[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4251-S4252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 1592. A bill to clarify the description of certain Federal land
under the Northern Arizona Land Exchange and Verde River Basin
Partnership Act of 2005 to include additional land in the Kaibab
National Forest; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation
introduced by my colleague, Senator Jeff Flake, that would fix a
mapping error involving the transfer of Forest Service land to Young
Life's Lost Canyon Camp in northern Arizona.
The bill, S. 1592, would amend the Northern Arizona Land Exchange and
Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005, P.L. 109-110, to clarify
that Congress intended that Young Life could purchase at fair market
value a full 237.5 acres of national forest land in the Kaibab National
Forest as Congress intended. The Forest Service says there is an error
in the Forest Service map referenced in the 2005 Act that has omitted
about 25 acres from the land conveyance. This error appears to be
preventing the Forest Service and Young Life from finalizing the
transfer. Each year, nearly 5,000 young campers spend their summer at
the Lost Canyon Camp, and this land conveyance is needed to expand the
camp and create a buffer zone around the camp. I urge my colleagues to
pass this clarifying legislation.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Heller):
S. 1595. A bill to describe the authority under which Federal
entities may use mobile aerial-view devices to surveil, protect
individual and collective privacy against warrantless governmental
intrusion through the use of mobile aerial-view devices, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
further protect American's privacy, while providing clear guidance for
Federal law enforcement for information collection using the newest
technologies. I
[[Page S4252]]
am sure my colleagues recall recent reports, from just a few weeks ago,
detailing the FBI's use of secret planes to spy on people in dozens of
cities without a warrant. These reports troubled both my colleagues and
me, and left unclear exactly when the government thinks it is okay to
surveil people from the air. As I have stressed many times before, the
American public deserves to know the laws that the government relies on
to surveil people, and the limits of those laws. And that's what this
bill sets out to do.
Now, drafting legislation in an area where technology is advancing
rapidly and so many policy issues intersect, is a very difficult task.
But I am confident that the Protecting Individuals From Mass Aerial
Surveillance Act of 2015 reflects feedback from several stakeholders,
experts and civil liberties groups, and provides the government the
tools it needs to keep us safe without sacrificing our civil liberties.
This bill would generally prohibit federal aerial surveillance
without a warrant, but with several exceptions. It would allow the
government to aerially surveil to protect people from disasters,
terrorist attacks, entry of illegal substances at national borders, and
other emergency situations. In addition, it would allow for government
agencies to survey wildlife and conduct research by use of aerial
vehicles, in order to ensure that habitats are preserved and
environmental risks are assessed properly.
This bill also would prohibit the government from identifying people
that happen to appear in aerial surveillance, unless it has probable
cause to believe those people have committed specific crimes. All
information gathered in violation of the bill would be barred admission
as evidence in any court of law, and the bill would also prohibit
private operators of aerial vehicles from being proxies for unlawful
government surveillance.
I want to stress that we cannot stand to wait much longer to pass
sensible limits on a type of surveillance whose technical capabilities
are advancing rapidly. With the proliferation of drones in US airspace,
and the numbers expected to increase by the thousands in the following
few years, there is a real concern that the law has not been keeping up
with technical advancements. And drones are not the only concern--use
of planes and helicopters equipped with modern surveillance equipment
make the technological landscape an incredibly dynamic one. That's why
this bill today would remain technology neutral and apply to both
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles.
To my fellow colleagues, I strongly believe that this bill strikes
the proper balance between allowing for aerial surveillance and
protecting individual privacy. I am glad to have received help and
feedback from the Center for Democracy and Technology, SOAR Oregon--a
leading voice in Oregon's UAV industry, the Small UAV Coalition, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU, and other experts. I hope my
colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and offering their
feedback. At this time, I would like to ask that this statement be
entered into the Record.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 1599. A bill to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust
whistleblowers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining again with Senator
Grassley in introducing the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act,
legislation that will provide protections to employees who come forward
and disclose to law enforcement agencies pricefixing and other criminal
antitrust behavior that harms consumers. This bill includes changes
that we made in the Judiciary Committee last Congress, which enabled it
to pass the Senate unanimously. Senator Grassley and I have long worked
together on protecting whistleblowers, and this legislation continues
those efforts.
Whistleblowers are often instrumental in alerting the public,
Congress, and law enforcement agencies to wrongdoing in a variety of
areas. These individuals take risks in stepping forward and deserve to
be protected from retaliation. Congress should encourage employees with
information about criminal antitrust activity to report this
information. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act does exactly
that by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle on
illegal behavior such as pricefixing.
This legislation is modeled on whistleblower protections that Senator
Grassley and I authored as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The
protections are narrowly tailored and do not provide whistleblowers
with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims. Last Congress,
we made modest changes to the bill in the Judiciary Committee to
improve the definition of a covered individual and clarify that
protections only apply to employees reporting criminal violations. The
protections in this bill build on recommendations from key stakeholders
in a 2011 Government Accountability Office report to Congress.
The antitrust laws offer critical protections for consumers that
promote free enterprise. By extending whistleblower protections to this
area of the law, this bipartisan bill will help to ensure that criminal
antitrust violations do not go unreported. This bill passed the Senate
unanimously last Congress. I urge the Senate to pass it again.
____________________