Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of my statement, Senator Isakson be recognized for 5 minutes, and then that Senator Brown be recognized for 10 minutes. That will allow all of our statements to be completed prior to a unanimous consent agreement which will shortly be entered into.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that no Budget Act points of order be in order to H.R. 2346, as amended; that at 1 p.m., Senator Cornyn be recognized for debate only for up to 40 minutes; that at the conclusion of Senator Cornyn's remarks, the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that at 2 p.m. today, there be 40 minutes of debate with respect to the DeMint amendment No. 1138, with the time controlled as follows: 20 minutes under the control of Senator DeMint, 10 minutes under the control of Senators Gregg and Inouye or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that no intervening amendment be in order to the language proposed to be stricken by the DeMint amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, President Obama said in his campaign and has repeated it since the first days of his Presidency that we must keep our Nation safe and secure, but we have to do it in ways consistent with our values. That is a sentiment I share, and one that I have voiced in hearings and statements for years as well. To President Obama's credit, to the benefit of the Nation, he has worked since his first day in office to turn these words into action to make our national security policy and our detainee policy consistent with American laws and American values. That, in turn, makes us more secure. I have supported President Obama in these steps, and I will continue to do so. That is why I have voted against amendments to withhold funding to close the Guantanamo detention facility, and to prohibit any Guantanamo detainees from being brought to the United States. These amendments undermine the good work the President is doing, and they make us less safe, not safer. I believe strongly, as all Americans do, we have to take every step we can to prevent terrorism. Then we have to ensure severe punishment for those who do us harm. As a former prosecutor, I have never shied away from harsh sentences for those who commit atrocious acts. I point to the times I have requested and gotten for people I have prosecuted life sentences, life sentences that they served without the possibility of parole. I also believe strongly we can ensure our safety and security and bring terrorists to justice in ways that are consistent with our laws and values. When we have strayed from that approach--when we have tortured people in our custody, or sent people to other countries to be tortured, or held people for years without even giving them a chance to go to court, to argue we were holding the wrong person, they are being held in error--we have hurt our national security immeasurably. Our allies have been less willing to help our counterterrorism efforts, and that has made our military men and women more vulnerable and our country less safe. Terrorists have used our actions as a tool to recruit new members, which means then we have to fend off more enemies. Worse still, we have lost our ability to respond with moral authority if other countries should mistreat American solders or civilians. Guantanamo has become the symbol of the severe missteps our country took in recent years. Changing our interrogation policies to ban torture was an essential first step. But only by shutting the Guantanamo facility and restoring tough but fair procedures can we repair our image in the world. We have to do that if we hope to have a truly strong national security policy. To close Guantanamo, we need our national security and our legal experts working hard to come up with a comprehensive plan for its closure. We should be funding those efforts. By cutting off that funding, we have hamstrung the President's initiative, and no matter what we intended to do, I believe we have made our Nation less safe. Much debate has focused on keeping Guantanamo detainees out of the United States. In this debate, political rhetoric has entirely drowned out reason and reality. Our criminal justice system handles extremely dangerous criminals, and it has handled more than a few terrorists, and has done so safely and effectively. We try very dangerous people in our courts and we hold very dangerous people in our jails in Vermont and throughout the country. We have the best justice system in the world. We have spent billions of dollars on our detention facilities, on our law enforcement, and our justice system. Are we going to say to the world, oh, my goodness gracious, we are not good enough to be able to handle criminal cases of this nature? I do not believe so. We try those dangerous people and we hold those dangerous people in jails in Vermont and throughout our country. We are showing the world that we can do it. I know; I have put some of them there. We do it every day in ways that keep the American people safe and secure. I have absolute confidence we can continue to do it. The Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on the issue of how to best handle detainees. Experts and judges from across the political spectrum have agreed that our courts and our justice system can handle this challenge. Indeed, it has handled it many times already. What I am saying is, after all of those billions of dollars, after all of the superb men and women we have working in our justice system, after all that we spend on maximum security facilities, are we going to say to the world, America is not strong enough to try even the worst of criminals? When we were hit with one of the worst terrorist attacks ever in this country, Oklahoma City, did we say we cannot try the people we have now captured? We cannot have them in a courtroom where it is secure, we will not be able to punish them? Of course not. We went ahead, and we also established for the rest of the world that we follow a system of justice in America. And having been horribly damaged in Oklahoma City, we followed our system of justice. The rest of the world looked at it, and they learned from us. Let's not step back from that. Republican luminaries such as GEN Colin Powell have agreed with this idea. One Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham, said, ``The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.'' So let's let reality come in and overwhelm rhetoric. It is time to act on our principles and our constitutional system. Those whom we believe to be guilty of heinous crimes should be tried. They should be penalized severely, and our courts and our prisons are more than up to the task. Our courts and our prisons are more up to this task than those in any other country in the world. But we also could have people who are innocent or where we captured the wrong person. If so, they should be released. There are going to be tough cases. Instead of cutting out the money the administration needs to dispose of those cases responsibly, knowing how tough they will be, we ought to be doing just the opposite and give them the resources they need. Let's put aside heated, distorted rhetoric. Support the President in his efforts to truly make our country a safe and strong Republic worthy of the history and values that have always made America great. I believed that when I was a young lawyer in private practice. I believed that when I was a prosecutor. I believe that even more today as a Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to some of the comments by the junior Senator from South Carolina about the President's request to participate in the expansion of the new arrangements to borrow and increase the U.S. quota at the International Monetary Fund. This authority, incidentally, is requested in order to implement decisions that were made by President Bush. It is easy to confuse people about this issue, as the Wall Street Journal editorial page confused itself and probably most of its readers