Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, recently I spoke to the Senate on the occasion of the consideration of the nomination of Jane Branstetter Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit. It was nearly 10 months after her nomination was favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee that Senate Republicans finally consented to a time agreement and vote, despite the support of the senior Senator from Tennessee, a member of the Republican leadership. Nevertheless, I said then that if consideration of the Stranch nomination, after months of needless delay, represented a bipartisan willingness to return to the Senate's tradition of offering advice and consent without extensive delays, I welcomed it. I urged the Senate to consider the other 16 judicial nominations then on the Senate Executive Calendar favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee without further delay. Regrettably, since Judge Stranch was approved by a bipartisan majority on September 13, the Senate has not considered a single additional judicial nomination, although some were reported as long ago as January. Indeed, during the rest of this work period the list of judicial nominations stalled on the calendar has grown to 23, including 16 that were reported by the committee unanimously. Meanwhile judicial vacancies around the country continue to rise and now number 104. These include 48 vacancies that the Judicial Conference has designated as judicial emergencies. The Senate is well behind the pace set by a Democratic majority in the Senate considering President Bush's nominations during his first 2 years in office. Republicans have allowed the Senate to consider and confirm only 41 of President Obama's circuit and district court nominations over the last 2 years. In stark contrast, by this date in President Bush's second year in office, the Senate with a Democratic majority had confirmed 78 of his Federal circuit and district court nominations. That number reached 100 by the end of 2002, all considered and confirmed during the 17 months I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. During those 17 months, I scheduled 26 hearings for the judicial nominees of a Republican President and the Judiciary Committee worked diligently to consider them. During the 2 years of the Obama administration, I have tried to maintain that same approach, and the committee has held 25 hearings for President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. I have not altered my approach and neither have the Senate Democrats. One thing that has changed is that we have been able to hold hearings for nominees more regularly because we now receive the paperwork on the nominations, the nominee's completed questionnaire, the confidential background investigation and the America Bar Association, ABA, peer review almost immediately after a nomination is made, allowing us to proceed. During 2001 and 2002, President Bush abandoned the procedure that President Eisenhower had adopted and that had been used by President George H.W. Bush, President Reagan and all Presidents for more than 50 years. Instead, President George W. Bush delayed the start of the ABA peer review process until after the nomination was sent to the Senate. That added weeks and months to the timeline in which hearings were able to be scheduled on nominations. When I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee midway through President Bush's first tumultuous year in office, I worked very hard to make sure Senate Democrats did not perpetuate the ``judge wars'' as tit-for-tat. Despite that fact that Senate Republicans pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations and refused to proceed on them while judicial vacancies skyrocketed during the Clinton administration to more than 110, in 2001 and 2002, during the 17 months I chaired the committee during President Bush's first 2 years in office, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial nominees. By refusing to proceed on President Clinton's nominations while judicial vacancies skyrocketed during the 6 years they controlled the pace of nominations, Senate Republicans allowed vacancies to rise to more than 110 by the end of the Clinton administration. As a result of their strategy, Federal circuit court vacancies doubled. When Democrats regained the Senate majority halfway into President Bush's first year in office, we turned away from these bad practices. As a result, overall judicial vacancies were reduced during the Bush years from more than 10 percent to less than four percent. During the Bush years, the Federal court vacancies were reduced from 110 to 34 and Federal circuit court vacancies were reduced from a high of 32 down to single digits. This progress has not continued with a Democratic President back in office. Instead, Senate Republicans have returned to the strategy they used during the Clinton administration of blocking the nominations of a Democratic President, again leading to skyrocketing vacancies. Last year the Senate confirmed only 12 Federal circuit and district court judges, the lowest total in 50 years. This year we have yet to confirm 30 Federal circuit and district judges. We are not even keeping up with retirements and attrition. As a result, judicial vacancies are, again, over 100 and, again, more than 10 percent. This trend should alarm the American people who expect justice from the Federal courts. I will ask consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a recent column by Attorney General Eric Holder about the cost to the American system of justice. He writes: The federal judicial system that has been a rightful source of pride for the United States--the system on which we all depend for a prompt and fair hearing of our cases when we need to call on the law--is stressed to the breaking point. Last year, 259,000 civil cases and 75,000 criminal cases were filed in the federal courts, enough to tax the abilities of the judiciary even when it is fully staffed. But today there are 103 judicial vacancies--nearly one in eight seats on the bench. Men and women who need their day in court must stand in longer and longer lines. I will also ask consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a recent article that appeared on Slate by Dahlia Lithwick and Professor Carl Tobias, pointing out that thousands of hard-working Americans seeking justice in our courts bear the cost of justice delayed and denied as a result of vacant courtrooms and overburdened judges. Many senior and retired judges continue to try to carry the workload, but we fall farther behind. They write: It stands to reason that if you can't get into a courtroom, if the docket is too packed for your case to be heard promptly, or if the judge lacks sufficient time to address the issues raised, justice suffers. This will directly affect thousands of ordinary Americans plaintiffs and defendants whose liberty, safety, or job may be at stake and for whom justice may arrive too late, if at all. In some jurisdictions, civil litigants may well wait two to three years before going to trial. In jurisdictions with the most vacancies, it will often take far longer for published opinions to be issued, or courts will come to rely on more unpublished opinions. More worrisome still, because the Speedy Trial Act requires that courts give precedence to criminal cases, some backlogged courts have had to stop hearing civil cases altogether. Earlier this month, I spoke to the Senate about the serious warning issued by Justice Anthony Kennedy at the Ninth Circuit Conference about skyrocketing judicial vacancies in California and throughout the country. He said, ``It's important for the public to understand that the excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk.'' He noted that ``if judicial excellence is cast upon a sea of congressional indifference, the rule of law is imperiled.'' A recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times focuses on the acute problems in the Ninth Circuit and urges the Senate to act on three nominations to fill vacancies in Federal courts in California. President Obama has not made nominations opposed by home State Senators but has, instead, reached out and worked with home State Senators from both parties. Likewise, I have respected the minority. We have tried to develop and improve the cooperation between parties and branches. It is disappointing to see others take the opposite approach. We could help to address this vacancies crisis just by acting on the judicial nominations ready for action but which remain stalled on the Executive Calendar. I have worked closely with the ranking Republicans on the Judiciary Committee while serving as its chairman. I have enjoyed my relationship with the current Ranking Republican, and I have often thanked Senator Sessions for his cooperation in working with me to hold hearings and consider nominations in committee. I was disappointed by his statement to the Senate last week, however. He is entitled to his own perspective on these matters, of course. I feel very strongly that Democrats in the Senate treated President Bush's judicial nominations better and more fairly than Republicans had those of President Clinton, and certainly better than President Obama's nominees are currently being treated. The comparison of vacancy rates and the number of judges confirmed in President Bush's first 2 years with a Democratic majority--100, including 17 circuit court nominations--bear that out. I also believe that there was a clear difference in the smaller number of judicial nominees opposed by Democratic Senators and the open manner in which Democrats made clear the basis of their opposition in contrast to the secret holds and across the board nature of the Republican opposition. Another indisputable fact is the judicial vacancy crisis during the Clinton administration that has been recreated since President Obama was elected. By contrast, during the Bush administration Senate Democrats worked to reduce vacancies and the result was that