Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, moments ago I left the Judiciary Committee hearing room where we are considering the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. In considering this historic and well-qualified nominee, many Americans may believe our country has completely turned the corner in terms of equality and civil rights. While I certainly hope Judge Sotomayor's nomination will unite us as a nation, I am aware that there is a lot more that still has to be done to protect the civil rights of all Americans. I plan to offer the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 as an amendment to the pending National Defense authorization bill. I thank Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, and a number of other bipartisan cosponsors for their support. This measure has long been a priority bill for Senator Ted Kennedy. I commend him for his steadfast leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crime laws. The amendment I will offer aims to address the serious and growing problem of hate crimes. We all saw the recent event at the Holocaust Museum here in Washington which made it 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. It has been stalled for far too long. The time to act is now. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act has been pending for more than a decade and has actually passed the Senate several times. Despite its long history in the Senate, and despite the fact that it is cosponsored by both Democratic and Republican Senators, it continues to draw the same tired, old attacks. Less than 2 years ago the Senate passed a hate crimes bill as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. It also passed the Senate in 2004, in 2000, and 1999. Last month, at the request of the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, and all Republican members of the committee, I chaired a hearing on this bill to assure that this legislation has been adequately discussed and considered, and to allow an opportunity to explore the minor changes that were made to the bill in this Congress. It is no doubt a testament to the urgency of this legislation that the Attorney General of the United States returned to the Judiciary Committee to testify in support of the bill. I say it reflects the urgency of it because the Attorney General had been before the committee less than a week before in an oversight hearing. Normally we would not see him before the committee for another 6 to 10 months. Yet, he came back within 6 days so he could testify in support of this important legislation. I commend Attorney General Holder for that. We have also heard from State and local law enforcement organizations, all supportive of the measure, and our committee record includes support letters from dozens of leaders of the faith community and the civil rights community. I agreed with Senator Sessions when he commented at the end of the hearing that it was a good hearing with a good exchange of views. We have now had more than enough process and consideration of this bill, and it is time to bring it to another Senate vote. The hate crimes amendment will 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. 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. In addition, the hate crimes amendment will provide assistance and resources to State and local and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes. Last Congress this legislation was attached to the Department of Defense authorization bill and had the bipartisan support of 60 Senators, and I expect we will have even more support today. President Obama supports the immediate passage of hate crime legislation. In his first few months in office, he has acted to ensure that Federal benefits are awarded more equitably, regardless of sexual orientation. He has shown through his selection of a nominee for the Supreme Court that he understands the greatest talent and experience and the highest devotion to law exists across lines of gender and ethnicity. Unlike in previous years, our bipartisan hate crimes bill does not face a veto threat because we have a President who understands that crimes motivated by bias are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and those victims' families. I know. In a previous career, I prosecuted crimes that were committed based solely or primarily on bias against the victims. It is a hateful, terrible thing. It is hateful to the victim, to the victim's family, the victim's friends. Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. If you feel somebody with whom you share that connection may have been the victim of a hate crime, you may fear that you will be next. For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 continues that great and honorable tradition. That is why so many law enforcement--State and local, Federal--support this legislation. Adoption of this amendment will show, once again, that America values tolerance and protects all of its people. I urge the opponents of this measure to consider the message it sends when, year after year, we have been prevented from enacting this broadly supported legislation. The victims of hate deserve better, and those who fear they may be the next victim of a hate crime deserve better. So I hope all Senators will join me in support of this important amendment. At the appropriate point, I will call up the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letters in support of this amendment from the Human Rights Campaign dated July 14, 2009, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights dated July 9, 2009, be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the list of supporters for the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I ask unanimous consent the military fellow in his office, CPT Lindsay George, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this legislation session.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that LTC Joseph J. Martin, a U.S. Army Special Forces officer currently serving as his military legislative fellow this year, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1407 as a second- degree amendment to the amendment that has been proposed by Mr. Sessions.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe I have the right to offer the second degree; do I not? While we are determining that, let me explain what this does. It would create a permanent EB-5 immigrant investor regional center program. This is a program that has generated billions of dollars of capital investment in American communities. It has created thousands of domestic jobs. There are 24 of these centers now around the country. I mention to the Senator from Alabama that Alabama has a strong track record with it statewide. The problem we have had in the past is we keep reauthorizing for just a few months at a time, and people in this economy don't want to put a large investment in it because of that. So I would offer this as a second-degree amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for its acceptance.