Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my Growing Farm to School Programs Act of 2010. This important proposal will support grassroots efforts all across our Nation to improve the health and well-being of children while supporting local farmers and bolstering local economies. I am pleased to have 13 of my respected Senate colleagues from across the country join with me today as original cosponsors of this bill. Farm to School is a proven, common-sense, community-driven approach to incorporate farm fresh local food into school meals. Schools nationwide understand the many benefits of farm to school but often lack the startup funding and the technical capacity to plan and implement the program. This bill will provide the important seed money and technical assistance needed to enable our schools to teach children about good nutrition and show them the importance of agriculture while also supporting local farms. It is amazing how far some farm products travel to get to our school cafeterias, and how heavily processed it is when it arrives. While our Nation's schools should provide an enormous market for our struggling small and mid-sized farmers, for far too long the products grown by our family farms have largely been absent from school lunch trays. We should not be surprised that many kids today do not understand the link between the food they eat and farms on which it is raised. By offering our children local, fresh, less-processed choices, and a chance to learn how and where their food is grown we can also provide economic benefits for small, local farms and keep food dollars within the community. Communities and schools all across our Nation are beginning to link farms and school with great success. In my home State of Vermont, from rural towns across the state to the city of Burlington, many of our schools have integrated school meals with classroom learning and local agriculture. As more schools create these important connections, neighboring communities are often also eager to start similar programs. Unfortunately many of these schools do not have sufficient staff, expertise, equipment, or funding to start a Farm to School program on their own. The Growing Farm to Schools Programs Act will provide the small amount of funding and technical assistance that these schools need to create a program. Once in place, these programs can be expected to be self-sustaining. In introducing the Growing Farm to School Programs Act of 2010, I am hoping that we will be able to provide more communities, schools, and farmers the opportunity to grow and cultivate Farm to School programs. I thank my 13 co-sponsors and urge my other colleagues to join us in support of this exciting initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my Growing Farm to School Programs Act of 2010. This important proposal will support grassroots efforts all across our Nation to improve the health and well-being of children while supporting local farmers and bolstering local economies. I am pleased to have 13 of my respected Senate colleagues from across the country join with me today as original cosponsors of this bill. Farm to School is a proven, common-sense, community-driven approach to incorporate farm fresh local food into school meals. Schools nationwide understand the many benefits of farm to school but often lack the startup funding and the technical capacity to plan and implement the program. This bill will provide the important seed money and technical assistance needed to enable our schools to teach children about good nutrition and show them the importance of agriculture while also supporting local farms. It is amazing how far some farm products travel to get to our school cafeterias, and how heavily processed it is when it arrives. While our Nation's schools should provide an enormous market for our struggling small and mid-sized farmers, for far too long the products grown by our family farms have largely been absent from school lunch trays. We should not be surprised that many kids today do not understand the link between the food they eat and farms on which it is raised. By offering our children local, fresh, less-processed choices, and a chance to learn how and where their food is grown we can also provide economic benefits for small, local farms and keep food dollars within the community. Communities and schools all across our Nation are beginning to link farms and school with great success. In my home State of Vermont, from rural towns across the state to the city of Burlington, many of our schools have integrated school meals with classroom learning and local agriculture. As more schools create these important connections, neighboring communities are often also eager to start similar programs. Unfortunately many of these schools do not have sufficient staff, expertise, equipment, or funding to start a Farm to School program on their own. The Growing Farm to Schools Programs Act will provide the small amount of funding and technical assistance that these schools need to create a program. Once in place, these programs can be expected to be self-sustaining. In introducing the Growing Farm to School Programs Act of 2010, I am hoping that we will be able to provide more communities, schools, and farmers the opportunity to grow and cultivate Farm to School programs. I thank my 13 co-sponsors and urge my other colleagues to join us in support of this exciting initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates Sunshine Week--a time to educate the public about the importance of open government. In recognition of Sunshine Week 2010, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the Faster FOIA Act of 2010, a bill to improve the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005 to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. Our decision to reintroduce the Faster FOIA Act this year is the most recent example of our bipartisan efforts to help reinvigorate FOIA. Today, thanks to the reforms contained in the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act of 2007, millions of Americans who seek information under FOIA will experience a process that is much more transparent and less burdened by delays. In 2009, President Obama signed the OPEN FOIA Act into law. That bill is the result of another successful collaboration with Senator Cornyn and me that is making the process for creating new legislative exemptions to FOIA more transparent. While both of these legislative accomplishments are strengthening FOIA, more reforms are needed. According to the Department of Justice's Freedom of Information Act Annual Report for fiscal year 2009, the Department had a backlog of almost 5,000 FOIA requests at the end of 2009. The Department of Homeland Security's report for the same period shows a backlog of 18,918 FOIA requests. These mounting FOIA backlogs are simply unacceptable. The Faster FOIA Act will help to reverse these troubling statistics by establishing a bipartisan Commission to examine the root causes of agency delay. The commission created by this bill will make recommendations to Congress for reducing impediments to the efficient processing of FOIA requests. The commission will also examine whether the current system for charging fees and granting fee waivers under FOIA should be modified. Lastly, the commission will be made up of government and non- governmental representatives with a broad range of experience in both submitting and handling FOIA requests, in information science, and in the development of government information policy. Thomas Jefferson once wisely observed that ``information is the currency of democracy.'' I share this view. I also firmly believe that the Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of Government information, so that our democracy remains vibrant and free. 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. As we celebrate Sunshine Week, it is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the Nation in celebrating an open and transparent government. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to support the Faster FOIA Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates Sunshine Week--a time to educate the public about the importance of open government. In recognition of Sunshine Week 2010, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the Faster FOIA Act of 2010, a bill to improve the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005 to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. Our decision to reintroduce the Faster FOIA Act this year is the most recent example of our bipartisan efforts to help reinvigorate FOIA. Today, thanks to the reforms contained in the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act of 2007, millions of Americans who seek information under FOIA will experience a process that is much more transparent and less burdened by delays. In 2009, President Obama signed the OPEN FOIA Act into law. That bill is the result of another successful collaboration with Senator Cornyn and me that is making the process for creating new legislative exemptions to FOIA more transparent. While both of these legislative accomplishments are strengthening FOIA, more reforms are needed. According to the Department of Justice's Freedom of Information Act Annual Report for fiscal year 2009, the Department had a backlog of almost 5,000 FOIA requests at the end of 2009. The Department of Homeland Security's report for the same period shows a backlog of 18,918 FOIA requests. These mounting FOIA backlogs are simply unacceptable. The Faster FOIA Act will help to reverse these troubling statistics by establishing a bipartisan Commission to examine the root causes of agency delay. The commission created by this bill will make recommendations to Congress for reducing impediments to the efficient processing of FOIA requests. The commission will also examine whether the current system for charging fees and granting fee waivers under FOIA should be modified. Lastly, the commission will be made up of government and non- governmental representatives with a broad range of experience in both submitting and handling FOIA requests, in information science, and in the development of government information policy. Thomas Jefferson once wisely observed that ``information is the currency of democracy.'' I share this view. I also firmly believe that the Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of Government information, so that our democracy remains vibrant and free. 