Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2009 at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Session on Thursday, March 12, 2009, in room S-216.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2009. The Committee will meet in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am opening this debate in my capacity not only as a Senator from Vermont but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We are here today to consider President Obama's nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General, the number two position at the Department of Justice. This is a picture, incidentally, of David Ogden. I had hoped we could vote on this nomination soon--although apparently, because of objections on the other side, we will not be able to vote until tomorrow. This is unfortunate. Every day we delay the appointment of the Deputy Attorney General is a day we are not enhancing the security of the United States. In this case, we have a nominee who I had hoped to have confirmed weeks ago. Mr. Ogden is a highly qualified nominee who has chosen to leave a very successful career in private practice--one I might say parenthetically pays considerably more than the Department of Justice does--to return to the Department, where he served with great distinction. His path in many ways reflects that of the Attorney General, Eric Holder, who, of course, also was a highly successful and respected partner in one of the major law firms in Washington. And he left to become Attorney General of the United States at the request of President Obama to serve his Nation. Mr. Ogden is doing the same thing. Interestingly enough, once Mr. Ogden's nomination was announced, the letters of support started to come in from leading law enforcement organizations across the country. Let me put a few of these up on this chart. As you can see, Mr. Ogden's nomination received support from leading law enforcement organizations; children's advocates; civil rights organizations; and former Government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations. Indeed, Larry Thompson, the former Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, a highly respected former public official, has endorsed David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America, an organization I have spent a lot of time with and one I highly respect. This organization provides alternative programs and a great mentoring system for children in many cities to keep them out of trouble. And this fine organization has endorsed David Ogden. A dozen retired military officers who serve as Judge Advocates General have endorsed Mr. Ogden's nomination. The Fraternal Order of Police and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, two major law enforcement organizations, have endorsed him. The Major Cities Chiefs Association have endorsed him. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, another organization I have worked a great deal with, and one that has done such wonderful things to help in the case of missing and exploited children, has also endorsed him. The National Association of Police Organizations has endorsed David Ogden. The National District Attorneys Association has endorsed him, which I was particularly pleased to see. I once served as vice president of the National District Attorneys Association. As an aside, I should note that I gave up the honor and glory of becoming president of the National District Attorneys Association for the anonymity of the Senate. The National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition has endorsed David Ogden. The National Sheriffs' Association has endorsed David Ogden. The Police Executive Research Forum has endorsed David Ogden. The National Center for Victims of Crime has endorsed David Ogden. Why have they endorsed him? Because he is an immensely qualified nominee, and he has the obvious priorities that we want in a Deputy Attorney General. His priorities will be the safety and security of the American people and to reinvigorate the traditional work of the Justice Department in protecting the rights of all Americans. That is why he will be a critical asset to the Attorney General. He will help us remember it is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and it is the Department of Justice for all Americans. With all of these endorsements, including all of the major law enforcement groups endorsing him, and all the endorsements from both Republicans and Democrats, what is astonishing for all these law enforcement organizations wanting him there is that Republicans threatened to filibuster this nomination. They refused to agree to this debate and a vote on the nomination, and they required the majority leader to file a cloture motion, which he did on Monday. For more than a week we were told that Republicans would not agree to a debate and vote and would insist on filibustering this nomination. It is amazing. I don't know if Republicans are aware of what is going on in this country--the rising crime rates which began rising in the last year or so and the critical nature working families are facing. And yet they want to filibuster a nominee, one of the best I have seen for this position in my 35 years in the Senate. I noted that development and the threat of a filibuster at a Judiciary Committee business meeting last Thursday, after a week of fruitless efforts to try to move this nomination forward by agreement and obviate the need for a filibuster. I noted my disappointment that, despite the bipartisan majority vote in favor of the nomination by Republicans and Democrats on the committee, despite the support from law enforcement groups, despite the support from children's