when I was a new Member of the Senate, I was walking down the hall and I see the Secretary of State coming down the hall, people from the State Department, and also a couple of Secret Service agents. There was the Secret Service agent, David Lee--I remember his name--standing right there doing the dual things they do. His primary role had been in counterfeiting cases. We talked briefly about the number of counterfeiting cases he went to. I told him how much it meant to my little State of Vermont, which could not handle counterfeiting cases. A lot of crimes had been committed, and the Secret Service came in.

Now, they enforce criminal law. They have full Federal arrest authority, full authority to carry any needed firearms, full authority to use deadly force. We should continue our oversight, and the Judiciary Committee should continue its role. Their dual criminal law enforcement of financial institution investigations and protective operations is inseparable from the proper jurisdictional oversight of the Judiciary Committee. Again, I point to the Federal criminal code rules.

Now, the Coast Guard has been made exempt. It, like the Secret Service, is a distinct entity. Both should be exempted, not just the Coast Guard. The Secret Service has even more reason to be exempt. The success of the Secret Service mission depends on the criminal laws of the United States.

An example of that is that all the criminal fraud law enforcement investigations which the Secret Service handles are within Title 18. Where do they handle it? Within the Department of Justice through the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney--under, obviously, the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.

I will give another example. The Secret Service is authorized at the request of any State or law enforcement agency or at the request of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to provide forensic and investigative assistance in support of investigations involving missing or exploited children.

Let me tell you right now, if you have a missing child, we want everybody involved. All the local authorities will tell you that, especially if they are anywhere near a State line. They want everybody. Again, it comes under our committee.

So I agree, as I said, with the Senator from Utah. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a liberal issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is just good, plain sense.

Mr. President, I would hope my colleagues would be willing to accept the amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Specter, Mr. Biden, and others.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

The fact is, they are a distinct entity within homeland security. We have carved out that distinct entity for the Secret Service because of their law enforcement role. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut had no problem with carving out the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard-- --

But it has been done. It has been accepted.

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

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

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

I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, we have the Secret Service in Homeland Security, but carved out is a separate entity, partly because of their criminal jurisdiction and the fact that their oversight is in the Judiciary Committee. I would ask if by the same logic that because they are there, they must suddenly come under this new committee, do we also bring the Attorney General's office under this new committee for oversight because they prosecute the cases brought by the Secret Service? Do we bring the U.S. attorneys? Maybe the Attorney General and the U.S. attorney should be brought into this new homeland security committee for confirmation, for oversight, or budget and everything else because, after all, they have criminal jurisdiction and the Secret Service goes to them.

Or do we have a bifurcated thing where the Secret Service criminal jurisdiction, which does come under the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorneys for prosecution, suddenly say: Well, we can watch what they are doing in the Judiciary Committee, but maybe we shouldn't be watching because maybe it should be somewhere else where there is none of the 56 years of experience watching over it?

It seems to me what we are doing is trying to set up an organizational chart for the sake of organizational charts. I might say, maybe this is one of the problems with putting this thing together behind closed doors, without the input of the people most directly involved, without any hearings. And suddenly as the airplanes are revving up and the smell of jet fuel is in the air, we are saying: Quick, we have to do it, forget the 56 years, forget what has worked. Forget the fact that it is working. Forget the fact that it works extremely well. Forget all those criminal cases that they handle. We have an idea to fill out some new chart and, therefore, go forward with it. Forget the proud tradition of the Secret Service. Forget all the experience, all the things they have done. Forget the prosecutors they have to go to. But, by golly, we are going to have a nice new chart.

There is more I could say but I shan't. I think maybe we ought to vote and see where we stand.

Mr. President, the Senator from Maine, in asking the question actually gives my answer, because if the issue is simply where are they sitting, that determines jurisdiction. The Secret Service, for years and years, would have been under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee because they are in the Treasury Department. They have been in the Treasury Department forever. But the jurisdiction has been under the Judiciary Committee because of their unique law enforcement aspects.

Now, the Senator from Maine says, quite properly, we should not put the Attorney General under this committee, even though these various groups, various entities for criminal prosecution have to go to the U.S. attorney but because the Attorney General is under the Department of Homeland Security.

By the same token, when the Secret Service was in Treasury, everybody knew, because of the criminal jurisdiction and involvement, they would be under the jurisdiction of a committee that deals all the time with criminal law, with the courts, and with title 18. This is title 18 in my hand, the Federal Criminal Code and Rules. Taking up the whole middle part of this is Secret Service jurisdiction.

Do we want to make them better? Do we want proper oversight? Do we want to say, by golly, look at this, we came out with this closed door item and put it out here and immediately the Senate has saved the world--no hearings, nothing? Here it is.

I am far more interested in having the Secret Service be the best it can be. I am far more interested in making sure we are giving them the proper criminal codes they need. I am far more interested in making sure, when they are investigating crime, they can do their best.

I think what Senator Hatch and I are trying to save the Senate from doing is making a very serious mistake with the Secret Service, just to fill out an organizational chart.

I see the distinguished senior Senator from Utah in the Chamber. I will yield in a moment.

But I point out, in talking about the number of places Secretary Ridge may have to appear, he has only come to the Judiciary Committee once in each of the last 2 years. It is not like he is coming often.

But the point is, the Secret Service has 56 years of experience of making sure it works right. We are going to throw that overboard because we got this brand-new color-coded organizational chart for the Senate. My goodness, ladies and gentlemen, you can rest easy tonight, there will be no more terrorism because the Senate has a new organizational chart. Whoop-de-do.

Mr. President, earlier we discussed Judiciary Committee jurisdiction.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, a year ago this month, I stood with a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives to announce the introduction of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003. This is landmark legislation. It provides law enforcement with the training and equipment required to effectively and accurately fight crime in the 21st century. It enacts the President's DNA initiative, as the Chair probably knows, authorizing more than $1 billion over the next 5 years to eliminate the backlog crisis in the Nation's crime labs and fund other DNA-related programs. It also includes the Innocence Protection Act, a death penalty reform effort I launched more than 4 years ago.

