Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our friend, Marion Burros, a superb writer on all matters culinary and otherwise, has written a most entertaining profile of John Podesta for Politico. John Podesta is a friend of decades and someone Marcelle and I admire greatly. It is not only his and his wife Mary's talent in everything from the law to politics, but it is also the Podestas a privileged few see when they are preparing feasts in their District of Columbia home. Watching them is like watching a symphony where the enjoyment continues throughout the evening. I can think of a number of times we settled all the problems of the world through laughter, food, discussions of our families, and on, in their kitchen. Anyone who doesn't relish such a feast for weeks after has no sense of culinary excellence--and I have never known anyone to leave disappointed. Mr. President, so others might enjoy the Politico article, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Armed Services Committee, which has reviewed the program carefully, made the sensible move in restoring the almost $440 million necessary this year to continue design and development of the alternate engine, known as the F136 engine, made by General Electric Aviation. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program will likely emerge as the largest tactical aircraft program in the Nation's history. Given developments in unmanned aerial vehicles, it could also be the country's last major tactical aircraft program. The F-35 will provide a tremendous general purpose capability to replace the Air Force's aging F-16s, the Marine Corps' AV-8Bs, and older versions of the F/A-18. We have to get development of this aircraft right. The kind of delays and cost overruns that have plagued development of so many other defense programs recently would be absolutely unacceptable in this far-reaching program. An alternate engine would create competition. Competition would force both production teams to deliver a better product at a better price to the government. An alternate engine would prevent a single-point failure in the F-35s continued development. If one program reaches insurmountable obstacles, the Department of Defense will be able to rely on the other engine. Finally, an alternate engine would ensure that the country has more than one military engine manufacturer. Several nonpartisan, rigorous studies from groups such as the Institute for Defense Analyses and the Government Accountability Office have underscored the benefits of an alternate engine. There is some question as to whether the existence of a second engine and the resulting competition would save money over the life of the program. One need only look to the history of the F-16 engine in the 1970s and the 1980s for an answer, which is a resounding yes. In that case, the availability of two engines resulted in a decline in price for the overall aircraft, allowing the government to buy more for less. Opponents of the alternative engine claim that cutting the engine will allow more planes to be built, when in fact what will happen is that the overall cost of the program will increase and incentives to build the best engine will be eliminated. Real cost savings, improved performance: these are the reasons that we simply must continue development of the Alternate Engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. And it is these reasons that I will vote to continue forward with this absolutely essential investment that ensures we are getting the best product for our troops and at the best price for taxpayers.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA, provides a framework for using classified information in criminal cases. It is a valuable and flexible tool that allows courts to review classified information and provide for the protection of such material while ensuring a defendant's right to a fair trial. And it works. For close to 30 years, Federal courts have used CIPA to successfully handle complex criminal cases, including hundreds of terrorism-related cases since 9/11, and still protect sensitive information from public disclosure. I reintroduced the State Secrets Protection Act this Congress, legislation that would allow the Government to claim the State secrets privilege while ensuring that a judge would review the evidence the Government is relying upon to determine whether the privilege applies. This concept mirrors CIPA and our bill draws heavily from CIPA procedures. But our bill does not water them down. I was encouraged to see that Senator Levin, along with Senators Graham and McCain, proposed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that would provide procedures in line with CIPA for handling classified information in military commissions. One of the complaints that we have heard about commissions involves procedural confusion, including how to approach the handling of classified information. As Senator Levin pointed out, ``the unique procedures and requirements hampered the ability of defense teams to obtain information.'' In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Vice Admiral MacDonald, the Judge Advocate General for the U.S. Navy, discussed the difficulty that prosecutors have had using military rules for classified evidence and acknowledged: [T]he military rules on the use of classified information fall short of our overall goals. On the other hand, for over 20 years, Article III courts have relied upon the Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA. David Kris, the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's National Security Division, agreed that CIPA ``has generally worked well in both protecting classified information and ensuring fairness of proceedings'' and that drawing on CIPA would ``allow military judges to draw on a substantial body of CIPA case law and practice that has been developed over the years.'' I agree that, especially with this novel use of military commissions, it is crucial that we draw on evidentiary standards supported by precedent and a proven track record. However, I am concerned that some of the modifications proposed by this amendment would depart from the traditional protections provided by CIPA. For example, CIPA requires the Attorney General to certify that the disclosure of certain information would cause identifiable damage to the national security of the United States. Here, an unidentified ``knowledgeable