Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2010, together with Senator Franken. The Justice for All Act, passed in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation and the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country, and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. After several hearings and much work, today we begin in earnest the process of building on that foundation to go still further to ensure our criminal justice system works fairly and effectively for all Americans. In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which aimed to improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong. The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act, along with important provisions to ensure that crime victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve, and that States and communities would take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and give prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform. The programs created by the Justice For All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them. In too many communities around the country, large numbers of untested rape kids have come to light, many of which have not even made their way to crime labs. It is unacceptable that rape victims must still live in fear and wait for justice. We must act to fix this continuing problem. We have also seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail, and we have faced the harrowing possibility that the unthinkable may have happened: the State of Texas may have executed an innocent man. We must act to ensure that our criminal justice system works as it should so that relevant evidence is tested and considered and all defendants receive quality representation. I thank Senator Franken for working with me on these important issues and helping to craft this important bill. I also appreciate the Republican Senators, including Senators Sessions and Grassley, who have provided input for this bill and participated in the process. I am confident that this legislation will be enacted in a bipartisan fashion, just as the original Justice for All Act was, and I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to reach that goal. The original Justice for All Act included the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Program, which authorized significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith, who lived in fear for years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others need not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause. Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to States for the testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. I have worked with Senators of both parties to ensure full funding for the Debbie Smith Act each year. As I have researched the problem of untested rape kits, there is one thing that I have heard again and again: the Debbie Smith program has been working and is making a major difference. I have heard from the Justice Department, the States, including Vermont, law enforcement, and victims' advocates, that Debbie Smith grants have led to significant and meaningful backlog reductions and to justice for victims in jurisdictions across the country. Unfortunately, despite the good strides we have made and the significant Federal funding for these efforts, we have seen alarming reports of continuing backlogs. A 2008 study found 12,500 untested rape kits in the Los Angeles area alone. While Los Angeles has since made progress in addressing the problem, other cities have now reported backlogs almost as severe. The Justice Department released a report last year finding that in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape cases, evidence had not even been submitted to a crime lab. That Justice Department study gets to a key component of this problem that has not yet been addressed. No matter how much money we send to crime labs for testing, if samples that could help close cases instead sit on the shelf in police evidence rooms and never make it to the lab, that money will do no good. Police officers must understand the importance of testing this vital evidence and must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. In too many jurisdictions, rape kits taken from victims who put themselves through further hardship to take these samples--rape kits that could help law enforcement to get criminals off the street--are sitting untested. The bill we introduce today will finally address this part of the problem by mandating that the Department of Justice develop practices and protocols for the processing of DNA evidence and provide technical assistance to State and local governments to implement those protocols. The bill authorizes funding to States and communities to reduce their rape kit backlogs at the law enforcement stage by training officers, improving practices, developing evidence tracking systems, and taking other key steps to make sure that this crucial evidence gets to the labs to be tested. The bill will also help us get to the bottom of this problem by calling for the development of a standardized definition of ``backlog,'' covering both the law enforcement and lab stages, and by implementing public reporting requirements to help us to identify where the backlogs are. It also takes steps to ensure that labs test DNA samples in the best order so that those samples which can help secure justice for rape victims are tested most quickly. It will also put into place new accountability requirements to make sure that Debbie Smith Act money is being spent effectively and appropriately. The bill makes important changes to existing law to ensure that no rape victims are ever required to pay for testing of their rape kits, and that these costs are covered with no strings attached. Senator Franken has been a strong advocate of this important provision, and I thank him for his help. We have also taken important new steps to ensure that defendants in serious cases receive adequate representation and, where appropriate, testing of relevant DNA samples. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women in law enforcement, and I know that in the vast majority of cases, our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know, however, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel, and when all relevant evidence is retained and tested. Sadly, we learn regularly of defendants released after new evidence exonerates them. We must do better. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and it is doubly an outrage that, in those cases, the guilty person remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes, which makes all of us less safe. This legislation takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the Constitution. This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. Prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize the importance of quality defense counsel. Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified, quite persuasively, before the Judiciary Committee about how competent defense attorneys help her do her job as a prosecutor even better. I have also learned through this process that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money. This legislation will also help ensure that the innocent are not punished while the guilty remain free by strengthening the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence. This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and the Committee has heard strong testimony that the program is making an impact. The legislation we introduce today expands the very modest authorization of funds to this important program and clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are required to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more States to participate. The bill also asks states to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. I appreciate Senator Sessions' longstanding support for this important program. Finally, the legislation strengthens rights for victims of crime. It gives crime victims an affirmative right to be informed of all of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert their legal rights in court. I thank Senators Feinstein and Kyl for their leadership in this area and their assistance in developing these provisions. In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements without increasing total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term. Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal. I hope there will be strong bipartisan support for these efforts moving forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2010, together with Senator Franken. The Justice for All Act, passed in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation and the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country, and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. After several hearings and much work, today we begin in earnest the process of building on that foundation to go still further to ensure our criminal justice system works fairly and effectively for all Americans. In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which aimed to improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong. The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act, along with important provisions to ensure that crime victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve, and that States and communities would take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and give prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform. The programs created by the Justice For All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them. In too many communities around the country, large numbers of untested rape kids have come to light, many of which have not even made their way to crime labs. It is unacceptable that rape victims must still live in fear and wait for justice. We must act to fix this continuing problem. We have also seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail, and we have faced the harrowing possibility that the unthinkable may have happened: the State of Texas may have executed an innocent man. We must act to ensure that our criminal justice system works as it should so that relevant evidence is tested and considered and all defendants receive quality representation. I thank Senator Franken for working with me on these important issues and helping to craft this important bill. I also appreciate the Republican Senators, including Senators Sessions and Grassley, who have provided input for this bill and participated in the process. I am confident that this legislation will be enacted in a bipartisan fashion, just as the original Justice for All Act was, and I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to reach that goal. The original Justice for All Act included the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Program, which authorized significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith, who lived in fear for years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others need not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause. Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to States for the testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. I have worked with Senators of both parties to ensure full funding for the Debbie Smith Act each year. As I have researched the problem of untested rape kits, there is one thing that I have heard again and again: the Debbie Smith program has been working and is making a major difference. I have heard from the Justice Department, the States, including Vermont, law enforcement, and victims' advocates, that Debbie Smith grants have led to significant and meaningful backlog reductions and to justice for victims in jurisdictions across the country. Unfortunately, despite the good strides we have made and the significant Federal funding for these efforts, we have seen alarming reports of continuing backlogs. A 2008 study found 12,500 untested rape kits in the Los Angeles area alone. While Los Angeles has since made progress in addressing the problem, other cities have now reported backlogs almost as severe. The Justice Department released a report last year finding that in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape cases, evidence had not even been submitted to a crime lab. That Justice Department study gets to a key component of this problem that has not yet been addressed. No matter how much money we send to crime labs for testing, if samples that could help close cases instead sit on the shelf in police evidence rooms and never make it to the lab, that money will do no good. Police officers must understand the importance of testing this vital evidence and must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. In too many jurisdictions, rape kits taken from victims who put themselves through further hardship to take these samples--rape kits that could help law enforcement to get criminals off the street--are sitting untested. The bill we introduce today will finally address this part of the problem by mandating that the Department of Justice develop practices and protocols for the processing of DNA evidence and provide technical assistance to State and local governments to implement those protocols. The bill authorizes funding to States and communities to reduce their rape kit backlogs at the law enforcement stage by training officers, improving practices, developing evidence tracking systems, and taking other key steps to make sure that this crucial evidence gets to the labs to be tested. The bill will also help us get to the bottom of this problem by calling for the development of a standardized definition of ``backlog,'' covering both the law enforcement and lab stages, and by implementing public reporting requirements to help us to identify where the backlogs are. It also takes steps to ensure that labs test DNA samples in the best order so that those samples which can help secure justice for rape victims are tested most quickly. It will also put into place new accountability requirements to make sure that Debbie Smith Act money is being spent effectively and appropriately. The bill makes important changes to existing law to ensure that no rape victims are ever required to pay for testing of their rape kits, and that these costs are covered with no strings attached. Senator Franken has been a strong advocate of this important provision, and I thank him for his help. We have also taken important new steps to ensure that defendants in serious cases receive adequate representation and, where appropriate, testing of relevant DNA samples. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women in law enforcement, and I know that in the vast majority of cases, our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know, however, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel, and when all relevant evidence is retained and tested. Sadly, we learn regularly of defendants released after new evidence exonerates them. We must do better. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and it is doubly an outrage that, in those cases, the guilty person remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes, which makes all of us less safe. This legislation takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the Constitution. This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. Prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize the importance of quality defense counsel. Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified, quite persuasively, before the Judiciary Committee about how competent defense attorneys help her do her job as a prosecutor even better. I have also learned through this process that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money. This legislation will also help ensure that the innocent are not punished while the guilty remain free by strengthening the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence. This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and the Committee has heard strong testimony that the program is making an impact. The legislation we introduce today expands the very modest authorization of funds to this important program and clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are required to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more States to participate. The bill also asks states to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. I appreciate Senator Sessions' longstanding support for this important program. Finally, the legislation strengthens rights for victims of crime. It gives crime victims an affirmative right to be informed of all of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert their legal rights in court. I thank Senators Feinstein and Kyl for their leadership in this area and their assistance in developing these provisions. In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements without increasing total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term. Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal. I hope there will be strong bipartisan support for these efforts moving forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the House of Representatives for promptly enacting the Freedom of Information Act amendments to the Securities and Exchange Act, Investment Company Act, and Investment Advisers Act of 2010, S. 3717. This bipartisan bill will ensure that the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, remains an effective tool to provide public access to information about the stability of our financial markets. This bill will also ensure that the important goals of the historic Wall Street reform law--enhancing transparency, accountability, and confidence in our financial system--will become a reality for all Americans. The bill eliminates several broad FOIA exemptions for Security and Exchange Commission, SEC, records that were recently enacted as part of Public Law 111-203. The bill also helps to ensure that the SEC has access to the information that the Commission needs to carry out its new enforcement activities under the new reforms. I thank Representative Edolphus Towns, the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Representative Barney Frank, the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, for their support of this bill and for working with me to quickly enact this legislation. I also thank Senators Grassley, Cornyn, and Kaufman for cosponsoring this important open government bill. In addition, I commend the many open government organizations, including OpenTheGovernment.org, the Project on Government Oversight, the American Library Association, and the Sunlight Foundation for their support of this bill. The Freedom of Information Act has long recognized the need to balance the government's legitimate interest in protecting confidential business records, trade secrets, and other sensitive information from public disclosure, and preserving the public's right to know. To accomplish this, care must always be taken to ensure that exemptions to FOIA's disclosure requirements are narrowly and properly applied. The bill accomplishes this important goal. I commend the Congress for working in a bipartisan and expeditious manner to eliminate these overly broad FOIA exemptions. I urge the President to promptly sign this good government bill into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for each of us, our health is among the things we care the most about. Certainly one of the most common requests any of us regularly make in prayer is for good health. And of course it is not only our own health we worry about; we also want good health and proper medical insurance for our children, our parents, our siblings--for all those who are important to us. Medical knowledge and technology have advanced tremendously during the past two and a half centuries of American life, and the pace of medical progress is accelerating. But health insurance models have not. The deck has been stacked in favor of the insurance companies, and against the practical needs of ordinary Americans. For much of the last century Americans have pointed to the obvious need for insurance reform, yet the problems have only grown worse and more urgent, leaving millions of Americans exposed to the ravages of sudden illness and the wasting effects of declining health. Six months ago today, President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act, which will extend health insurance coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans in the next few years. Reform based on good quality, affordable health insurance that has been talked about for decades is finally becoming a reality. Over 15 months starting last year, Congress debated and then passed the most sweeping and comprehensive reforms to improve the everyday lives of every American since Congress passed Medicare in 1965. It was an arduous process, but in the end the achievement proved that change is possible and that voices of so many Americans who over the years have called on their leaders to act have finally been heard. Americans are already beginning to see some of the benefits of insurance reform. First, in states where individuals and families are excluded from health coverage because of preexisting medical conditions, these Americans can now buy insurance through special insurance plans overseen by the states and delivered by private medical providers. Second, employers across the country already have applied for and have been awarded early retiree reinsurance grants that will reimburse employers for retirees' medical claims. Third, seniors on Medicare who have high-cost prescriptions typically fall within a coverage gap known as the ``doughnut hole.'' Beginning recently, beneficiaries who fall within the gap will receive $250 checks to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs. And today, more benefits of real insurance reform go into effect that will help consumers take control of their own health care decisions. Known as the Patients' Bill of Rights, these new rules protect consumers against the worst health insurance industry abuses that have prevented millions of people from receiving the health care they need. Going forward, insurance plans can no longer deny children coverage because of a preexisting health condition; insurance plans are barred from dropping beneficiaries from coverage simply because of an illness; dozens of preventive care services must be covered at no cost and with no co-pay; Americans will have access to an easier appeals process for private medical claims that are denied; and adult children can stay on their parents' plans until their 26th birthdays. Yet another major reform now protects everyday Americans from one of the most egregious insurance industry practices: setting lifetime or annual limits on health insurance coverage. Wherever I travel in Vermont I am often stopped in the grocery store, at church, on the street or at the gas station to listen to personal, wrenching stories from Vermonters who can no longer get medical treatment because they have met their annual or lifetime maximum. Many of these Vermonters were perfectly healthy before being diagnosed with cancer or diseases that can cost well beyond their means for treatment. Instead of being able to focus on getting healthy, patients instead must worry about whether or not their next doctor's visit will shove them above the insurance company's arbitrary limit. Each of these stories is anguishing. Let me describe just one of them. A master's student from Saint Michael's College's graduate school, Ned wrote my office during the health care reform debate to share his story. A car accident when Ned was nine left him a quadriplegic. His health care costs since then have necessarily been high. In fact, recently Ned found that he had nearly met his lifetime limit on coverage from one plan and his only remaining option for health insurance coverage not only contained a lifetime cap on coverage but also a cap on expenses for durable medical equipment, which he uses frequently because of his wheelchair. But beginning today, Ned and millions of other Americans who fear reaching their coverage limits can rest easier knowing that their insurance will be there when they need it the most. Ned, and we, can look forward to a lifetime of the contributions that he will make to his community and our country. In addition to improvements to our health insurance system that we will see this year, over time the Affordable Care Act will insure 95 percent of our population and make a substantial investment in our economic vitality in the years ahead. In addition to ending the discriminatory insurance company practices of denying coverage because of a preexisting condition or canceling coverage when beneficiaries get sick, the new law will lower costs for small businesses and individuals who simply cannot afford health coverage. And despite the specious arguments from opponents of reform, this bill is the largest deficit reduction measure upon which many in Congress will ever cast a vote. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that comprehensive reform will reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion through 2019, and by more than $1 trillion in the decades to come. The Affordable Care Act is a tremendous achievement that will improve the lives of Americans for generations to come. For decades, we have heard heartbreaking stories about the enormous challenges Americans face because they are uninsured or underinsured. With each new implementation date of the features of the Affordable Care Act, these stories are becoming fewer and fewer and are being replaced by stories of the success of these reforms, one family at a time, all across Vermont and all across America. There is still much more to accomplish, and there are still millions of Americans who are struggling to buy or keep adequate health insurance coverage for their families or themselves. As these reforms are implemented over the next few years, I will continue to work with Vermonters and the Department of Health and Human Services to help Americans have the access to the quality, affordable health insurance that each American needs and deserves.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week the Vermont Department of Education announced that Jennifer Lawson of Waltham, VT, has been named Vermont's 2011 Teacher of the Year. I am proud to call her selection to the Senate's attention, and I offer hearty congratulations to Ms. Lawson and thank her for her dedication to the students of Vermont. A graduate of the University of Vermont with a bachelor's degree in elementary education and a master's degree in education from Connecticut College, Jennifer Lawson has spent 12 years in the classroom. Prior to her current role as a social studies and language arts teacher at Vergennes Union High School, she taught as an elementary school teacher in Vergennes. Her success as an educator stems from her ability to inspire students to challenge themselves and their peers in a positive learning environment. She champions her students' individuality and encourages them to bring their life experiences into the classroom. In Vermont, schools are at the core of our communities. Our kids are the seed corn of the future that we want for our state and its people. Vermonters understand the importance of giving our children a quality education, and they understand that a child's education begins well before their first day of school and will continue long after their last graduation day. Jennifer Lawson brings this philosophy into practice every time she enters the classroom. She recognized quickly that educating students involves so much more than just talking about a subject. Even outside the classroom Jennifer is involved in improving the education in her community. She serves on several of her school's committees, including the Adequate Yearly Progress Team for Literacy; she is a coleader of the Afterschool Program for Reading and Math; and she serves as a member on the assessment design and research team. Along with her efforts close to home she has been published nationally on alternative energy sources for schools and has given a presentation on Expeditionary Learning Schools for Outward Bound. I am glad that she will expand her role within our State even further this year as she consults with other educators throughout Vermont in her role as Teacher of the Year. As I told Jennifer when I called her this week, Marcelle and I are proud of her and the extraordinary work she does on behalf of Vermont children. Vermont will be superbly represented in the national competition for Teacher of the Year next spring. I congratulate her on this honor, and I hope she spends many more years inspiring young minds. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of an article in The Burlington Free Press about Ms. Lawson.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I heard what the Senator from Delaware said. He has been a very valuable member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and of this body itself. We all listen to what he says. He is not saying this out of any sense of what it might do in an election for him, he is retiring this year. We ought to listen to somebody who has no stake in this, other than as a citizen who cares what happens to our democracy. I thank my friend from Delaware for speaking out, as he always does so clearly. We are going to try again this week to take action to help stem the tide of corporate influence that was unleashed when, earlier this year, five unelected Supreme Court Justices overturned 100 years of precedent in the Citizens United decision. When we last tried to correct this prior to the August recess. We brought up the DISCLOSE Act. Republicans filibustered the bill. It never allowed the Senate to even debate the legislation. Many of us argued that without even going to the legislation, we faced real problems, and those have been borne out. We have seen massive corporate spending, drowning out the voices of hard-working Americans. I heard somebody say in Vermont: ``Do you mean if you have somebody who is trying to stop counterfeit goods coming from China''--or to use another example, ``trying to stop the flood of toys that have too much lead in them that will endanger our children--and you have a Member of Congress who goes out and works to tighten the law so they can't do it, are you telling me that Chinese company can set up a small corporation here in the United States and spend a fortune to defeat the person who is trying to protect our children, to defeat the person who is trying to stop lead in toys? And do you mean in defeating the person who is trying to protect our children they could do it without anybody ever knowing where the money was coming?'' I said: That is the result of the Citizens United decision. They could not understand that. But I tell my fellow Vermonters, with election day less than 2 months away, hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate interest group funds have been spent or pledged to be spent on political advertising and election activities. The American people deserve better than that. We have seen filibusters, once a rarely used part of Senate procedure, become a regular tool for obstruction in the Senate on issue after issue. No matter how much the American people want an issue voted on, we end up having a filibuster blocking it. That obstruction has led to delays in considering legislation meant to protect the American people, as well as an alarming and almost unprecedented rise in judicial vacancies because Republicans will not allow votes on judges. Here, in an area fundamental to our democracy, it is clear the American people continue paying the price unless Congress takes action. Americans should expect bipartisan support for any legislation designed to prevent corporations from taking over elections, corporations from deciding elections, instead of the people who are affected by them. This legislation does that, and I hope the Senators on the other side will stop filibustering this legislation. I cannot help but think on these filibusters--do you know what it is? It allows one to say: I am going to vote maybe. We were elected and paid to vote yes or no, not maybe. Those who keep using the filibuster to prevent a vote on serious matters can go home and say: That matter has not come up. I have not voted on that. I am on your side, whichever side you are on, because I never voted. I voted maybe. That is what these filibusters are. They are voting maybe because you do not have the courage to stand and vote yes or no. In Citizens United, five Supreme Court Justices cast aside a century of law and opened the floodgates for corporations to drown out individual voices in our elections. Five overruled every law passed by Congress or other courts over the years. That broad scope of the decision was unnecessary, it was improper, and it was one of the greatest grasps for power I have ever seen. At the expense of hard- working men and women in this country, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could become the predominant influence in our elections for years to come. These unelected members of the Supreme Court said: We are going to let corporations decide your elections, not the hard- working men and women who are affected by the elections. We have already seen the consequences. Corporations have injected more money than ever into primary races and now general elections across the country, and they can do it without ever even saying which corporation is emptying their treasuries to do this. We need to at least have some transparency to this new-found access. We have heard from Americans of all political persuasions who express overwhelming concern over the impact of the Citizens United decision, as the threat it poses to our electoral process is readily apparent. We have a constitutional duty to work to restore a meaningful role for all Americans in the political process. Vote yes or vote no. Be willing to stand on one side or the other of the issue, not a filibuster which allows you to duck facing responsibilities as a Senator, not a filibuster to a motion to proceed because that is a vote to ignore the real-world impact this decision is already having on our democratic process. I call on Senators: Have the courage to take a position. Do not vote maybe so you can go back home and say: That issue has not come up. Have the courage, have the honesty. Vote yes or no. The DISCLOSE Act is a measure I support to moderate the impact of the Citizens United decision. I will vote for it. The DISCLOSE Act will add transparency to the campaign finance laws to help ensure corporations cannot abuse their new-found Supreme Court-made Constitutional rights. This legislation will preserve the voices of hard-working Americans in the political process by limiting the ability of foreign corporations to influence American elections. Can you imagine a proud country such as ours, we are willing, because of the decision of five people, to allow foreign corporations to come in and meddle in our political process? We are going to prohibit corporations from receiving taxpayer money when contributing to elections. Are you going to say to the taxpayers: We are going to tax you, and then we are going to give the money to determine who might give us more taxes? We are going to increase disclosure requirements of corporate contributions, among other things. It is hard to overstate the potential for harm in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision. The DISCLOSE Act is necessary to prevent corruption in our political system because the Citizens United decision brings about corruption in our political system. The DISCLOSE Act will protect the credibility of our elections because the Citizens United case diminishes credibility for our elections. If we do not do that, we are not going to maintain the trust of the American people. While some on the other side of the aisle praise the Citizens United decision as a victory for the First Amendment, what they fail to recognize is that these new rights for corporations come at the expense of the free speech rights of all Americans. That much is already clear. There is no longer any doubt that the ability of wealthy corporations to dominate all mediums of advertising is quieting the voices of individuals who do not have the deep pockets and the unlimited resources of these corporations. Citizens United is only the latest example of which a thin majority of the Supreme Court places its own preferences over the will of hard- working Americans. The campaign finance reforms of the landmark McCain- Feingold Act were the product of lengthy debate in Congress as to the proper role of corporate money in the electoral process and passed by bipartisan majorities. Those laws strengthened the rights of individual voters while carefully preserving the integrity of the political process. But with the stroke of a pen, five Justices--unelected Justices--cast aside those years of deliberation and substituted their own preferences over the will of Congress and the American people. Vermont is a state with a rich tradition of involvement in the democratic process. We see it in March at our Town Meeting Day. But it is also a small state, and it would take so little for a few corporations to outspend all our local candidates--Republicans and Democrats alike. Come on. A megacorporation could, in effect, try to control all the government of our small state. It is easy to imagine corporate interests flooding the airwaves with election ads and transforming the nature of Vermont campaigning. This is not what Vermonters expect of their politics. The DISCLOSE Act is the first step toward ensuring Vermonters and all Americans can remain confident that their voices are going to be heard in the political process, not an unseen, unknown corporation with a whole lot of money. The Citizens United decision grants corporations the same constitutional free speech rights as individual Americans. Who could possibly have imagined what the Framers of the Constitution would have thought of that? Remember the opening words of our Constitution: ``We the People of the United States . . . '' It does not say we the people and a few megacorporations of the United States. In the Constitution, the Founders spoke of guaranteeing fundamental rights for the American people, not to corporations, which is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. The time is now to ensure our campaign finance laws reflect this important distinction. The American people want their voices heard in the coming election. I look forward to working with all Senators to pass this important legislation to ensure the DISCLOSE Act is enacted into law. At the very least, our constituents deserve a debate in the Senate on this legislation. Have the courage and the honesty to vote yes or no, not to hide behind a filibuster and get away with voting maybe. What does that do for their constituents? I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate for promptly taking up the Freedom of Information Act amendments to the Securities Exchange Act, Investment Company Act and Investment Advisers Act of 2010, S. 3717--an important, bipartisan bill to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act FOIA remains an effective tool to provide public access to information about the stability of our financial markets. This bill eliminates several broad FOIA exemptions for Security and Exchange Commission--SEC--records that were recently enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The bill will also help ensure that the SEC has access to the information that the Commission needs to carry out its new enforcement activities under the new reforms. I thank Senators Grassley, Cornyn, and Kaufman for cosponsoring this important open government bill, and for working with me to promptly address this issue. I commend the many open government organizations, including OpenTheGovernment.org, the Project on Government Oversight, the American Library Association and the Sunlight Foundation for their support of this bill. I also thank the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Representative Edolphus Towns, for introducing a companion bill, H.R. 6086, in the House of Representatives. I supported the historic Wall Street reform law, because that law takes significant strides toward enhancing transparency and accountability in our financial system. But, I am concerned that the FOIA exemptions in section 9291 of that law, which was originally drafted in the House of Representatives and included in the final legislation, could be interpreted and implemented in a way that undermines this very important goal. The Freedom of Information Act has long recognized the need to balance the government's legitimate interest in protecting confidential business records, trade secrets and other sensitive information from public disclosure, and preserving the public's right to know. To accomplish this, care must always be taken to ensure that exemptions to FOIA's disclosure requirements are narrowly and properly applied. When Congress enacted the FOIA exemptions in section 929I, we sought to ensure that the SEC had access to the information that the Commission needed to protect American investors--not to shield information from the public. I am also troubled by attempts in recent weeks to retroactively apply these exemptions to pending FOIA matters. I am also troubled by the sweeping interpretation that the Commission has expressed, to date, that these exemptions would shield from public scrutiny