We introduced our bill on October 1, 2003. One month later, the House passed it with overwhelming support, 357 to 57. Among those supporting the bill were the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman James Sensenbrenner, and virtually the entire Republican leadership, including Majority Leader DeLay. Clearly there was a broad consensus for action. The House vote marked a major breakthrough in finding solutions to these serious flaws in our criminal justice system.

Unfortunately, while the other body acted, we did not. Despite Chairman Hatch's sponsorship of the bill and strong support of it, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not begin work on

the bill until September, almost a year after the House had passed it. At that point we were slowed by resistance from some Republican members of the panel, but after many hours we succeeded in working through the 20-plus amendments that were offered. All of them were rejected. Then the bill was approved by a strong bipartisan majority.

That was 3 weeks ago. Since then, this critical legislation has been blocked by the same Senators who tried blocking it in committee, and unfortunately they have been buttressed by opposition from President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Undeterred by the fact that the Senate has not moved on this very important legislation, the House acted again. Yesterday it voted on the Justice For All Act of 2004, H.R. 5107. This is a criminal justice package that bundles the Senate DNA bill with another bill, already passed in the Senate, that would increase protection for victims of Federal crimes. Yesterday's House margin, 393 to 14, was even larger than it was a year ago. In these times you rarely see such bipartisan support--393 to 14. I believe it sends a loud message to us here in this body of: What are we waiting for? Let's pass this bill.

I want to take a moment to commend the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, who spearheaded this effort in the House. The chairman deserves high praise for his leadership. We could never have come as far as we have without his steadfast commitment, and the hard work of his impressive staff.

I also thank my long-term colleagues in this effort, Representative Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts--I was honored to serve overlapping time as prosecutors, me in Vermont, Mr. Delahunt in Massachusetts--and Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. They worked tirelessly over many years to pass the Innocence Protection Act. They deserve much of the credit for building the strong bipartisan support for the bill in the House.

The House has spoken, not once but twice. I believe Senate action is long overdue. It should not be threatened by a few holdouts in the Senate, even if they are emboldened by continuing help from the Department of Justice. I remind everybody, none of us here works for the administration--I don't care whether it is a Republican administration or a Democratic administration. We are elected as individual Senators, independent of the executive branch or the judicial branch.

The Bush administration's role in the effort to kill this bill is significant and it is a matter of public record. On April 28 of this year we received a 22-page letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, presenting ``the views of the Department of Justice and the administration'' regarding the bill the House of Representatives had earlier passed by a vote of 357 to 67. They expressed the Administration's strong opposition to virtually every aspect of the bill.

I have rarely seen a letter--in fact, I cannot remember a time I have seen a letter from an executive branch agency so hostile to a bipartisan legislative effort that had already passed one House of Congress. I was shocked the Department would write such a scathing letter about a bill that had been carefully negotiated by Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Hatch, working very closely together. In light of the support of the congressional leadership, I thought the President would have supported the bill and worked to make the capital punishment system more fair. Instead, his Administration chose to stonewall the reforms and defend the injustices in current law.

The new House bill contains additional concessions to the Department of Justice and to the handful of Republican opponents in the Senate. But despite these concessions, despite the urgent need for reform, the Bush administration has obstinately refused to support the bill or even to withdraw its formal opposition to the bill. In particular, the Department has pressed its unreasonable demand for an arbitrary 3-year time limit on obtaining a DNA test after conviction.

If the White House kills this bill that has passed so overwhelmingly in the House, it will be a travesty. It has, after all, been supported by key members of the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate; it has passed by an overwhelming margin in the House. To put this off another year may seem fine to the President and the Attorney General, but another year is a long time if you are a crime victim and you are hoping they may find the person who committed the crime, or if you are wrongly accused and you are waiting on death row for the chance to prove your innocence. Another year will pile more untested rape kits on to the thousands already piled up in labs across the country.

This bill is a rare example of bipartisan cooperation for a good cause, and instead of helping, the White House has actively hindered. They have been unwilling to lead. They have been unwilling to follow. Now, when all it would take is for them to get out of the way, they are even unwilling to stand aside.

I think it is time for them to understand what is happening here, and to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. An overwhelming bipartisan coalition in both the House and the Senate supports this bill because it will mean more fair and effective criminal justice in this country.

If Congress fails to enact this much-needed law this year, I do not lay the blame on leadership in the House or the Senate, because the leadership in both parties has supported it, just as Senator Hatch and Chairman Sensenbrenner have. If the Congress fails to enact this law this year, then I lay the responsibility directly at the feet of President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft. They deserve to be held accountable, and will be if their stubborn opposition to the bill causes it to die. The leaders of their own party support it, as the leaders of my party do. They ought to stand aside.

For all those victims' groups, all those church groups, all the others who have supported this bill--as you know, if it doesn't go forward, it is not the fault of Congress. You should look down toward the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a longer statement in the Record.

Mr. President, yesterday, we passed an important bill granting enormous additional authority and tools to the government to fight terrorism. We authorized the creation of a vast information sharing network that will allow officials throughout the U.S. government to search databases containing extensive data about American citizens. We also gave broad authority to implement new technologies, standardize identification documents and enhance border security. These are great powers that, as the Commission noted, will have substantial implications for privacy and civil liberties.

This bill was also notable because it balanced this grant of power with the creation of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. I thank Senator Lieberman for including this Board as part of the National Intelligence Reform Act, and for working with Senator Durbin, me and others to make sure the Board had the necessary authority, mandate and tools to ensure that civil liberties and privacy are safeguarded as we enhance our antiterrorism policies and tools.

We all recognized that we were giving this Board substantial responsibility. Given the enormous powers we were granting the government, we needed a Board capable of counter-balancing these powers. But we also know that this does not end our duty.

The Judiciary Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee have a shared history of working together to preserve privacy and civil liberties, and to promote open and accountable government. Our committee members have developed substantial expertise and experience in these areas, and we have a duty to continue to oversee these concerns. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee for working with us to ensure that the Board's work on privacy and civil liberties matters be under the jurisdiction of both these committees so that we can continue to provide effective oversight.