United States official'' would make that declaration, instead. This amendment also imports a new standard that would require a judge to consider whether disclosure of information would be ``detrimental to national security.'' It would further prohibit the accused from appealing a court order allowing the Government to withhold access to information based on an ex parte proffer by the Government. This marks a serious departure from CIPA's framework for allowing defendants to reconsider such rulings in order to ensure that they are allowed meaningful access to evidence and can present a thorough defense. I support the administration and Senator Levin's goal of using more article III standards in military commissions, and the use of CIPA procedures is certainly a marked improvement. However, it is important that we not minimize the protections and standards that make tools like CIPA effective in protecting both classified information and the rights of the accused. Until we have a more thorough review and understanding of why these changes are necessary, I believe we should proceed cautiously before we depart from the standards that have served us well for so long in our Federal jurisprudence.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Kit Bond and I have worked for many years together as cochairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus. With the assistance of Chairman Levin, we were able to enact landmark legislation in the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill that among other actions elevated the chief of the National Guard from three-star general to full general. That so-called National Guard Empowerment Act was designed to ensure that the Guard has a seat at the table in major budget and policy decisions. There were some important lessons learned as the Department of Defense moved forward with executing the important changes for the Guard implemented in the fiscal year 2008 Defense bill. One glaring omission in the reorganization of the Guard Bureau was the absence of a vice chief. This evening, Senator Bond and I have again worked closely with Chairman Levin and the Armed Services Committee to address this situation. We have proposed and the Senate has adopted an amendment to create the position of vice chief at the National Guard Bureau. This position is critical to the National Guard Bureau and will further improve the day-to-day operations of the National Guard organizing, training and equipping over 460,000 soldiers, airman and civilian forces serving in the United States and overseas. Since the elevation of the chief of the National Guard Bureau to a full general, the roles and responsibilities of the chief have greatly expanded. Much as there is a vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it became apparent that the National Guard chief needs a senior general officer serving as a vice chief to adequately assist the chief with the demands of that new elevated role. In its new capacity as a joint activity, the National Guard bureau has a greater number of joint and interagency responsibilities assigned to it. The vice chief will provide essential support to the chief to execute these responsibilities. I join with Senator Bond in thanking Chairman Levin, the Armed Services Committee and all of our Senate colleagues for adopting this amendment to create a vice chief at the National Guard Bureau. Over the past 10 years, our nation has called on our Guard forces at home and abroad like never before. The Senate is again recognizing the role the Guard serves in our national defense by passing this important amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller I applauded the Court for affirming what so many Americans already believe: The second amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm. The Heller decision reaffirmed and strengthened our Bill of Rights. Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country. One does not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and citizens of Vermont are by and large trusted to conduct themselves responsibly and safely. In my experience, Vermonters do just that. Like many Vermonters, I grew up with firearms and have enormous respect and appreciation for the freedoms the second amendment protects. Like other protections in our Bill of Rights, the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is one that I cherish. As a prosecutor, I protected the rights of Vermonters to possess firearms. As a Senator, I have carefully considered Federal efforts to regulate firearms, and always with an eye toward the burdens it may impose on the second amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. Justice Scalia's decision for the Supreme Court in Heller acknowledged that some reasonable regulation can and does coexist with the second amendment, just as it does for other rights in our Bill of Rights. The States have traditionally played the strongest role in regulating firearms based on State and local concerns. Most firearms regulation is decided within States as an issue of State police power. This is how it should be. I feel strongly that the principles of federalism demand that the Federal Government minimize its intrusion into the policy judgments made by State and local officials, citizens and State legislators, especially in matters of public safety. I believe this is true whether the Federal Government seeks to restrict the activities of Americans or it seeks to second-guess what State officials have decided is proper regulation. Whenever the Federal Government imposes its will some citizens may be happy, but others will be disappointed. This is particularly true when such Federal action involves matters of safety and police power at the State level. The Federal Government plays a role in regulating the importation of firearms and has in providing a framework for interstate commerce. Senator Thune's amendment imposes the policy judgments of the Federal Government on the States. Just as I would vigorously oppose any Federal effort to restrict the ability of a State to allow its citizens to carry firearms in a concealed manner, I oppose this effort to second- guess the judgments of State and local officials across the country in relation to permitting people to carry a concealed firearm. Just as I would resist Federal legislation that prohibited States from entering reciprocity agreements with each other to honor one another's concealed carry permits, I do not believe the Federal Government ought to be forcing States to treat citizens from other States differently than it treats its own on this public safety matter. The Thune amendment represents the Federal Government intruding into the gun laws of the States. It could even result in some States repealing their concealed carry laws to avoid the impact of the Federal law. What works in Vermont does not necessarily work in New York City. And what works in New York City would not get a warm welcome in Vermont. That is the beauty of our Federal system. When it comes to public safety and police power, the Federal Government ought to respect the judgments of the States, their citizens, elected officials, and law enforcement agencies. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. The recent and troubling cyber attack on U.S. Government computers is clear evidence that developing a comprehensive national strategy for data privacy and cybersecurity is one of the most challenging and important issues facing our nation. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act will help to meet this challenge, by better protecting Americans from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. When Senator Specter and I first introduced this bill 4 years ago, we had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. Although the Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bill twice, in 2005 and again in 2007, the legislation languished on the Senate calendar and the Senate adjourned without passing comprehensive data privacy legislation. While the Congress has waited to act, the dangers to our privacy, economic prosperity and national security posed by data breaches have not gone away. Just this week, the Government Accountability Office released a report finding that almost all of our major federal agencies have systemic weaknesses in the information security controls. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 250 million records containing sensitive personal information have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. This loss of privacy is not just a grave concern for American consumers; it is also a serious threat to the economic security of American businesses. The President's recent report on Cyberspace Policy Review noted that industry estimates of losses from intellectual property to data theft in 2008 range as high as $1 trillion. The FBI's Internet Fraud Complaint Center also recently reported that complaints of Internet fraud increased by 33 percent in 2008. These troubling reports are all compelling examples of why we need to promptly pass the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. Earlier this year, the Judiciary Committee held an important hearing on the privacy risks associated with electronic health records as the Nation moves towards a national health IT system. I am pleased that many of the privacy principles developed during that hearing have been enacted as part of the President's economic recovery package. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires that data brokers let consumers know what sensitive personal information they have about them, and to allow individuals to correct inaccurate information. The bill also requires that companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs. In addition, the bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. This bill also provides for tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally and willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when the breach causes economic damage to consumers. Finally, the bill addresses the important issue of the government's use of personal data by requiring that federal agencies notify affected individuals when government data breaches occur, and placing privacy and security front and center when federal agencies evaluate whether data brokers can be trusted with government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people. Of course, Senator Specter and I have no monopoly on good ideas to solve the serious problems of identity theft and lax cybersecurity. But, we have put forth some meaningful solutions to this problem in this bill. We have drafted this bill after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the stakeholders on this issue, including the privacy, consumer protection and business communities. We have also worked closely with other Senators, including Senators Feinstein, Feingold, and Schumer. This is a comprehensive bill that not only deals with the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place. Passing this comprehensive data privacy legislation is one of my highest legislative priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I hope all Senators will support this measure. 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 reintroduce the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. The recent and troubling cyber attack on U.S. Government computers is clear evidence that developing a comprehensive national strategy for data privacy and cybersecurity is one of the most challenging and important issues facing our nation. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act will help to meet this challenge, by better protecting Americans from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. When Senator Specter and I first introduced this bill 4 years ago, we had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. Although the Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bill twice, in 2005 and again in 2007, the legislation languished on the Senate calendar and the Senate adjourned without passing comprehensive data privacy legislation. While the Congress has waited to act, the dangers to our privacy, economic prosperity and national security posed by data breaches have not gone away. Just this week, the Government Accountability Office released a report finding that almost all of our major federal agencies have systemic weaknesses in the information security controls. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 250 million records containing sensitive personal information have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. This loss of privacy is not just a grave concern for American consumers; it is also a serious threat to the economic security of American businesses. The President's recent report on Cyberspace Policy Review noted that industry estimates of losses from intellectual property to data theft in 2008 range as high as $1 trillion. The FBI's Internet Fraud Complaint Center also recently reported that complaints of Internet fraud increased by 33 percent in 2008. These troubling reports are all compelling examples of why we need to promptly pass the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. Earlier this year, the Judiciary Committee held an important hearing on the privacy risks associated with electronic health records as the Nation moves towards a national health IT system. I am pleased that many of the privacy principles developed during that hearing have been enacted as part of the President's economic recovery package. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires that data brokers let consumers know what sensitive personal information they have about them, and to allow individuals to correct inaccurate information. The bill also requires that companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs. In addition, the bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. This bill also provides for tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally and willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when the breach causes economic damage to consumers. Finally, the bill addresses the important issue of the government's use of personal data by requiring that federal agencies notify affected individuals when government data breaches occur, and placing privacy and security front and center when federal agencies evaluate whether data brokers can be trusted with government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people. Of course, Senator Specter and I have no monopoly on good ideas to solve the serious problems of identity theft and lax cybersecurity. But, we have put forth some meaningful solutions to this problem in this bill. We have drafted this bill after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the stakeholders on this issue, including the privacy, consumer protection and business communities. We have also worked closely with other Senators, including Senators Feinstein, Feingold, and Schumer. This is a comprehensive bill that not only deals with the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place. Passing this comprehensive data privacy legislation is one of my highest legislative priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I hope all Senators will support this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it reflects well upon this body that the Senate late last week voted to include the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill with a strong bipartisan vote. This important legislation has also passed the Senate in 2007, 2004, 2000, and 1999. I am hopeful and optimistic that this time it will make it to the President's desk and be signed into law. This legislation will help to address the serious and growing problem of hate crimes. The recent tragic events at the Holocaust Museum, on top of many other recent hateful and devastating acts, have made clear that these vicious crimes continue to haunt our country. This bipartisan bill is carefully designed to help law enforcement most effectively respond to this problem. It has been stalled for far too long. The Senate's action last week was the right step and long overdue. I thank Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, and the other bipartisan cosponsors for their support. I particularly thank Senator Ted Kennedy, for whom this important civil rights measure has long been a priority, and I commend him for his steadfast leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crimes laws. I wish he could have been here for the vote on Thursday, but I know he was proud of what the Senate did. I thank the many staff members who helped with this effort--Roscoe Jones, Joe Thomas, Elise Burditt, Leila George-Wheeler, Matt Smith, Noah Bookbinder, Kristine Lucius, and Bruce Cohen on my staff--as well as the staff for Senator Kennedy--Christine Leonard and Ty Cobb--who worked so hard on this legislation. I appreciate that Republicans were willing to come to an agreement to let this hate crimes amendment move forward. As part of that agreement, today we vote on several additional related amendments from Senator Sessions. Senator Sessions proposed an amendment creating a new criminal statute for attacks against U.S. servicemembers. While servicemembers are already appropriately covered by strong legal protections, I agree with the purpose of this amendment, and I appreciate Senator Sessions' willingness to work with us to improve it. I will support this amendment. Senator Sessions was also willing to work with us on another amendment of his which would require that all hate crimes prosecutions be undertaken pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General. With the improvements that we worked out, I am happy to support this amendment as well. Finally, Senator Sessions proposed an amendment to apply the death penalty to a broad swath of hate crimes. This amendment, as offered, would have applied the death penalty even to cases involving offenses like attempted kidnapping where there was no intent to kill any person. Such a broad application would have clearly violated the Constitution as set out in ruling Supreme Court precedent. With regard to the death penalty, the Supreme Court recently held that, ``As it relates to crimes against individuals, . . . the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken.'' Whether or not Senators agree with that sentiment, we should not purposefully pass legislation that we know to be unconstitutional. As a result of my criticism, I understand that Senator Sessions will be modifying his amendment, and I appreciate that. Adding an expansive death penalty provision to hate crime statutes would also add new costs to enforcement since death penalty cases are consistently far more expensive and difficult for the government to litigate. Those increased costs could reduce the number of important hate crime investigations and prosecutions the government could conduct. We should be facilitating more hate crime investigations and prosecutions, not restricting the number the government can bring. I should also note that many proponents of hate crimes legislation, particularly in the House, as well as other influential House Members, strongly oppose the death penalty. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has written us to oppose this death penalty amendment, and I know several of my fellow Senators share my concerns with this amendment. Senator Kennedy has proposed a further amendment which would add important guidelines about when the death penalty could be used. I support this commonsense measure. I hope all Senators will join me in doing everything we can to ensure that effective, meaningful hate crimes legislation can be signed into law this summer.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators Feinstein and Kerr and others to reintroduce the Veterans Voting Support Act. This legislation will enable the Nation to better preserve and protect the fundamental right to vote for veterans in facilities operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Our men and women in uniform have risked their lives to serve our country and spread democracy around the globe. We must do all we can to protect their right to participate in the democratic process when they return home. When we introduced this legislation last Congress, I had hoped that it could be signed into law before last year's historic election. Millions of Americans went to the polls last November and yet far too many of our wounded warriors were left behind. That is wrong, and I hope the Senate will consider this important legislation to remedy the disenfranchisement of our disabled veterans. Senators Feinstein and Kerry, the respective Chairpersons of the Rules and Foreign Relations Committees, have been leaders on this important issue. Today, veterans of the armed services who reside in a VA facilities face a voting rights crisis. Far too often in recent years, the Department of Veterans Affairs has neglected to assist veterans with voting, or to allow nonpartisan groups access to VA facilities to register voters. Until last year, for example, the VA's national policy was silent on whether it could provide support to wounded warriors seeking to vote. There have also been reports that the Department of Veterans Affairs may have even prohibited its own staff from providing voter assistance to veterans in VA hospitals. In addition, since 2004, reports indicate that the VA has often sided in Federal court against allowing nonprofit voter registration organizations access to VA run facilities. I welcome the recent strides the Department of Veterans Affairs has made to correct its flawed policies, but it has not gone far enough. I am glad that last year, the Department changed its policy from a blanket prohibition against voter registration efforts to one that would permit its patients to register to vote. That change, however, was only a first step. We need legislative action to ensure that these changes are permanent and complete. For example, I remain concerned that the VA's voter registration policy stops short of mandating that VA facilities offer disabled veterans a chance to register to vote. To paraphrase Paul Sullivan, the Executive Director of Veterans for Common Sense, the new policy directive only changed the Department from being in active opposition to veterans' voter registration to passively supporting it. It is common sense that the Department of Veteran Affairs should make services available to wounded veterans who reside in VA facilities and yet face hardships in traveling off campus to register to vote. This legislation will ensure that VA facilities have an affirmative duty to provide our wounded warriors with access to, and assistance with, voter registration materials in the same way they help veterans fill out other forms. The Veterans Voting Support Act we introduce today would also require the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide voter registration forms to veterans whenever they enroll in, or make changes to, their status under the VA health care system. It would also require the VA to provide assistance to veterans who wish to file absentee ballots. In addition, the bill would require facilities to allow access for nonpartisan voter assistance organizations, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. To ensure accountability and transparency, the bill also provides certain reporting requirements on the Department of Veteran Affairs. This legislation has the support of voting rights and veterans groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice and Veterans for Common Sense. I believe it is essential for the Nation to do everything possible to honor our veterans. Ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as interventions across the globe, means more and more men and women are coming home as veterans. These brave men and women must know that the country will honor their sacrifice when they return. Recognizing their service not only means paying continual tribute through services on such holidays as Memorial Day and Veterans Day. It also means ensuring that our veterans in Vermont and across the country have the ability to fully participate in the democratic process. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue it is an American issue. We should all be able to agree that Americans who have ventured into harm's way to defend our values and spread democracy abroad must also have full enjoyment of those freedoms here at home. The disabled veterans of the Nation have given extraordinary service to our country and have advanced democracy around the globe. Enactment of the Veterans Voting Support Act is the very least we owe our citizen soldiers for their many sacrifices on our behalf. I urge all Senators to support the Veterans Voting Support Act and help us to enact this critical measure into law before next November's midterm elections.