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. As we celebrate Sunshine Week, it is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the Nation in celebrating an open and transparent government. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to support the Faster FOIA Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Refugee Act, which was signed into law on March 17, 1980. In the years since, our statute and case law have evolved in ways that place unnecessary and harmful barriers before genuine refugees and asylum seekers. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Levin of Michigan, will restore the U.S. as a beacon of hope for those who suffer from persecution around the world. The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees was negotiated in 1951 to protect those who suffered persecution in war-torn Europe prior to 1951, yet the U.S. did not sign it at that time. In 1967, the U.S. signed and ratified a Protocol to the Convention, which expanded its geographic and temporal scope, establishing a definition of refugee that applied around the world. It was not until 1980, however, that Congress enacted implementing legislation to bring our laws into compliance with the Convention and Protocol. During the intervening years, our Government acted in an ad hoc manner to bring in refugees fleeing Southeast Asia by boat, to protect Jews and other refugees from the Soviet bloc, and to provide safety for victims of persecution in Africa. Our Nation acted generously in those years, providing aid and relief, but our policies needed to be grounded in law. The Refugee Act of 1980 was championed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, who fought for decades to protect victims of persecution who had been forced to flee their home nations, leaving behind livelihood, family, and security. I supported the Refugee Act in the 96th Congress, and voted for it when it passed the Senate. When the Senate debated the bill, Senator Kennedy spoke of its dual goals: to ``welcome homeless refugees to our shores,'' thereby embracing ``one of the oldest and most important themes in our Nation's history,'' and to ``give statutory meaning to our national commitment to human rights and humanitarian concerns.'' 125 Cong. Rec. 23231-32 Sept. 6, 1979.) We lost our dear friend last year, but we can honor Ted Kennedy's memory by carrying forward the mantle of refugee protection. The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 contains provisions of a bipartisan bill that I previously introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses to repeal the most harsh and unnecessary elements of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a law that had tragic consequences for asylum seekers. It also corrects agency and court misinterpretations of law that limit access to safety in the U.S. for asylum seekers. Finally, it modifies the immigration statute to ensure that innocent persons with valid claims are not unfairly barred from the U.S. by laws enacted after September 11, 2001, while leaving in place provisions that prevent dangerous terrorists from manipulating our immigration system. In the years since the Refugee Act was enacted, over 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the U.S. I am proud that my home State of Vermont has long welcomed refugees and helped these new Americans to rebuild their lives. More than 5,300 refugees have been resettled in Vermont since 1989, from countries as diverse as Burma, Bhutan, Somalia, Bosnia, and Vietnam. In the early days of resettlement, Vermont accepted refugees fleeing persecution from Southeast Asia and the Soviet Union, and from the war in the former Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda. Vermonters' welcoming spirit is illustrated by the ``Lost Boys'' of Sudan. Beginning in the 1980s, thousands of boys in Sudan traveled hundreds of miles by foot to escape war and ethnic and religious-based persecution. Some had seen family members killed before their eyes. They walked from nation to nation, searching for safety in Ethiopia and Kenya, before reaching camps that helped them find a permanent and secure home in the U.S. The first group of Lost Boys arrived in Vermont in 2001. Many of them have thrived. I am proud that a number of them are now college graduates, and some have attended graduate school. Vermonters have made a strong and sustained commitment to assisting refugees with resettlement. Caseworkers and volunteers help new Americans adjust to the new culture, learn English, and navigate daily life, from grocery shopping to public transportation, to school and sports programs for their children. The Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program has led the effort with its compassionate and experienced staff, and a roster of more than 250 volunteers. I also want to recognize the organizations, churches, synagogues, and libraries in Vermont that have offered support, contributions of food, clothing, furniture, English classes, tutoring, and perhaps most importantly, companionship and friendship to refugees resettled in our state. These groups include the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, the Association of Africans Living in Vermont, the Vermont Agency of Human Services-State Refugee Coordinator, Vermont Interfaith Action, the Housing Resource Center, the Salvation Army, the First Congregational Church of Burlington, the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, the Islamic Society of Vermont, Ohavi Zedek Synagogue, the Fletcher Free Library, and Vermont Adult Basic Education. These volunteers and organizations demonstrate the Vermont spirit of tolerance and generosity. They deserve our thanks and praise. I am proud of the Vermonters who have devoted countless hours to help victims of persecution build new lives in our state. And I am continually amazed by the resilience of the refugees and asylees in Vermont. Refugees in Vermont enrich the communities in which they live, opening small businesses, farming, and participating in cultural activities. They put all they have at risk to reach the U.S., and once here, strive each day to make our country better and to give their children every opportunity that America offers. The bill I introduce today will give refugees and asylum seekers a fair chance of finding safety in the U.S. For those who seek asylum, it eliminates the requirement added to the law in 1996 that asylum applicants file their claim within 1 year of arrival. By definition, worthy asylum applicants arrive in the U.S. after suffering serious harm abroad, often experiencing post-traumatic stress. They often must spend their first months here learning the language and adjusting to a culture that in many cases is extraordinarily different from the one they know. I understand the desire to have asylum seekers submit timely applications, but the 1-year rule was deemed unnecessary by the Immigration and Naturalization Service when it was enacted. In practice, it has barred genuine applicants from gaining the benefits of our asylum law, resulting in their return to the country in which they were persecuted. The bill also makes a number of modifications to give asylum seekers a fair opportunity to respond to requests for corroborating evidence, to clarify inconsistencies, and to provide evidence of the persecution they suffered or that which they fear if returned. None of these changes to the law will encourage fraud or frivolous claims; they simply ensure that no asylum seeker is denied the opportunity to present a full application for relief. The 1996 immigration law created the system called ``expedited removal,'' which enables an immigration officer to prevent certain non- citizens from entering the U.S. I fought against expedited removal in 1996 because I feared that asylum seekers could be turned away from our borders without being given the chance to seek protection. In 2005, the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan Commission established by Congress, documented widespread problems in the implementation of expedited removal. The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 responds to the Commission's findings by requiring that asylum seekers who pass an initial ``credible fear'' interview proceed to an interview with an asylum officer instead of being sent straight to the immigration removal system. Any asylum seeker who is not granted protection by the asylum officer would then be placed in removal proceedings and proceed to an adversarial hearing before an immigration judge. Under current law, an asylum seeker who arrives at our borders and immediately requests protection is detained. We should not detain people whom our own Government has found to be likely candidates for asylum as if they were awaiting a criminal trial. Moreover, the cost to the Government to detain an asylum seeker for months at a time cannot be justified, especially if they have family members or nongovernmental organizations that are willing to house them and ensure that they appear for their asylum hearing. The Refugee Protection Act would clarify that the Secretary of Homeland Security should release asylum seekers as long as they do not pose risks of flight or to public safety. It would codify DHS guidance announced in December 2009 stating that it is the policy of the U.S. to release asylum seekers who have been found to have a credible fear of persecution and who meet the criteria for release. The bill also instructs the Secretary to promulgate regulations to authorize and promote the use of alternatives to the detention of asylum seekers, such as releasing them to private nonprofit voluntary agencies. For those who would still be detained, the bill would guarantee access to legal and religious services, humane treatment in detention, and medical care where needed. These changes will reduce the detention of asylum seekers, offer them fundamental due process, and improve the conditions of their confinement in those cases where detention is appropriate. I