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

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

Mr. President, am I correct that we are planning to vote at 11:30 on the Kyl amendment?

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the provisions in the Collins- Lieberman bill establishing a privacy and civil liberties oversight board and to respond to some of the disturbing discourse and efforts to undermine those provisions.

It is unquestioned that one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was the creation of a civil liberties board to fill a clear void in government structure for addressing these concerns. The Commission discovered that there was ``no office within the government whose job it is to look across the government at the actions we are taking to protect ourselves to ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered.'' In response to this vacuum, the Commission explicitly recommended that ``at this time of increased and consolidated government authority, there should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties.'' The 9/11 Commission concluded: ``We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, since the success of one helps protect the other.''

The Commission was certainly right. There is no doubt that such a board is needed given the heightened civil liberty tensions created by the realities of terrorism and modern warfare. The tools of the information age include precise data-gathering, networked databases, and tracking and sensing technologies impervious to the common eye. The legal tools are similarly powerful, ranging from substantial capabilities under the USA PATRIOT Act and under our immigration laws. As the Commission noted, ``[e]ven without the changes we recommend, the American public has vested enormous authority in the U.S. government.'' In an even more pointed and ominous assessment of these powers, Vice Chairman Hamilton noted, in a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, these developments are ``an astounding intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans that (are) routine today in government.''

One of my colleagues suggested that this bill is solely to strengthen our intelligence tools and ``not a bill regarding our civil liberties.'' But this is a myopic view. You cannot divorce one from the other. Security and liberty are always in tension in a free society, and that is readily apparent today. It is our vigilant duty to work hard at striking the right balance. We must enhance our capabilities, but with such powerful tools comes heightened responsibility, and the Commission has challenged us to take up those reins: ``This shift of power and authority to the government calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.''

We have an obligation to ensure that there are mechanisms in place that will see to it that this power is subject to appropriate checks and balances and congressional oversight. An effective civil liberties board can help provide those checks and contribute to preserving both liberty and security.

We need a civil liberties board whose members collectively can think critically and independently about the policies we implement as a nation and about how they affect our fundamental rights. The board must be able to participate in the policymaking process, review technology choices and options, peer into various agencies and assess actions, review classified materials and investigate concerns. This board must have the versatility to work closely with government officials, but at the same time it must be sufficiently independent to assess those government policies without fear, favor or compromise. Given these significant responsibilities, it is equally important that the board be accountable to Congress and the American people.

The civil liberties board outlined in the Collins-Lieberman bill makes great strides toward meeting these goals. It represents a true bipartisan effort from conception to introduction. I was pleased to work with these Senators along with Senator Durbin to make this civil liberties board the kind of board that would honor the 9/11 Commission's intent. It should not go without notice that Commissioners Slade Gorton and Richard Ben-Veniste issued a bipartisan statement that, ``A civil liberties board of the kind we recommend can be found in the Collins-Lieberman bill in the Senate.''

This legislation establishes a bipartisan board that would have access to the documents and information needed to assess our counterterrorism policies that affect the vital civil liberties of the American people. It provides a mechanism for them to work closely with administration officials, including working with a network of newly created department-level privacy and civil liberty officers, whose proximity to decision makers will ensure that these concerns are considered from the earliest stages of policy formation. It requires the board to report to Congress on a regular basis, and--without compromising classified information--to inform the public about policies that affect their vital liberties.

Unfortunately, Senator Kyl's amendment 3801 attempts to gut the carefully crafted, bipartisan civil liberty and privacy provisions that are the hallmark of the Collins-Lieberman bill. It is inconsistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and would undermine the civil liberties that we cherish.

First, Senator Kyl's amendment attempts to cut off the information flow that would ensure that the board could accurately, reliably and effectively advise on the impact of policies on privacy and civil liberties. It would also eliminate the board's ability to subpoena people outside of the government who may have important information, such as private sector data collectors working on behalf of the government. It would also eliminate the privacy officers, as well as public hearings and reports to the public.

It is clear that the Commission intended for the board to have access to the information that it needed in order to effectively assess policy. In a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, Vice Chairman Hamilton said, ``The key requirement is that government agencies must be required to respond to the board.'' He went on to note that the Commission itself had subpoena power, and ``if we had not had it, our job would have been much, much more difficult.'' I would note that the Collins-Lieberman bill does not go as far as to mandate subpoena power over government officials, but rather only over relevant non-government persons.

Given the secrecy and civil liberty concerns that have been pervasive in this administration, we should be enhancing information flow and dialogue, not eliminating it. It is ironic that at the same time that the administration has been making it more difficult for the public to learn what government agencies are up to, the government and its private sector partners have been

quietly building more and more databases to learn and store more information about the American people themselves.

Second, Senator Kyl's amendment would eliminate a provision that gives the board important guidance on how to review requests by the government for new and enhanced powers. This is a critical omission. In order to balance liberty and security, we need to ensure that the board will be looking at policies through a prism that would allow for heightened security protection, while also ensuring that intrusions are not disproportionate to benefits, or that they would unduly undermine privacy and civil liberties. This guidance would also keep the board focused on the right priorities and prevent the mission creep that some fear.

Contrary to assertions that this would be a ``citizen board'' gone wild that would ``haul any agent in anywhere in the world and grill him,'' this board would consist of highly accomplished members who have the appropriate clearance to access classified information, who have extensive professional expertise on civil liberty and privacy issues, and who have the knowledge of how to view these concerns in the context of important anti-terrorism objectives. Again, its subpoena power would be limited to non-government persons, and so could not used willy-nilly to drag in agents from the field.

It simply cannot be that the government can create and implement policies that impinge on our liberties without having to account to anyone. While that may make things convenient or easy, it certainly does not preserve the ideals of the country we are fighting to protect. As the Commission reminded us, ``if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.''