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the current political crisis in Honduras. Vermont and Honduras have had a long, close relationship through the Partners of the Americas, and many Vermonters regularly travel to Honduras to engage in health care and other humanitarian and development work in rural communities. Last week a lawfully elected President--Manuel Zelaya--was forcibly removed from office and flown to a neighboring country by the Honduran military. The military and the Supreme Court apparently believed that President Zelaya was acting in a manner that was contrary to the Honduran Constitution. While such an accusation is troubling, military coups cannot be condoned, particularly when Honduras' Constitution contains provisions to handle such concerns--impeachment, for one. The sooner the Honduran military reverses course and allows President Zelaya to return the better it will be for Honduras and all of Central America. He has pledged to leave office at the end of his term, unlike other Latin American leaders who seem to believe constitutions are to be amended with the stroke of a pen so they can remain in office. When President Zelaya returns, if there is credible evidence that he broke laws, he should be held accountable in accordance with the laws of the country. While I condemn the actions of the Honduran military, I applaud the efforts of the Organization of American States, with the support of the Obama administration, to defuse this situation diplomatically. Removing Honduras' membership and beginning to impose sanctions in concert with widespread international condemnation is the appropriate response. We should also recognize that the people of Honduras appear to be deeply divided over President Zelaya. Rural Hondurans in particular have been dissatisfied with his performance as President. When he returns to office I hope he reconsiders his priorities and focuses his efforts on improving the lives of the people of Honduras who are most in need of the government's assistance.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am sorry to see Republican obstructionism in the Senate return with such a vengeance. Just last November, the American people voted for change. They sent a new President to the White House to lead our government and sent a strong message that they expected Washington to put aside pettiness and work on their behalf on the serious problems facing them and the country. After only 6 months, it seems Republicans in the Senate have already forgotten that message. The Senate majority leader has spoken about the difficulties he is having getting any semblance of reasonable cooperation from across the aisle. The Republicans' obstruction of Presidential nominees is a stark example. Just a few years ago, they were intent on employing the ``nuclear option'' and risking destruction of longstanding Senate rules and practices in order to ensure that every one of President Bush's nominees was confirmed. This year, with President Obama making the nominations, they have reverted to the anonymous holds that characterized their actions during the Clinton years. It is impossible to find a principle that justifies this obstruction. It is likewise difficult to see what ``extraordinary circumstances'' exist to justify filibusters and unwillingness to proceed to consider these nominations. The Senate's last week in session before the July 4th recess witnessed a Republican filibuster of the President's nominee to serve as the Legal Advisor at the State Department. The target was Harold Koh, the distinguished dean of the Yale Law School, a former high- ranking official in the State Department as well as a former official at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. That filibuster was unsuccessful, although 31 Republican Senators supported it. That was not the first attempt by Senate Republicans to filibuster executive branch nominees. Earlier this year, the Senate was forced to file for cloture to avert a Republican filibuster against the nomination of David Ogden to serve as the Deputy Attorney General. The destructive strategy culminated on June 25 when Republicans objected to confirming nine executive branch nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee for action by the Senate. They included five U.S. attorneys, 3 Assistant Attorneys General and the Chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In addition, the Judiciary Committee has reported 3 judicial nominees to begin filling the 74 vacancies in our Federal courts around the country. Republicans are turning the clock back to 10 years ago, when their obstructionism led to more than 100 judicial vacancies and earned rebukes from Chief Justice Rehnquist. In an editorial entitled ``Call It Obstructionism,'' the New York Times on June 28 noted that the Senate adjourned for the July 4th recess with ``21 nominees for important posts awaiting confirmation.'' Thirteen had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee but remained stalled before the Senate by Republican objections. I hope this work period sees the cooperation from Senate Republicans that the American people have demanded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on July 4, the Nation will celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the signing of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. The tragic events unfolding in Iran are a powerful reminder of the vital role of a free press and the free flow of information in an open society. Now in its fifth decade, FOIA remains an indispensable tool for shedding light on bad policies and government abuses. The act has helped to guarantee the public's ``right to know'' for generations of Americans. Today, thanks to the reforms contained in the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act, Americans who seek information under FOIA will experience a process that is much more transparent and less burdened by delays than it has been in the past. A key component of the OPEN Government Act was the creation of an Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, within the National Archives and Records Administration. This office will mediate FOIA disputes, review agency compliance with FOIA, and house a newly created FOIA ombudsman. I applaud President Obama and Acting Archivist of the United States Adrienne Thomas for recently appointing Miriam Nisbet as the first Director of OGIS. I look forward to working closely