have long urged an improvement of the shameful conditions of immigration detention, and this need is particularly acute for asylum seekers. For years, I have fought to modify a law that prevents genuine refugees and asylum seekers from obtaining protection in the U.S. The law, which contains an overly broad definition of ``material support'' to terrorist organizations, has the effect of barring some who were victims of terrorist organizations. More than 2 years ago, Senator Kyl and I worked together to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security had the authority it needed to provide waivers and exemptions in certain ``material support'' cases. The Obama administration convened an interagency process to try to resolve the matter, but thousands of refugees with pending adjustment of status applications are still being held in limbo while the Government studies how to exercise its exemption and waiver authority. This bill contains language that would fix this problem once and for all. The bill modifies definitions in the statute to ensure that innocent asylum seekers and refugees are not unfairly denied protection as a result of the material support and terrorism bars in the law, while ensuring that those with material ties to terrorist activity will be denied entry to the U.S. This bill makes common sense changes to refugee adjudication and resettlement. It eliminates the 1-year waiting period for refugees and asylees to apply for lawful permanent residence, facilitating assimilation into our communities. The bill also allows certain children and family members of refugees to be considered as derivative applicants for refugee status, as long as they pass standard security checks and expedites the adjudication of family reunification petitions. The potential effect of these changes is best illustrated by an example. One of the Lost Boys originally resettled in Vermont is a young man named Jacob. He attended my alma mater, St. Michael's College, at some point visited Kenya, got married and fathered twin sons before returning to Vermont. After he became a U.S. citizen, he visited his wife in Kenya again, this time fathering twin daughters. I am happy that my office was able to assist Jacob, and his entire family is now happily living in the U.S. Had the Refugee Protection Act been enacted, Jacob's family might have been reunited much sooner. The bill I introduce today will greatly facilitate family reunification, which is at the core of American values. This bill will also help children who have been separated from their families during war or flight from persecution. For a child who has been separated from immediate family, and where it is in the best interest of the child, the bill would authorize refugee status and enable such a child to come to the U.S. I am committed to working with the Departments of State and Homeland Security to ensure that the ``best interest of the child'' protects families that are separated for months or years, but later discover that children lost or feared dead can be reunited with their immediate relatives. The need for such authority is illustrated by a Vermont resettlement case I know very well. After the Rwandan atrocities, Martha believed her son Eric had been killed. A number of years later, she learned that her son was alive and living in the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya, along with his two young first cousins. Eric had fled the violence with these two boys on his back, and he is the only father figure they have ever known. Martha petitioned to bring her son and nephews to Vermont, but only her son was granted refugee status as a derivative child. Martha had not seen her son for 10 years, but until my office intervened, the case had languished due to miscommunication. After the case was reactivated, Eric had to decide whether to join his mother in Vermont or to stay in the refugee camp to continue caring for his two young cousins. Eric made the heart-wrenching decision to resettle in Vermont. Eight months after Eric arrived, with the help of my office, his two young cousins were successfully resettled with him. Martha is fully employed, just passed her naturalization exam and is about to be sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Eric has been working two jobs, studying, and raising his cousins, who are both doing quite well in school. This case has a happy ending, but it should not have been so hard or taken so long to resolve. The Refugee Protection Act will help to bring families like Martha's together more quickly. This bill authorizes the Secretary of State to designate certain groups as eligible for expedited adjudication as refugees. Such a change to law would assist those who are at a particularly high risk of harm, such as certain groups of Iraqi refugees, groups targeted for genocide, or gay men in countries that impose the death penalty on homosexuals. Congress has tried to respond to specific crises with Special Immigrant Visas and other limited forms of relief, but something more must be done. Again, an example is illustrative. An Iraqi family, a mother and two daughters, came to Vermont as refugees from Iraq by way of Syria, after the father had been killed. The son believed his life to also be in danger in Iraq, because he had worked as a driver for a U.S. military contractor. Just before completing the resettlement process, the adult son was forced by Syria to leave the country, and he made his way to Sweden. While he was safe there for a short while, Sweden soon started taking action to deport many Iraqi refugees that it had previously welcomed. The separation was extremely painful for this close-knit family. They were having a difficult time reopening his resettlement case, but my office was able to help this young man finally receive a Special Immigrant Visa for Iraqis Employed on Behalf of the U.S. Government. He was finally reunited with his family in Burlington. I would prefer to see the Secretary of State be able to designate certain highly vulnerable groups for expedited adjudication, so that stories like this one are not common, and eligible refugees reach safety here in the U.S. as soon as possible. Finally, this bill makes targeted improvements to the resettlement process in the United States. Most importantly, it prevents newly resettled refugees from slipping into poverty by adjusting the per capita refugee resettlement grant level annually for inflation and the cost of living. The current per capita grant is $1,800, but it was just raised in January 2010 from roughly half that amount. I thank the Obama administration for recognizing the need to raise the per capita grant level, but believe it must be adjusted annually for inflation and the cost of living. This bill will ensure that the per capita grant level does not decrease in real terms over time. This bill is supported by leading refugee resettlement organizations across the Nation including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, Lutheran Immigrant & Refugee Service, the Episcopal Church, Refugee Council USA, Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, Church World Service, and the Interfaith Refugee and Immigration Ministries of Illinois. The Congressionally-created and bipartisan U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom endorsed the provisions that make improvements to the expedited removal system. It is endorsed by advocates and legal aid providers serving the refugee and asylee community, including the American Bar Association, Human Rights First, National Immigrant Justice Center, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at U.C. Hastings College of the Law, Tahirih Justice Center, American Immigration Lawyers Association, National Immigration Forum, Refugees International, Immigration Equality, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, and the American Civil Liberties Union. And in Vermont, it has the support of the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, and the Association of Africans Living in Vermont. All of those organizations that stand with me in support of this legislation have my sincere thanks. The 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act is this week. It is time to renew America's commitment to the Refugee Convention, and to bring our law back into compliance with the Convention's promise of protection. Our Nation is a leader among the asylum-providing countries, and our communities have embraced refugees and asylum seekers, welcoming them as Americans. Our laws must now match that humanitarian spirit. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. 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 pleased today to introduce the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Refugee Act, which was signed into law on March 17, 1980. In the years since, our statute and case law have evolved in ways that place unnecessary and harmful barriers before genuine refugees and asylum seekers. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Levin of Michigan, will restore the U.S. as a beacon of hope for those who suffer from persecution around the world. The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees was negotiated in 1951 to protect those who suffered persecution in war-torn Europe prior to 1951, yet the U.S. did not sign it at that time. In 1967, the U.S. signed and ratified a Protocol to the Convention, which expanded its geographic and temporal scope, establishing a definition of refugee that applied around the world. It was not until 1980, however, that Congress enacted implementing legislation to bring our laws into compliance with the Convention and Protocol. During the intervening years, our Government acted in an ad hoc manner to bring in refugees fleeing Southeast Asia by boat, to protect Jews and other refugees from the Soviet bloc, and to provide safety for victims of persecution in Africa. Our Nation acted generously in those years, providing aid and relief, but our policies needed to be grounded in law. The Refugee Act of 1980 was championed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, who fought for decades to protect victims of persecution who had been forced to flee their home nations, leaving behind livelihood, family, and security. I supported the Refugee Act in the 96th Congress, and voted for it when it passed the Senate. When the Senate debated the bill, Senator Kennedy spoke of its dual goals: to ``welcome homeless refugees to our shores,'' thereby embracing ``one of the oldest and most important themes in our Nation's history,'' and to ``give statutory meaning to our national commitment to human rights and humanitarian concerns.'' 