all information provided to the Commission in connection with its broad examination and surveillance activities. To truly restore stability and accountability to our financial system, Congress should take immediate steps to clarify this matter and eliminate overly broad FOIA exemptions. Not surprisingly, there is growing concern about these exemptions from across the ideological and political spectrum. I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue--it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. It is in this bipartisan spirit that Senators from both sides of the aisle have joined together to pass this bill. I urge the House of Representatives to enact this good government bill without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, few things are more important to the future of the American economy and job creation than protecting our intellectual property. The Chamber of Commerce estimates that American intellectual property accounts for more than $5 trillion of the country's gross domestic product, and IP-intensive industries employ more than 18 million workers. Each year, online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods cost American businesses billions of dollars, and result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Studies recently cited by the AFL-CIO estimate that digital theft of movies and music alone costs more than 200,000 jobs. This is unacceptable in any economic climate. It is devastating today. The severity of the problem continues to increase and businesses of all types and sizes--and their employees--are the victims. In Vermont, companies like Burton Snowboards and the Vermont Teddy Bear Company are well recognized brands that depend on the enforcement of our intellectual property laws to keep their businesses thriving. The growth of the digital marketplace is extraordinary and it gives creators and producers new opportunities to reach consumers. But it also brings with it the perils of piracy and counterfeiting. The increased usage and accessibility of the Internet has transformed it into the new Main Street. Internet purchases have become so commonplace that consumers are less wary of online shopping and therefore more easily victimized by online products that may have health, safety or other quality concerns when they are counterfeit. Today, I am introducing the bipartisan Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, which will provide the Justice Department with an important tool to crack down on Web sites dedicated to online infringement. This legislation will protect the investment American companies make in developing brands and creating content and will protect the jobs associated with those investments. Protecting intellectual property is not uniquely a Democratic or Republican priority--it is a bipartisan priority. The Justice Department is currently limited in the remedies available to prevent Web sites dedicated to offering infringing content. These Web sites are often based overseas yet target American consumers. American consumers are too often deceived into thinking the products they are purchasing are legitimate because the Web sites reside at familiar-sounding domain names and are complete with corporate advertising, credit card acceptance, and advertising links that make them appear legitimate. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act will give the Department of Justice an expedited process for cracking down on these rogue Web sites, regardless of whether the Web site's owner is located inside or outside of the United States. This legislation authorizes the Justice Department to file an in rem civil action against the domain name, and to seek an order from the court that the domain name is used to access a Web site that is dedicated to infringing activities. Once the court issues an order against the domain name, the Attorney General would have the authority to serve the domain name's U.S. based registry or registrar with that order, which would then be required to suspend the infringing domain name. Where the registry or registrar is not located in the United States, the Act would provide the Attorney General the authority to serve the order on other specified third parties at its discretion, including Internet service providers, payment processors, and online ad network providers. These third parties, which are critical to the financial viability of the infringing Web site's business, would then be required to stop doing business with that Web site by, for example, blocking online access to the rogue site or not processing the Web site's purchases. This legislation will provide the Department of Justice with an important tool to protect American consumers, American businesses, and American jobs. We should not expect that enactment of the legislation will completely solve the problem of online infringement, but it will make it more difficult for foreign entities to profit off American hard work and ingenuity. This bill targets the most egregious actors, and is an important first step to putting a stop to online piracy and sale of counterfeit goods. I look forward to working with all Senators to pass this important, bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, in introducing a piece of legislation that has already attracted broad support from across the social and political spectrum. This bill, titled the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2010, seeks to address a much neglected, global human rights problem-- the inhumane treatment of people in foreign prisons and other detention facilities. On any given day, millions of people are languishing in foreign prisons, many awaiting trial not yet having been formally charged or proven guilty of anything, deprived of their freedom for years longer than they could have been sentenced to prison if convicted. Others convicted of crimes, often after woefully unfair trials, including for nothing more than peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs or defending human rights. Regardless of their status they have one thing in common. They are deprived of the most basic rights and necessities--safe water, adequate food, essential medical care, personal safety, and dignity. Anyone who has been inside one of these facilities, or seen photographs or the press reports of what they are like, understands that I am talking about the mistreatment of human beings in ways that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages. A few examples are all that are needed to illustrate the point. In Haiti's National Penitentiary before the January 12th earthquake, more than 4,000 prisoners were confined in a space built for less than 900. Many did not have room to lie down and had to sleep standing up. Sanitation was practically non-existent. Deadly contagious diseases were rampant. The overwhelming majority of inmates had never been formally charged, never seen a lawyer or a judge. The earthquake damaged the prison and the prison guards fled, leaving the inmates to fend for themselves without food or water. They managed to get out, but the squalid facility is quickly filling up again. Today I am told the conditions there are worse than ever. A recent newspaper article described how in Benin, in West Africa, maggots digest the bodies of dead prisoners. The skin of prisoners is ragged from the extraction of fly larvae, a scourge that is symptomatic of the deplorable conditions. Many inmates suffer from tuberculosis, scabies, parasites, lung infections or other illnesses. The prison in Abomey, located in southern Benin, was built in 1904 to house a maximum of 150 prisoners. These days, more than 1,000 are reportedly confined there. It is common in prisons from Central America to Central Africa to Central Asia for inmates to be severely malnourished and to go for months without being able to wash. Many prisoners depend for survival on food brought to them by their relatives. In many countries individuals awaiting trial, young and old, are housed together with convicted, violent criminals. Prisoners and other detainees in many countries are also routinely victimized by poorly trained, abusive guards, who are virtually unsupervised and unaccountable to any higher authority. Sexual abuse of men, women and children is common. A government commission in Cameroon reported that an average of five prisoners die per month in a prison there, simply from lack of proper medical care. Inmates in many countries suffer from HIV/AIDS and other illnesses, in prisons with no medical records, where doctors do not enter. Prisoners intentionally cut or otherwise harm themselves in the hope of receiving medical attention for life-threatening illnesses. If and when they are released, they infect the local population. A recent New York Times article described how in Zambia prisoners are punished by being stripped naked and held in solitary confinement in small, windowless cells, sometimes for days on end, in ankle-to-calf- high water contaminated with their own excrement. It is like something out of The Count of Monte Cristo, only worse because it is happening in the 21st Century. But the article went on to describe how the Zambian Prison Service completed its own internal audit, appointed a new medical director and allowed human rights workers access to its facilities. The bill Senator Brownback and I are introducing seeks to provide incentives for those kinds of improvements. Our bill would do the following: First, it calls attention to this long ignored problem. Most people know little if anything about what goes on inside foreign prisons, and many would prefer not to know. Second, it sets forth minimum standards for the elimination of inhumane conditions in foreign prisons and other detention facilities, such as human waste facilities that are sanitary and accessible, and adequate ventilation, food, and safe drinking water. Third, it requires the Secretary of State to report annually on those countries that receive United States assistance that do not meet minimum standards for the elimination of inhumane conditions but are making significant efforts to comply, and those that are not making such efforts. Fourth, it encourages the Secretary and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to assist countries that are making significant efforts to eliminate inhumane conditions. And for those that are not, it requires the Secretary to enter into negotiations with such governments to eliminate inhumane conditions. It authorizes the Secretary and the Administrator to restructure, reprogram, or reduce assistance, or to furnish or deny U.S. visas to the officials of the government of such a country, if doing so would help achieve that goal. The bill also provides for training of Foreign Service Officers, and creates a new full time equivalent Deputy Assistant Secretary position at the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to monitor foreign prison conditions, which has long been needed. Finally, it authorizes the expenditure of funds to implement the bill. Once enacted, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2010 will help foreign governments ensure that prisoners in their countries are treated as any people deprived of their freedom should be--as human beings, with dignity, in safety, and provided the basic necessities of life. In countries around the world, the United States is helping to reform justice systems and strengthen the rule of law. No justice system can claim to deliver justice if prisoners and other detainees are treated like animals, or worse. By helping to change attitudes, and showing how with relatively little money, conditions in a prison can be dramatically improved, we can help advance the cause of justice more broadly. Millions of people around the world still look to the United States as a defender of justice. This bill will further that goal, and it reflects the best instincts of the American people. This bill has already been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, International Justice Mission, Open Society Policy Center, Penal Reform International, Prison Fellowship, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National American Religious Liberty Association, United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Disciples Justice Action Network, and the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bandais of the United States. An identical bill is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Representatives William Delahunt and Joseph Pitts, so this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. I want to thank Senator Brownback, and his staff, who have been extremely helpful in the drafting and introduction of this bill. At a time when some people seem to get satisfaction from calling Washington broken, this is a tangible example of how two Senators, of different parties, whose political views often differ, can work together in furtherance of a just cause.