Some have suggested that we leave this responsibility to ``federal agencies that are already equipped and designed for that function.'' But this misses precisely the point raised in the report. There is currently no such suitable entity that can look across government and offer an independent, uncompromised assessment of the impact of government powers on civil liberties. And I emphasize look, because some would suggest that we do not need a board with an affirmative obligation to go out and review policy. To the contrary, what we do not need is passivity. We need to be as vigilant about protecting our fundamental rights as we are in hunting down and capturing terrorists. It is what Commissioner Gorton, a former Republican Senator from Washington, described as a ``watchdog to assure maximum protection of individual rights and liberties in those programs.'' Similarly, Commissioner Hamilton has said that ``it ought to have a very tough investigative staff and it ought to be a very active board and agency.''

Others have suggested that the administration's recent efforts are a suitable substitute. I strongly disagree. Rather, the Executive Order attempted to foist upon us an anemic civil liberties board. I and several of my colleagues noted in a letter to the President that the board was not a bipartisan or independent entity. It had no authority to access information and it had no accountability. It was housed in the Department of Justice, and it was comprised solely of administration officials from the law enforcement and intelligence communities, precisely the communities that the board would have an obligation to oversee. It was the proverbial case of the fox guarding the henhouse. This would not have resulted in a vigorous consideration of policy that the Commission intended.

As the Commission noted, the ``burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the Executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the Executive's use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use.''

We should be looking for ways to ensure that this burden of proof will be met, rather than weakening oversight and accountability.

As the 9/11 Commission noted, when it comes to security and civil liberties, ``while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right.''

Senator Kyl's amendment fails to ``keep it right,'' and I urge that the Senate honor the spirit of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and reject it.

Senators Collins and Lieberman have it right in their bill and we should not allow that to be gutted.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the President from myself and others on this subject be printed in the Record.

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

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

Madam President, this is an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley. We did this because 3 years ago, a law was passed requiring the Attorney General to report on the FBI translators program, why it was failing, and how he is going to fix it. The Attorney General has never followed the law and submitted that report.

Our amendment requires the Attorney General to submit a report on FBI translators within 30 days of enactment of this act.

Senator Grassley, of course, is well known as being one of the most vigilant people on FBI oversight issues.

Last week the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General released an unclassified version of its Audit of the FBI's Foreign Language Program. The report shows that despite concerns expressed for years by some of us in Congress and by former FBI contractors, among others, and despite an influx of tens of millions of dollars to hire new linguists, the FBI foreign language translation unit continues to be saddled with growing backlogs, systemic difficulties, security problems, too few qualified staff, and an astounding lack of organization.

What is the use of taping thousands of hours of conversations of intelligence targets in foreign languages if we cannot translate the material promptly, securely, accurately and efficiently? The administration owes Congress and the American public an explanation as to why it has repeatedly failed to take the necessary steps to fix these serious intelligence failings.

Almost 3 years ago, Congress required the Attorney General to report upon where the FBI translators program was failing and how he was going to fix it. The Attorney General has never submitted that report.

To make sure that report is delayed no more, and to respond to the Inspector General's recommendations, Senator Grassley and I have offered the Translator Reports Act of 2004 as an amendment. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friend from Iowa, who has been ever- vigilant on FBI oversight issues.

Our amendment requires the Attorney General to submit a report on FBI translators within 30 days of enactment of the National Intelligence Reform Act. It also adds further reporting requirements that will be crucial to understanding whether or not the FBI is capable of fixing, and has fixed, the problems outlined by the Inspector General.

This report will allow Congress to meet the 9/11 Commission's directive that Congress exercise greater oversight over the counterintelligence and counterterrorism needs of the executive branch. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up and passing the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004. I have been working to reform the copyright royalty arbitration procedures for several years. As early as 2002, I noted in a Judiciary Committee hearing that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the current law.

In particular, we heard the testimony of Frank Schliemann of Onion River Radio of Montpelier, VT. Mr. Schliemann noted that many small webcasters could not afford to take part in CARP proceedings, even though their livelihoods would depend on the outcome. We also heard from Billy Strauss, president of Websound, another small webcaster in Brattleboro, VT. Mr. Strauss noted many of the structural problems that plagued the old CARP procedures. In addition, I have been concerned that the current procedures are often hindered by unreasonable delays, and the outcomes subject to manipulation.

The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act responds to these concerns. It replaces arbitrators, who serve for only one CARP procedure and are paid by the parties, with full-time administrative judges. As a result, the financial burden of taking part in a CARP procedure is alleviated. In addition, all parties can rest assured that there will be continuity and stability in the resolution of these proceedings. At the same time, this bill preserves the traditional role of the Register of Copyrights. This bill also resolves longstanding disputes over the availability of discovery. Because discovery is available where it is needed, the copyright royalty judges will have the information necessary to render a correct determination but the costs of discovery will be kept to a minimum.

I am pleased to have cosponsored with Senator Hatch the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House bill. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Smith, and Congressman Berman for their leadership in this matter. We believe that in

adopting this version of the House bill, H.R. 1417, we will be able to move to final passage without delay. It is time these important reforms were implemented.

Has the Senator from Maine completed her statement?

Mr. President, after 9/11, there was broad agreement that the absence of an accurate, reliable, and comprehensive terrorist watch list was a serious deficiency. Unfortunately, 3 years later, we still have not accomplished this important task.

My amendment, which has been modified to reach an agreement with Senators Collins and Lieberman, addresses this deficiency. It requires a report to Congress on the watch list, specifically on the standards in place to ensure we have a list that is reliable and accurate, and that we have procedures for determining threat levels and the consequences to listed individuals. It also mandates a process for individuals erroneously listed on the ``Automatic Selectee'' and ``No- Fly'' lists to have their names removed. Finally, it would require an assessment of the privacy and civil liberty implications of using these lists. It is critical that we have a complete, accurate and consolidated watch list, but we also need to be mindful of our liberties in the process.

We know that one of the most senior and respected Members of this Senate who for decades has taken the same flight was told he could not board because he was, apparently, on some kind of terrorist list. They said: Of course, it is an obvious error, and we will get it cleared up. But repeatedly when he tried to get on the same plane, he was continually stopped.