125 Cong. Rec. 23231-32 Sept. 6, 1979.) We lost our dear friend last year, but we can honor Ted Kennedy's memory by carrying forward the mantle of refugee protection. The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 contains provisions of a bipartisan bill that I previously introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses to repeal the most harsh and unnecessary elements of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a law that had tragic consequences for asylum seekers. It also corrects agency and court misinterpretations of law that limit access to safety in the U.S. for asylum seekers. Finally, it modifies the immigration statute to ensure that innocent persons with valid claims are not unfairly barred from the U.S. by laws enacted after September 11, 2001, while leaving in place provisions that prevent dangerous terrorists from manipulating our immigration system. In the years since the Refugee Act was enacted, over 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the U.S. I am proud that my home State of Vermont has long welcomed refugees and helped these new Americans to rebuild their lives. More than 5,300 refugees have been resettled in Vermont since 1989, from countries as diverse as Burma, Bhutan, Somalia, Bosnia, and Vietnam. In the early days of resettlement, Vermont accepted refugees fleeing persecution from Southeast Asia and the Soviet Union, and from the war in the former Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda. Vermonters' welcoming spirit is illustrated by the ``Lost Boys'' of Sudan. Beginning in the 1980s, thousands of boys in Sudan traveled hundreds of miles by foot to escape war and ethnic and religious-based persecution. Some had seen family members killed before their eyes. They walked from nation to nation, searching for safety in Ethiopia and Kenya, before reaching camps that helped them find a permanent and secure home in the U.S. The first group of Lost Boys arrived in Vermont in 2001. Many of them have thrived. I am proud that a number of them are now college graduates, and some have attended graduate school. Vermonters have made a strong and sustained commitment to assisting refugees with resettlement. Caseworkers and volunteers help new Americans adjust to the new culture, learn English, and navigate daily life, from grocery shopping to public transportation, to school and sports programs for their children. The Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program has led the effort with its compassionate and experienced staff, and a roster of more than 250 volunteers. I also want to recognize the organizations, churches, synagogues, and libraries in Vermont that have offered support, contributions of food, clothing, furniture, English classes, tutoring, and perhaps most importantly, companionship and friendship to refugees resettled in our state. These groups include the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, the Association of Africans Living in Vermont, the Vermont Agency of Human Services-State Refugee Coordinator, Vermont Interfaith Action, the Housing Resource Center, the Salvation Army, the First Congregational Church of Burlington, the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, the Islamic Society of Vermont, Ohavi Zedek Synagogue, the Fletcher Free Library, and Vermont Adult Basic Education. These volunteers and organizations demonstrate the Vermont spirit of tolerance and generosity. They deserve our thanks and praise. I am proud of the Vermonters who have devoted countless hours to help victims of persecution build new lives in our state. And I am continually amazed by the resilience of the refugees and asylees in Vermont. Refugees in Vermont enrich the communities in which they live, opening small businesses, farming, and participating in cultural activities. They put all they have at risk to reach the U.S., and once here, strive each day to make our country better and to give their children every opportunity that America offers. The bill I introduce today will give refugees and asylum seekers a fair chance of finding safety in the U.S. For those who seek asylum, it eliminates the requirement added to the law in 1996 that asylum applicants file their claim within 1 year of arrival. By definition, worthy asylum applicants arrive in the U.S. after suffering serious harm abroad, often experiencing post-traumatic stress. They often must spend their first months here learning the language and adjusting to a culture that in many cases is extraordinarily different from the one they know. I understand the desire to have asylum seekers submit timely applications, but the 1-year rule was deemed unnecessary by the Immigration and Naturalization Service when it was enacted. In practice, it has barred genuine applicants from gaining the benefits of our asylum law, resulting in their return to the country in which they were persecuted. The bill also makes a number of modifications to give asylum seekers a fair opportunity to respond to requests for corroborating evidence, to clarify inconsistencies, and to provide evidence of the persecution they suffered or that which they fear if returned. None of these changes to the law will encourage fraud or frivolous claims; they simply ensure that no asylum seeker is denied the opportunity to present a full application for relief. The 1996 immigration law created the system called ``expedited removal,'' which enables an immigration officer to prevent certain non- citizens from entering the U.S. I fought against expedited removal in 1996 because I feared that asylum seekers could be turned away from our borders without being given the chance to seek protection. In 2005, the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan Commission established by Congress, documented widespread problems in the implementation of expedited removal. The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 responds to the Commission's findings by requiring that asylum seekers who pass an initial ``credible fear'' interview proceed to an interview with an asylum officer instead of being sent straight to the immigration removal system. Any asylum seeker who is not granted protection by the asylum officer would then be placed in removal proceedings and proceed to an adversarial hearing before an immigration judge. Under current law, an asylum seeker who arrives at our borders and immediately requests protection is detained. We should not detain people whom our own Government has found to be likely candidates for asylum as if they were awaiting a criminal trial. Moreover, the cost to the Government to detain an asylum seeker for months at a time cannot be justified, especially if they have family members or nongovernmental organizations that are willing to house them and ensure that they appear for their asylum hearing. The Refugee Protection Act would clarify that the Secretary of Homeland Security should release asylum seekers as long as they do not pose risks of flight or to public safety. It would codify DHS guidance announced in December 2009 stating that it is the policy of the U.S. to release asylum seekers who have been found to have a credible fear of persecution and who meet the criteria for release. The bill also instructs the Secretary to promulgate regulations to authorize and promote the use of alternatives to the detention of asylum seekers, such as releasing them to private nonprofit voluntary agencies. For those who would still be detained, the bill would guarantee access to legal and religious services, humane treatment in detention, and medical care where needed. These changes will reduce the detention of asylum seekers, offer them fundamental due process, and improve the conditions of their confinement in those cases where detention is appropriate. I have long urged an improvement of the shameful conditions of immigration detention, and this need is particularly acute for asylum seekers. For years, I have fought to modify a law that prevents genuine refugees and asylum seekers from obtaining protection in the U.S. The law, which contains an overly broad definition of ``material support'' to terrorist organizations, has the effect of barring some who were victims of terrorist organizations. More than 2 years ago, Senator Kyl and I worked together to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security had the authority it needed to provide waivers and exemptions in certain ``material support'' cases. The Obama administration convened an interagency process to try to resolve the matter, but thousands of refugees with pending adjustment of status applications are still being held in limbo while the Government studies how to exercise its exemption and waiver authority. This bill contains language that would fix this problem once and for all. The bill modifies definitions in the statute to ensure that innocent asylum seekers and refugees are not unfairly denied protection as a result of the material support and terrorism bars in the law, while ensuring that those with material ties to terrorist activity will be denied entry to the U.S. This bill makes common sense changes to refugee adjudication and resettlement. It eliminates the 1-year waiting period for refugees and asylees to apply for lawful permanent residence, facilitating assimilation into our communities. The bill also allows certain children and family members of refugees to be considered as derivative applicants for refugee status, as long as they pass standard security checks and expedites the adjudication of family reunification petitions. The potential effect of these changes is best illustrated by an example. One of the Lost Boys originally resettled in Vermont is a young man named Jacob. He attended my alma mater, St. Michael's College, at some point visited Kenya, got married and fathered twin sons before returning