advocates, and despite the support from former Government officials for Republican and Democratic administrations, we have been stalled in our ability to move forward to consider this nomination. And, of course, the Justice Department, which is there to represent all Americans--Republicans and Democrats, Independents, and everybody--is left without a deputy for another week. Quite frankly, I found the news of an imminent Republican filibuster incomprehensible. I could not think of any precedent for this during my 35 years in the Senate. A bipartisan majority--14 to 5--voted to report this nomination from the Judiciary Committee to the Senate. The ranking Republican member of the committee, Senator Specter, voted to support this nomination. The assistant Senate Republican leader, Senator Kyl, and the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, voted in favor of Mr. Ogden. And yet, in spite of this bipartisan support, someone or a group of Senators on the Republican side of the aisle were intent on filibustering this nominee to stop us from having a Deputy Attorney General who might actually be there to help fight crime in America. Why there was this attempt of filibustering President Obama's nomination for Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and depriving law enforcement in this country of his support, I cannot not understand. Two weeks ago, we debated and voted on the nomination in the Judiciary Committee. Those who opposed the nomination had the opportunity to explain their negative vote. I urge all Senators to reject these false and scurrilous attacks that have been made against Mr. Ogden. I also held out hope that they would reject applying an obvious double standard when it comes to President Obama's nominees. Remember, these are the same people who voted unanimously for one of the worst attorneys general in this Nation's history, former Attorney General Gonzales. I am glad some semblance of common sense has finally prevailed on the Republican side of the aisle. I guess somebody looked at the facts and said: ``This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and there is no way of justifying this to Americans, other than to the most partisan of Americans,'' and they reversed their position. They now say they will not filibuster this nomination. It was disturbing to see the President's nomination of Mr. Ogden to this critical national security post being held up this long by Senate Republicans apparently on some kind of a partisan whim. I voted for all four of the nominees that the Senate confirmed and President Bush nominated to serve as the Deputy Attorney General during the course of his Presidency. In fact, each of the four was confirmed by voice vote. Not a single Democratic Senator voted against them and some may not have been the people we would have chosen had it been a Democratic President. But we respected the fact the American people elected a Republican President and he deserved a certain amount of leeway in picking his nominees. Of course, we heard the same preaching from the Republican side. Suddenly their position has now changed since the American people, by a landslide, elected a Democratic President. What Republicans are essentially saying is President Obama does not get the same kind of credit that President Bush did. That amounts to a double standard, especially after every Republican Senator supported each of President Bush's nominees, as they did the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. Today, however, there will be no more secret and anonymous Republican holds. Any effort to oppose the President's nominees--executive or judicial--will have to withstand public scrutiny. There can be no more anonymous holds. We can turn at last to consideration of President Obama's nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General, the No. 2 position at the Department. Let me tell you a little bit about David Ogden. As a former high- ranking official at both the Defense Department and the Justice Department, he is the kind of serious lawyer and experienced Government servant who understands the special role the Department of Justice must fulfill in our democracy. It is no surprise that his nomination has received strong support from leading law enforcement organizations, children's advocates, civil rights organizations, and former Government officials from Republican and Democratic administrations. The confirmation of Mr. Ogden to this critical national security post should not be further delayed. The Deputy Attorney General is too important a position to be made into a partisan talking point for special interest politics. Now, I understand some people want to do fundraising as they talk about their ability to block nominations of President Obama. I wonder if they know how critical the situation is in this country. This is not the time for partisan political games. This is a time where all of us have a stake in the country getting back on track and we ought to be working to do that. Stop the partisan games. The Deputy Attorney General is needed to manage the Justice Department with its many divisions, sections, and offices and tens of thousands of employees. As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ogden would be responsible for the day-to- day management of the Justice Department, including the Department's critical role of keeping our Nation safe from the threat of terrorism. I want to thank Mark Filip, the most recent Deputy Attorney General and a Republican. Judge Filip came from Chicago last year motivated by public service. He had a lifetime appointment as a Federal judge where he served with distinction as a conservative Republican. He