Now, as a Member of the Senate, after six or seven times of this happening, and after calls from the White House, the head of Homeland Security and others, the problem was finally corrected. Can you imagine what it is like if you are Jane Smith or John Jones from a small town somewhere in this country, but you have to travel on business and your name is there, and you lose important clients, you lose important business, or you are unable to get home to visit a friend or a family member, and you probably cannot pick up the phone and call the White House and say, ``Look, this is the sixth or seventh time I have been mistakenly barred from traveling. Please fix it''?

Now, there are other concerns I would like to have addressed, but this modified version reflects the agreement with Senators Collins and Lieberman.

Mr. President, I believe the modified amendment is at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent it be in order to call up my amendment No. 3915 and that it be so modified.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chair of the committee for her cooperation and help, and also commend her and her distinguished ranking member for moving this far along.

Amendment No. 3916, As Modified

Mr. President, a major weakness uncovered after 9/11 was the failure of Government agencies to share information with one another. The 9/11 Commission recommended a government-wide information system to ensure that we connect the dots. The Commission also recommended that the ``[p]rotection of privacy rights should be one key element'' of implementing the system. Given the sweeping powers that Congress is about to grant for building an information sharing system, we have to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

After all, we fought a Revolution to guarantee our privacy. The distinguished Presiding Officer and the distinguished chair know, because they come from New England, that the Revolution was fought on our soil.

We all agree we must maximize this information, but we must also maximize the protection of personal information. And we need assurances that private information will be protected before we build the system, not after. We certainly do not want to repeat what happened with CAPPS II, when $100 million of taxpayer money was spent on deploying a system that then subsequently collapsed because we failed to adequately account for civil liberties and privacy concerns.

My amendment, which has been modified to reach an agreement with Senators Collins and Lieberman, would require that we take advantage of available privacy-enhancing technology that would prevent unauthorized dissemination of information. It also requires the Administration to fulfill its obligations to report to Congress on plans for the network before spending funds to build it. This oversight is critical to ensuring the network maximizes security while balancing civil liberties and privacy.

Senators Collins and Lieberman have agreed to accept this important amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up amendment No. 3916, and that it be modified.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have an amendment No. 3913, which I will soon withdraw. It is on the subpoena powers of the civil liberties board created in this bill.

We have worked hard to strengthen the powers of the board both at the committee level and then here on the floor, and I believe we have made great progress. We added teeth to this oversight body and fought against efforts to weaken it.

I think the goal of this amendment, which is to give the board enforcement power for its subpoena authority, is an important one. However, in order to expedite the passage of this bill, I will withdraw the amendment now. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue next year. But I also understand the need to expedite

the passage of this bill. There may be another time to bring this up. I will withdraw the amendment now, though I look forward to working with my colleagues on the issue next year.

I withdraw the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the other body just passed their version of the Satellite Home Viewer Act under suspension of the rules. H.R. 4518, the W.J. (Billy) Tauzin Satellite Television Act of 2004, is a strong bill.

During this process, I have heard from many Vermonters who are concerned about not being able to receive Vermont stations over satellite. Others have been concerned about possibly having their ability to receive certain stations terminated. One reason for these strong concerns is that Vermont has the highest percentage in the Nation of TV owners who receive programming using satellite dishes. One reason for this is our beautiful mountains and valleys which make it more difficult to receive TV signals using regular antennas.

The Hatch-Leahy Satellite Homer Viewer Extension Act of 2004 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. All the members of the Judiciary Committee supported that bill.

In the other body, members of both the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee worked together in a bipartisan fashion to craft a comprehensive bill which will be good for consumers and for the affected industries. That bill, if enacted, will be a boon to public television, the satellite industry, the movie, music and television industries, and to satellite dish owners throughout America.

I am especially pleased that it contains a provision which I worked on with my colleagues from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu and Senator Gregg. We, along with Senator Jeffords, introduced legislation to ensure that satellite dish owners in every county in each of our States would be able to receive signals, via satellite, from our respective in-State television stations. While our two States represent a small television market as compared to some of the major population markets, nonetheless this provision is very important to residents in six of our collective counties--two in Vermont and four counties in New Hampshire. The Senate bill, S. 2013, as reported in June by the Judiciary Committee also contained this provision just included in H.R. 4518.

In Vermont this will mean that satellite dish owners in Bennington and Windham Counties will be able to receive all Vermont network stations in addition to the out-of-State network stations they now receive.

It is very important that in the waning days of this Congress that the Senate enact this satellite legislation. In 1998 and 1999 over 2 million families were faced with the prospect of losing the ability to receive one or more of their satellite television network stations. Back then, Congress acted and not only protected access to those stations but also expanded consumer opportunities to receive more programming options.

Families who own satellite dishes may end up being the big losers if provisions of that act are not extended. Many Midwestern and Rocky Mountain States have vast areas where satellite dish owners receive imported network stations such as ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox. Thousands of these families do not have any other choices. They do not have access to TV stations over-the-air because of mountain terrain or distance from the broadcast towers. They do not have access to cable because of the rough terrain or the lack of population density which makes it economically impossible for cable companies to invest. Without access to network stations via satellite, over-the-air, or cable, those families will no longer be able to receive national news programming or other network TV programming.

If Congress does not reauthorize provisions of current law by December 31, 2004, hundreds of thousands of households will lose satellite access to network TV stations. Since information about subscribers is proprietary it is difficult for me to tell you exactly how many families will be affected by this, but I assure you it is not a small number.

The Senate Judiciary Committee got its job done in June. We reported a great bill out of committee without a single amendment and without a single nay vote. That bill was introduced on January 21, 2004, by Chairman Hatch and was cosponsored by myself and Senators DeWine and Kohl. When the bill was reported out of committee on June 17, 2004, I noted that the bill does far more than just protect satellite dish owners from losing signals. I pointed out that the new satellite bill ``protects subscribers in every state, expands viewing choices for most dish owners, promotes access to local programming, and increases direct, head-to-head, competition between cable and satellite providers.''

I continued by saying that ``easily, this bill will benefit 21 million satellite television dish owners throughout the nation, and I am happy to note that over 85,000 of those subscribers are in Vermont.''