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, in introducing a piece of legislation that has already attracted broad support from across the social and political spectrum. This bill, titled the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2010, seeks to address a much neglected, global human rights problem-- the inhumane treatment of people in foreign prisons and other detention facilities. On any given day, millions of people are languishing in foreign prisons, many awaiting trial not yet having been formally charged or proven guilty of anything, deprived of their freedom for years longer than they could have been sentenced to prison if convicted. Others convicted of crimes, often after woefully unfair trials, including for nothing more than peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs or defending human rights. Regardless of their status they have one thing in common. They are deprived of the most basic rights and necessities--safe water, adequate food, essential medical care, personal safety, and dignity. Anyone who has been inside one of these facilities, or seen photographs or the press reports of what they are like, understands that I am talking about the mistreatment of human beings in ways that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages. A few examples are all that are needed to illustrate the point. In Haiti's National Penitentiary before the January 12th earthquake, more than 4,000 prisoners were confined in a space built for less than 900. Many did not have room to lie down and had to sleep standing up. Sanitation was practically non-existent. Deadly contagious diseases were rampant. The overwhelming majority of inmates had never been formally charged, never seen a lawyer or a judge. The earthquake damaged the prison and the prison guards fled, leaving the inmates to fend for themselves without food or water. They managed to get out, but the squalid facility is quickly filling up again. Today I am told the conditions there are worse than ever. A recent newspaper article described how in Benin, in West Africa, maggots digest the bodies of dead prisoners. The skin of prisoners is ragged from the extraction of fly larvae, a scourge that is symptomatic of the deplorable conditions. Many inmates suffer from tuberculosis, scabies, parasites, lung infections or other illnesses. The prison in Abomey, located in southern Benin, was built in 1904 to house a maximum of 150 prisoners. These days, more than 1,000 are reportedly confined there. It is common in prisons from Central America to Central Africa to Central Asia for inmates to be severely malnourished and to go for months without being able to wash. Many prisoners depend for survival on food brought to them by their relatives. In many countries individuals awaiting trial, young and old, are housed together with convicted, violent criminals. Prisoners and other detainees in many countries are also routinely victimized by poorly trained, abusive guards, who are virtually unsupervised and unaccountable to any higher authority. Sexual abuse of men, women and children is common. A government commission in Cameroon reported that an average of five prisoners die per month in a prison there, simply from lack of proper medical care. Inmates in many countries suffer from HIV/AIDS and other illnesses, in prisons with no medical records, where doctors do not enter. Prisoners intentionally cut or otherwise harm themselves in the hope of receiving medical attention for life-threatening illnesses. If and when they are released, they infect the local population. A recent New York Times article described how in Zambia prisoners are punished by being stripped naked and held in solitary confinement in small, windowless cells, sometimes for days on end, in ankle-to-calf- high water contaminated with their own excrement. It is like something out of The Count of Monte Cristo, only worse because it is happening in the 21st Century. But the article went on to describe how the Zambian Prison Service completed its own internal audit, appointed a new medical director and allowed human rights workers access to its facilities. The bill Senator Brownback and I are introducing seeks to provide incentives for those kinds of improvements. Our bill would do the following: First, it calls attention to this long ignored problem. Most people know little if anything about what goes on inside foreign prisons, and many would prefer not to know. Second, it sets forth minimum standards for the elimination of inhumane conditions in foreign prisons and other detention facilities, such as human waste facilities that are sanitary and accessible, and adequate ventilation, food, and safe drinking water. Third, it requires the Secretary of State to report annually on those countries that receive United States assistance that do not meet minimum standards for the elimination of inhumane conditions but are making significant efforts to comply, and those that are not making such efforts. Fourth, it encourages the Secretary and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to assist countries that are making significant efforts to eliminate inhumane conditions. And for those that are not, it requires the Secretary to enter into negotiations with such governments to eliminate inhumane conditions. It authorizes the Secretary and the Administrator to restructure, reprogram, or reduce assistance, or to furnish or deny U.S. visas to the officials of the government of such a country, if doing so would help achieve that goal. The bill also provides for training of Foreign Service Officers, and creates a new full time equivalent Deputy Assistant Secretary position at the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to monitor foreign prison conditions, which has long been needed. Finally, it authorizes the expenditure of funds to implement the bill. Once enacted, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2010 will help foreign governments ensure that prisoners in their countries are treated as any people deprived of their freedom should be--as human beings, with dignity, in safety, and provided the basic necessities of life. In countries around the world, the United States is helping to reform justice systems and strengthen the rule of law. No justice system can claim to deliver justice if prisoners and other detainees are treated like animals, or worse. By helping to change attitudes, and showing how with relatively little money, conditions in a prison can be dramatically improved, we can help advance the cause of justice more broadly. Millions of people around the world still look to the United States as a defender of justice. This bill will further that goal, and it reflects the best instincts of the American people. This bill has already been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, International Justice Mission, Open Society Policy Center, Penal Reform International, Prison Fellowship, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National American Religious Liberty Association, United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Disciples Justice Action Network, and the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bandais of the United States. An identical bill is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Representatives William Delahunt and Joseph Pitts, so this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. I want to thank Senator Brownback, and his staff, who have been extremely helpful in the drafting and introduction of this bill. At a time when some people seem to get satisfaction from calling Washington broken, this is a tangible example of how two Senators, of different parties, whose political views often differ, can work together in furtherance of a just cause.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation to add military veterans to the list of groups eligible to receive excess property donations from the Federal Government. The sacrifices that members of our armed forces make every day for us and our country cannot be overstated, and I welcome any opportunity to recognize their services. While this bill is a small token, it is another effort to give back to our military veterans. I encourage the Senate to act swiftly and pass this bill. The FOR VETS Act will enable military veterans to receive surplus goods donations through the Federal Government's property distribution program. The types of property donated through this program include computers, trucks, snowmobiles, home appliances, and electronics. These are items that would be of good use to our military veterans, and which they should have the opportunity to claim. The administrator of General Services oversees this property 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 goods that might otherwise go unused. I am pleased to be joined by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Ranking Member, Senator Collins, in sponsoring this legislation. This is a bipartisan effort, as legislation to support our veterans should always be, and I hope Congress will come together to promptly send this legislation to the President to be signed into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, during the Vietnam war more than 20 million gallons of herbicide known as Agent Orange, much of it containing the highly toxic chemical dioxin, were stored, mixed, handled, and sprayed by U.S. airplanes over millions of acres of forest and farmland in Vietnam. Since then, dioxin has been linked by the U.S. Institutes of Medicine to various cancers and other debilitating diseases, as well as birth defects. The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences classify it as a human carcinogen. Millions of Vietnamese citizens and U.S. military personnel were exposed, in one way or another, to Agent Orange, and its effects have been a subject of controversy for more than three decades. Today, the U.S. Veterans Administration recognizes 12 diseases and 1 birth defect related to herbicide exposure and recently added 3 more diseases as eligible for compensation from the Federal Government. Thanks to the efforts of U.S. veterans who suffered from the effects of dioxin, their needs have been recognized and are finally being addressed. But in Vietnam, where the government lacks the resources to either clean up the residual dioxin contamination or to adequately assist those who have suffered health problems, the legacy of Agent Orange remains a difficult and emotional subject for U.S.-Vietnamese relations. On the one hand, the Government of Vietnam for years blamed Agent Orange for seemingly any case of birth defect in the country, no matter how farfetched. On the other hand, the U.S. Government consistently denied causation between Agent Orange and birth defects in Vietnam and refused to accept any responsibility for the alleged harm. For years, the issue remained a contentious one for our countries. Then about a decade ago, thanks to an initiative funded by the Ford Foundation and with the participation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, research was done that went a long way toward dispelling the myths about the extent of contamination, as well as identifying where the most serious threats remain. Some 28 ``hot spots'' of varying degrees of dioxin contamination were located where Agent Orange had been stored or handled, often resulting in extensive spills and leakage into the soil or groundwater, from where it moved up the food chain. The sites with the worst contamination are the Da Nang, Bien Hoa, and Phu Cat airports. For example, in the area of the Da Nang Airport, dioxin levels in soil, sediment, and fish were documented as 300 to 400 times higher than what is considered safe. And the contamination is passed genetically from one generation to the next. In 2006, the same year that a Joint Advisory Committee of U.S. and Vietnamese Government agencies was established to discuss ways to address this problem, the Department of State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, which I chair, provided $3 million for ``environmental remediation of dioxin-contaminated sites and related health activities in Vietnam'' for fiscal year 2007. An additional $3 million was provided for fiscal year 2009 and the same amount again for fiscal year 2010. The 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act includes $12 million for these purposes, and S. 3676, the Senate version of the fiscal year 2011 Department of State and Foreign Operations bill, which was reported by the Appropriations Committee on July 29, 2010, includes another $15 million. Chairman Faleomavaega of the House Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment has held two hearings on the issue, and in July, Senators Harkin and Sanders traveled to Vietnam and visited the Da Nang site. The Government of Vietnam also provides tens of millions of dollars for small monthly payments to persons with disabilities believed to have been caused by Agent Orange, as well as some funds for dioxin cleanup. The Ford Foundation has provided $14 million for activities in Vietnam related to Agent Orange. These include dioxin containment at the Da Nang Airport, services and opportunities for people with disabilities in eight particularly affected provinces, and to support the work of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange/Dioxin, a binational committee of scientists, educators, and policy analysts. Other U.S. philanthropic organizations, including the Gates Foundation and Atlantic Philanthropies, as well as several governments and United Nations agencies, have also contributed, while U.S. nongovernmental organizations have implemented programs to deliver services to affected people. American companies have also been exploring greater business partnerships with Vietnam and contributing to education and other efforts. The Dialogue Group's Plan of Action calls for a 10-year effort that would combine continuing U.S. and Vietnamese Government support with support from nonprofits and corporations that have business relationships in Vietnam. These would all be helpful steps. My own interest in addressing the legacy of Agent Orange evolved from the use of the Leahy War Victims Fund in Vietnam to assist persons with disabilities, primarily victims of landmines and other unexploded ordnance left over from the war, and my efforts to address the problem of civilian casualties and to assist innocent victims of the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 1988, through the U.S. Agency for International Development and implementing partners, including the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and Vietnam Assistance for the Handicapped, the U.S. Government has provided tens of millions of dollars through the Leahy fund for medical, rehabilitation and vocational assistance, training, and equipment. However, no one knows how many of the