to Vermont. After he became a U.S. citizen, he visited his wife in Kenya again, this time fathering twin daughters. I am happy that my office was able to assist Jacob, and his entire family is now happily living in the U.S. Had the Refugee Protection Act been enacted, Jacob's family might have been reunited much sooner. The bill I introduce today will greatly facilitate family reunification, which is at the core of American values. This bill will also help children who have been separated from their families during war or flight from persecution. For a child who has been separated from immediate family, and where it is in the best interest of the child, the bill would authorize refugee status and enable such a child to come to the U.S. I am committed to working with the Departments of State and Homeland Security to ensure that the ``best interest of the child'' protects families that are separated for months or years, but later discover that children lost or feared dead can be reunited with their immediate relatives. The need for such authority is illustrated by a Vermont resettlement case I know very well. After the Rwandan atrocities, Martha believed her son Eric had been killed. A number of years later, she learned that her son was alive and living in the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya, along with his two young first cousins. Eric had fled the violence with these two boys on his back, and he is the only father figure they have ever known. Martha petitioned to bring her son and nephews to Vermont, but only her son was granted refugee status as a derivative child. Martha had not seen her son for 10 years, but until my office intervened, the case had languished due to miscommunication. After the case was reactivated, Eric had to decide whether to join his mother in Vermont or to stay in the refugee camp to continue caring for his two young cousins. Eric made the heart-wrenching decision to resettle in Vermont. Eight months after Eric arrived, with the help of my office, his two young cousins were successfully resettled with him. Martha is fully employed, just passed her naturalization exam and is about to be sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Eric has been working two jobs, studying, and raising his cousins, who are both doing quite well in school. This case has a happy ending, but it should not have been so hard or taken so long to resolve. The Refugee Protection Act will help to bring families like Martha's together more quickly. This bill authorizes the Secretary of State to designate certain groups as eligible for expedited adjudication as refugees. Such a change to law would assist those who are at a particularly high risk of harm, such as certain groups of Iraqi refugees, groups targeted for genocide, or gay men in countries that impose the death penalty on homosexuals. Congress has tried to respond to specific crises with Special Immigrant Visas and other limited forms of relief, but something more must be done. Again, an example is illustrative. An Iraqi family, a mother and two daughters, came to Vermont as refugees from Iraq by way of Syria, after the father had been killed. The son believed his life to also be in danger in Iraq, because he had worked as a driver for a U.S. military contractor. Just before completing the resettlement process, the adult son was forced by Syria to leave the country, and he made his way to Sweden. While he was safe there for a short while, Sweden soon started taking action to deport many Iraqi refugees that it had previously welcomed. The separation was extremely painful for this close-knit family. They were having a difficult time reopening his resettlement case, but my office was able to help this young man finally receive a Special Immigrant Visa for Iraqis Employed on Behalf of the U.S. Government. He was finally reunited with his family in Burlington. I would prefer to see the Secretary of State be able to designate certain highly vulnerable groups for expedited adjudication, so that stories like this one are not common, and eligible refugees reach safety here in the U.S. as soon as possible. Finally, this bill makes targeted improvements to the resettlement process in the United States. Most importantly, it prevents newly resettled refugees from slipping into poverty by adjusting the per capita refugee resettlement grant level annually for inflation and the cost of living. The current per capita grant is $1,800, but it was just raised in January 2010 from roughly half that amount. I thank the Obama administration for recognizing the need to raise the per capita grant level, but believe it must be adjusted annually for inflation and the cost of living. This bill will ensure that the per capita grant level does not decrease in real terms over time. This bill is supported by leading refugee resettlement organizations across the Nation including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, Lutheran Immigrant & Refugee Service, the Episcopal Church, Refugee Council USA, Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, Church World Service, and the Interfaith Refugee and Immigration Ministries of Illinois. The Congressionally-created and bipartisan U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom endorsed the provisions that make improvements to the expedited removal system. It is endorsed by advocates and legal aid providers serving the refugee and asylee community, including the American Bar Association, Human Rights First, National Immigrant Justice Center, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at U.C. Hastings College of the Law, Tahirih Justice Center, American Immigration Lawyers Association, National Immigration Forum, Refugees International, Immigration Equality, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, and the American Civil Liberties Union. And in Vermont, it has the support of the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, and the Association of Africans Living in Vermont. All of those organizations that stand with me in support of this legislation have my sincere thanks. The 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act is this week. It is time to renew America's commitment to the Refugee Convention, and to bring our law back into compliance with the Convention's promise of protection. Our Nation is a leader among the asylum-providing countries, and our communities have embraced refugees and asylum seekers, welcoming them as Americans. Our laws must now match that humanitarian spirit. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2010. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is passing the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, STELA. This legislation modernizes and extends important provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act, which contains statutory copyright licenses and Communications Act authorizations that allow for the retransmission of broadcast television signals by satellite and cable providers. Ensuring that Americans have access to broadcast television content is important, and it is particularly relevant for consumers in rural areas who might not otherwise be able to receive these signals over the air. The legislation that the Senate is passing today will ensure that nobody will be left in the dark for the foreseeable future. The Satellite Home Viewer Act provides cable and satellite companies with statutory licenses to allow them to retransmit the content of broadcast television stations. It also contains important authorizations in the Communications Act that facilitate these retransmissions. Broadcast television plays a critical role in cities and towns across the country, and remains the primary way in which consumers are able to access local content such as news, weather, and sports. Cable and satellite providers help to expand the footprint of broadcast stations by allowing them to reach viewers who are unable to receive signals over the air. Vermont is an example of how cable and satellite companies can provide service to consumers in rural areas who might not otherwise receive these signals. Vermonters will see improved service when this legislation is enacted. As the act has been reauthorized over the years, I have worked to improve the service that Vermonters receive from cable and satellite companies. Residents in southern Vermont have seen improvements. Windham and Bennington Counties are not considered part of the Burlington television market that encompasses the rest of the State, and for many years those residents were unable to receive Vermont broadcast stations by satellite. Congress changed this in 2004, and DirecTV has been providing these Vermonters with access to Vermont stations ever since. I am also pleased that under this legislation, DISH Network will be able to provide their subscribers in southern Vermont with the same service. As soon as the DISH Network uses this authority, virtually everyone in the State will be able to access the news and information that is truly important to Vermonters, whether it is the debate over relicensing the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon or the UVM basketball team's quest to make the NCAA Tournament. One other important way that STELA will preserve and improve existing service for consumers is by correcting a flaw in the statutory copyright license for the cable industry. An unintended result of current law is that the cable license requires the cable industry to pay copyright holders for signals that many of their subscribers do not actually receive. This is often referred to as the phantom signal problem. The effect of this anomaly in the law is that Comcast is required to pay copyright royalties based on their subscriber base across the northeast for the Canadian television content that is only provided to subscribers in Burlington, VT. The bill that the Senate is passing today corrects this flaw by giving the cable industry the flexibility to continue to provide signals that are tailored to local interests--signals that might otherwise have been pulled from cable lineups. This will benefit industry and consumers. For instance, subscribers in Burlington will still be able to receive programming such as ``Hockey Night in Canada,'' which has