The Senate Judiciary Committee-reported bill, and the recently passed bill H.R. 4518, go far beyond protecting what current subscribers receive. The bills allow additional programming via satellite through adoption of the so-called ``significantly viewed'' test now used for cable, but not satellite subscribers. That test means that, in general, if a person in a cable service area that historically received over- the-air TV reception from ``nearby'' stations outside that area, those cable operators could offer those station signals in

that person's cable service area. In other words, if you were in an area in which most families in the past had received TV signals using a regular rooftop antenna then you could be offered that same signal TV via cable. By having similar rules, satellite carriers will be able to directly compete with cable providers who already operate under the significantly viewed test. This gives home dish owners more choices of programming.

In the past, Congress got the job done. Congress worked well together in 1998 and 1999 when we developed a major satellite law that transformed the industry by allowing local television stations to be carried by satellite and beamed back down to the local communities served by those stations. This marked the first time that thousands of TV owners were able to get the full complement of local network stations. In 1997 we found a way to avoid cutoffs of satellite TV service to millions of homes and to protect the local affiliate broadcast system. The following year we forged an alliance behind a strong satellite bill to permit local stations to be offered by satellite, thus increasing competition between cable and satellite providers.

We also worked with the Public Broadcasting System so they could offer a national feed as they transitioned to having their local programming beamed up to satellites and then beamed back down to much larger audiences.

Because of those efforts, in Vermont and most other States, dish owners are able to watch their local stations instead of getting signals from distant stations. Such a service allows television watchers to be more easily connected to their communities as well as providing access to necessary emergency signals, news and broadcasts.

I hope we are able to work together to finish this important satellite television bill in the few remaining days of this Congress.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing legislation to renew and extend family farmer bankruptcy protection through June 30, 2005.

Senator Grassley and I introduced the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act, S. 2864, to retroactively renew and temporarily extend these protections that our farmers have come to rely upon because Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code expired on January 1, 2004. Representative Tammy Baldwin and Representative Nick Smith have introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

But our bipartisan legislation is just a short-term fix. We need to stop playing politics and permanently reauthorize the Chapter 12 family farmer protections.

Too many family farmers have been left in legal limbo in bankruptcy courts across the country because Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code is still a temporary measure. This is the eleventh time that Congress must act to restore or extend basic bankruptcy safeguards for family farmers because Chapter 12 is still a temporary provision despite its first passage into law in 1986. Our family farmers do not deserve these lapses in bankruptcy law that could mean the difference between foreclosure and farming.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from many representatives of family farmers that underscores the need for renewing the Chapter 12 bankruptcy protections be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

It is time to end this absurdity and make these bankruptcy protections permanent. Everyone agrees that Chapter 12 has worked. It is time for Congress to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a stable safety net for our Nation's family farmers.

I will continue to work with Senator Grassley, Senator Feingold, Representative Baldwin, Representative Nick Smith and others on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation that once and for all assures our farmers of permanent bankruptcy protections to help them keep their farms. In the meantime, the House of Representatives should quickly pass the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act and end the current lapse in basic bankruptcy protections for our family farmers.

October 6, 2004.

Hon. Patrick Leahy,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Leahy: The undersigned organizations urge

immediate passage of S. 2864 that reinstates Chapter 12

bankruptcy provisions of our nation's family farmers. Since

January 1, 2004 farmers facing serious financial problems

resulting from low commodity prices, increasing production

costs, and natural disasters have not been able to consider

filing a Chapter 12 bankruptcy.

The need for a separate bankruptcy code that enables

farmers to stay on the land while reorganizing their debt is

as urgent now as it was in 1986 when initially enacted by

Congress. This lapse in coverage results in farmers having to

face foreclosure and liquidation. Instead, Chapter 12 would

offer farmers the opportunity to negotiate with their

creditors. This benefits the farm family, their creditors and

rural businesses.

Please act quickly. Every day that Congress delays on

Chapter 12 has a direct cost to our nation's family farmers

and rural communities.

Sincerely,

American Corn Growers Association.

Association of Chapter 12 Trustees.

Community Food Security Coalition.

Family Farm Defenders.

Farm Aid.

Farm Wives United (New York).

Federation of Southern Cooperatives.

Livestock Marketing Association.

National Bankruptcy Conference.

National Catholic Rural Life Conference.

National Family Farm Coalition.

National Farmers Union.

New York Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (NYSAWG).

Northeast States Association for Agricultural Stewardship

(NSAAS).

Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI-USA).

Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural.

Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (SSAWG).

Soybean Producers of America.

Women, Food, and Agriculture.

Mr. President, I am proud to salute the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, better known as ASCAP, on its anniversary of 90 years of successful representation of America's songwriters and music publishers.

ASCAP formally began when a group of noted songwriters and their supporters gathered at the Hotel Claridge in New York City on February 13, 1914, at a monumental event that would forever change music history. These visionaries, whose members included some of that era's most active and talented songwriters, such as Irving Berlin, James Weldon Johnson, Jerome Kern and John Philip Sousa, began a tradition of outstanding public advocacy on behalf of songwriters that continues to this very day.

Soon after its founding, a prominent member of ASCAP, Victor Herbert, brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant that established the legal basis for songwriters to protect their ``performing right'' in the music they created. In a legal battle that took 2 years to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, ASCAP finally prevailed in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Once their legal authority to protect the musical performing right was secure, ASCAP provided its owner-members with several ways to be compensated for the performances of their copyrighted works.

In advancing its members' interests, ASCAP has traditionally welcomed the marketing of new technologies as opportunities to expand the reach of their musical entertainment to new audiences. With the advent of radio, ASCAP began an interdependent relationship that remains one of its most important sources of revenue to this very day. Today, under the leadership of its distinguished chairman and award winning songwriter, Marilyn Bergman, ASCAP licenses over 11,500 local commercial radio stations and 2,000 non-commercial radio stations and ASCAP music is a dominant entertainment feature of our airwaves.

With the Internet explosion, ASCAP responded with its own technological innovations. It fielded ACE, the first interactive online song database, and EZ-Seeker software for tracking Internet performances. Most recently, it has developed Mediaguide which is probably the world's most comprehensive and accurate broadcast tracking system. Thus, creative innovation and vigilance on behalf of its members have been an ASCAP hallmark since its formation.