with Director Nisbet and I will continue to work very hard to ensure that OGIS has the necessary resources to carry out its mission. These new reforms to FOIA are very good news. But there is still much more to be done. Earlier this year, Senator Cornyn and I joined together to reintroduce the bipartisan OPEN FOIA Act, S. 612, a commonsense bill to promote more openness regarding statutory exemptions to FOIA. This FOIA reform measure requires that Congress clearly and explicitly state its intention to create a statutory exemption to FOIA when it provides for such an exemption in new legislation. While there is a very real need to keep certain government information secret to ensure the public good and safety, excessive government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant democracy. The OPEN FOIA Act has twice passed the Senate this year as a part of other legislation. This bill provides a safeguard against the growing trend towards FOIA exemptions and would make all FOIA exemptions clear and unambiguous, and vigorously debated, before they are enacted into law. I hope that the Congress will enact this good government measure this year. When describing our vibrant democracy, President Kennedy once wisely observed that ``[w]e are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.'' As we reflect upon the celebration of another FOIA anniversary, we in Congress must reaffirm this commitment to open and transparent government. Open government is not a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue. It is truly an American value and a virtue that all Americans hold dear. It is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the political spectrum in celebrating the 43rd anniversary of FOIA and all that this law has come to symbolize about our vibrant democracy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention a recent article published in The Burlington Free Press on Father's Day, which featured father and son botanists Hubert and Thomas Vogelmann from Jericho, VT, and the University of Vermont. Now professor emeritus at the University of Vermont, Hub Vogelmann was the pioneer researcher calling attention to the impact of atmospheric deposition--acid rain--on the forests of the Northeast. Hub led a field trip on the western slopes of the Green Mountains to view the damage in person with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Administrator. His contributions to the stewardship of our natural resources are many, particularly concerning the health of the forest ecosystem. Now dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Vermont, Hub's son Tom is carrying on in the Vogelmann family tradition of science, service and stewardship. As if this were not remarkable enough, Hub and his late wife Marie's two other sons are scientists as well, Jim a botanist and Andy, a physicist. I value the working relationship I have enjoyed with Hub over the years and look forward to working with Tom in his new role as dean. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article ``Like Father, Like Son--Fellow botanists have a lot in common,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an inequality in the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Program by extending benefits to non-profit EMS providers who die or are disabled in the line of duty. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Sanders. Vermonters were deeply saddened earlier this week when we received word that veteran EMT specialist Dale Long died in a tragic, on-duty accident in Bennington. Dale Long had a superb 25-year career as a Vermont EMT, and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, to the Bennington Rescue Squad, and to the entire Vermont EMT community. First responders nationwide literally put their lives at risk every day for the people of their communities. They represent the best of our nation's dedicated service to others, and Dale Long was a solid example of that tradition. He was Bennington Rescue Squad's 2008 EMT of the Year, and a 2009 recipient of the American Ambulance Association's Star of Life Award. I had the pleasure of meeting Dale just last month when he visited my office during the Star of Life festivities. This tragedy highlights a major shortcoming in the current PSOB program, which Congress established over 30 years ago to provide assistance to police, fire and medics who lose their lives or are disabled in the line of duty. The benefit, though, only applies to public safety officers employed by a federal, state, and local government entity. With many communities around the United States choosing to have their emergency medical services provided by non- profit agencies, medics working for non-profit services unfortunately are not eligible for benefits under the PSOB program. Non-profit public safety officers provide identical services to governmental officers and do so daily in the same dangerous environments. With a renewed appreciation for the important community service of first responders since the national tragedy of September 11, 2001, more people are answering the call to serve their communities. At the same time, more rescue workers are falling through the cracks of the PSOB program. The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act would correct this inequality by extending the PSOB program to cover non- profit EMS officers who provide emergency medical and ground or air ambulance service. These emergency professionals protect and promote the public good of the communities they serve, and we should not unfairly penalize them and their families simply because they work or volunteer for a non-profit organization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Bond in introducing the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2009. This is a clearly needed piece of legislation that will enable the Nation to tap more of the tremendous experience and expertise that exists within the National Guard. This legislation--known as Empowerment II--ensures that the Department of Defense takes advantage of the Guard's unique strengths and focuses on the critical mission of domestic operations and military support to civilian authorities. This bill is about focusing attention on the military's response to emergencies at home and fleshing out the structure of that response. Doing that will ensure our National Guard, Reserves and active forces can bring their specialized capabilities to bear, all while safely under the control of democratically elected officials and civilian authorities. The bill will specifically make the Chief of the National Guard a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while creating a new three- star deputy to the Bureau Chief to reflect the Bureau Chief's