we did so dramatically. Indeed, much of Senator Sessions' statement last Wednesday reads like an attempted justification for some sort of payback. He does concede that we proceeded promptly to confirm President Bush's district court nominations, but unfortunately attributes a sinister cast even to those actions. Sometimes the statement does not merely attribute the wrong motive or mischaracterize what happened, but is a misstatement of the facts. For example, the Senator suggested that the Senate confirmed only 6 of President Bush's 25 circuit court nominees. In fact, we worked hard to confirm 17 circuit court nominees in the 17 months that I chaired the committee during 2001 and 2002. By contrast, only 11 of President Obama's circuit court nominees have been confirmed these 2 years--this, despite the fact that 17 have, so far, been reported by the Judiciary Committee. Five of the six circuit court nominations stalled and still being prevented from being considered were reported unanimously, one as long ago as January. This is another good illustration of the difference in how Republican and Democratic Senators have treated judicial nominations by the President of the other party. Democratic Senators did not stall such consensus nominations for spite or payback. And when we opposed nominations we said why. Unlike President Bush, President Obama has not made a series of judicial nominees designed to pack the courts with ideologues. Instead, he has worked with home State Senators and selected highly qualified, predominately moderate nominees. Nor have we sought to force through nominations by ignoring the rules and traditions of the Senate or the committee, as Republicans did. Those practices are detailed in my contemporaneous statements at the time but ignored in the statement made last Wednesday. For example, when I became chairman in 2001, I made home State Senators' ``blue slips'' public for the first time, preventing Senators from anonymously blocking committee action on judicial nominees. That was a bad practice that led to the pocket filibusters of more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. Also ignored in last Wednesday's statement was the history of earlier filibusters, such as that of the Supreme Court nomination of Abe Fortas to be the Chief Justice and of President Clinton's nominations to the Ninth Circuit. The statement was in many regards ahistorical or anti-historical. In complaining about a handful of Fourth Circuit nominees in the last 2 years of President Bush's administration, the statement ignored the fact that we had broken the logjam caused by 8 years of Republican obstruction of President Clinton's nominations to that circuit and that the examples cited were after vacancies had been reduced and in light of opposition from home State Senators to some of the nominees. Indeed, we might have made even more progress had President Bush not proceeded for years to make several extreme nominations. The statement also seems unaware of the work we did to resolve the impasse in the Sixth Circuit, resulting in every single vacancy in the circuit being filled by President Bush. Regrettably, the Senate this year is not being allowed to consider the consensus, mainstream judicial nominees favorably reported from the Judiciary Committee. It has taken nearly five times as long to consider President Obama's judicial nominations as it did to consider President Bush's during his first 2 years in office. During the first 2 years of the Bush administration, the 100 judges confirmed were considered by the Senate an average of 25 days from being reported by the Judiciary Committee. The average time for confirmed circuit court nominees was 26 days. By contrast, the average time for the 41 Federal circuit and district and circuit court judges confirmed since President Obama took office is 90 days and the average time for circuit nominees is 148 days--and that disparity is increasing. Senate Republicans have refused to allow prompt consideration even to those consensus nominations that are reported unanimously and without opposition by the Judiciary Committee. There is no good reason to hold up consideration for weeks and months of nominees reported without opposition from the Judiciary Committee. I have been urging since last year that these consensus nominees be considered promptly and confirmed. In 2001 and 2002, the first 2 years of the Bush administration, the Senate with a Democratic majority confirmed 100 judicial nominees. We obviously will not reach that level or reduce judicial vacancies as effectively as we did in those 2 years. What we can do is consider the 23 judicial nominations already on the calendar. That could bring us to 64 Federal circuit and district court confirmations. If we also completed action on the 11 additional judicial nominees who participated in September hearings, that could bring us to a respectable total of 75 circuit and district court confirmations. That would be in the range of judicial confirmations during President Reagan's first 2 years (88) and President George H.W. Bush's, 72, but pale in comparison to the 100 confirmed in the first 2 years of the George W. Bush administration or those confirmed during President Clinton's first 2 years, 126. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record those materials to which I referred.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 4 p.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 November 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 406 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 November 17, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening Medicare and Medicaid: Taking Steps to Modernize America's Health Care System.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the coming months, the Supreme Court of the United States will consider Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T--a monumental Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, case that could vastly expand the rights of corporations to shield their activities from public view. Like many Americans who deeply value openness, transparency and accountability in our government, I urge the Court to reject efforts to broaden the personal privacy exemption to FOIA to include corporate information. A decade after Congress first enacted the Freedom of Information Act, Congress created an exemption to this law for law enforcement records that contain sensitive personal information. The so-called ``personal privacy exemption'' for law enforcement records--FOIA exemption 7(C)-- allows the government to withhold information contained in its investigatory files that ``could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'' By creating this exemption, Congress intended to shield from public disclosure sensitive personal information about individuals who may be mentioned in government files. However, Congress never intended for this exemption to apply to corporations. The legislative history for the personal privacy exemption makes clear that Congress intended for this exemption to protect an individual's right to privacy. Indeed, when the Senate debated this exemption in May of 1974, Senator Philip Hart, who drafted the personal privacy exemption, remarked that ``the protection for personal privacy included in [the exemption] . . . is part of the sixth exemption [to FOIA] in the present law. By adding the protective language here, we simply make clear that the protections in the sixth exemption for personal privacy also apply to disclosure under the seventh exemption. I wish to also make it clear, in case there is any doubt, that this clause is intended to protect the privacy of any person mentioned in the requested files, and not only the person who is the object of the investigation.'' Former Senator Roman Hruska also confirmed that Congress intended for the exemption to address individual privacy rights. Regarding the personal privacy exemption, he said ``we are dealing in this matter with what I believe to be the most important rights, and in some respect the most important rights, an individual may possess, his right to privacy, and his right to personal safety.'' The universal understanding that the personal privacy exemption pertains only to the privacy rights of individuals is further confirmed by the remarks of former Senator Strom Thurmond, who noted during the Senate debate that ``[a]ll of us are aware of the general feeling permeating the country, that our citizens want to know what their Government is doing . . . However, by the same token, we are also concerned about a mutual problem of invasion of an individual's privacy.'' During the more than four decades since the Congress enacted the personal privacy exemption to FOIA, our Federal courts and Federal agencies have consistently interpreted this exemption to apply only to individuals. Over the years, the Congress--with the full knowledge of how the courts have interpreted this exemption--has never amended this exemption, nor called into question the universally held view that the exemption protects the personal privacy rights of individuals. Given the clear legislative history and the longstanding case precedent in this area, I am deeply troubled by recent efforts to vastly--and I believe improperly--expand the scope of this exemption to reach corporations. While I do not quibble with the notion that certain corporate information should be exempt from public disclosure, I firmly believe that Congress has provided meaningful and adequate protections for sensitive corporate information in other parts of FOIA. Indeed, Congress specifically enacted FOIA exemption 4 to protect trade secrets and other sensitive corporate information from public disclosure. Tellingly, American corporations have successfully relied upon exemption 4 for decades, to safeguard their sensitive business information when it is shared with the government. I fear that vastly expanding the personal privacy exemption for law enforcement records would close a vital window into how our government works. I also fear that extending this exemption to corporations would permit corporations to shield from public view critical information about public health and safety, environmental dangers, and financial misconduct, among other things--to the great detriment of the people's right to know and to our democracy. As Senator Hart wisely noted during the debate of the 1974 FOIA amendments, ``survival for a society such as ours hinges very importantly on the access that a citizen can have to the performance of those he has hired.'' I sincerely hope that our Nation's highest Court will carefully consider these words and that the Court will narrowly construe the personal privacy exemption, consistent with congressional intent. Should the Court decide to do otherwise, I will work with others in the Congress to ensure that FOIA, and specifically the personal privacy exemption for law enforcement records, remains a meaningful safeguard for the American people's right to know.