While ASCAP has had a deep involvement with the innovative telecommunications technologies and the marvels they have added to our lives, its institutional essence is its people. We have all been admirers of many of the more renowned ASCAP members who now number in the many hundreds over the years. They include such extraordinary talents as: Billy Joel, Hal David, Cy Coleman, Garth Brooks, Irving Berlin, Prince, Lyle Lovett, Henry

Mancini, Marvin Hamlisch, Louis Armstrong, Arturo Sandoval, Duke Ellington, Madonna, Jimmy Webb, Cole Porter, and, or course, the late Jerry Garcia and his bandmates in the Grateful Dead.

However, as a national organization with international impact ASCAP actually represents an additional 185,000 individual songwriter and music publisher members, who are less well known. They are the critical mass of individual talents that extend into every city, town and hamlet in our country.

Its member-owners and the officers and employees who support them are all a part of the traditional ASCAP family. And they are especially deserving of the congratulations we extend on this auspicious event. In addition, those millions of us who appreciate and enjoy the fruits of their creators' talents have become a part of ASCAP's vast extended family of enthusiasts.

So I am wishing a very happy ninetieth birthday anniversary to ASCAP's members, officers, and employees on behalf of its huge extended family for its years of music success in America and around the world.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will accept a bipartisan amendment, No. 3705, to the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, S. 2845, offered by Senator Collins, for myself and eight other cosponsors, that will revise the formula for the allocation of State and local homeland security grant funding.

Homeland security is a national responsibility shared by all States, regardless of size. Each State has basic terrorism preparedness needs and, therefore, a minimum amount of domestic terrorism preparedness funds is necessary for each State. Our first responders in each and every State are on the front lines in defending against and preparing for terrorist attacks. We need to ensure that they receive the funding they need to prepare for and respond to such attacks.

Recognizing that every State and community should have helped to meet those needs, I authored a minimum formula for State and local basic formula grants to emergency responders that are distributed to States by the Department of Homeland Security Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. That formula guarantees that each State--regardless of size--receives at least 0.75 percent of the national allotment to help meet their national domestic security needs.

Congress continues to recognize that every State and community--rural or urban, small or large--has basic domestic security needs and merits the Federal help to meet those needs. Both the Senate and House Homeland Security appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2005 keep the all-State minimum formula for first responder grants that are distributed to the States.

Representatives and officials from urban States and cities have argued that Federal money to fight terrorism is sent to areas that do not need it and it is ``wasted'' in small towns. However, Congress has shown that it recognizes these highly populated, highly threatened and highly vulnerable areas have terrorism preparedness needs beyond those basic needs for each State. That is why we in the Senate last month included $1.2 billion for discretionary grants to high-threat urban areas for the coming fiscal year. The House-passed Homeland Security appropriations bill included $1 billion for the Urban Areas Security Initiative.

Not all those who are leaders in urban areas believe that every cent of State and local homeland security funding should go solely to first responders in our cities. I recall this past August, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani brought a warning to emergency first responders in my home State of Vermont that should serve as a notice to all Americans. He said there was no doubt in his mind that another serious attack on the United States would be attempted, and he said it could just as easily be small town America rather than another large city.

``The risk of another attack is a very great one. . . . The biggest city and the smallest towns, both had to be prepared,'' he was quoted by The Rutland Herald. While in Vermont, Mr. Giuliani publicly lauded the value of the work that first responders in small local communities do day after day. I join him in that praise.

I remind my colleagues that the town of Shanksville, PA, where the fourth hijacked airliner, United flight 93, crashed on September 11, 2001, is a tiny town of 245 residents with only one fire truck in a small fire station. On that day, Shanksville's police officers, fire fighters, and EMS officers who raced to the crash site of flight 93 were on the front lines of terrorism response. It is a threat we cannot always predict but one that we must always try to be prepared to meet.

Officials in the current administration hold the same view. In an interview published in the 2004 edition of The Year in Homeland Security, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, Sue Mencer, stated the following: . . . `` there should be some base level funding to each state and territory regardless of size or population density. There are infrastructures everywhere, although they may not be so dramatic as a Brooklyn Bridge or Golden Gate. There are critical underground pipelines, highways, bridges that we don't think of automatically but still need to be protected.''

Critics of the all-State minimum seem to forget that since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we have asked all-State and local first responders to defend us as never before on the front lines in the war against terrorism. Emergency responders in a rural State have the same responsibilities as those in any urban State to provide enhanced protection, preparedness and response against terrorists.

Fostering divisions between States ignores the real problem: We should be looking to increase the funds to our Nation's first responders. The Hart-Rudman report on domestic preparedness argues that the U.S. will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs over the next 5 years if current funding levels are maintained. Clearly, the domestic preparedness funds available are still not enough to protect from, prepare for, and respond to future domestic terrorist attacks anywhere on American soil.

I am proud to join Senator Collins and my eight colleagues in cosponsoring her bipartisan amendment to revise the formula for the allocation of State and local homeland security grant funding. This amendment maintains the 0.75 percent minimum that each State currently receives under the USA PATRIOT Act to help ensure that every State can respond to its preparedness needs, but it also clarifies and recognizes the fact that some States indeed have high-threat areas. I will continue to oppose any efforts to reduce adequate support and resources for our police, fire, and EMS services in each State and community as they continue to protect us from terrorists or respond to terrorist attacks, as well as carry out their other preparedness responsibilities. We should adequately meet the needs of all of our dedicated first responders and resist efforts that would pit them against each other.

We must continue our efforts to ensure the readiness of our States and communities. Should the United States experience terrorist attacks like those we endured over 3 years ago, I want to make sure that each police officer, firefighter, or rescue worker who responds to those attacks has the best training and equipment available to get the job done. I applaud all the hard work of all our State and local emergency first responders who not only continue to carry out the day-to-day responsibilities they have always had, but also find themselves serving on the front lines in the war on terrorism.

Amendment No. 3705, As Amended

Of course. The distinguished chairman and ranking Member have always been very courteous. I know, having managed a lot of bills, how it is. It is a reasonable request.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask it be in order for me to send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Grassley.