increased responsibilities. Additionally, the 2009 Empowerment Act provides the National Guard Bureau with limited budget authority to be able to acquire specially designed equipment for domestic operations, and it requires the Department of Defense to establish procedures to formalize arrangements to allow National Guard forces to have tactical control over active forces that operate in a domestic setting. Today Senator Bond and I seek to build on some of the major improvements to the Guard that we, together, made in the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill. That landmark bill enacted large portions of the first version of the Guard Empowerment Bill which elevated the Chief of the National Guard from three-star general to full General. The goal of all the changes enacted was to begin to ensure that the Guard has a seat at the table in major budget and policy decisions. We need to pick up where we left off early last year and sharpen the focus on the National Guard's role as a homeland defense and defense support to civilian authorities force. In fact, we are trying, in the realm of domestic operations and military support to civilian authorities, to do exactly what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is trying to do in the realm of irregular warfare. The Secretary is working to ensure that at least a good portion of the Department of Defense's equipment has utility in counterinsurgency situations. The Secretary has recently testified that he foresees about 10 percent of procured equipment to be dedicated solely for counterinsurgencies. I strongly support the Secretary's initiative. There also is a need to carve out a small wedge of the defense budget to develop technologies and systems that will help the National Guard, serving in a Title 32 capacity under the control of the Governors. Much of all Guard equipment is considered and should be ``dual use,'' but a sliver should be specially designed and used solely for domestic situations. The Guard Empowerment bill we are introducing today will also reduce the confusion that sometimes exists when there is a domestic emergency about how National Guard forces, serving under a Governor during an emergency, will interact with active duty forces that serve under the President's command. United States Northern Command in Colorado has unfortunately only exacerbated those concerns through attempts to override Governors and take command-and-control of National Guard assets in a State even though they are in their so-called Title 32 status. There is nothing in this bill that the National Guard is not already undertaking. The President and the Secretary of Defense look to the Guard Bureau Chief on matters related to defense at home. The Guard works to purchase homeland defense-oriented equipment through the so- called Guard and Reserve Equipment Account, and the Governors already wield active duty personnel during so-called National Security Events. The chain of command arrangements made during last year's political conventions in Minnesota and Colorado are a good example. The President recognizes that this legislation makes sense. In his ``Blueprint for Change,'' his new Administration's national security plan, President Obama endorsed the idea of making the Guard Bureau Chief a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a move that Vice President Biden also has endorsed. In developing the bill, we worked closely with The National Guard Association of the United States, the Adjutants General Association of the United States and the Enlisted National Guard Association of the United States--organizations that we expect to formally endorse the bill after its introduction. Everyone recognizes that if there is an emergency like Katrina and our civilian resources at all levels get overwhelmed, the military is going to have to come in to assist. The American people expect no less than a swift, coordinated and effective response. And it is the National Guard that knows how to do this mission right. Providing support to civilian authorities at the State level is what the Guard has done since its inception more than two centuries ago, and it is a mission that the National Guard continues to take seriously. This legislation solidifies and codifies sensible approaches to improving the Guard's ability to support civil authorities in an emergency. Enactment of this legislation is the very least we owe our proud citizen soldiers and airmen for their efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. 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 legislation that will correct an inequality in the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Program by extending benefits to non-profit EMS providers who die or are disabled in the line of duty. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Sanders. Vermonters were deeply saddened earlier this week when we received word that veteran EMT specialist Dale Long died in a tragic, on-duty accident in Bennington. Dale Long had a superb 25-year career as a Vermont EMT, and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, to the Bennington Rescue Squad, and to the entire Vermont EMT community. First responders nationwide literally put their lives at risk every day for the people of their communities. They represent the best of our nation's dedicated service to others, and Dale Long was a solid example of that tradition. He was Bennington Rescue Squad's 2008 EMT of the Year, and a 2009 recipient of the American Ambulance Association's Star of Life Award. I had the pleasure of meeting Dale just last month when he visited my office during the Star of Life festivities. This tragedy highlights a major shortcoming in the current PSOB program, which Congress established over 30 years ago to provide assistance to police, fire and medics who lose their lives or are disabled in the line of duty. The benefit, though, only applies to public safety officers employed by a federal, state, and local government entity. With many communities around the United States choosing to have their emergency medical services provided by non- profit agencies, medics working for non-profit services unfortunately are not eligible for benefits under the PSOB program. Non-profit public safety officers provide identical services to governmental officers and do so daily in the same dangerous environments. With a renewed appreciation for the important community service of first responders since the national tragedy of September 11, 2001, more people are answering the call to serve their communities. At the same time, more rescue workers are falling through the cracks of the PSOB program. The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act would correct this inequality by extending the PSOB program to cover non- profit EMS officers who provide emergency medical and ground or air ambulance service. These emergency professionals protect and promote the public good of the communities they serve, and we should not unfairly penalize them and their families simply because they work or volunteer for a non-profit organization. 