been a tradition, without fear that Comcast will have to remove the channel or raise prices because it is being charged royalties based on subscribers in Boston. In addition, the legislation will expand consumer access to their States' public television programming and low-power, community-oriented stations that will promote media diversity. This bill is the product of many hours of hard work and compromise among four committees in both Houses of Congress. No single Member or committee chairman would have written it in this exact way, but the final language represents a fair compromise on important issues. I would have preferred that the language approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year with respect to multicast signals be included in this legislation. However, under the bill the Senate passed today, multicast signals will be treated differently than primary broadcast signals for a short period of time, even if they are broadcasting an additional network. In Vermont, WFFF is the local Fox affiliate, but it carries the CW Network on a multicast signal. This is programming that is otherwise unavailable to Vermonters. There should be no distinction in this case between a primary signal and a multicast signal. I appreciate the difficult nature of the issue, however, and believe that the compromise that was struck in STELA is a fair one. The final bill language also provides a pathway to lift a court- ordered injunction that currently prevents DISH Network from using the distant signal license, in exchange for DISH launching service in all 210 television markets across the country. Providing service to all 210 markets is a goal that I have long believed ought to be achieved. I believe the language included in the Senate Judiciary Committee-passed bill provided better incentives for launching additional markets without lifting a court-ordered injunction. As a matter of policy, lifting a court-ordered injunction based on copyright infringement is something I generally do not support, but others insisted upon it and it is part of the compromise embodied in STELA. This is a good bill that will preserve and improve the service that consumers across the country are accustomed to receiving. I am pleased that the Senate has adopted this legislation. I look forward to its prompt consideration and adoption by the House and the President signing it into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it saddens and concerns me that another line has been crossed, moving us further toward partisan excess and incivility. I refer to the calculated, political campaign-style attacks on the loyalty and patriotism of honorable Department of Justice attorneys over the past few weeks. Self-restraint is a crucial but often neglected value in our democracy. Just because a political attack that can put ``points'' on the board is possible, does not make it right. Misleading appeals to fear, like this one, are corrosive to our system and to the rule of law. Just as President Lincoln said of leadership generally, we must appeal to our better angels, not to fear and suspicion. Those who have megaphones made possible by millions of dollars, and who use them to shape public opinion, must lead responsibly and constructively. Walter Dellinger, a distinguished attorney with a long record of public service, tells from personal experience the story of one attorney who is being smeared in these attacks. The glimpse he offers into this issue is so clear and compelling that I will have printed in the Record the full text of his piece, which appeared in the Washington Post on March 5. This attack is not about transparency, nor about some purported conflict of interest. The Department of Justice set that canard to rest with its February 18 letter. This is about a partisan and personal attack. Many of the forces that have been defending John Yoo and other Bush-Cheney administration lawyers are the very ones seeking to smear these Justice Department attorneys. It is shameful. These American lawyers did what they are supposed to do, and what American lawyers have always done--provide legal counsel no matter what the charge or how unpopular the person. That is what John Adams did when he defended the British. This dedication deserves thanks, not reproach. The military and civilian lawyers who have previously accepted the difficult task of providing representation to individuals who have been detained by the United States in terrorism cases did no wrong and do not deserve this. Ted Olsen and Ken Starr, lawyers from the Reagan and Bush administrations, know that and agree. It is saddening and wrong that shallow partisan operatives would sink so low. I ask unanimous consent that copies of the Justice Department letter and articles and editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to honor a dear friend and true entrepreneur, Jake Burton. As founder and owner of Burton Snowboards, a company whose name has become synonymous with the successes of this popular winter sport, Jake Burton has built an empire from the ground up starting, first in his Londonderry, VT, garage. His is a true tale of perseverance and triumph over obstacles great and small; where others saw only insurmountable challenges, Jake saw possibility. As a young man starting out with a vision, Jake sought to set the world of winter sports on fire. He did so in true Vermont fashion, paying personal visits to ski areas hesitant to embrace snowboarding. To this day, Jake makes a point of personally testing each of his products on the slopes before putting them on the market. His commitment to quality and his investment in his employees continues to pay off. Jake recognizes the value of a homegrown company and takes nothing for granted. His competitive edge and style set him apart from the others in his line of work and serve him well as he continues to define the future of snowboarding. Marcelle and I have been fortunate to call Jake and his wife Donna our friends for many years. They are admirable Vermonters and examples of how the pursuit of a dream through honest hard work is still the cornerstone of American business. On February 15, 2010, the Burlington Free Press published an article entitled ``Jake Burton: Chairman of the (snow)Board'' about Jake's career. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate has finally taken action on the nomination of Judge William Conley to be a U.S. district court judge in the Western District of Wisconsin. Judge Conley was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without objection last year, on December 10. That is almost 3 months ago. He has waited for this day for some time. I had hoped that Mr. Conley's confirmation process would resemble those of Judge Christina Reiss of Vermont and Judge Abdul Kallon of Alabama. Those nominees received relatively prompt consideration by the Senate, and they should serve as a model for Senate action. Sadly, they are the exception rather than the rule. They show what the Senate could do, but does not. Time and again, noncontroversial nominees are delayed. The Senate is far behind where we should be in helping to fill judicial vacancies. Vacancies have skyrocketed to more than 100 and more have been announced. We need to do better. The American people deserve better. As with so many other nominations before the Senate, Judge Conley has waited an extraordinary amount of time to be confirmed. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with delays by Senate Republicans. Earlier this week we had to overcome Republican objection and a filibuster to obtain a vote on the nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan. She, too, was confirmed unanimously, 99 to zero. Yet Republicans would not agree to schedule a vote on her nomination. She was forced to wait four months after being reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate was required to end the Republican filibuster. In addition to Judge Keenan and Judge Conley, there are 17 additional judicial nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar, all of which have been considered and favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thirteen of those judicial nominations received unanimous or strong bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. They should all be considered without further delay. Debate and votes should be scheduled on all of the judicial nominees being stalled. Those opposed by a minority should be debated and then receive a vote. Only 16 Federal circuit and district court judges have been considered by the Senate so far during President Obama's 13 months in office. By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 39 judicial nominees. I remain very concerned about the new standard the Republican minority is applying to many of President Obama's district court nominees. Democrats never used this standard with President Bush's nominees, whether we were in the majority or the minority. In 8 years, the Judiciary Committee reported only a single Bush district court nomination by a party-line vote. That was the nomination of Leon Holmes, who was opposed not because of some litmus test, but because of his strident, intemperate, and insensitive public statements over the years. During President Obama's short time in office, not one, not two, but three district court nominees have been reported on a party-line vote. I hope this new standard does not become the rule for Senate Republicans. In December, I made several statements in this chamber about the need for progress on the nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I also spoke repeatedly to Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle and made the following proposal: Agree to immediate votes on those judicial nominees that are reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without dissent, and agree to time agreements to debate and vote on the others. I reiterated my proposal earlier this week and do so, again, now: I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy of obstruction and allow prompt consideration of all 18 judicial nominees currently awaiting final Senate consideration. There is no need for these nominations to be dragged out week after week, month after month. After 3 months of delay, today