I understand there may be a question regarding my amendment. While this is being worked on by counsel, let me proceed to discuss it and we can go back to the amendment if there is no objection.

Mr. President, three years after thousands of Americans were killed in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, there have been some troubling doubts about the effectiveness of a major investigative tool in our antiterrorism arsenal.

On Monday, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Justice released an unclassified version of its audit of the FBI's Foreign Language Program and the Translation of Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Foreign Language Material. The results were unsettling. They deserve our immediate attention and action.

The report shows that despite concerns expressed for years by those in Congress and by former FBI contractors, among others, and despite an influx of tens of millions of dollars Congress has appropriated in a bipartisan effort to hire new linguists, the FBI foreign language translation unit is saddled with problems across the board, including growing backlogs, systemic difficulties, security problems, too few qualified staff, and an astounding lack of organization. It is almost as though the Department of Justice does not take this question of translation seriously.

The question the Department of Justice must be asked is: What is the use of taping thousands of hours of conversations of intelligence targets in foreign languages if, after we have taped it all, we cannot translate it promptly, securely, accurately, and efficiently? The translation mess at the Department of Justice is a chronic problem that has obvious and severe implications for our national security. We all want America to be secure, Republicans and Democrats alike. But the administration has shirked its responsibility to resolve these problems. It has dodged its own accountability to the public and to Congress for this enormous failure. I believe the administration owes Congress and the American public an explanation as to why it has repeatedly failed to take the necessary steps to fix these serious intelligence failings. We need to know, once and for all--and sooner rather than later--what steps will be taken to get this job done.

Now, to expedite this process, I will offer the Translator Reports Act of 2004. I am proud to be joined in this effort by Senator Grassley, my friend from Iowa. He has been ever-vigilant on FBI oversight issues, whether it has been a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. Our act clarifies and expands upon an important reporting requirement currently in law that has yet to be implemented by the Department of Justice.

The Attorney General is required by law--by law--to report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees about the number of translators employed by the FBI; the legal and practical impediments to using translators employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared basis; and the needs of the FBI for specific translation services in certain languages and recommendations for meeting those needs. We saw this as such a high priority that we included this requirement in law. The President signed it into law.

You would think if anybody is going to follow the law, it would be the Attorney General. To date, he has not. He has not made the report required by this law. Now, maybe he needs another deadline. We thought it was pretty clear already. The President thought it was pretty clear. Republicans and Democrats thought it was pretty clear. But this amendment provides an ironclad deadline.

I believe we have to prod the Department of Justice to get this information on a timely basis. It is somewhat like pulling teeth. This amendment is the extraction tool for the teeth of the foreign translation program. It fills the gap in current law by legally requiring the Attorney General to report ``not later than 30 days after the date of enactment'' and ``annually thereafter.''

The bill also expands that reporting requirement in several critical ways and in direct response to the Office of Inspector General's Audit. This is in keeping with the 9/11 Commission's directive that Congress exercise greater oversight over the counterintelligence and counterterrorism needs of the executive branch. In its report, the 9/11 Commission noted that, ``Even as the FBI has increased its language services cadre, the demand for translation services has also greatly increased. Thus, the FBI must not only continue to bring on board more linguists, it must also continue to take advantage of technology and best practices to prioritize its workflow, enhance its capabilities and ensure compliance with its quality control program.''

Well, I could not agree more.

The FBI in the past has drawn a distinction between contract linguists and full-time employees when discussing hiring issues. But for the purpose of getting the job done, this is a distinction without a difference. We in Congress want to know the status of hiring overall because it is the entire picture that we are concerned with. The amendment makes clear that the Department of Justice must report on linguists employed by and contracted for by the FBI.

Our amendment adds further reporting requirements that will be crucial to understanding whether or not the FBI is capable of fixing, and has fixed, the problems outlined by the Inspector General.

If enacted into law, the Attorney General will have to provide Congress with current information regarding: (1) the status of any automated statistical reporting system so that we can ensure

the FBI is monitoring workflow properly; (2) the storage capabilities of the digital collection system or systems utilized so that important data is not lost for technological reasons; (3) a description of the FBI's establishment and compliance with audio retention policies that satisfy the investigative and intelligence goals of the FBI; (4) a description of the implementation of quality control procedures and mechanisms for monitoring compliance with quality control procedures; and (5) the current counterterrorism and counterintelligence audio backlog and recommendations for alleviating any such backlog.

These reporting requirements are in addition to what is currently required: hiring numbers and recommendations regarding the FBI's future needs and the viability of using translators from other agencies and sources. This more detailed information will give Congress a better view and ultimately greater insight into how the FBI is handling this critical investigative tool. With FISA wiretaps at an annual figure of more than 1,700, the FBI has a lot of catching up to do. And so does Congress in its oversight of this translation program. With this amendment, the information we will need to most effectively employ this important investigative tool will be at our fingertips.

We know our intelligence services have the ability to pick up conversations throughout the world. But you have to translate what you pick up. On September 10, according to press reports, the Administration picked up a very clear warning that we were going to be hit on September 11. They did not translate the warning until sometime after September 11. This is like being warned that a bomb is going off in 5 minutes, and responding that we will translate and look at that warning in 5 months.

For my security and the security of all of us, I want our law enforcement and intelligence services to know immediately. As a former prosecutor, I know that if you are using a wiretap or an intercept, it is valuable if you have the information immediately, especially if they are talking about a terrible act or a crime that is going to take place very soon. It does you very little good to finally look at it long after the fact. The only reason we do these intercepts, the only reason we do these wiretaps, the only reason we do this electronic information gathering is so we will know where we are.

Mr. President, I understand my amendment is at the desk and I request it be reported.

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

Mr. President, I know the distinguished chairman of the committee and the distinguished ranking member of the committee want to look at this amendment. Because I am suppose to be at several places, I am not shackled to my desk on the floor as they are. I did want to get the amendment offered. I thank them for their courtesy in giving me time to do so. I urge the Senate to support this important oversight and reporting amendment.

I yield the floor.