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to ensure that the Nation's highest court can serve its function as the court of last resort in our judicial system. The Supreme Court's effectiveness is compromised when it does not have a full slate of nine justices sitting in a given case. When a Justice needs to recuse from a matter under the rules that govern judicial conflicts of interest, the Supreme Court may be rendered ineffective, because there are no provisions in place to allow another to be designated to sit in his or her place. Given the Court's recent rash of 5:4 rulings, the absence of one Justice could result in a 4:4 decision. In that scenario, the Supreme Court cannot serve its function and the lower court decision stands. This was a very real concern for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He explained that such a stalemate on the Court where there were conflicting rulings in the lower courts, ``would lay down `one rule in Athens, and another rule in Rome' with a vengeance.'' Under the existing statute, retired Justices may be designated to sit on any court in the land except the one to which they were confirmed. The bill I am introducing today will ensure that the Supreme Court can continue to serve its essential function. I hope that it will encourage Justices to recuse themselves when they have a financial conflict of interest or their participation would create the appearance of impropriety. In recent history, Justices have refused to recuse themselves and one of their justifications has been that the Supreme Court is unlike lower courts because no other judge can serve in their place when Justices recuse. When I met with Justice John Paul Stevens earlier in the year before he announced his retirement, he suggested exploring legislation that would allow retired U.S. Supreme Court Justices to sit by designation on all of our federal courts. Currently, Justices Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter may sit by designation on any Federal court except the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court to which they were confirmed. This defies common sense. Recent news about conflicts of interest has raised serious questions in the minds of Americans about the impartiality of the judiciary. These serious concerns only serve to undermine the public trust in our Nation's courts. Allowing retired Justices to sit on the Supreme Court would encourage sitting justices to recuse themselves when there is even an appearance of a conflict of interest regarding a case before the Court. Such a designation would also help to avoid the potential of 4:4 splits which concerned Chief Justice Rehnquist. I am confident the American people want the Supreme Court to serve as the final word in our federal judicial system. I encourage my fellow Senators to consider the legislation I am introducing today as a common-sense solution to preserve the role that the Supreme Court plays in our democracy. Mr. President, I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objetion, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the opening days of this Congress, I expressed my steadfast commitment to reform of our Nation's broken immigration system. The Senate passed a bill in the 109th Congress and debated one in the 110th. Action is long overdue, but until today, no truly comprehensive immigration package has been introduced in the Senate in the 111th Congress. I congratulate Senator Menendez on the introduction of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010, and am pleased to join him as an original cosponsor. The bill protects the rights and opportunities of American workers, while simultaneously ensuring that our Nation's employers and American farms can find the workers they need to prosper. The bill will increase national security by adding personnel and equipment where they are most needed in border communities. And by bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows, the bill will help to make our towns and cities safer. These are goals we can all share. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 includes several provisions that are priorities for Vermont, such as AgJOBS, which will provide critically needed workers for farms in Vermont and across the Nation. The bill would permanently extend the EB-5 Regional Center program, which generates investment capital and creates jobs. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act also includes one of my top civil rights priorities, the Uniting American Families Act, and a bill I have long supported, the DREAM Act. And, the bill includes measures from my bill, the Refugee Protection Act. Improving protections for refugees will honor the American tradition of offering safety to victims of persecution. There is bipartisan agreement that immigration reform is needed. I hope that the bill we introduce today will gain support from both sides of the aisle. I strongly believe that Congress is capable of finding a realistic solution to our immigration problems. Our friend the late Senator Ted Kennedy believed that, President Bush believed that, and I know President Obama believes that. I commend Senator Menendez for his leadership and urge all Senators to join us in supporting the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to ensure that the Nation's highest court can serve its function as the court of last resort in our judicial system. The Supreme Court's effectiveness is compromised when it does not have a full slate of nine justices sitting in a given case. When a Justice needs to recuse from a matter under the rules that govern judicial conflicts of interest, the Supreme Court may be rendered ineffective, because there are no provisions in place to allow another to be designated to sit in his or her place. Given the Court's recent rash of 5:4 rulings, the absence of one Justice could result in a 4:4 decision. In that scenario, the Supreme Court cannot serve its function and the lower court decision stands. This was a very real concern for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He explained that such a stalemate on the Court where there were conflicting rulings in the lower courts, ``would lay down `one rule in Athens, and another rule in Rome' with a vengeance.'' Under the existing statute, retired Justices may be designated to sit on any court in the land except the one to which they were confirmed. The bill I am introducing today will ensure that the Supreme Court can continue to serve its essential function. I hope that it will encourage Justices to recuse themselves when they have a financial conflict of interest or their participation would create the appearance of impropriety. In recent history, Justices have refused to recuse themselves and one of their justifications has been that the Supreme Court is unlike lower courts because no other judge can serve in their place when Justices recuse. When I met with Justice John Paul Stevens earlier in the year before he announced his retirement, he suggested exploring legislation that would allow retired U.S. Supreme Court Justices to sit by designation on all of our federal courts. Currently, Justices Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter may sit by designation on any Federal court except the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court to which they were confirmed. This defies common sense. Recent news about conflicts of interest has raised serious questions in the minds of Americans about the impartiality of the judiciary. These serious concerns only serve to undermine the public trust in our Nation's courts. Allowing retired Justices to sit on the Supreme Court would encourage sitting justices to recuse themselves when there is even an appearance of a conflict of interest regarding a case before the Court. Such a designation would also help to avoid the potential of 4:4 splits which concerned Chief Justice Rehnquist. I am confident the American people want the Supreme Court to serve as the final word in our federal judicial system. I encourage my fellow Senators to consider the legislation I am introducing today as a common-sense solution to preserve the role that the Supreme Court plays in our democracy. Mr. President, I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objetion, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has described in detail the severe consequences for domestic programs and personnel of the amendment offered by Senator Thune. I want to mention three examples of what the Thune amendment would do to critical international programs that mean the difference between life and death for the world's poorest people. It would cut $388 million for global health programs to combat HIV/ AIDS, malaria, Swine Flu, and many other deadly diseases that claim millions of lives annually. It would cut $87 million for aid for refugees, the world's most vulnerable people. Funding for refugees will already be well below the amount provided in fiscal year 2010 because an additional $165 million was included in