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate is considering the bipartisan Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 as an amendment to the pending the pending National Defense Authorization Act. This important civil rights bill has been pending for more than a decade and has passed the Senate numerous times--in 2007, 2004, 2000, and 1999. It also has the support of the Attorney General, and the President has asked Congress to take swift action on this bill. I thank Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, and the 33 other bipartisan cosponsors for their support for my amendment, which contains the full text of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act introduced by Senator Kennedy. I wish my friend could be here with us today. I commend the senior Senator from Massachusetts for his steadfast leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crimes laws. I thank the majority leader for offering this amendment on my behalf while I chaired the hearing on Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. I had hoped that we would reach a time agreement or at least an agreement to proceed to this bipartisan amendment. Yet some have sought to further delay passage of this critical measure. The hate crimes amendment would improve existing law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes of racial, ethnic, or religious violence. Victims will no longer have to engage in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a juror, to be protected under Federal law. In addition, the hate crimes amendment will provide assistance and resources to State, local and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes. It also focuses the attention and resources of the Federal Government on the problem of crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, which is a long-overdue protection. As a former State prosecutor, respect for local and State law enforcement is important to me. This amendment was carefully crafted to strike a proper balance between Federal and local interests by allowing the Federal Government to appropriately support, but not to substitute for, State and local law enforcement. I come from a State that passed a law almost a decade ago to expand protections for victims of violence motivated by sexual orientation and gender identity and to increase penalties for hate crimes to deter such violence. Unfortunately, not all States offer these protections--protections that all Americans deserve. We need a strong Federal law to serve as a backstop to prevent hate motivated violence in America. The recent tragic events at the Holocaust museum have made clear that these vicious crimes continue to haunt our country. This bipartisan legislation is carefully designed to help law enforcement most effectively respond to this problem. We stand to make real progress toward expanding Federal protections for victims of bias-motivated violence when we vote for cloture to end debate on the motion to proceed to this amendment. Senators from both sides of the aisle support this amendment. I call on all my fellow Senators to join me in support of this amendment and to vote to end the delay of Senate consideration of this important measure because expanding hate crimes protections and providing support to State, local, and tribal enforcement efforts are long overdue. That is why a vote for this amendment is necessary.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, once this amendment of the Senator from Kansas is disposed of, I will then offer an amendment. My amendment would preserve the first amendment protections in the hate crimes bill and add language to clarify that nothing in this act diminishes the protections of the first amendment. Of course, we could not pass a bill, as I am sure the Senator from Kansas knows, Congress could not pass legislation that would diminish the protections of the first amendment, the first amendment being in the Constitution, the first amendment protecting our right to practice whatever religion we want or none if we want and protecting our right of free speech. At the appropriate time, I will have an amendment which would preserve first amendment protections in the hate crimes bill and add language to clarify that nothing in this act diminishes the protections of the first amendment. I would assume the Senator from Kansas would have no objection to that.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection to just accepting by voice vote his amendment if the language was previously voted on in the last Congress and has been pending for some time. Mine is very short. I call on any Senator to tell me if there is anything they disagree with. It says: Nothing in this division, or amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. Does any Member of this body, Republican or Democratic, disagree with that language? Basically, it says the Constitution is the Constitution. We follow the Constitution. Does anyone disagree with that language?

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. I recall that very well. I also note that every single Republican, every single Democratic member on the committee agreed with Attorney General Holder on that. My amendment simply says that the Constitution of the United States controls. That is the ultimate law of the land. I can't imagine anybody in this body disagreeing with that, especially as every single Member of this body has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY. Of course.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree with that. And speaking as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am perfectly willing to accept both of them. I would be surprised if my friend from Kansas feels otherwise.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, to answer the Senator from Michigan, I am perfectly willing to voice vote both of them. I intend to vote for both of them. We are saying that you have a freedom of religion, and the courts cannot undermine the first amendment. This is hornbook law. This is your first week of law school. No court is going to disagree with that. I am perfectly willing to accept both by a voice vote. Amendment No. 1613 to Amendment No. 1511 So, Mr. President, I offer my amendment and send it to the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the hour is late. The matter is very simple. The Hatch amendment kills the hate crimes legislation. If you want to kill the hate crimes legislation, vote for the Hatch amendment. If you do not want to kill the hate crimes legislation, if you want a chance to vote on something the Senate has voted for time and time again, then vote against the Hatch amendment. The Attorney General testified at the request of the Republicans. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and endorsed the legislation before us. The Hatch amendment--perhaps well-meaning; I assume it is--would, in effect, eviscerate the hate crimes legislation. It would kill the hate crimes legislation. The question is very simple: Vote for Hatch; you kill the hate crimes legislation. Vote against it, we have a chance to vote for the hate crimes legislation--something the Senate has voted for several times before and something the Attorney General supports based on a hearing we had at the request of the Republicans within the past month.