gave up his lifetime appointment after the scandals of the Gonzalez Justice Department, where not only did the Attorney General resign but virtually everybody at the top echelon of the Department of Justice resigned because of the outrageous scandals at that time. I urged his fast and complete confirmation and he was confirmed just over one year ago, unanimously, by voice vote. Now, are Judge Filip and I different politically? Yes, of course we are. We differ in many areas. Yet, I saw a man dedicated to public service. He gave up his dream of a lifetime position on the Federal bench. He saw the scandals of the former Attorney General and all the people who had to be replaced by President Bush because of the scandalous conduct, and he came in for the good of the country to help right it. I admire him for that. I was chairman of the committee that unanimously endorsed his nomination. As chairman of the committee, I came to the floor of the Senate and urged his support. On February 4, after 11 months of dedicated and commendable service to us all he left the Justice Department. It is time, over a month later, that his replacement be confirmed by the Senate. The Senate's quick consideration of Mr. Filip's nomination was reflective of how Senate Democrats approached the confirmations of nominees for this critical position. President Bush's first nominee to serve as Deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, received similar treatment. At the beginning of a new President's term, it is common practice to expedite consideration of Cabinet and high level nominees. I remember that nomination very well. I was the ranking Democrat on the committee at that time. His hearing was just 2 weeks after his nomination. He was reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously. Every Democratic Senator voted in favor of reporting his nomination. And he was confirmed that same day by voice vote by the Senate. No shenanigans. No partisanship. No posturing for special interests. His replacement was James Comey. He, like Mr. Ogden, was a veteran of the Department of Justice. The Democratic Senators in the Senate minority did not filibuster, obstruct or delay that nomination. We knew how important it was. We cooperated in a hearing less than 2 weeks after he was nominated. He was reported from the committee unanimously in a 19-0 vote, and he was confirmed by the Senate in voice vote. Even when President Bush nominated a more contentious choice, a nominee with a partisan political background, Senate Democrats did not filibuster. Paul McNulty was confirmed to serve as the Deputy Attorney General in 2006 in a voice vote by the Senate. While there were concerns, there was no filibuster. As it turned out, Mr. McNulty resigned in the wake of the U.S. attorney firing scandal, along with Attorney General Gonzales and so many others in leadership positions at the Department of Justice. I voted for all four of the nominees that the Senate confirmed and President Bush appointed to serve as the Deputy Attorney General during the course of his presidency. In fact, each of the four was confirmed by voice vote. Not a single Democratic Senator voted against them. And, of course, every Republican Senator supported each of those nominees as they did the nomination of Alberto Gonzales and the other nominations of President Bush to high ranking positions at the Justice Department. I bring up this history to say let us stop playing partisan games. Mr. Ogden's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General, a major law enforcement position, is supported by Republicans and Democrats, at a time when we need the best in our law enforcement in this country. The Justice Department is without a confirmed deputy at a time when we face great threats and challenges. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission was that after Presidential transitions, nominees for national security appointments, such as Mr. Ogden, be accelerated. In particular, the 9/11 Commission recommended: A president-elect should submit the nominations of the entire new national security team, through the level of undersecretary of cabinet departments, not later than January 20. The commission also recommended that the Senate: should adopt special rules requiring hearings and votes to confirm or reject national security nominees within 30 days of their submission. President Obama did his part when he designated Mr. Ogden to be the Deputy Attorney General on January 5, more than 2 months ago. We now are at March 11. It is time for the Senate to act. Stop the partisan games, stop the holding up, stop the holds and the threats of filibusters and all the rest. The problems and threats confronting the country are too serious to continue to delay and to play partisan games, no matter which fundraising letter somebody wants to send out. Forget the fundraising letters for a moment; let us deal with the needs of our Nation. Scurrilous attacks against Mr. Ogden have been launched by some on the extreme right. David Ogden is a good lawyer and a good man. He is a husband and a father. The chants that David Ogden is somehow a pedophile and a pornographer are not only false, they are so wrong. Senators know better than that. Forget the fundraising letters, let us talk about a decent family man, an exceptional lawyer. Let us talk about somebody who answered every question at his confirmation hearing, not only about those he represented legally but about his personal views. I questioned Mr. Ogden at his hearing and he gave his commitment to vigorously enforce Federal law, regardless of the positions he may have taken on behalf of his clients in private practice. I asked him