the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental that is not counted in the CR, so the actual cut for refugee aid including this amendment would be $252 million below the fiscal year 2010 total level. This translates into millions of lives lost. It would cut $42 million for international disaster relief. Funding for this account will already be reduced by $460 million that was included in the fiscal year 2010 supplemental that is not counted in the CR. The total amount under this amendment for disaster relief would therefore be $502 million below the fiscal year 2010 total level. This would severely limit our ability to aid victims of earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. These are not theoretical examples. They are real. This amendment is not just about dollars and cents. It is about human lives. It is a moral issue. A 5-percent cut may not sound like a lot. The sponsor of the amendment says it is only 5 percent. What he does not say is that the consequences of this amendment would be devastating for millions of people around the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to call the Senate's attention to members of the Baha'i faith who have and continue to suffer severe persecution by the Iranian Government. Senators should be aware that seven prominent Iranian Baha'i leaders are currently in prison, facing sentences of up to 10 years, charged with espionage, establishing an illegal administration, and promoting propaganda against the Islamic order. These spurious charges are only the latest example of the mistreatment of the largest religious minority in Iran. Ironically, the Baha'i faith originated in Iran during the 19th century, separating the Baha'is from their previous affiliation with Islam. The founder of the faith, known as The Bb, was then arrested, locked in a dungeon, and executed, as were some 20,000 of his followers. These atrocities devastated a religion whose tenets include global unity, peace and diversity. Persecution of the Baha'is in Iran continued into the next century, with the Iranian Government's destruction of Baha'i literature in 1933, and in 1955 the demolition of the Baha'i national headquarters. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the government has stepped up its active discrimination against the Baha'is. Children are prohibited or discouraged from receiving higher education, Baha'is are unable to practice their faith in public, they are prevented from opening businesses or advancing their careers, and Baha'i cemeteries are destroyed. Baha'is are slandered by the Iranian media, often called worshippers of Satan. The arrests of the seven Baha'I leaders are the latest official Iranian abuse against members of this religious faith. These men and women led the ``Friends in Iran,'' a Baha'i group working to meet the needs of the Baha'is in Iran. After their arrest, the group disbanded, reducing the much needed support to the Baha'is. The leaders were incarcerated in 2008, and were not brought before a judge for over 20 months. The systematic abuses of the Baha'i by the Iranian Government are clear violations of provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a signatory, on economic and educational opportunities, religious freedom, and due process. They are also violations of Iran's own laws. Prominent global leaders are speaking out in support of the Baha'is in Iran, including Secretary of State Clinton, her British counterpart William Hague, and the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek. They have each expressed concern and disapproval with Iran's mistreatment of Baha'is. They are joined by a long list of human rights groups, such as the International Federation for Human rights, Human Rights Watch and the Iranian League for the Defense of Human Rights. I want to add my voice in condemning Iran's persecution of its Baha'i religious minority. Our Nation stands for fundamental rights and freedoms. We are not perfect, and I have not hesitated to speak out when I felt we fell short of our own values and principles. But I also believe we have an obligation to speak out when the fundamental rights of citizens of other nations are being denied. The Baha'is of Iran deserve our admiration and support.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the House of Representatives passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010, which passed the Senate unanimously in May. I applaud the leadership of the House for taking up this legislation, which is of great importance to the law enforcement community. Today's action brings to a successful conclusion the good work of Senators and Representatives who have helped move this legislation through both Chambers and builds upon the bipartisan Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act that was enacted in 2004. I want to recognize the longstanding efforts and strong support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations, along with many others in the broader law enforcement community. Their support and assistance contributed greatly to today's success. I also thank the Judiciary Committee's ranking member Senator Sessions, Senator Kyl, and Senator Conrad for their cosponsorship. This legislation will assist qualified Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers in exercising their privileges related to the interstate concealed carry of firearms under existing law more easily and efficiently. The legislation will give active-duty officers and qualified retired officers more flexibility in obtaining the necessary credentials in several important ways and will overcome some of the challenges that retired officers have faced in the past in obtaining certification. The legislation will also remove some of the administrative pressure on law enforcement agencies by allowing the required firearms qualification testing of retired officers to be done by a private firearms instructor who is certified to test active-duty officers in his or her jurisdiction and at the officer's own expense. And it will give law enforcement agencies more certainty and authority when determining whether a retired officer suffers from mental health issues sufficient to disqualify that officer from certification under the law. I have great confidence in the men and women in law enforcement who put their own lives on the line to serve their fellow citizens every day. This confidence extends to these men and women whether they are on the job or off duty. I trust in them and their proven ability to exercise the firearm privileges provided under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act responsibly and with the same solemnity with which they approach their official duties. I have said many times that Congress's efforts to assist State and local law enforcement are a crucial part of our Federal policy and a policy that pays dividends in our overall capability to protect the citizens of the United States. State and local law enforcement officers are the first line of defense and support in America's communities, and for that they deserve the recognition and continued support of Congress. We must also recognize the men and women who serve as law enforcement officers throughout the Federal Government, for whom this legislation will also provide benefits. Federal officers play an indispensible role in the Federal system and in important partnerships with State and local officials around the country. I am glad that the improvements we have worked for over the last several years will finally be enacted, and I look forward to hearing about the positive changes that will come.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, next month, RSVP programs in Vermont's Rutland and Addison Counties will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of Bone Builders, a free exercise program that helps Vermonters combat and prevent osteoporosis. I congratulate all the participants and volunteers who have contributed to the success of Bone Builders and for reaching this milestone. As we mark the 6-month milepost of the Affordable Health Care Act and the implementation of more and more of its benefits for Americans and their families, we all are increasingly attuned to the advantages of ending the corrosive health cost spiral, and the roles to be played by individual and organized preventive efforts like Bone Builders. Bone Builders uses RSVP volunteers to lead weight training and balance exercise classes aimed at preventing fractures caused by osteoporosis. Classes help participants increase their muscular strength, balance, and overall bone density. Countless studies have shown that women who participate in exercise programs like Bone Builders can gain bone density while nonparticipants will continue to lose bone density. One particular story shared with me captures how important this program is to help keep Vermonters healthy. A few years ago during a particularly rough winter, a Bone Builders participant was walking to her bird feeder and fell, injuring herself. Yards away from her house and her phone, she found the strength to drag herself back to her house. Later she told an RSVP volunteer that she would not have been able to get inside to call for help if she had not participated in Bone Builders. Medical experts estimate that there are 1.5 million fractures per year in the United States due to osteoporosis, costing nearly $20 million in health care services and treatments. Doctors in Vermont, understanding how important strength training programs are for seniors in order to prevent osteoporosis, have started to refer patients to local classes and hand out Bone Builders brochures. Since the program has been so successful and popular in Vermont, there are now more than 100 classes offered across our State. The program has helped countless Vermonters not only improve their health but make connections in their communities. Some participants have recently lost spouses or have had health difficulties that may isolate them within their neighborhood and communities. The camaraderie and friendship that participants in Bone Builders find through classes often leads them to socialize outside of the program. In fact, the program has been so successful in Vermont that the Bone Builders model has been replicated in several other States, including California, Maine, Florida and Minnesota. I am proud of the Vermonters who have taken the initiative and challenged themselves in these classes, and for the work of the volunteers who spend their time inspiring others to improve their health. I look forward to celebrating the work of RSVP Bone Builders and many other such anniversaries in the years ahead.