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 join with Senator Bond in introducing the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2009. This is a clearly needed piece of legislation that will enable the Nation to tap more of the tremendous experience and expertise that exists within the National Guard. This legislation--known as Empowerment II--ensures that the Department of Defense takes advantage of the Guard's unique strengths and focuses on the critical mission of domestic operations and military support to civilian authorities. This bill is about focusing attention on the military's response to emergencies at home and fleshing out the structure of that response. Doing that will ensure our National Guard, Reserves and active forces can bring their specialized capabilities to bear, all while safely under the control of democratically elected officials and civilian authorities. The bill will specifically make the Chief of the National Guard a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while creating a new three- star deputy to the Bureau Chief to reflect the Bureau Chief's increased responsibilities. Additionally, the 2009 Empowerment Act provides the National Guard Bureau with limited budget authority to be able to acquire specially designed equipment for domestic operations, and it requires the Department of Defense to establish procedures to formalize arrangements to allow National Guard forces to have tactical control over active forces that operate in a domestic setting. Today Senator Bond and I seek to build on some of the major improvements to the Guard that we, together, made in the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill. That landmark bill enacted large portions of the first version of the Guard Empowerment Bill which elevated the Chief of the National Guard from three-star general to full General. The goal of all the changes enacted was to begin to ensure that the Guard has a seat at the table in major budget and policy decisions. We need to pick up where we left off early last year and sharpen the focus on the National Guard's role as a homeland defense and defense support to civilian authorities force. In fact, we are trying, in the realm of domestic operations and military support to civilian authorities, to do exactly what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is trying to do in the realm of irregular warfare. The Secretary is working to ensure that at least a good portion of the Department of Defense's equipment has utility in counterinsurgency situations. The Secretary has recently testified that he foresees about 10 percent of procured equipment to be dedicated solely for counterinsurgencies. I strongly support the Secretary's initiative. There also is a need to carve out a small wedge of the defense budget to develop technologies and systems that will help the National Guard, serving in a Title 32 capacity under the control of the Governors. Much of all Guard equipment is considered and should be ``dual use,'' but a sliver should be specially designed and used solely for domestic situations. The Guard Empowerment bill we are introducing today will also reduce the confusion that sometimes exists when there is a domestic emergency about how National Guard forces, serving under a Governor during an emergency, will interact with active duty forces that serve under the President's command. United States Northern Command in Colorado has unfortunately only exacerbated those concerns through attempts to override Governors and take command-and-control of National Guard assets in a State even though they are in their so-called Title 32 status. There is nothing in this bill that the National Guard is not already undertaking. The President and the Secretary of Defense look to the Guard Bureau Chief on matters related to defense at home. The Guard works to purchase homeland defense-oriented equipment through the so- called Guard and Reserve Equipment Account, and the Governors already wield active duty personnel during so-called National Security Events. The chain of command arrangements made during last year's political conventions in Minnesota and Colorado are a good example. The President recognizes that this legislation makes sense. In his ``Blueprint for Change,'' his new Administration's national security plan, President Obama endorsed the idea of making the Guard Bureau Chief a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a move that Vice President Biden also has endorsed. In developing the bill, we worked closely with The National Guard Association of the United States, the Adjutants General Association of the United States and the Enlisted National Guard Association of the United States--organizations that we expect to formally endorse the bill after its introduction. Everyone recognizes that if there is an emergency like Katrina and our civilian resources at all levels get overwhelmed, the military is going to have to come in to assist. The American people expect no less than a swift, coordinated and effective response. And it is the National Guard that knows how to do this mission right. Providing support to civilian authorities at the State level is what the Guard has done since its inception more than two centuries ago, and it is a mission that the National Guard continues to take seriously. This legislation solidifies and codifies sensible approaches to improving the Guard's ability to support civil authorities in an emergency. Enactment of this legislation is the very least we owe our proud citizen soldiers and airmen for their efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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 to join with Senator Crapo to introduce the Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act of 2009, which would restore and increase critical funding for direct services and compensation to victims of crime under the Victims of Crime Act. I was honored to support the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, VOCA, which has been the principal means by which the Federal Government has supported essential services for crime victims and their families. The Victims of Crime Act provides grants for direct services to victims, such as state crime victim compensation programs, emergency shelters, crisis intervention, counseling, and assistance in participating in the criminal justice system. These