beneficiaries of these programs may have been disabled as a result of exposure to Agent Orange, and large areas of the country still lack services for people with disabilities. In 2007, it was Bobby Muller, the former president of Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, who had been instrumental, indeed indispensible, in promoting postwar reconciliation and the eventual normalization of relations with Vietnam, who suggested to me that the U.S. Government needed to do something about Agent Orange. Vietnam and the United States were making progress on so many fronts, from locating the remains of MIAs to cooperation on HIV/AIDS and expanding tourism and trade, that it made no sense for the issue of dioxin contamination to remain a sore point. I agreed that we should try to turn this contentious issue into one on which both countries could work together. Since then, while it has taken far longer than I would have liked to develop a plan for utilizing the funds, the administration is now at the point of identifying the most cost-effective remediation technique for Da Nang, and, as I have noted, we are fortunate that in the meantime other donors have joined this effort. We also need to look forward. In Senate Report 111-237 accompanying S. 3676, the Appropriations Committee directs USAID, in consultation with the Department of State, the Government of Vietnam, and other interested parties, to develop a multiyear plan for Agent Orange activities in Vietnam. This plan, which should reflect input from interested parties with a history of working on this issue such as the Ford Foundation and the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange/ Dioxin, should identify the key activities for the environmental remediation and health/disability components of this effort, indicate how U.S. funding will be coordinated with and complimentary to the contributions of other donors and how nongovernmental organizations, including nonprofits and businesses, can play constructive roles. It should set clear goals, benchmarks for measuring progress, and estimated costs associated with these activities. In doing so, we will not only chart our way forward, we will demonstrate to the Government of Vietnam and its people that we intend to continue to play a central role in this effort. To that end, I want to emphasize the importance of the health component. While the soil and sediment remediation is critical and has received the most attention, it would be hard to overstate the importance the Vietnamese give to addressing the needs of people who have been harmed. While it may not be possible to definitively diagnose Agent Orange as the cause of a person's disability, the plan should include surveys or other steps to locate people who suffer from disabilities that may have been caused by dioxin, so they can be helped. An expanded involvement by nonprofit organizations, businesses, and philanthropies remains key to this humanitarian effort, and there is no longer any reason for hesitancy on the part of U.S. companies in Vietnam in supporting such work. After a tragic war that left deep scars in both Vietnam and the United States, we have become partners on a wide range of issues. We still have our differences, particularly concerning human rights, but we want to make progress in whatever ways we can. The legacy of Agent Orange, for years an issue that divided us, is now one that is bringing us together.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation to add military veterans to the list of groups eligible to receive excess property donations from the Federal Government. The sacrifices that members of our armed forces make every day for us and our country cannot be overstated, and I welcome any opportunity to recognize their services. While this bill is a small token, it is another effort to give back to our military veterans. I encourage the Senate to act swiftly and pass this bill. The FOR VETS Act will enable military veterans to receive surplus goods donations through the Federal Government's property distribution program. The types of property donated through this program include computers, trucks, snowmobiles, home appliances, and electronics. These are items that would be of good use to our military veterans, and which they should have the opportunity to claim. The administrator of General Services oversees this property 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 goods that might otherwise go unused. I am pleased to be joined by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Ranking Member, Senator Collins, in sponsoring this legislation. This is a bipartisan effort, as legislation to support our veterans should always be, and I hope Congress will come together to promptly send this legislation to the President to be signed into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at most there is only a minute remaining so I yield back all time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Food Safety Accountability Act with Senators Klobuchar and Franken. This common sense bill will hold criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. It introduces a new criminal provision and increases the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who knowingly violate our food safety laws. If it is passed, those who knowingly contaminate our food supply and endanger Americans could receive up to 10 years in jail. This summer, a salmonella outbreak causing hundreds of people to fall ill triggered a national egg recall. The cause of the outbreak is still under investigation, but salmonella poisoning is all too common and sometimes results from inexcusable knowing conduct. Just last year, a mother from Vermont, Gabrielle Meunier, testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about her 7-year-old son, Christopher, who became severely ill and was hospitalized for 6 days after he developed salmonella poisoning from peanut crackers. Thankfully, Christopher recovered, and Mrs. Meunier was able to share her story, which highlighted for the Committee and for the Senate improvements that are needed in our food safety system. No parent should have to go through what Mrs. Meunier experienced. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe. Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our children in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business. Indeed, the company responsible for the eggs at the root of the current salmonella crisis has a long history of environmental, immigration, labor and food safety violations. It is clear that civil and criminal fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail. The bill I introduce today will add a new criminal provision and increase sentences for people who put profits above safety by knowingly contaminating the food supply. After hearing Mrs. Meunier's account, I called on the Department of Justice to conduct a criminal investigation into the outbreak of salmonella that made Christopher and many others so sick. The outbreak was traced to the Peanut Corporation of America. The president of that company, Stewart Parnell, came before Congress and invoked his right against self-incrimination, refusing to answer questions about his role in distributing contaminated peanut products. These products were linked to the deaths of nine people and have sickened more than 600 others. It appears that Parnell knew that peanut products from his company had tested positive for deadly salmonella, but rather than immediately disposing of the products, he sought ways to sell them anyway. The evidence suggests that he knowingly put profit above the public's safety. Our laws must be strengthened to ensure this does not happen again. This bill significantly increases the chances that those who commit food safety crimes will face jail time, rather than a slap on the wrist, for their criminal conduct. I hope Senators of both parties will act quickly to pass this bill. On behalf of Mrs. Meunier and her son, Christopher, as well as the hundreds of individuals sickened by this summer's and last year's salmonella outbreaks, we must repair our broken food safety system. The Justice Department must be given the tools it needs to investigate, prosecute, and truly deter crime involving food safety. If Congress acts to pass it, this bill will be an important step toward making our food supply safer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Food Safety Accountability Act with Senators Klobuchar and Franken. This common sense bill will hold criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. It introduces a new criminal provision and increases the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who knowingly violate our food safety laws. If it is passed, those who knowingly contaminate our food supply and endanger Americans could receive up to 10 years in jail. This summer, a salmonella outbreak causing hundreds of people to fall ill triggered a national egg recall. The cause of the outbreak is still under investigation, but salmonella poisoning is all too common and sometimes results from inexcusable knowing conduct. Just last year, a mother from Vermont, Gabrielle Meunier, testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about her 7-year-old son, Christopher, who became severely ill and was hospitalized for 6 days after he developed salmonella poisoning from peanut crackers. Thankfully, Christopher recovered, and Mrs. Meunier was able to share her story, which highlighted for the Committee and for the Senate improvements that are needed in our food safety system. No parent should have to go through what Mrs. Meunier experienced. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe. Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our children in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business. Indeed, the company responsible for the eggs at the root of the current salmonella crisis has a long history of environmental, immigration, labor and food safety violations. It is clear that civil and criminal fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail. The bill I introduce today will add a new criminal provision and increase sentences for people who put profits above safety by knowingly contaminating the food supply. After hearing Mrs. Meunier's account, I called on the Department of Justice to conduct a criminal investigation into the outbreak of salmonella that made Christopher and many others so sick. The outbreak was traced to the Peanut Corporation of America. The president of that company, Stewart Parnell, came before Congress and invoked his right against self-incrimination, refusing to answer questions about his role in distributing contaminated peanut products. These products were linked to the deaths of nine people and have sickened more than 600 others. It appears that Parnell knew that peanut products from his company had tested positive for deadly salmonella, but rather than immediately disposing of the products, he sought ways to sell them anyway. The evidence suggests that he knowingly put profit above the public's safety. Our laws must be strengthened to ensure this does not happen again. This bill significantly increases the chances that those who commit food safety crimes will face jail time, rather than a slap on the wrist, for their criminal conduct. I hope Senators of both parties will act quickly to pass this bill. On behalf of Mrs. Meunier and her son, Christopher, as well as the hundreds of individuals sickened by this summer's and last year's salmonella outbreaks, we must repair our broken food safety system. The Justice Department must be given the tools it needs to investigate, prosecute, and truly deter crime involving food safety. If Congress acts to pass it, this bill will be an important step toward making our food supply safer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to mark the coming retirement of a legend in the Department of Justice--John C. ``Jack'' Keeney. As a former prosecutor, and through decades of oversight of the Department of Justice on the Judiciary Committee, I have developed an immense appreciation for the dedication and skill of the Department's career prosecutors and attorneys. When politics have threatened to infect the good work of the Department in the past, I have emphasized the importance of the Department's career professionals. I know Attorney General Holder shares my regard for the Department's hardworking career prosecutors. With more than 6 decades of Federal Government service and well over a half century of pioneering work in the Department's Criminal Division, Jack Keeney has come to embody the ideal of a career Justice Department attorney. Jack Keeney served in the Army Air Corps in World War II, during which his plane was shot down. He survived a Nazi POW camp. He went to college and law school under the GI Bill and joined the Justice Department in 1951. He has diligently served every administration since President Truman. At the Justice Department, Jack Keeney worked on internal security matters in the 1950s, prosecuted organized crime in the 1960s under Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and helped to expand the Department's white collar prosecutions as Chief of the Criminal Division's Fraud Section beginning in 1969. In 1973, he was appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, a position he has now held for close to 4 decades. He has on numerous occasions served as Acting Assistant Attorney General and has long been the senior career official supervising some of the Justice Department's most important and most sensitive matters, including organized crime, public corruption, and electronic surveillance. Jack Keeney has received almost every conceivable honor for exceptional government legal work, including the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service, the District of Columbia Bar's Beatrice Rosenberg Award for Outstanding Government Service, and the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Service. The Department of Justice is defined by the career professionals who, day in and day out, exemplify dedication, integrity, and a commitment to justice. Jack Keeney has personified these qualities for the past 6 decades. The Department and the country are better for his exceptional service. I thank him for his service and wish him well in his well- deserved retirement. I hope that generations of lawyers at the Justice Department will be inspired by his example and seek to follow in his footsteps.