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at a time when many Americans are increasingly concerned with the situation in Afghanistan, I was interested in an investigative report on U.S. aid for Afghanistan in the August 2, 2010, issue of the Christian Science Monitor weekly magazine. The report describes several aspects of the U.S. Agency for International Development's approach to development in that country, and I want to take a minute to clarify what may be a misconception about the Congress's expectations. The article describes USAID's focus on the ``burn rate''--that is, how quickly aid funds are spent. With this as USAID's focus, the more money the President asks for, the more money Congress appropriates, the more money USAID has available to spend, and the faster USAID says it needs to spend it in order to satisfy Congress. The article gives examples of the mistakes and problems that have resulted from trying to spend too much, too fast, in an environment where security threats severely limit the ability of USAID to monitor the funds, where a large percentage of the population lives as though it were the 12th century, where corruption is pervasive, and where the Karzai Government is widely perceived as ineffective or worse. The article describes big-dollar contracts with foreign companies that are not familiar with Afghanistan, for projects that are hastily designed from the top down, are overly ambitious, and too often do not produce good results. This is one Senator who is not impressed by burn rates. I don't think they are a good measure of anything, except possibly waste. When I hear that the administration expects to increase the burn rate for USAID programs and activities in Afghanistan from $250 million per month to $300 million per month, it rings alarm bells. I am interested in projects that are worth the investment and that provide lasting improvements in the lives of the Afghan people. More often, that means spending less, and spending it more slowly and more carefully. What we are seeing in Afghanistan is reminiscent of Iraq, although in Iraq the waste and shoddy results were on a far larger scale. The Pentagon was asked to be a relief and reconstruction agency that it was never meant to be. The empty buildings, electricity blackouts and unfinished projects are part of the costly legacy of that debacle. But the increasing tendency in Afghanistan to measure progress by the rate at which money is spent is unwise. We have urged USAID to go slower, to focus on smaller, manageable, sustainable projects that are chosen with input from local communities. Local people, and local governments or national government ministries with a record of transparency, accountability and good performance, should be involved at all stages, from design to implementation to oversight. It may take longer, the projects may not be as grandiose, but the long term results are likely to be better. In response, we are told USAID needs more money to support the civilian surge and implement bigger projects quickly as part of the ``clear, hold, build'' strategy. I understand the pressure USAID is under, from the Pentagon, the White House, and the State Department, to spend more money faster. I suspect if it were up to USAID alone it would spend less and get better results. And I am concerned that at the same time USAID is being told to spend more, it is treated as a second- class agency that sometimes has to fight just to be included in the discussions about the very strategy it is told to implement. But I have seen, as the Christian Science Monitor describes, the disappointing results of the big-spending, rushed approach. Costly new roads that are already deteriorating, poorly built irrigation canals that have collapsed from landslides, hydro-electric projects that don't produce electricity. United States officials in Kabul who have been in the country only a few months and will be gone after a year, trying to direct what happens on the ground hundreds of miles away. Perhaps the worst of it is that many Afghans have become angry and distrustful of the United States because they know these projects were expensive and mismanaged, and promises were not kept. Just as bad is when USAID contractors issue self-serving reports--describing projects which cost too much and produced too little--as success stories. Of course, spending billions of dollars does produce successes. Hundreds of thousands of Afghan girls are in school thanks to the United States. That alone is a major achievement. Agricultural productivity is increasing, thanks to USAID programs, although opium poppy cultivation is also flourishing. Another success is the money we provide to the National Solidarity Program, which works from the bottom up, with better oversight and less waste than the big contracts. It is supporting economic development projects, often costing only a few tens of thousands of dollars, in thousands of Afghan towns and villages. But these successes should not obscure the fact that planning, implementation, and oversight of programs need to be better, both for American taxpayers and for the Afghan people. At a time when we face large budget deficits and money is scarce, I doubt the wisdom of spending billions of dollars this way. That is one reason the Department of State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee has recommended $1.3 billion less than the President requested for aid for Afghanistan for fiscal year 2011. Some argue that we should have cut even more. We want to help the people of Afghanistan. They have suffered, and continue to suffer, every imaginable hardship. Combating poverty, empowering women whose political participation is essential to the future of that country, building more effective public institutions, and strengthening the rule of law in Afghanistan are in the long term interests of the United States. We know that in a country torn by conflict and where corruption is rampant, some projects will fail no matter how well designed they are. We understand that there is an unavoidable element of risk. But spending money fast is not the same as taking risks to help people. I urge the administration to review its current assumptions, look critically at the results so far, take the time to understand the lessons learned, and reevaluate the amount of aid that Afghanistan can effectively absorb so progress is measured not by the rate at which money is spent, but by tangible improvements in the lives of the Afghan people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, today the Senate will pass sensible legislation with practical benefits for U.S. military veterans. The bill I have offered will add military veterans to the list of groups eligible to receive excess property donations from the Federal Government. This bill is a bipartisan effort to recognize the sacrifices that members of our Armed Forces make every day for our country, and I am proud to be its author. While it is only a small token of appreciation, this legislation gives back to veterans groups by allowing them access to a large inventory of goods from which they could not otherwise benefit. I appreciate the Senate acting swiftly to consider this bill. The FOR VETS Act enables military veterans to receive surplus goods donations through the Federal Government's property distribution program. The types of goods donated through this program include computers, trucks, snowmobiles, home appliances and electronics. These items will be of valuable use to our military veterans, and I am pleased to sponsor legislation that gives them the right to claim useful goods through this program. The FOR VETS Act is legislation for and about American veterans. The Administrator of General Services oversees this ongoing property liquidation and distribution program, which currently donates property to medical institutions, providers of assistance to the homeless, universities, and child care facilities, among others. Given the surplus of available goods, military veterans' groups are simply being added into this pool of recipients for property that might otherwise go unused. I thank the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee ranking member, Senator Collins, for working with me on this bill. This was a bipartisan effort, as legislation to support our veterans should always be, and I look forward to its prompt consideration by the House, and to the President signing it into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the opening days of this Congress, I expressed my steadfast commitment to reform of our Nation's broken immigration system. The Senate passed a bill in the 109th Congress and debated one in the 110th. Action is long overdue, but until today, no truly comprehensive immigration package has been introduced in the Senate in the 111th Congress. I congratulate Senator Menendez on the introduction of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010, and am pleased to join him as an original cosponsor. The bill protects the rights and opportunities of American workers, while simultaneously ensuring that our Nation's employers and American farms can find the workers they need to prosper. The bill will increase national security by adding personnel and equipment where they are most needed in border communities. And by bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows, the bill will help to make our towns and cities safer. These are goals we can all share. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 includes several provisions that are priorities for Vermont, such as AgJOBS, which will provide critically needed workers for farms in Vermont and across the Nation. The bill would permanently extend the EB-5 Regional Center program, which generates investment capital and creates jobs. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act also includes one of my top civil rights priorities, the Uniting American Families Act, and a bill I have long supported, the DREAM Act. And, the bill includes measures from my bill, the Refugee Protection Act. Improving protections for refugees will honor the American tradition of offering safety to victims of persecution. There is bipartisan agreement that immigration reform is needed. I hope that the bill we introduce today will gain support from both sides of the aisle. I strongly believe that Congress is capable of finding a realistic solution to our immigration problems. Our friend the late Senator Ted Kennedy believed that, President Bush believed that, and I know President Obama believes that. I commend Senator Menendez for his leadership and urge all Senators to join us in supporting the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce and bring to the Senate's attention today a resolution which recognizes the value of the defense relationship between the National Guard of the State of Vermont and the military services of the Republic of Macedonia, under the National Guard State Partnership Program. Time and again, the Republic of Macedonia has contributed to important NATO-led missions, including several hundred troops currently deployed to Afghanistan along with the 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Vermont National Guard. This relationship has yielded tangible benefits for both our countries, and I am proud of the role that Vermont has played in strengthening and broadening a growing international partnership. The Vermont National Guard began its relationship with the armed services of the Republic of Macedonia in 1994, shortly after the Department of the Army created the National Guard State Partnership Program in 1993. Since 1995, the Republic of Macedonia and the Vermont Guard have participated in more than 200 joint activities, and more than 4000 members of the Macedonian Ministry of Defense have been trained by the Vermont Guard. Macedonia has participated in NATO-led and international military missions in Afghanistan since August 2002, increasing its troop levels there in 2010. Especially given its relatively small population, Macedonia has made a substantial, needed and welcome contribution of troops to the NATO International Security Assistance Force. Macedonia's participation in international security efforts also precedes the Afghanistan deployment. During the Kosovo crisis of 1999, territory in Macedonia served as a staging area and main corridor for logistical support to the NATO Kosovo Force, commonly referred to as ``KFOR,'' and the Government of Macedonia has led the KFOR Coordination Centre for logistical support in Skopje since 2006. In the interest of underscoring a faithful partnership with the United States, the Government of Macedonia even deployed troops to Iraq until 2008. Macedonian soldiers have been recognized by the U.S. military with more than 120 medals. Given all of these valuable efforts, I believe it is time the United States Senate offered its commendation and appreciation to the Government and people of the Republic of Macedonia. I hope the Senate will heartily concur in this much-deserved recognition.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will pass the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act. In doing so, we have taken this important step toward banning obscene animal crush videos, and I thank Senators Kyl, Merkley and Burr for their leadership on this issue. We worked on a bipartisan basis to ensure that this legislation respects the first amendment and the role of our court system, while at the same time giving law enforcement a valuable and necessary tool to stop obscene animal cruelty. I urge the House to quickly adopt the legislation. Earlier this year, in United States v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down a Federal statute banning depictions of animal cruelty because it held the statute to be overbroad and in violation of the first amendment. Animal crush videos, which can depict obscene, extreme acts of animal cruelty, were a primary target of that legislation. Two months ago, in response to the Stevens decision, the House overwhelmingly passed a narrower bill banning animal crush videos on obscenity grounds. The Senate Judiciary Committee regularly looks at questions raised by Supreme Court decisions and the first amendment, and the House-passed bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. There are a few well-established exceptions to the first amendment. The United States has long prohibited the interstate sale of obscene materials, and the Supreme Court recognized this exception to the first amendment in 1957. Earlier this month, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing focused on the obscene nature of many animal crush videos. We heard testimony from experts who confirmed that many animal crush videos depict extreme acts of animal cruelty which are designed to appeal to a specific, prurient, sexual fetish. Indeed, these animal crush videos are patently offensive, lack any redeeming social value, and can be banned consistent with the Supreme Court's obscenity jurisprudence. In drafting the substitute amendment to the House bill, we were careful to respect the role that courts and juries play in determining obscenity. In any given case, it will be up to the prosecutor to prove and the jury to determine whether a given depiction is obscene, because obscenity is a separate element of the crime. The other element that occurs in animal crush videos and which warrants a higher punishment than simple obscenity is that it involves the intentional torture or pain to a living animal. Congress finds this combination deplorable and worthy of special punishment. That is why the maximum penalty is higher than general obscenity law. The United States also has a history of prohibiting speech that is integral to criminal conduct. The acts of animal cruelty depicted in many animal crush videos violate State laws, but these laws are hard to enforce. The acts of cruelty are often committed in a clandestine manner that allows the perpetrators to remain anonymous. The nature of the videos also makes it extraordinarily difficult to establish the jurisdiction necessary to prosecute the crimes. Given the severe difficulties that State law enforcement agencies have encountered in attempting to investigate and prosecute the underlying conduct, reaffirming Congress's commitment to closing the distribution network for obscene animal crush videos is an effective means of combating the crimes of extreme animal cruelty that they depict. I have long been a champion of first amendment rights. As the son of Vermont printers, I know firsthand that the freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our democracy. This is why I have worked hard to pass legislation such as the SPEECH Act, which protects American authors, journalists and publishers from foreign libel lawsuits that undermine the first amendment. Today the Senate struck the right balance between the first amendment and the needs of law enforcement, while adhering to the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. I commend the bipartisan coalition that worked hard, alongside the Humane Society and first amendment experts, to strike this balance, and I look forward to the time when obscene animal crush videos no longer threaten animal welfare.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this summer, Marcelle and I were honored to be at the Vermont Supreme Court with former Supreme Court Justice Jeff Amestoy, his wife Susan, and their daughters. Like all Vermonters, I have respected his tenure, both as attorney general and as chief justice, as both were exemplary. While the portrait captures the image of the Jeff Amestoy his friends honor and care for, his words are what should be read by everyone who cares about our judiciary. Jeff's commitment to the law, our justice system, and our sense of what makes Vermont the State we love is in his words. They were so impressive I asked him for a copy, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for 34 years in the Senate it was my privilege and honor to serve alongside Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Today, I would like to pay tribute to Ted, a dedicated public servant, a respected lawmaker, and a man I was proud to call my friend. Ted Stevens loved this country, and he dedicated nearly his entire life to public service. He served as a pilot in World War II, as a U.S. district attorney, as a senior member of the U.S. Interior Department, and as a U.S. Senator. Ted loved his State. In fact, he assisted in its birth as a State. During his more than four decades in the Senate, he was an unrelenting and unabashed advocate for Alaska and its people. I know no other Senator who has filled so central a role in their State's public and economic life as did Ted Stevens. He was a man many Alaskans knew simply as ``Uncle Ted.'' The fight for Alaskan statehood was Ted's principal work at the Department of the Interior, and, over time, he developed another appropriate nickname: ``Mr. Alaska.'' After leaving Interior, Ted returned to Alaska and was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives in 1964. In 1968 he was appointed to the U.S. Senate, and today he remains the longest serving Republican Senator in history. In the Senate, he was a tough negotiator and a savvy legislator, but he was always fair. He was an old-school Senator, and he kept his word. During the challenging years after statehood, Ted helped transform Alaska, playing key roles shaping the