if he had the right experience to be Deputy Attorney General and he pointed out his extensive experience managing criminal matters at the Department and in private practice. I asked him to thoroughly review the practice of prosecutors investigating and filing law suits on the eve of elections, and he said he would. I asked him to work with me on a mortgage and financial fraud law, and he was agreeable. I asked about his experience in the type of national security matters that have become more than ever before central to the mission of the Justice Department, and he highlighted his extensive national security experience and lessons he learned as General Counsel for the Department of Defense. On all these matters he was candid and reassuring. That is why Mr. Ogden's nomination has received dozens of letters of support, including strong endorsements from Republican and Democratic former public officials and high-ranking veterans of the Justice Department, from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and from nearly every major law enforcement organization. As one who began his public career in law enforcement, I would not stand here and endorse somebody for such a major law enforcement position if I did not feel it was a person who should do this. Larry Thompson, a former Deputy Attorney General himself, and somebody I worked with on law enforcement matters when he was here as a Republican nominee, described Mr. Ogden as A brilliant and thoughtful lawyer who has the complete confidence and respect of career attorneys at Main Justice. David will be a superb Deputy Attorney General. Chuck Canterbury, who is the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, wrote that Mr. Ogden . . . possesses the leadership and experience the Justice Department will need to meet the challenges which lay before us. A dozen retired military officers who served as judge advocates general have endorsed Mr. Odgen's nomination, calling him . . . a person of wisdom, fairness, and integrity, a public servant vigilant to protect the national security of the United States, and a civilian official who values the perspective of uniformed lawyers in matters within their particular expertise. I know something about law enforcement, not only from my past career but the 35 years I have served in this body, most of that time on the Senate Judiciary Committee dealing with law enforcement matters. I know that David Ogden is an immensely qualified nominee whose priorities would be the safety and security of the American people, but also to reinvigorate the traditional work of the Justice Department in protecting the rights of Americans--all Americans. We do not want to go back to the scandalous time of a former Attorney General, where the rights of only certain Americans were protected, and political and partisan decisions were made about whose rights would be protected. This is the Department of Justice. It is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. It is not the Deputy Attorney General of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but the Deputy Attorney General for all of us. That is why he is going to be a critical asset to the Attorney General. I urge all Senators to support him. Give the same kind of support to Mr. Ogden as Democrats did to Judge Filip when he came in to try to clean up the mess created by a former Attorney General. One of the joys of being chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee are the people I get to serve with. Over the years, I have served with numerous Senators, including the father of one of our current Senators. For a lawyer, it is an intellectually exhilarating committee to serve on, but again because of some of the great people who serve here. The Senator from Delaware is the newest member of the committee because the former Senator from Delaware--whom I served with for well over 30 years on that committee. Part of the time he was chairman and part of the time he was ranking member; part of the time I was chairman and part of the time he was ranking member--has left the Senate to be involved in the Senate now only as the presiding officer, because he went on to become Vice President of the United States. His replacement, Senator Kaufman of Delaware, moved into that seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee as though he had served there for all those decades. In a way, he did, as a key person working for former Senator Biden. I have often joked that Senators are merely constitutional impediments or constitutional necessities to the staff, who do all the work. Now we have somebody who has both the expertise of having been one of the finest staff people I have ever served with and now one of the best Senators I have served with, and a great addition to the Senate Judiciary Committee. So as not to embarrass him further, I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, even after abandoning their the ill- conceived filibuster of President Obama's nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General, we still hear Republican Senators making scurrilous attacks against Mr. Ogden, launched by some on the extreme right. As I said on the Senate Floor earlier, David Ogden is a good lawyer and a good man. He is a husband and a father. Yet, regrettably and unbelievably, we still hear chants that he is a pedophile and a pornographer. Those charges are false and they are wrong. Senators know better than that. Special interests on the far right have distorted Mr. Ogden's record by focusing only on a narrow sliver of his diverse practice as a litigator spanning over three decades. Dating back to the 1980s, Mr. Ogden's practice has included, for example, major