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. Anybody can read it in about a minute. It says that nothing shall add to or detract from the first amendment to the Constitution. No court in the country would rule otherwise. It simply says that regarding the right of free speech in this country, nothing can be taken from it and nothing added to it.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for accepting the amendment. I also thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, and the distinguished majority leader for their work, as well as my staff, Bruce Cohen, Kristine Lucius, Noah Bookbinder, and others. We have made it very clear--the Senate has made it very clear--how we hold in abhorrence hate crimes. I thank my colleagues for standing up and so strongly voicing, in a bipartisan way, their opposition to hate crimes. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask that Joseph Thomas of the Judiciary Committee be allowed privileges of the floor throughout the debate on the pending legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to salute Tom Ryan and his daughter, Maggie, of Shelburne, VT, for their goodwill gesture at a recent Boston Red Sox game. Last week, Tom and Maggie were at Fenway Park cheering on the Red Sox, and they ended up with the baseball David Ortiz--better known in Red Sox Nation as Big Papi--hit over the Green Monster for the 300th home run of his career. I had the good fortune to meet Big Papi last year at the White House celebration honoring the 2007 Red Sox World Series championship, and I was delighted to learn Tom and Maggie had the opportunity to meet Big Papi too and present him with the historic ball. In honor of the Ryans, and this important moment in Red Sox history, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Burlington Free Press's story, Vermont Man, Daughter Make Big Papi's Day, by Sam Hemingway be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the world goes through this difficult economic period it is important that we continue efforts that began when times were better. A June 10, 2009 article in the New York Times entitled ``Battle to Halt Graft Scourge in Africa Ebbs'' notes that because of a series of assassinations, dismissals, and changes in power across the African Continent, some of Africa's previous efforts to fight corruption are weakening. It is estimated that a trillion dollars obtained through corrupt practices changes hands every year around the world, and a large part of it in Africa. This staggering amount is often the revenues from the extraction of natural resources like oil or diamonds, but instead of going to help the impoverished people of the country where the resources are located, it too often goes to line the pockets of corrupt officials. If it were possible to reduce by just one-quarter the amount of money stolen, the amount saved would be five times as much as we spend annually on foreign aid. On his recent visit to Accra, Ghana, President Obama made it clear that the responsibility for good government and with it, development, in Africa ultimately rests on the shoulders of Africans. He said ``repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves . . . or if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims twenty percent off the top . . . or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end.'' I wholeheartedly agree with the President, and I also know that bribery depends on at least two parties--those who get paid and those who pay. Halliburton/KBR, a name we have all become familiar with for brazenly overcharging American taxpayers in Iraq, is reportedly under investigation for allegedly paying over $100 million in bribes in Nigeria in order to secure oilfield contracts. Although we do our best to investigate terrorist financing, U.S. banks are not required to fully investigate the sources of their funds, and the proceeds of corruption can sometimes get through. Offshore shell companies and bank accounts, and lax rules for identification of account holders, make it relatively easy to launder illicit money. The lack of information across borders hampers investigations and prosecution efforts and slows the return of stolen money. The New York Times article tells the story of Nuhu Ribadu, the former director of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in Nigeria, who led a courageous effort to begin to rid Nigeria of its endemic corruption problem but barely avoided an assassination attempt and was dismissed last year after reportedly refusing a $15 million bribe from a state official he was investigating. In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee earlier this year, Mr. Ribadu pleaded that this country do all that it can to fight this global problem saying, ``What can you do as a country, as a good people of the world, as leaders, to help be on the side of the 140 million desperately poor Nigerians?'' While there is no question that this is a problem that requires the hard work and sacrifice of citizens of the countries where these crimes are taking place, we also need to do what we can in the United States to stand with those people who are taking risks to rid their countries of the corruption that destroys governments and whole societies. There are a few things we can start doing now. We can do more to hold our domestic banks accountable for the money they have. We can put regulations in place that will make the holding of illegal international money no longer a profitable enterprise. We can open up international channels of communication to make sure that, while maintaining appropriate levels of privacy, we provide investigators overseas access to the records they need to track down and prosecute cases of graft in their countries. We should do all we can to prosecute those who receive bribes by cutting off funds and, as much is possible, expanding our courts' jurisdictions to prosecute those who extort money. And finally, we can come down hard on companies in the United States that are using bribery to increase their profitability in third world markets. This is a problem that many brave Africans have tried to tackle head on, and it has cost some of them their lives. Let us make sure that we are doing all we can to help.