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his kind words. We both set out with the goal of making sure the United States had a chance to hear this nomination, to hear the debate on it, and to have Senators speak. We both decided before the debate that would happen, and it has. I thank the Senator from Alabama. We are about to conclude debate on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the time when the 100 of us stand in the footsteps of 300 million Americans and make the decision whether she will be confirmed to a lifetime appointment. I predict right now she will be confirmed and I look forward to her bipartisan confirmation. She has been nominated to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens, someone who served with integrity for so many years, a man I consider a friend. Her qualifications, intelligence, temperament, and judgment will make her a worthy successor to Justice John Paul Stevens. When she is appointed by the President after we confirm her, three women will serve together on the Supreme Court of the United States for the first time in our Nation's history, three women on the nine-member Supreme Court. As I said 5\1/2\ weeks ago, when the Judiciary Committee began Solicitor General Kagan's confirmation hearing, we are a better country for the fact that the path of excellence Elena Kagan has taken in her career is one now open for both men and women. I look forward to the day when I see many more women on that Court. Solicitor General Kagan's legal qualifications are unassailable. She earned her place at the top of the legal profession. No one gave it to her; she earned it. As a student, she excelled at Princeton, Oxford and Harvard Law School. She was a law clerk to a giant in American justice and American law, Justice Thurgood Marshall. She worked for then- Chairman Biden on the Judiciary Committee. These experiences, combined with her work as an advisor to President Clinton, give her background in all three branches of our government. She also taught law at two of the Nation's most respected law schools. In the decade since the Republican Senate majority pocket-filibustered her nomination to the DC Circuit--remember, when people say she does not have judicial experience, of course, Republicans did block her from going on the court--Elena Kagan became the first woman dean of Harvard Law School and then the first woman Solicitor General of the United States, often referred to as the 10th Justice. The 100 of us who serve in the U.S. Senate stand in the shoes of more than 300 million Americans as we discharge this constitutional duty to consider nominations to our Nation's Federal courts. We will conclude our consideration of this nomination after 12 weeks. If we can do that for a Supreme Court nomination, we ought to be able to consider the other judicial nominations that have been stalled for months after being favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. This is the 15th time since I have been in the Senate that I have been able to consider a Supreme Court nomination. I have applied the same standards to this nomination as I have to the ones that preceded it. I looked to see whether Solicitor General Kagan would fairly apply the law and use common sense. That is the same standard I used on the first Supreme Court Justice I voted on, a man from Chicago, Justice John Paul Stevens, nominated by a Republican President. I proudly voted for him. For Solicitor General Kagan, I looked to see whether, as a Justice, she would appreciate the proper role of the courts in our democracy. Would she be the kind of independent Justice who would keep faith with each of the words inscribed in Vermont marble over the front doors to the Supreme Court: ``Equal justice under law.'' My answer to these questions, based on her record and testimony, is a resounding yes. Solicitor General Kagan demonstrated an impressive knowledge of the law and fidelity to it. She spoke of judicial restraint and respect for our democratic institutions, her commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. She made clear that she will base her approach to deciding cases on the law and the Constitution, not politics or an ideological agenda. So today I will cast my vote for Elena Kagan's confirmation. I observed at the outset of this confirmation process that there was no one President Obama could nominate who would not be opposed by some. Some Senators announced their opposition to Solicitor General Kagan's nomination even before a hearing took place. The opening statement of others at the Judiciary Committee hearings struck me more like prosecutors' closing arguments. Senators who last year disregarded Justice Sotomayor's years of judicial service to focus on a few phrases taken out of context from her speeches reversed their course this year to proclaim that an extensive judicial record is imperative. Standards shift almost every time. They then faulted Solicitor General Kagan for not having been a judge, while ignoring the fact that it was Senate Republicans who pocket-filibustered her judicial nomination more than 10 years ago. Senators can make their own judgments, and they have. I ask of them only two things: Fairly consider Solicitor General Kagan's testimony and adhere to the standards of fairness and objectivity that you are demanding of her as a Justice. History will judge whether Senators have fairly considered the nomination of Solicitor General Kagan. I commend those Senators who have shown the independence to join the bipartisan confirmation of this nomination. I also defend the right of every Senator to vote as he or she chooses. I understand that some statements made in opposition to this nomination were seen as insulting to the nominee and to others. I disagree with the many inferences, conclusions and judgments expressed in opposition, but I do not think Senators intended their remarks to be disparaging. Five years ago, I followed the Democratic leader's statement in opposition to the nomination of John Roberts with my statement in favor of that nomination. That was my judgment based on the record and his testimony, including his pronouncements on judicial restraint, deference to Congress, and respect for precedent. At the time, Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle--a number of them--disagreed with me, including one Senator who disagreed with me but, nevertheless, came to the floor to defend my position. That Senator was the then-junior Senator from Illinois. Of course, he now serves as President of the United States. As I told President Obama the other day, his defense of me meant a lot then, and 5 years later, it still does. In the course of our consideration of this nomination, I have spoken several times about the key role real world judging and judicial independence have played in furthering the Constitution's purpose of forming a more perfect union. It is essential that judicial nominees understand that, as judges, they are not members of any administration. I believe Solicitor General Kagan has that understanding. Courts are not subsidiaries of any political party or interest group, and our judges should not be partisans. That is why the Supreme Court's intervention in the 2000 Presidential election in Bush v. Gore was so jarring and why the recent decision by five conservative activist Justices in Citizens United to throw out 100 years of legal developments in order to invite massive corporate spending on elections for the first time in 100 years was such a jolt to the system. It is also essential that judges and Justices understand how the law affects Americans each and every day. I expect Elena Kagan learned early on in her legal career, when she clerked for Justice Marshall, that Justices ought to understand how their decisions affect real Americans. In the hard cases that come before the Supreme Court, in the real world, we want and need Justices who have the good sense to appreciate the real world ramifications of their decisions. The American people live in the real world of great challenges. The Supreme Court needs to function in that real world. It took a Supreme Court that, in 1954, understood the real world to conclude in Brown v. Board of Education that the seemingly fair sounding doctrine of separate but equal was in reality a straitjacket of inequality and inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality. It took a Supreme Court 75 years ago that understood the real world and the Great Depression to reject conservative judicial activism to accept the constitutional authority of Congress to outlaw child labor, to guarantee a minimum wage, and to establish a social safety net for all Americans. Through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Congress ensured that growing old no longer means growing poor and that being older or poor no longer means being without medical care. That progress continues today with our efforts to pass laws to ensure protection from natural and manmade disasters, to encourage clean air and water, to provide health care for all Americans, to ensure safe food and drugs, to protect equal rights, to enforce safe workplaces and provide a safety net for seniors. Vermont did not vote to join the Union until the year the Bill of Rights was ratified. Those of us from the Green Mountain State are protective of our fundamental liberties. Vermonters understand the importance the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the subsequent constitutional amendments have had in expanding individual liberties over the last 220 years. I believe Solicitor General Kagan shares this understanding. As she said in her opening statement at the hearing: What the rule of law does is nothing less than to secure for each of us what our Constitution calls ``the blessings of liberty''--those rights and freedoms, that promise of equality, that have defined this nation since its founding. All of us are better for our historic progress to greater freedom, equality, and security. Every February, the Senate hears President George Washington's Farewell Address. It is usually read by the Senate's most junior Member. In that pronouncement by our first President, George Washington warns against the danger of factions, partisanship, and what he called ``the spirit of party,'' noting: [T]he common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and public alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. That was George Washington, a long time ago. But today our Nation faces many challenges. It is a time when we should be pulling together and working together. Instead, we have seen too much obstruction, negativity, and devotion to the failure of the other party instead of the success of the country. The nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan is a matter on which I expect the President had hoped we would come together. Her nomination really is one worthy of broad bipartisan support. With Elena Kagan's confirmation, the Supreme Court will better reflect the diversity that has made our country so great. We will write another chapter in the history of our Nation's highest Court. And we will take another step forward in fulfilling the hopes and dreams of the trailblazers who set the path for Elena Kagan to follow. I will proudly vote for her confirmation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has concluded our consideration of the nomination of Elena Kagan and confirmed her as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. For the second time in 2 years, we have considered a nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, one of our most consequential responsibilities. I am proud that process we followed in considering this nomination in the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate has garnered praise from many Senators for its fairness and thoroughness. We could not have given this nomination the attention it deserved without the help of dedicated staff. For months, the staff of the Judiciary Committee has worked long hours dutifully to obtain and review extensive amounts of documents and information and help Senators in our review. I wish to thank the following members of the majority staff in particular, Jeremy Paris, Erica Chabot, Kristine Lucius, Shanna Singh Hughey, Maggie Whitney, Hasan Ali, John Amaya, Sarah Hackett, Sarah Hasazi, Michael Gerhardt, Elise Burditt, Noah Bookbinder, Anya McMurray, Liz Aloi, Tara Magner, Kelsey Kobelt, Juan Valdivieso, Matt Virkstis, Curtis LeGeyt, Roslyne Turner, Erin O'Neill, Julia Gagne, Brian Hockin, Joseph Thomas, Elizabeth Saxe, Katharine McFarland, Miles Clark, Christine Paquin, David Zayas, Lydia Griggsby, Adrienne Wojciechowski, Dan Taylor, Patrick Sheahan, Matt Smith, Scott Wilson, Kiera Flynn, Rachel Pelham, Bree Bang-Jensen, Chuck Papirmeister, and Bruce Cohen. I also thank my staff for their hard work on this nomination, in particular, Edward Pagano, David Carle, Laura Trainor, and Kevin McDonald. I would also like to thank Stacy Rich from Senator Murray's staff who helped manage the floor. I commend and thank the hard-working staffs of the other Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee for their tremendous contributions to this effort. I also commend and thank Senator Sessions, the committee's ranking Republican, and his staff, in particular, Brian Benczkowski, Danielle Cutrona, Ted Lehman, and Lauren Pastarnack, for their hard work and professionalism.