antitrust litigation, counseling, representation and authorship of a book on the law of trade and professional associations, international litigation and dispute resolution, False Claims Act and Export Controls Act investigations, and a significant practice in administrative law. In other words, he has been a lawyer, representing clients. For the last 8 years, since leaving Government service, Mr. Ogden has represented corporate clients in a range of industries, including transportation clients like Amtrak and Lufthansa, insurance and financial institutions like Citibank and Fireman's Fund, petrochemical companies like Shell and BP and pharmaceutical concerns like PhRMA and Merck. Here are the facts that underlie the overheated rhetoric: As a young lawyer in a small firm with a constitutional practice, along with other lawyers in that respected DC law firm, Mr. Ogden represented a range of media clients. He represented the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association, and Playboy Enterprises. In the early 1990s, while at the respected firm of Jenner & Block, Mr. Ogden represented a Los Angeles County firefighter. The firefighter was being prohibited from possessing or reading Playboy magazine at the firehouse, even when on down time between responding to fires. The Federal Court reviewing the matter held that the first amendment protected the firefighter's right to possess and read the magazine. That representation does not make Mr. Ogden a pornographer, a pedophile or justify any of the other epithets that have been thrown his way. He also challenged a prosecution strategy that threatened simultaneous indictments in multiple jurisdictions with the goal of negotiating plea agreements that put companies out of business without ever having to prove that the materials they were distributing were obscene. That sounds like the kind of overreaching prosecution strategy that Senator Specter and other Republican Senators would condemn, just as they have the excesses of the ``Thompson memo'' pressuring investigative targets to waive their attorney-client privilege. Those who have argued that Mr. Ogden has consistently taken positions against laws to protect children ignore Mr. Ogden's record and his testimony. What these critics leave out of their caricature is the fact that Mr. Ogden also aggressively defended the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act and the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 while previously serving at the Justice Department. This work has led to support and praise from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. He has the support of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. In private practice he wrote a brief for the American Psychological Association in Maryland v. Craig in which he argued for protection of child victims of sexual abuse. In his personal life, he has volunteered time serving the Chesapeake Institute, a clinic for sexually abused children. Nominees from both Republican and Democratic administrations and Senators from both sides of the aisle have cautioned against opposing nominees based on their legal representations on behalf of clients. When asked about this point in connection with his own nomination, Chief Justice Roberts testified, ``it has not been my general view that I sit in judgment on clients when they come'' and, ``it was my view that lawyers don't stand in the shoes of their clients, and that good lawyers can give advice and argue any side of a case.'' Part of the double standard being applied is that the rule Republican Senators urge for Republican nominees--that their clients not be held against them-- is turned on its head under a Democratic President. As recently as just over 1 year ago, every Senate Republican voted to confirm Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States. That showed no concern that one of his clients, and one of his most significant cases in private practice as identified in the bipartisan committee questionnaire he filed, was his representation of Carlin Communications, a company that specialized in what are sometimes called ``dial-a-porn'' services. It is more evidence of a double standard. Senators should reject the partisan tactics and double standards from the extreme right and support David Ogden's nomination. The last Deputy Attorney nominee to be delayed by such a double standard was Eric Holder, whose nomination to be Deputy Attorney General in 1997 was delayed for three weeks by an anonymous Republican hold after being reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee before being confirmed unanimously. Like now Attorney General Holder, Mr. Ogden is an immensely qualified nominee whose priorities will be the safety and security of the American people and reinvigorating the traditional work of the Justice Department in protecting the rights of Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my good friend from Alabama knows that the bill contains an extension of the E-Verify Program through September 30 of this year. I share his frustration about short-term extensions. Similarly, I have been trying to work in good faith to extend the EB-5 Regional Center Program, which is as important to Alabama as it is to Vermont. Much to the detriment of the economic benefits created by the EB-5 program, such as capital investments and new jobs in American communities, the Senator from Alabama and others have refused to pass an EB-5 extension without simultaneously extending the E-Verify Program. I believe they should both be extended. While I have no objection to reauthorizing the E-Verify Program for a longer term, so long as it remains voluntary and free of mandates, I cannot vote for one that leaves the EB-5 program behind. Besides, in the context of this bill which has to be passed and enacted to keep the Federal Government running, this amendment is inappropriate. It is the wrong action at this time and would jeopardize the swift passage of this legislation. I support the efforts of Chairman Inouye, Senator Byrd, and others to oppose it. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I don't want to hold up the votes, but I do want to thank my dear friend, the majority leader, and my good friend, the Republican leader, for their kind remarks and, of course, my friend, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. As he said, we first knew each other when we were much younger and prosecutors. I will just take a moment. When Marcelle and I first came here in January 1975 with three young children--Kevin, Alicia, and Mark--we never thought we would be here this long. I have enjoyed every moment of it. But especially, I have served with hundreds and hundreds of Senators, both Republican and Democratic Senators. I have enjoyed my relationship with every single one of the men and women with whom I have had the privilege to serve. We have often said we are the conscience of the Nation--the Senate. Only 100 of us have the privilege to serve here at any given time to represent a great and wonderful Nation of 300 million people. It is a privilege, and it is an honor. I thank my colleagues for this tribute. This is something I will long remember. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my friend from Arizona's amendment No. 630 would require the Secretary of State to report on whether additional foreign military financing assistance provided for Egypt could be used to improve Egypt's efforts to counter illegal smuggling and intercept weapons into Gaza. We all want Egypt to intercept those weapons. So on the face of it, it appears this amendment is very appealing. But I note for my friend from Arizona that the omnibus bill already explicitly authorizes the use of FMF assistance provided to Egypt ``for border security programs and activities in the Sinai.'' That was language put in by the distinguished ranking Republican member on the Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, precisely for the purpose of the Kyl amendment--to enable those funds to be used to help police the border and reduce the smuggling into Gaza. Now, I understand there is a concern about adding amendments to this bill and sending it back to the other body. All this does, if passed, is send the bill back to the other body because what the Senator from Arizona is asking for is already in the bill. Egypt is already cooperating with Israel and the United States to reduce smuggling of weapons into Gaza. We need Egypt's continued help. The Egyptian Government will--in fact, they already do--regard this amendment requiring a report by the Secretary of State as a public slap in the face. The distinguished Secretary of State has just come back from the region. The State Department says the bill gives them the authority and the money they want to do precisely what the Kyl amendment asks for. Why pass something that is a public humiliation of an ally in the area? Egypt could undoubtedly do more. Everybody could. But publicly shaming them as they are trying to negotiate a lasting cease-fire between Hamas and Israel is in no one's interest. It is not in our interest or Egypt's interest, and it is certainly not in Israel's interest. Maybe some think this makes a good talking point. I am more interested not in what makes great talking points, but in stopping the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. That is why Senator Gregg put the language into the foreign aid bill in the first place. There is no question that the money can be used. We don't need a report from the State Department telling us what we already know. We wrote the law. We know what it says. We don't need the State Department to tell us what it says. The key point is this: You can vote against the Kyl amendment and still be on record voting for everything in the Kyl amendment simply by voting for final passage of the omnibus bill. Also, the Senator from Arizona has offered amendment No. 629, which would prohibit the use of any funds in the omnibus to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States. We are going to vote on that tomorrow. Frankly, it is unnecessary and for the United States, a Nation of immigrants, it goes against everything we stand for. We don't resettle anybody from Gaza, nor do we resettle anybody from Gaza who is living in the U.N. refugee camps in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. The amendment is a solution looking for a problem. If a Palestinian from Gaza gets to a place like Italy, or somewhere in Europe, the amendment would prevent the State Department from even considering that person for resettlement to the United States. We would have to tell them sorry, you can't come in, because you are from a place that has terrorists. I think back to my family who came to Vermont about 150 years ago. On my father's side, they were Irish. If we had a law like this in place then, it is questionable whether they could have entered this country. If the Irish were fighting to keep their land, if they were fighting to keep their rights, if they were fighting for the ability to vote, and they lived in what is now the Republic of Ireland, they were considered terrorists. We have gone back through the record and found when they left Ireland, even though they had been offered free room and board for the rest of their lives. They were very small rooms, with bars on the windows, and they