State's economic and social development. A staunch defender of the Alaskan way of life, he championed legislation to protect the fishing industry, to build the Alaska oil pipeline, to protect millions of acres of wilderness area, and to address longstanding issues surrounding aboriginal land claims. While he and I have not agreed on some issues, I have never questioned his commitment to do what he believed was right for his State and its people. I know it can sound repetitive when people hear Senators make remarks such as these about our colleagues. But I think it is important for the public to know that despite all the squabbling that goes on in Washington, there is the deep respect, affection, and caring that goes on among the Senate's Members, who work side by side and day by day on the Nation's business and on the concerns of their constituents. I was last with Ted at Bob Byrd's funeral. I had asked him if he would sit with me because we had not seen each other for a while and it gave us a chance to get caught up. I told him again how much his friendship meant to me and how much I missed him in the Senate. We talked about the number of pieces of legislation we had worked on together and both spoke of Ted being part of the old school of Senators--those who always stuck with agreements they had made and our concern that was not the way some were today. It was a sad day being at a memorial service, but it was a special day being with Ted. Ted was a statesman, a public servant, and one of my closest friends in the Senate. I consider myself fortunate to have known him and served with him. Marcelle and I wish Catherine and all his family our best wishes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. These clearly justified reforms will close wasteful tax loopholes for firms that move jobs overseas and provide real incentives for firms to bring jobs back to the United States. I am proud to join Senators Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown, and Sheldon Whitehouse in cosponsoring this bill. For the past two decades our country has witnessed a disturbing trend towards outsourcing American jobs abroad. What began as a way for domestic manufacturers to cut labor costs has blown into a full-fledged sprint by some U.S. manufacturing and service companies to move as much production offshore as possible. The devastating effects of global offshoring have hit large, manufacturing States like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and California with particular hurt, but smaller States like Vermont are not immune to the global realities of corporate outsourcing and consolidation. Unfortunately, there is quite a list of companies in recent years that have either left our State or gone out of business entirely because they moved jobs overseas or were squeezed out of the market by competitors using cheap, foreign labor. That is why the Senate must move forward with considering the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. First, the bill will eliminate the perverse tax subsidies that U.S. taxpayers provide to firms that move facilities offshore. Specifically, it prohibits a firm from taking any deduction, loss, or credit for amounts paid in connection with reducing or ending the operation of a trade or business in the United States and starting or expanding a similar trade or business overseas. Second, the bill will close the tax loophole that rewards U.S. firms that move their production overseas and then turn around and import those now foreign-made products back to the United States for sale. Not only will this help keep good manufacturing jobs here at home, it will save American taxpayers more than $15 billion in revenue over the next decade. Finally, to encourage businesses to create jobs in the United States, the bill will provide businesses with payroll tax relief for each new job that they bring back onshore. During these trying economic times, too many Vermonters are struggling to find goods jobs and pay their bills. The economic collapse came swiftly, and we have all seen that there are no quick fixes to turn around our economic troubles. We staved off greater economic disaster with an essential economic rescue plan, and we have tried to jump-start the economy with a bold economic recovery plan. But employment opportunities here at home are hampered when employers push more and more jobs overseas. Last year, Congress helped lay the groundwork for a renewed and vibrant economy by enacting tax relief for working families and businesses and making needed investments in broadband deployment, job training, electrical smart grids, water and transportation infrastructure, better schools, housing, first responders, and new energy sources. We need to ensure that these important investments by U.S. taxpayers benefit businesses and workers here at home.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in these challenging economic times, dairy farmers in Vermont, New York, and across America are experiencing particularly difficult conditions. They face both rock-bottom milk prices, and a severe labor shortage. There is an immediate solution for one of these issues. Labor shortages could be met with foreign agricultural workers under a special visa program, called H-2A, which allows farmers who are unable to fill labor needs with domestic workers to hire temporary or seasonal foreign workers. I have long sought to include dairy farmers in the H-2A program, but the Department of Labor has consistently refused to interpret the law to allow dairy farmers access to seasonal foreign workers. Last fall, the Department of Labor initiated a rulemaking process to reconsider various aspects of the H-2A program. I repeatedly urged the Department to exercise its authority to give dairy farmers access to H- 2A workers, both through comments I submitted in the formal rulemaking and by supporting the comments of the National Milk Producers Federation. Nonetheless, on February 11, 2010, the Department released a final rule that continues to exclude the dairy industry from this valuable program. Inexplicably, while refusing to include the dairy industry because of its year-round needs, the Department of Labor extends new access to the H-2A program to the logging industry, and continues to offer access to these purportedly seasonal worker visas to the year- round sheepherding industry. Today, I introduce the H-2A Improvement Act with Senators Gillibrand and Schumer. This bill will finally end the inequity under current law. The H-2A Improvement Act will make explicit in law that dairy farms can use the H-2A program, ensuring that dairy farmers in Vermont, New York, and throughout the Nation can find the labor they need to stay in business, meeting the needs of their communities and American families. This legislation, which also gives statutory access to the H-2A program to sheep herders and goat herders, contains provisions to ensure that the benefit that these workers provide to farmers is maximized. The legislation authorizes this unique class of workers to remain in the United States for an initial period of 3 years, and gives U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the authority to approve a worker for an additional 3-year period as needed. After the initial 3-year period, the worker may petition to become a lawful permanent resident. The failure to allow the dairy industry to participate in the H-2A program puts many dairy farmers in the situation of having to choose between their livelihoods and following the law. Late last year, the Department of Homeland Security audited at least four dairy farms in Vermont. Although I strongly believe that the vast majority of dairy farmers want to hire a lawful workforce, there is a critical shortage of domestic workers available to work on dairy farms. Dairy farmers are often ill-equipped to verify the authenticity of documents that job applicants present. As a result, some of the workers the farmers hire may not be lawfully authorized to work. With all the challenges facing dairy farmers today, we should help dairy farmers hire lawful workers, not leave them with the precarious choice of hiring workers who may be unauthorized, or hiring no workers at all. Expanding the H-2A program to include dairy workers would protect both American and foreign workers. It would protect American workers from having to compete with an unlawful work force, in which unscrupulous employers pay lower wages in often unsafe conditions. At the same time, it would protect foreign dairy workers, by requiring that employers comply with existing H-2A regulations and wage and hour and occupational safety laws. This legislation, if enacted, would give foreign workers who seek employment in the dairy industry the dignity and certainty of lawful status and the opportunity to be productive members of the communities in which they work. In 2006 and 2007, I worked to include nearly identical provisions in the Senate's comprehensive immigration bills. This legislation reflects those provisions. The measure I introduce today is a simple, targeted fix to our immigration laws that will enable dairy farmers to gain the benefits of this important program. While I recognize that many agricultural employers are frustrated by the current regulatory process, it is a critical first step, and a matter of basic fairness that dairy farmers are afforded the same opportunities to obtain labor as all other agricultural sectors. Although this legislation is necessary to meet the immediate needs of dairy farmers, I also want to make absolutely clear that I remain in complete support of the more comprehensive AgJOBS legislation, which I joined Senator Feinstein in introducing last year, and on which Senator Feinstein and others have worked tirelessly. I will continue to strongly support that legislation, and Senator Feinstein in her efforts to see it enacted. AgJOBS is broader than the H-2A Improvement Act. It reforms the broader H-2A program to cover agricultural workers that are currently assisting American farmers, but who are not lawfully authorized to work. It also makes important, negotiated changes to streamline the H-2A regulatory process for employers and workers. I recognize that farmers across the country need a comprehensive solution--from Vermont's small dairy farms to the vast fields of California. The solution that the AgJOBS legislation proposes will benefit agriculture across the Nation and is a solution I remain committed to making a reality. I will also continue to work with Senate leadership and Senators from both sides of the aisle to accomplish our shared goals for broader reform of our Nation's immigration system. In the meantime, America's dairy farmers must at least be placed on the same footing as other agricultural interests with respect to our current H-2A laws. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Honest Services Restoration Act with Senator Whitehouse and Senator Kaufman. The legislation will restore critical tools used by investigators and prosecutors to combat public corruption and corporate fraud, which the Supreme Court dramatically weakened in Skilling v. United States. In Skilling, the Court sided with an Enron executive who had been convicted of fraud, and in doing so, held that the honest services fraud statute may be used to prosecute only bribery and kickbacks, but no other conduct. That leaves other corrupt and fraudulent conduct which prosecutors in the past addressed under the honest services fraud statute to go unchecked. Most notably, the Court's decision excluded undisclosed ``self-dealing'' by state and federal public officials, and corporate officers and directors, which is when those officials or executives secretly act in their own financial self-interest, rather than in the interest of the public or, in the private sector cases, their shareholders and employees. The Honest Services Restoration Act restores the honest services statute to cover this undisclosed ``self- dealing'' by state and Federal public officials, and corporate officers and directors. In a hearing earlier today, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony from experts who explored the kinds of problematic conduct that may now go unchecked in the wake of the Skilling decision. The testimony also considered what Congress can and should do to fill those gaps and restore strong enforcement to combat corrupt and fraudulent conduct. It is clear that in recent years, the stain of corruption has spread to all levels of government. This is a problem that victimizes every American by chipping away at the foundations of our democracy and the faith that Americans have in their government. Recent years have also seen a plague of financial and corporate frauds that have severely undermined our economy and hurt too many hardworking people in this country. These frauds have robbed people of their savings, their retirement accounts, college funds for their children, and have cost too many people their homes. Congress has acted, by passing the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and other key provisions, to give prosecutors and investigators more tools to combat fraud. But we must remain vigilant, as the methods and techniques used by those who would defraud hardworking Americans continue to change. Too often, loopholes in existing laws have meant that corrupt conduct can go unchecked. The honest services fraud statute has enabled prosecutors to root out corrupt and fraudulent conduct that would otherwise slip through those loopholes; we must tighten it so it can perform that important role again. Congress must act aggressively but carefully to strengthen our laws to root out corruption and fraud. By preventing public officials and corporate executives from acting in their own self-interest at the expense of the people they serve, the Honest Services Restoration Act closes a gap created by Skilling and strengthens a critical law enforcement tool. I look forward to working with Senators from both parties to quickly pass this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in these challenging economic times, dairy farmers in Vermont, New York, and across America are experiencing particularly difficult conditions. They face both rock-bottom milk prices, and a severe labor shortage. There is an immediate solution for one of these issues. Labor shortages could be met with foreign agricultural workers under a special visa program, called H-2A, which allows farmers who are unable to fill labor needs with domestic workers to hire temporary or seasonal foreign workers. I have long sought to include dairy farmers in the H-2A program, but the Department of Labor has consistently refused to interpret the law to allow dairy farmers access to seasonal foreign workers. Last fall, the Department of Labor initiated a rulemaking process to reconsider various aspects of the H-2A program. I repeatedly urged the Department to exercise its authority to give dairy farmers access to H- 2A workers, both through comments I submitted in the formal rulemaking and by supporting the comments of the National Milk Producers Federation. Nonetheless, on February 11, 2010, the Department released a final rule that continues to exclude the dairy industry from this valuable program. Inexplicably, while refusing to include the dairy industry because of its year-round needs, the Department of Labor extends new access to the H-2A program to the logging industry, and continues to offer access to these purportedly seasonal worker visas to the year- round sheepherding industry. Today, I introduce the H-2A Improvement Act with Senators Gillibrand and Schumer. This bill will finally end the inequity under current law. The H-2A Improvement Act will make explicit in law that dairy farms can use the H-2A program, ensuring that dairy farmers in Vermont, New York, and throughout the Nation can find the labor they need to stay in business, meeting the needs of their communities and American families. This legislation, which also gives statutory access to the H-2A program to sheep herders and goat herders, contains provisions to ensure that the benefit that these workers provide to farmers is maximized. The legislation authorizes this unique class of workers to remain in the United States for an initial period of 3 years, and gives U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the authority to approve a worker for an additional 3-year period as needed. After the initial 3-year period, the worker may petition to become a lawful permanent resident. The failure to allow the dairy industry to participate in the H-2A program puts many dairy farmers in the situation of having to choose between their livelihoods and following the law. Late last year, the Department of Homeland Security audited at least four dairy farms in Vermont. Although I strongly believe that the vast majority of dairy farmers want to hire a lawful workforce, there is a critical shortage of domestic workers available to work on dairy farms. Dairy farmers are often ill-equipped to verify the authenticity of documents that job applicants present. As a result, some of the workers the farmers hire may not be lawfully authorized to work. With all the challenges facing dairy farmers today, we should help dairy farmers hire lawful workers, not leave them with the precarious choice of hiring workers who may be unauthorized, or hiring no workers at all. Expanding the H-2A program to include dairy workers would protect both American and foreign workers. It would protect American workers from having to compete with an unlawful work force, in which unscrupulous employers pay lower wages in often unsafe conditions. At the same time, it would protect foreign dairy workers, by requiring that employers comply with existing H-2A regulations and wage and hour and occupational safety laws. This legislation, if enacted, would give foreign workers who seek employment in the dairy industry the dignity and certainty of lawful status and the opportunity to be productive members of the communities in which they work. In 2006 and 2007, I worked to include nearly identical provisions in the Senate's comprehensive immigration bills. This legislation reflects those provisions. The measure I introduce today is a simple, targeted fix to our immigration laws that will enable dairy farmers to gain the benefits of this important program. While I recognize that many agricultural employers are frustrated by the current regulatory process, it is a critical first step, and a matter of basic fairness that dairy farmers are afforded the same opportunities to obtain labor as all other agricultural sectors. Although this legislation is necessary to meet the immediate needs of dairy farmers, I also want to make absolutely clear that I remain in complete support of the more comprehensive AgJOBS legislation, which I joined Senator Feinstein in introducing last year, and on which Senator Feinstein and others have worked tirelessly. I will continue to strongly support that legislation, and Senator Feinstein in her efforts to see it enacted. AgJOBS is broader than the H-2A Improvement Act. It reforms the broader H-2A program to cover agricultural workers that are currently assisting American farmers, but who are not lawfully authorized to work. It also makes important, negotiated changes to streamline the H-2A regulatory process for employers and workers. I recognize that farmers across the country need a comprehensive solution--from Vermont's small dairy farms to the vast fields of California. The solution that the AgJOBS legislation proposes will benefit agriculture across the Nation and is a solution I remain committed to making a reality. I will also continue to work with Senate leadership and Senators from both sides of the aisle to accomplish our shared goals for broader reform of our Nation's immigration system. In the meantime, America's dairy farmers must at least be placed on the same footing as other agricultural interests with respect to our current H-2A laws. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.