we finally considered the nomination of William Conley. Mr. Conley is a partner in the Madison, WI, office of Foley and Lardner, where he is widely recognized as a top antitrust and appellate lawyer. He has represented clients before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the Seventh Circuit, among others. Mr. Conley attended the University of Wisconsin, where he earned his B.A. and J.D. with honors. Mr. Conley also served as a law clerk for Judge Thomas Fairchild on the Seventh Circuit. I congratulate Judge Conley on his confirmation today. I look forward to the time when the 17 additional judicial nominees being stalled are released from the holds and objections that are preventing votes on them and their confirmations. I, again, urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy and allow prompt consideration of all 18 judicial nominees awaiting Senate consideration, not just William Conley of Wisconsin but also the following nominees: Jane Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the Third Circuit; Judge Denny Chin of New York, nominated to the Second Circuit; Justice Rogeriee Thompson of Rhode Island, nominated to the First Circuit; Judge James Wynn of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Edward Chen, nominated to the Northern District of California; and Justice Louis Butler, nominated to the Western District of Wisconsin; Nancy Freudenthal, nominated to the District of Wyoming; Denzil Marshall, nominated to the Eastern District of Arkansas; Benita Pearson, nominated to the Northern District of Ohio; Timothy Black, nominated to the Southern District of Ohio; Gloria M. Navarro, nominated to the District of Nevada; Audrey G. Fleissig, nominated to the Eastern District of Missouri; Lucy H. Koh, nominated to the Northern District of California; Jon E. DeGuilio, nominated to the Northern District of Indiana; and Tanya Walton Pratt, nominated to the Southern District of Indiana.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today confirmed Julie Brill as Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. I have known Julie for her work during nearly 20 years as an Assistant Attorney General from Vermont, and believe that both the FTC and consumers around the country will benefit greatly from her appointment. Ms. Brill is extremely well qualified to serve as an FTC Commissioner. She graduated from Princeton University and New York University Law School, served as a law clerk to the Vermont Federal Judge Franklin Billings, and served both as an Assistant Attorney General in Vermont and General Counsel of the Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance and Securities. Most recently, Ms. Brill worked as Senior Deputy Attorney General of the Consumer Protection Division in the North Carolina Department of Justice. Over her professional career, Ms. Brill has worked on critical issues in agriculture, tobacco, food, pharmaceuticals, and identity theft. Her expertise and intelligence have allowed her to excel in all of these areas. The FTC has an important role in protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices as well as anticompetitive behavior by businesses. Ms. Brill will serve consumers well in her new position as a Commissioner. Ms. Brill has spent much of her professional life working on behalf of the people of Vermont, and I look forward to continuing to work with her as she helps to advance Chairman Leibowitz's active agenda. I know her family, and was delighted to introduce her at her confirmation hearing. I congratulate Ms. Brill on her confirmation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Social Security represents a strong commitment to our nation's seniors. Ever since Ida May Fuller of Vermont received the first Social Security check issued, vulnerable seniors have had a safety-net to fall back on in retirement and to supplement individual retirement savings or pensions. Nearly 70 percent of beneficiaries depend on Social Security for at least half of their income, and Social Security is the sole source of income for 15 percent of recipients. Social Security is an immensely important program, one that has helped millions of Americans stay out of poverty once entering retirement. While facing the rising costs of health care, food and fuel, Social Security has been a successful safety net for more than 70 years. However, for the first time in its history, this year Social Security recipients will not receive a cost-of living adjustment, COLA, due to the economic deflation, rather than inflation, our economy experienced this past year. Since the COLA will not go into effect this year, Congress needs to act to ensure those who need it most will receive this essential benefit. That is why I was proud to join Senator Sanders in cosponsoring the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, which would provide all Social Security recipients, railroad retirees, SSI beneficiaries and adults receiving veterans' benefits with a one-time additional check for $250 in 2010, similar to the payment beneficiaries received as a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed last year. Today, we have the opportunity to include this important emergency relief in legislation aimed at helping all struggling Americans. This amendment represents our continued commitment to providing a safety net to our nation's seniors and those with disabilities in this uncertain economy. I urge my fellow Senators to support the Sanders amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Has all time been used in morning business?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask to yield back any time remaining in morning business on either side.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side be allowed 1 minute before the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as with so many other nominations before the Senate, Justice Keenan has waited an extraordinary amount of time to be confirmed. Her nomination was reported without dissent by the Judiciary Committee more than 4 months ago. The unprecedented pattern of delay and obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue after issue-- over 100 filibusters last year--has affected 70 percent of all Senate action. We have to file cloture just to bring up a noncontroversial matter. In addition to the Keenan nomination, 10 judicial nominations that received bipartisan support are being delayed. The Senate can almost double the total number of judicial nominations confirmed by stopping the filibusters--by not requiring that and vote up or down. Americans elect us to vote yes or no, not to vote maybe, and when you have a filibuster, you vote maybe. We ought to have the guts to vote yes or vote no. The nomination of Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit is noncontroversial. She should have been confirmed long ago. She has the support of her home State Senators and that of Virginians from both parties, and many others. She was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee over four months ago. As I predicted, and as the Senators from Virginia predicted, the Senate unanimously voted to end the filibuster of this nomination, 99-0. No member of the Senate has spoken in opposition to her nomination. There is no reason she should not be confirmed unanimously. Despite the overwhelming support for Justice Keenan, the Senate's consideration of her nomination was filibustered by Senate Republicans. Just as one Senator has objected to passing unemployment insurance and COBRA benefits and Medicare payments for doctors and extending the Satellite Home Viewer Act, Republicans refused to agree to debate and vote on the nomination of Justice Keenan. In fact, they have refused to consider any judicial nominations for the last three weeks. Delay and obstruction, obstruction and delay. Even for nominations that will be confirmed unanimously. The Senate is far behind where we should be in helping to fill judicial vacancies. Vacancies have skyrocketed to more than 100, and more have been announced. We need to do better. The American people deserve better. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with requiring cloture petitions and 60 votes to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. In addition to the Keenan nomination, 10 judicial nominations that received strong bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee--including seven that were reported without dissent--should be considered without delay. Debate should be scheduled, and votes taken on each of 14 judicial nominees stalled who have already been considered and favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. Only 15 Federal circuit and district court judges have been considered by the Senate during President Obama's 13 months in office. By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 39 judicial nominees. The Senate can almost double the total number of judicial nominations it has confirmed by considering the other judicial nominees already before the Senate awaiting final action. We should do that now, without more delay, without additional obstruction. In December, I made several statements in this chamber about the need for progress on the nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I also spoke repeatedly to Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle and made the following proposal: Agree to immediate votes on those judicial nominees that are reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without dissent, and agree to time agreements to debate and vote on the others. I, again, urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy of obstruction and allow prompt consideration of all 14 judicial nominees currently awaiting final Senate consideration. There is no need for these to be dragged out week after week, month after month, with only a single nominee being considered every several weeks. End the blockage of this President's nominees and vote on them. I congratulate Justice Keenan on her confirmation today. I look forward to the time when the 13 additional judicial nominees being stalled are released from the holds and objections that are preventing votes on their confirmations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on a happier