services are all financed by a reserve fund created from fines and penalties paid by Federal criminal offenders, at no cost to taxpayers. A number of us have worked hard over the years to protect the Crime Victims Fund. State victim compensation and assistance programs serve nearly four million crime victims each year, including victims of violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk driving. The Crime Victims Fund makes these programs possible and has helped hundreds of thousands of victims of violent crime bravely move forward with their lives. Several years ago, I worked to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund would be there in good times, and in bad. We made sure it had a ``rainy day'' capacity so that in lean years, victims and their advocates would not have to worry that the fund would run out of money and that they would be left stranded. More recently, an annual cap has been set on the level of funding to be spent from the Fund in a given year, in part to help preserve adequate funds from year to year. When this cap was established, and when President Bush then sought to empty the Crime Victims Fund of unexpended funds, I joined with Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski and others from both political parties to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund was preserved. Fortunately Congress has consistently rejected efforts to rob crime victims of resources that are appropriately set aside to assist them and their families. Unfortunately, the cap on the fund has not kept pace with the demand for compensation and services. From 2006 to 2008, VOCA victim assistance formula grants were cut by $87 billion or 22 percent. This reduction in funding, coupled with the current economic climate, was devastating to victim service providers who were forced to curtail services, lay off staff, and close their doors, jeopardizing the well- being and recovery of many crime victims. In addition, victim service professionals have seen a clear increase in victimization and victim need in the past year as job losses and economic stress translate into increased violence in the home and in our communities. The National Crime Victims Helpline reported a 25 percent increase in calls in recent months and the National Domestic Violence Hotline reported a similar increase. Local shelters and crisis lines are also reporting a rise in demand as the shortage of affordable housing and rising unemployment are increasing the time that victims stay in emergency shelters. The rising unemployment rate also means victims are less likely to have insurance to cover their crime-related expenses. At a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in April on the Victim of Crime Act, witnesses testified that there has also been an increase in the variety of crimes being committed. The National Crime Victims Helpline has seen an increase in calls from fraud victims people falling prey to ``work at home'' scams, secret shopper scams, investment scams, mortgage fraud, and construction fraud. Such victims are in desperate need of financial counseling and mental health counseling to overcome the stress and emotional impact of falling victim to these scams. Under Federal regulations, States may use compensation and victim assistance programs to aid financial crime victims, but services are not available. Victim service providers are reluctant to expand their outreach and services without assured increased funding and there is already too much competition for the limited funds available. The National Census of Domestic Violence Services conducted last fall showed that in one day, nearly 9,000 victims were turned away from shelter, counseling, and other crucial services because local programs were unable to serve them. The need for victim assistance and compensation has grown. The Crime Victims Fund can provide more help. Recent years have seen an increase in collections from criminal fines and penalties. Accordingly, Congress has the ability to provide stable and predictable growth without jeopardizing the sustainability of the fund, and should do so through this legislation. The Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act would establish a minimum funding level for programs under VOCA to ensure reasonable and predictable growth in victim services through fiscal year 2014. Providing a stable and predictable funding stream will enable states to expand their programs and outreach to the thousands of victims who have nowhere to turn. Again, I emphasize that it does not cost a dime of taxpayer funds but will come exclusively from Federal criminal fines and penalties. I want to commend Senator Mikulski, the Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Shelby, the Ranking Member, for working with the President to provide $100 million in the economic recovery package for crime victims. That additional funding is sorely needed right now and I know it was sincerely appreciated by victim service providers. Funding in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 together with the Recovery Act funds, restored funding to the 2006 level, adjusted for inflation. A 2010 cap on total VOCA obligations of $705 million is expected to maintain the funding level for assistance grants provided in 2009 through the Recovery Act funding and annual appropriations. I believe that the certainty this legislation will provide will be helpful to the states, victim service providers, and the citizens they serve, and will help improve this vital program. I look forward to working with Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski and many other interested Senators on this initiative to provide increased, stable, and predicable funding for to meet the ongoing need for essential services for crime victims and their families in the years ahead. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Durbin and Senator Feingold in introducing the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009. This legislation will make it a violation of United States law to commit a crime against humanity, and will help ensure that the perpetrators of crimes against humanity do not find safe haven in the United States. I commend Senator Durbin for his work on this legislation and for his leadership as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. Last Congress, I was pleased to work with Senator Durbin to create the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, the first-ever congressional committee established to address human rights issues. The work that we have done through this Subcommittee has helped the Senate focus on important and difficult legal human rights issues, including genocide, human trafficking, child soldiers, war crimes, corporate accountability overseas, systematic rape, and torture. The work of the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee has already achieved important results. Last Congress, the President signed into law the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, which outlawed the abhorrent practice of recruiting and using child soldiers, and the Genocide Accountability Act, which closed a loophole that had allowed those who commit or incite genocide to seek refuge in our country without fear of prosecution for their actions. These legislative initiatives were a critical step toward showing the international community that the United States will not tolerate human rights abuses at home or abroad, and that those who commit these atrocities must be held accountable for their actions. I am pleased to join Senator Durbin to take the next step to protect victims of crimes against humanity in the United States, and to hold those responsible for these terrible crimes to account. Along with genocide and war crimes, crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes under international law. We see such crimes against humanity by groups or governments as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. These deplorable crimes include murder, enslavement, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, extermination, hostage taking, and ethnic cleansing, and they continue to take place around the world in places like Uganda, Burma, and Sudan. Although the United States has strongly and consistently for more than 60 years supported the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity, there is currently no United States law prohibiting crimes against humanity. As a result, the government is unable to prosecute perpetrators of crimes against humanity found in our country. This legislation will fix this loophole by enabling the Attorney General to prosecute crimes against humanity committed by a U.S. national, legal alien or habitual resident in the United States. The law will also enable the prosecution of any crimes against humanity committed in whole or in part within the United States, as well as offenses that occur outside the United States, if the offender is currently located in the United States. The actions prohibited by the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009 are appalling. They happen too often throughout the world. We must promote accountability for human rights violations committed anywhere in the world, and we must do whatever we can to prevent those who commit such crimes from escaping justice by finding a safe haven in the United States. A foreign policy that seeks to defend human rights will never fully achieve its goals if we undermine our own credibility by failing in our commitment to uphold the highest standards of human rights here at home. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation to help this country take another step toward reclaiming our place as a guardian of human rights.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Crapo to introduce the Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act of 2009, which would restore and increase critical funding for direct services and compensation to victims of crime under the Victims of Crime Act. I was honored to support the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, VOCA, which has been the principal means by which the Federal Government has supported essential services for crime victims and their families. The Victims of Crime Act provides grants for direct services to victims, such as state crime victim compensation programs, emergency shelters, crisis intervention, counseling, and assistance in participating in the criminal justice system. These services are all financed by a reserve fund created from fines and penalties paid by Federal criminal offenders, at no cost to taxpayers. A number of us have worked hard over the years to protect the Crime Victims Fund. State victim compensation and assistance programs serve nearly four million crime victims each year, including victims of violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk driving. The Crime Victims Fund makes these programs possible and has helped hundreds of thousands of victims of violent crime bravely move forward with their lives. Several years ago, I worked to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund would be there in good times, and in bad. We made sure it had a ``rainy day'' capacity so that in lean years, victims and their advocates would not have to worry that the fund would run out of money and that they would be left stranded. More recently, an annual cap has been set on the level of funding to be spent from the Fund in a given year, in part to help preserve adequate funds from year to year. When this cap was established, and when President Bush then sought to empty the Crime Victims Fund of unexpended funds, I joined with Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski and others from both political parties to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund was preserved. Fortunately Congress has consistently rejected efforts to rob crime victims of resources that are appropriately set aside to assist them and their families. Unfortunately, the cap on the fund has not kept pace with the demand for compensation and services. From 2006 to 2008, VOCA victim assistance formula grants were cut by $87 billion or 22 percent. This reduction in funding, coupled with the current economic climate, was devastating to victim service providers who were forced to curtail services, lay off staff, and close their doors, jeopardizing the well- being and recovery of many crime victims. In addition, victim service professionals have seen a clear increase in victimization and victim need in the past year as job losses and economic stress translate into increased violence in the home and in our communities. The National Crime Victims Helpline reported a 25 percent increase in calls in recent months and the National Domestic Violence Hotline reported a similar increase. Local shelters and crisis lines are also reporting a rise in demand as the shortage of affordable housing and rising unemployment are increasing the time that victims stay in emergency shelters. The rising unemployment rate also means victims are less likely to have insurance to cover their crime-related expenses. At a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in April on the Victim of Crime Act, witnesses testified that there has also been an increase in the variety of crimes being committed. The National Crime Victims Helpline has seen an increase in calls from fraud victims people falling prey to ``work at home'' scams, secret shopper scams, investment