didn't know that the rest of their lives would come very soon. But they left for Canada, the United States, or Australia. I was thinking about the birthday party for Senator Kennedy the other night at the Kennedy Center. There were a number of Irish-Americans there who could speak about their roots, when their families came here, and why they had to leave Ireland to come here. They were hunted because they fought to practice their own religion. They were hunted because they spoke Irish. They were hunted because they wanted to keep their land. They were hunted because they would not renounce their religion. Thank goodness the United States had open arms for them. We have very strict rules about who can come into this country. This, again, is an unnecessary amendment, saying that we in the Congress are going to pick and choose which groups of people can resettle here. When my maternal grandparents came from Italy, a country that had numerous wars at that time, thank goodness they weren't blocked from coming here. My grandmother lived long enough to see her grandson run for the U.S. Senate. They came to this country not speaking English, not reading or writing it, learning English and raising six children. We could all tell stories like that. I hope we don't start doing things that label whole groups of people as terrorists, no matter who they are as individuals. The Senator from Arizona has also offered amendment No. 631 which prohibits funds for reconstruction efforts in Gaza until the Secretary of State certifies that none of the funds will be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. Again, it is an appealing amendment. We all want to be sure no funds are diverted to Hamas. But, of course, that is already in the bill. I don't know how many times we have to vote on it. We voted on that; all Republicans and Democrats voted on that in committee. It is already in the bill. There is also permanent law in this country that prohibits any funds going to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. So the amendment is unnecessary--unless the intent of the amendment is simply to send the bill back to the other body and further delay its passage. Anybody can read the bill. Section 7040(f) of the bill, on page 861, bans funding to Hamas and any entity effectively controlled by Hamas or a power sharing government. Section 7039 of the bill, on page 856, requires that the Secretary of State take all appropriate steps to ensure that assistance doesn't go to any individual or entity in the West Bank or Gaza that advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in terrorist activity. It cannot be any clearer than that. Maybe every one of us should introduce our own amendment to say the same thing over and over again and have 100 of us saying we don't want any money to go to Hamas. The easy way to do that is to vote for the bill the way it was when the Senator from New Hampshire and I presented it to the committee, which adopted it with only one dissenting vote. It prohibits that. The Palestinian Antiterrorist Act of 2006 prohibits money going to a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. That is section 620(k) of the Foreign Assistance Act. So we prohibited assistance to Hamas at least three times already. And there are undoubtedly other laws on the books that prohibit funding going to terrorist organizations, which Hamas is. Do we get extra political points for doing this? Why don't we all stand and say: I am against any assistance for Hamas? I have not heard a single Senator-- Republican, Democrat, or Independent--say they do want to support Hamas. That is probably why we have all voted overwhelmingly in favor of laws to prohibit it. It appears to me some of these amendments are intended simply to try to make a point, or to send the bill back to the other body.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire is correct on every one of the points he has made. He and I worked closely together on this so all of these issues we have been discussing came out of our subcommittee with strong bipartisan support. Both of us were sensitive to a number of things: One, we did not want money going to Hamas; two, we wanted to help Egypt because Egypt has, with some peril to itself, been cooperating with us. Obviously, we are committed to the security of Israel. We put all that in here. So it becomes, in some ways, worse than redundancy. The Senator from New Hampshire put his finger on it. It appears to be an officious way of telling Egypt: We don't trust you. I would rather continue as the Secretary of State has, as her predecessors in the past administration did, working cooperatively with Egypt to try to address this problem. The last point about saying nobody should be allowed into the U.S. from Gaza, there are tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza who are victims of Hamas every day. Are we going to say that a Palestinian child cannot be considered for resettlement, because of his or her place or origin? Are we going to say to a child's parents, if they were being persecuted by Hamas, they are ineligible for resettlement? Are we going to say, as the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire suggested, to a scientist who has great skills, we cannot accept you because there are terrorists in Gaza? That is not what made this Nation great. We have that wonderful Statue of Liberty with the upraised torch in the New York Harbor--or the New Jersey Harbor, depending on where you live--saying we are a welcoming country. I trust our State Department and our intelligence agencies and others, that if somebody with an interest that is hostile toward the United States tries to come here, they will be barred. But let's not make a blanket rule against a whole group of people based solely on their ethnicity or place of origin. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire for coming down here and pointing these things out. He and I worked hard to get a bipartisan bill that reflects the best interests of the United States no matter who the administration might be. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I will have to object. I object.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this amendment is unnecessary. As the senior Senator from New Hampshire and I both said on the floor this afternoon, the omnibus bill already explicitly authorizes the use of foreign military financing assistance to Egypt for border security programs and activities in the Sinai. Senator Gregg and I put that language in to help them police the border and reduce the smuggling into Gaza. Egypt is cooperating with Israel and the United States to do this. If we were to pass this it would be seen in Egypt as though we do not acknowledge their cooperation, it would be seen as publicly shaming Egypt. Senators can vote against the Kyl amendment and still be on record supporting additional funds to stop smuggling into Gaza. That is already in the omnibus bill. This is an unnecessary roiling of the waters. Both Senator Gregg and I said this afternoon that it should be opposed. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am in complete agreement with the Senator from Arizona that no money should be diverted to Hamas. That is why the omnibus bill already does that. When Senator Gregg and I wrote this bill we included specific provisions. Section 7040(f) of the bill prohibits funding to Hamas, to any entity effectively controlled by Hamas, or to any power-sharing government. When it comes to what the State Department might do, the State Department lawyers have said they would not do anything differently if the Kyl amendment were adopted, because laws that protect against the diversion of funds to Hamas are already in the bill. You can vote against the Kyl amendment and still be on record as voting for blocking funds to Hamas. Nobody in this body, Republican or Democrat, wants any funds to go to Hamas. This is an unnecessary amendment. I oppose it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to give recognition to an event taking place in Hampton, VA, beginning tonight, March 6. This weekend, Vermont's own musical group, Phish, will celebrate a reunion not far from our Nation's Capitol, following their retirement in August of 2004. Phish's fans, and all Vermonters, wish a warm welcome back to Trey Anastasio, Jon Fishman, Mike Gordon, and Page McConnell, and the very best on their renewed musical journey. In the summer of 2004, the band said farewell to thousands of fans who had persevered through torrential rain and knee-deep mud--some having walked many miles to see the band's final concerts in a farm field in Coventry, VT. For so many of the band's followers, it was a bittersweet moment, historic and mournful at once and the end of a singular era in American rock and roll. True to the band's roots, and despite the rain, it was fitting that the farewell took place in the middle of the glorious Vermont countryside. Much to the joy of many Vermonters and people across the United States, the band could not resist the desire to perform once again, and this weekend marks their return to the stage in what Phish's fans hope will be the beginning of a sustainable period of happiness and creativity for the band. What began at the University of Vermont in Burlington, and was nurtured at Goddard College in Plainfield, flourished into an enormous creative musical force that delighted fans from across the world for many years. They spread their music throughout Europe and Japan, from coast to coast in the United States, and rang in the millennium in front of 85,000 people on the Big Cypress Indian Reservation in Florida, playing that concert's final notes as the sun rose over the horizon at the dawn of a new century. Theirs has been a remarkable journey of musical exploration, improvisation and risk-taking much akin to the early era of the Grateful Dead. From outdoor summer festivals to Halloween celebrations that found the band donning musical ``costumes'' by playing an album of another musical group from beginning to end, Phish carved a niche in the musical world that was left conspicuously empty with their retirement. As Americans stand at a crossroads and contemplate the way forward during a difficult time, artistic expression will play an important role in reminding us all that despite the difficulties we face, we should not forget those things in life that bring us happiness and that connect us to one another. Whether we find solace in a good film, a great novel, making art through photography, writing, or painting, or experiencing a musical performance, I want to acknowledge the ability of Americans to keep the creative spirit alive even when we face our most daunting challenges. And I find reason for optimism in the fact that the announcement of Phish's reunion was met with such overwhelming enthusiasm from their fans. So as thousands of people welcome Phish back to the stage at the Hampton Coliseum this weekend, I am proud to say as a Vermonter: Phish, it is good to have you back. I know you have been missed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, responding on the time of the Senator from Mississippi, I believe there may be some, and we are trying to ascertain that right now. I know I am going to speak some more.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time is left on both sides?