note, I see the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders, on the floor today. I want to congratulate the Vermonters who represented our country at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The Olympics themselves were exciting. I know Marcelle and I watched hours and hours of them. But we watched especially, obviously, when we saw some of these young Vermonters. These athletes carry on a long tradition of Vermonters participating in the Winter Olympics. Hundreds of Vermonters have competed in the 21 Winter Olympiads, and it is no secret that Vermont produces great winter sports athletes, thanks to our northern climate, beautiful rugged terrain, and also a healthy sports industry. After all, the first ski lift in the United States was a rope tow built in the town of Woodstock. I remember what a thrill it was when then-President Gerald Ford told me that the first ski lift he was on was on that ski lift in Woodstock. It is a nice memory of a wonderful person, President Gerald Ford. Thanks to Jake Burton Carpenter and his wife Donna, Vermont is the cradle of snowboarding and it is now a central Olympic event. The Carpenters have worked so hard to make this a real sport, and they have. Our schools in ski areas have hosted dozens of international snowboarding, Alpine, and Nordic ski competitions. Many Vermonters have won medals at the Winter Olympics over the years. These champions include alpine skier Andrea Meade Lawrence from Rutland who was the first American to win two gold medals in 1952, Brattleboro's Bill Koch who was the first American nordic skier to medal in 1976, and alpine skier Barbara Ann Cochran, slalom gold medalist in 1972. The Cochran family is somewhat of an Olympic dynasty in its own right. Barbara Ann's sister Marilyn and brother Bob also competed in 1972 and her sister Lindy in 1976. Bob's son Jim raced in Saturday's slalom at his second Olympics. A member of the family is a member of my own staff and I cherish having him here. There were 11 athletes in Vancouver this year who were born in Vermont or call Vermont home. Ten others attended high school or college in Vermont, we are going to take credit for them as well, and we are proud to do that. Raised in Vermont are snowboarders Kelly Clark from West Dover, Lindsey Jacobellis from Stratton, Hannah Teter from Belmont and Ross Powers from Londonderry; alpine skiers Jimmy Cochran from Richmond, Nolan Kasper from Warren, and Chelsea Marshall from Pittsfield; nordic skiers Andy Newell from Shaftsbury, Liz Stephen from East Montpelier, Caitlin Compton from Warren; and freestyle skier Hannah Kearney from Norwich. Vermont's colleges and universities, with a strong tradition of winter sports, have sent athletes, both in-state and out-of-state, to numerous games. Jim Cochran is a UVM alum, along with biathlete Lowell Bailey, nordic skier Kris Freeman and hockey goalie Tim Thomas. Nordic skiers Simi Hamilton and Garrott Kuzzy are Middlebury College graduates. Vermont's ski academies, private high schools that are dedicated to winter sports training, attract hundreds of kids from out of State every year, and have produced hundreds of Olympians. Liz Stephen and Nolan Kasper skied at Vancouver and are graduates of Burke Mountain Academy, which was the first ski academy in the country, founded in 1970. Other ski academy graduates competing in Vancouver are snowboarder Louie Vito who attended Stratton Mountain School along with Andy Newell and Ross Powers; freestyle skier Michael Morse of the Killington Mountain School; and biathlete Laura Spector and skiercross racers Paul Casey Puckett and Daron Rahlves who attended the Green Mountain Valley School along with Chelsea Marshall. Jim Cochran represented the Mount Mansfield Winter Academy, and Kelly Clark the Mount Snow Academy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley to introduce the Drug Free Communities Enhancement Act of 2010, a bill to authorize additional Drug Free Communities grants to help address major emerging drug issues and local drug crises. It is crucial that communities around the country have the leadership and resources needed to respond to serious drug problems in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Drug Free Community, DFC, coalitions have been proven to significantly lower substance abuse rates in our communities nationwide. This legislation will allow current and former DFCs to apply for grants of up to $75,000 per year to implement comprehensive, community- wide strategies to address emerging local drug issues or drug crises. The funds may also be used for DFC members to obtain specialized training and technical assistance to improve the operation of their coalitions. These grants, which must be matched dollar for dollar, would be available to DFCs for up to 4 years. The DFC program encourages local citizens to become directly involved in solving their community's drug issues through grassroots community organizing and data-driven planning and implementation. Research shows that effective prevention hinges on the extent to which the entire community works comprehensively and collaboratively to implement education, prevention, enforcement, treatment, and recovery initiatives. The DFC program strategically invests Federal anti-drug resources at the community level with those who have the most power to reduce the demand for drugs--namely parents, teachers, business leaders, the media, religious leaders, law enforcement officials, youth, and others. Drug Free Communities grantees execute collaborative strategies to address their communities' unique substance use and abuse issues. This is the optimal way to ensure that the entire community benefits from prevention. In Vermont, we have felt the presence of drug abuse and drug-related crime in our communities. The myth persists that drug abuse and drug- related crime are only big-city problems, but rural America is also coping with these issues. I have twice brought the Judiciary Committee to Vermont to examine these problems and gain perspectives to help shape solutions, and I hope to hold another field hearing in Vermont soon. I know well that law enforcement alone is not the solution for our communities. I have long advocated an approach with equal attention to law enforcement, prevention and education, and treatment. Perhaps the most important component in dealing with this crucial problem is collaboration. Community anti-drug coalitions have a unique ability to build on pre-existing relationships among parents, teachers, students, and law enforcement, which make them a critical component in reducing drug use. I have consistently supported funding for these coalitions and was pleased that last year 14 Vermont coalitions were awarded Drug Free Community grants totaling $1.2 million. Last week, I spoke with a number of Vermonters representing these community partnerships and heard about the innovative frameworks they have implemented to combat drug abuse in their communities, thanks in large part to DFC grants. This bill will enable many of them to secure supplemental funding to continue the important work they do every day. Indeed, communities nationwide who are facing serious drug issues will benefit from these enhancement grants. The community coalition model has proven extremely effective, and has achieved impressive outcomes. We see significant results when we have people working together at the local, state, and Federal levels, and in the law enforcement, prevention, and treatment fields. We have seen that success in Vermont and throughout the country, but there is more work to be done. Drug abuse and drug-related crime is a persistent problem in America, in major metropolitan areas and rural communities alike. I hope all Senators will support this bipartisan bill so that communities nationwide can sustain effective community coalitions to reduce youth drug use. 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 direct the attention of the Senate to an article that was recently published in the Rutland Herald about Seldon Technologies, located in Windsor, VT. This article describes the laudable efforts of a Vermont company taking part in the ongoing disaster relief operation in Haiti. Seldon Technologies has donated one of its state-of-the-art water filtration devices to a nonprofit organization that provides clean water to people in developing countries and those affected by natural disasters, such as Haiti. I commend Seldon for using its technology to help the many Haitians who are still desperately in need of assistance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article entitled ``Windsor Water Company Ships Help to Haiti'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on January 28, 2010, I introduced S. 2968, the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010, along with the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions. I appreciate that the Senate moved quickly to call up and pass this legislation by unanimous consent. The speed with which the Senate acted on this legislation demonstrates what we can do when we work in a bipartisan fashion. I recently received a suggestion from the chairman and ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, who introduced companion legislation, to improve and clarify the language of the section that requires a study and report. Specifically, they suggested that Congress should strike the words ``by corporations'' from paragraph (a)(1) of section 4. I agree that this suggestion adds clarity and, should S. 2968 be enacted, I will work with Senator Sessions and the House Committee on the Judiciary to amend the study language in subsequent legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have several Senators who wish to speak on the first vote that is coming up this afternoon, the Greenaway nomination. Is the Senator going to give us any time? Because our time is also being used by him right now. I was wondering if at some point we might have time to speak on the Greenaway nomination.

Mr. LEAHY. No.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my understanding is that time was to be used for both Becker and Greenaway. I was wondering, since Greenaway is the first vote we are going to come to, whether we will have time on that.