scams, mortgage fraud, and construction fraud. Such victims are in desperate need of financial counseling and mental health counseling to overcome the stress and emotional impact of falling victim to these scams. Under Federal regulations, States may use compensation and victim assistance programs to aid financial crime victims, but services are not available. Victim service providers are reluctant to expand their outreach and services without assured increased funding and there is already too much competition for the limited funds available. The National Census of Domestic Violence Services conducted last fall showed that in one day, nearly 9,000 victims were turned away from shelter, counseling, and other crucial services because local programs were unable to serve them. The need for victim assistance and compensation has grown. The Crime Victims Fund can provide more help. Recent years have seen an increase in collections from criminal fines and penalties. Accordingly, Congress has the ability to provide stable and predictable growth without jeopardizing the sustainability of the fund, and should do so through this legislation. The Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act would establish a minimum funding level for programs under VOCA to ensure reasonable and predictable growth in victim services through fiscal year 2014. Providing a stable and predictable funding stream will enable states to expand their programs and outreach to the thousands of victims who have nowhere to turn. Again, I emphasize that it does not cost a dime of taxpayer funds but will come exclusively from Federal criminal fines and penalties. I want to commend Senator Mikulski, the Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Shelby, the Ranking Member, for working with the President to provide $100 million in the economic recovery package for crime victims. That additional funding is sorely needed right now and I know it was sincerely appreciated by victim service providers. Funding in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 together with the Recovery Act funds, restored funding to the 2006 level, adjusted for inflation. A 2010 cap on total VOCA obligations of $705 million is expected to maintain the funding level for assistance grants provided in 2009 through the Recovery Act funding and annual appropriations. I believe that the certainty this legislation will provide will be helpful to the states, victim service providers, and the citizens they serve, and will help improve this vital program. I look forward to working with Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski and many other interested Senators on this initiative to provide increased, stable, and predicable funding for to meet the ongoing need for essential services for crime victims and their families in the years ahead. 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 join Senator Durbin and Senator Feingold in introducing the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009. This legislation will make it a violation of United States law to commit a crime against humanity, and will help ensure that the perpetrators of crimes against humanity do not find safe haven in the United States. I commend Senator Durbin for his work on this legislation and for his leadership as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. Last Congress, I was pleased to work with Senator Durbin to create the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, the first-ever congressional committee established to address human rights issues. The work that we have done through this Subcommittee has helped the Senate focus on important and difficult legal human rights issues, including genocide, human trafficking, child soldiers, war crimes, corporate accountability overseas, systematic rape, and torture. The work of the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee has already achieved important results. Last Congress, the President signed into law the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, which outlawed the abhorrent practice of recruiting and using child soldiers, and the Genocide Accountability Act, which closed a loophole that had allowed those who commit or incite genocide to seek refuge in our country without fear of prosecution for their actions. These legislative initiatives were a critical step toward showing the international community that the United States will not tolerate human rights abuses at home or abroad, and that those who commit these atrocities must be held accountable for their actions. I am pleased to join Senator Durbin to take the next step to protect victims of crimes against humanity in the United States, and to hold those responsible for these terrible crimes to account. Along with genocide and war crimes, crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes under international law. We see such crimes against humanity by groups or governments as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. These deplorable crimes include murder, enslavement, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, extermination, hostage taking, and ethnic cleansing, and they continue to take place around the world in places like Uganda, Burma, and Sudan. Although the United States has strongly and consistently for more than 60 years supported the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity, there is currently no United States law prohibiting crimes against humanity. As a result, the government is unable to prosecute perpetrators of crimes against humanity found in our country. This legislation will fix this loophole by enabling the Attorney General to prosecute crimes against humanity committed by a U.S. national, legal alien or habitual resident in the United States. The law will also enable the prosecution of any crimes against humanity committed in whole or in part within the United States, as well as offenses that occur outside the United States, if the offender is currently located in the United States. The actions prohibited by the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009 are appalling. They happen too often throughout the world. We must promote accountability for human rights violations committed anywhere in the world, and we must do whatever we can to prevent those who commit such crimes from escaping justice by finding a safe haven in the United States. A foreign policy that seeks to defend human rights will never fully achieve its goals if we undermine our own credibility by failing in our commitment to uphold the highest standards of human rights here at home. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation to help this country take another step toward reclaiming our place as a guardian of human rights.