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President. today the Senate passed a new version of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (S. 3611) with a manager's amendment to address key concerns of the Judiciary Committee. I appreciate the commitment of Senator Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to work with me to strengthen this important legislation. The bill the Senate has approved recognizes the shared jurisdiction of the committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Intelligence in several legislative areas. Last fall, when an earlier version of this bill--S. 1494--was considered by the Senate, I recognized that several provisions in the bill fell under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Feinstein and I engaged in serious negotiations concerning these provisions. We negotiated agreements regarding exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, as well as numerous reporting requirements, such as a significant, new requirement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation--FBI--an agency clearly under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and an important new cybersecurity oversight provision. Negotiations I undertook with Senator Feinstein last fall on the earlier version of the bill narrowed the operational files FOIA exemption for information provided by intelligence agencies to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, and struck a FOIA (b)(3) exemption for terrorist identity information. Those agreements were preserved in the new version of the bill, S. 3611. Senator Feinstein has told me she is also committed to ensuring that the Judiciary Committee will receive reports required by the bill's section 337, Cybersecurity Oversight. I appreciate Senator Feinstein's support for these improvements. The manager's amendment to the intelligence authorization bill agreed to today explicitly identifies the Judiciary Committee as a recipient of relevant reporting provisions. The intelligence authorization bill includes several reporting requirements that involve areas of long-standing interest and jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The new version of the bill, S. 3611, ensures that the Judiciary Committee is a recipient of those reports. Section 333 of the bill directs the Director of National Intelligence to provide a comprehensive report on all measures taken by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and by elements of the intelligence community to comply with the provisions of applicable law, international obligations, and executive orders relating to the detention and interrogation activities of the intelligence community. These include compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005; the Military Commissions Act of 2006; common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; the Convention Against Torture; Executive Order 13492, relating to lawful interrogations; and Executive Order 13493, relating to detention policy options. The managers' amendment to the intelligence authorization bill modifies section 333 to ensure that to the extent that the report addresses an element of the intelligence community within the Department of Justice, it shall be submitted, along with associated material, to the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate. This reporting requirement is a cornerstone of the agreement I reached with Senator Feinstein last year. I am pleased to see it retained in the bill we passed today. I fought for years to obtain information about the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies and practices, and the legal advice from that administration authorizing those policies and practices. The last administration refused to give this information to Congress, instead issuing secret legal advice that misconstrued our laws and international obligations with regard to the treatment of people in our custody. Years later we found out that the administration had sanctioned cruel interrogation techniques, including torture. It is imperative that the Judiciary Committee be fully informed of the extent to which the government is complying with our laws and international treaties relating to detention and interrogation in order to be able to conduct proper oversight and ensure that our government cannot shield policies that authorize practices in violation of our laws. The Judiciary Committee is an important partner in this oversight. Section 405 of the bill establishes a new Office of Inspector General of the intelligence community to conduct independent investigations, inspections, audits and reviews on programs and activities conducted under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. Under this new authority, the inspector general is required to submit a semiannual report to the Director of National Intelligence summarizing its activities. The amendment incorporated into S. 1494 last fall, and carried over to S. 3611, modifies the reporting provision to require the inspector general to submit reports that focus on government officials to the committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives with jurisdiction over the department that official represents. Section 405 of the bill creates an entirely new inspector general with significant authority and responsibility in the intelligence community. That authority will implicate agencies within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, including the Department of Justice and components of the Department of Homeland Security. I believe this modification to the bill provides an important recognition of the Judiciary Committee's need to be involved in the investigations and activities of this new inspector general. Another significant new provision is section 445 of the bill, Report and Assessment on Transformation of the Intelligence Capabilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which creates a broad new reporting requirement for the FBI. The Judiciary Committee has always had primary oversight over the FBI. As the FBI takes on more responsibility in the areas of intelligence and national security, its policies and practices in these areas must be subject to the oversight of Congress. The Intelligence Committees have particular expertise that make them an important partner in this oversight. However, it is the Judiciary Committee that has the primary legislative and oversight responsibilities over the FBI. I am very pleased that the bill passed today contains several important improvements that I recommended to strengthen FOIA. I am particularly pleased that the bill, as amended, does not contain a broad and unnecessary exemption to FOIA's disclosure requirements for terrorist identity information. That provision was included in an earlier version of the bill, but I worked to ensure it was struck it prior to passage of S. 1494 last fall. It is not included in S. 3611, the successor to S. 1494. No one would quibble with the notion that our government can--and should--keep some information secret to protect our national security. But, in the case of terrorist identity information, our government has successfully withheld this sensitive information under the existing FOIA exemptions for classified and law enforcement information. In addition, the many instances of mistaken identities and other errors on terrorist watchlists and ``no-fly'' lists make it clear that FOIA can be a valuable tool to help innocent Americans redress and correct mistakes on these lists. Lastly, as a result of my negotiations with Senator Feinstein last fall, S. 3611 narrows the exemption to FOIA's search requirements for operational files information that the Nation's intelligence agencies share with the ODNI. The bill makes it clear that operational files that are already exempt from these search requirements retain this exemption under circumstances where the files are disseminated to the ODNI. This carefully crafted compromise will help ensure both effective information sharing among our intelligence agencies and the free flow of information to the American public. I believe that S. 3611 and the managers amendment passed today recognize the value and significance of the shared jurisdiction in many areas of national security between the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. The Judiciary Committee has long engaged in oversight and legislative activity regarding cyber threats and cybersecurity. Senator Feinstein and I have worked together in the Judiciary Committee for many years on these issues, and we both recognize the shared jurisdiction and responsibilities of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees with regard to oversight of cyber matters and cybersecurity. I appreciate Senator Feinstein's cooperation in adopting these improvements. In a letter sent to me yesterday, August 3, 2010, Senator Feinstein reiterated her commitment to work with the Judiciary Committee in the area of cyber matters. I ask unanimous consent to have her August 3, 2010 letter printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an exchange of letters between Senator Feinstein and myself dated September 15 and 16, 2009, that discussed Senate jurisdiction over the section in the bill that addresses cybersecurity oversight. In the earlier version of the bill, S. 1494, the section was numbered 340. In the new version of the bill, S. 3611, the cybersecurity oversight section is numbered 337.

Mr. LEAHY. As Senator Feinstein has described it, Section 337 of the bill is intended to provide a preliminary framework for executive and congressional oversight of cybersecurity programs, as defined in the section, to ensure that these programs are consistent with legal authorities, preserve reasonable expectations of privacy, and are subject to independent audit and review. Section 337 of S. 3611 creates several reporting requirements with regard to the executive and congressional oversight of cybersecurity programs. These include Presidential notifications to Congress, reports to Congress and the President from the head of a department or agency with responsibility for cybersecurity programs, in conjunction with the inspector general of that department or agency, and a joint report to Congress and the President from the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security and the inspector general of the intelligence community on the status of the sharing of cyber threat information within 1 year. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Feinstein in the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate to ensure strong oversight and legislation with regard to cyber matters. I am pleased the Senate today will pass the amended Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The progress that Senator Feinstein and I have made to improve this bill demonstrates the success we can have when we work together constructively. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, September 15, 2009. Hon. Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Leahy: As you know, our staffs have been in discussions since the beginning of recess over various provisions of S. 1494, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, ordered reported from the Committee on July 22, 2009. Among the provisions at issue is Section 340, Cybersecurity Oversight. Section 340 is intended to provide a preliminary framework for executive and congressional oversight of cybersecurity programs, as defined in the section, to ensure that these programs are consistent with legal authorities, preserve reasonable expectations of privacy, and are subject to independent audit and review. Section 340 contains several reporting requirements. One requires the President to provide certain notifications to Congress. In addition, the head of a department or agency with responsibility for cybersecurity programs, in conjunction with the inspector general of that department or agency, is to submit to Congress and the President periodic reports on the program. Finally, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security and the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community are jointly to submit a report to Congress and the President on the status of the sharing of cyber threat information within one year. Under the provision as reported, notifications and reports under the section are to be submitted ``to the Congress.'' Vice Chairman Bond and I have consulted with the Senate parliamentarian to convey our recommendations for how referrals of notifications and reports under the section should be made. As we have discussed before, cybersecurity is a matter of interest to many of the committees of the Senate. Of note is the longstanding interest in, and jurisdiction over, cyber matters by the Judiciary Committee. This includes but is not necessarily limited to the cybersecurity of the Justice Department and other departments and agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction, privacy interests of the American people, and legal dimensions of the government's cyber activities. Given the Judiciary Committee's role in these matters and the expectation that reports under Section 340 will touch on one or more of the Committee's areas of jurisdiction, it is my strong belief that documents provided to the Congress should be provided to the Judiciary Committee. In addition, should the Intelligence Committee receive reports under this section that are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee but that are not provided to the Judiciary Committee, I will ensure that access to those reports is provided to Judiciary Committee members and staff as appropriate. Thank you for your cooperation over this issue, and other provisions of the intelligence legislation. Sincerely, Dianne Feinstein, Chairman.