earlier this week. If you are opposed to giving the Treasury Department this authority, the best way to scare people into voting against it is to say that it is a giveaway of $100 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds to foreign countries. That would scare anyone. If it were true I would vote against it myself. But it is not true. Our contribution is backed up by huge IMF gold reserves, so the cost to the taxpayers is $5 billion over 5 years, not $100 billion. OMB and CBO agree on that, and so does the Senate Budget Committee. And besides being false, it detracts from the legitimate question of why should we do this? The simple answer is because our economy, and millions of American jobs, depends on it. Between 2003 and 2008, U.S. exports grew by 8 percent per year in real terms. A key reason for that was the rapid growth of foreign markets. Our exports show a 95-percent correlation to foreign country growth rates since 2000. During that period, the role of exports in driving growth in the U.S. economy steadily increased. The share of all U.S. growth attributable to exports rose from 25 percent in 2003 to almost 70 percent in 2008. Because of the global financial crisis our exports peaked in July of last year and have been falling since then. In the first quarter of 2009, our real exports were 23 percent lower than in the first quarter of 2008. Our export decline is now contributing to recession in the United States. With an export share in GDP of 12 percent, a 23-percent decline, if sustained over the course of a year, would make a negative contribution to GDP of almost 3 percent. The stimulus plan we passed is boosting domestic demand. But the benefits of the stimulus are at risk of being wiped out by the decline in exports. We need to help foreign countries lift themselves out of recession. It will benefit them, but it will also restore our exports as their economies recover and they begin to buy more of our goods and services. Some foreign countries can take care of themselves with stimulus of their own, and by cleaning up their own banking sectors. But many others, especially emerging market economies, have been hard hit. Some countries have been cut off abruptly from capital markets and shut out of credit markets by the banking problems originating in the United States and Europe. Those countries need to fix their own problems and get temporary finance to avoid a prolonged period of economic decline. Providing temporary finance and policy fixes is the job of the IMF. But as the world economy grew in the last decade, the financial resources available to the IMF did not keep up. It has been caught short by the suddenness, severity, and scope of this global crisis. The request for a quota increase, and the authority to participate in the new arrangements to borrow, will replenish the IMF's resources so it can fight this crisis. With this money, the IMF will be able to help many foreign economies revive. With this money, the IMF will be ready in case the crisis deepens and takes more victims. As foreign economies recover, so will ours. We will be spared an even worse decline in our exports, with greater job loss. As our exports resume, people in export industries in every State will be able to go back to work. This may seem like an arcane issue, but it is of vital importance to the jobs of millions of Americans across this country. I, Senator Kerry, Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, Senator Lugar, and others have agreed on substitute language which provides for prior consultation and reports to Congress, as well as greater transparency and accountability at the IMF. It also provides guidelines for the use of the proceeds of sales of IMF gold. The real choice here is not whether or not we should provide Treasury with the authority that both former President Bush and President Obama have called for. Rather, it is how we should do it. After we vote on the DeMint amendment, and assuming it is defeated, I will seek consent for the adoption of substitute language that is supported by the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee. It also has the support of the chairman and ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. The true cost of the authority requested by the President is not the $100 billion the Senator from South Carolina wants you to believe. That is a scare tactic. It is $5 billion over 5 years, and that is a drop in the ocean compared to cost to our economy, and to American jobs, by not acting.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, Senator Cornyn insisted on offering an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that is most unfortunate. It is an amendment that is so broad in scope and, I believe, wrongheaded, that I felt I should note my disagreement. As a former prosecutor, I am troubled that the Senate is being called upon to prejudge matters that have yet to be fully investigated. This amendment is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. I have proposed a Commission of Inquiry in order to move these debates outside of partisan politics. An independent and nonpartisan panel taking a comprehensive approach is better positioned to determine what happened. Before the Senate starts pontificating about who should and should not be investigated, sanctioned, ethically disciplined or prosecuted, would it not be a good idea to know what took place? I was encouraged to hear Senator Cornyn call for ``an end to the poisonous environment that has overtaken the debate about detention and interrogation policy in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001.'' I agree and that is why I proposed taking the matter out of partisanship and away from political institutions. That is not what the amendment does, however. First, Senator Cornyn styled this as a sense of the Senate making overly broad findings, now he has stripped those findings from this amendment, and is doing something even more nonsensical, trying to prohibit the use of funds for something that funds are not even provided for in the emergency supplemental. An amendment politicizing decisions about investigations and prosecutions is not the right approach. We should have closed the book on efforts to have partisan interests infect Federal law enforcement decisions when we lifted the veil on the Bush White House's manipulation of U.S. attorney firings. Some of us have worked very hard to restore the U.S. Department of Justice to be an institution worthy of its name and to again command the respect of the American people. Senator Cornyn spoke on the floor this week about learning together from our past mistakes. I, again, invite all Senators from all parts of the political spectrum to join my call for a nonpartisan investigation to do just that. The Justice Department has yet to finish a 5-year inquiry regarding whether some of the lawyers responsible for the Office of Legal Counsel opinions that justified brutality acted in ways that failed to meet professional and ethical standards. It was a Republican ranking member on the Judiciary Committee who earlier this year said that if the news reports of how those memoranda came to be generated are true, there may have been criminal conduct involved. President Obama and the Attorney General have been very forthright in saying that those who relied on and followed the legal advice in interrogating prisoners would not be prosecuted. What needs to be determined, and has not, is how we came to a place where the United States of America tortured people in its custody in violation of our laws. Those legal opinions have been withdrawn. One of the earliest was withdrawn by the Bush administration in advance of the confirmation hearing on Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General, and others were limited in the final days of the Bush administration. What we do not know and what this amendment is geared toward covering for, is the role of the former Vice President and his staff, the role of the Bush White House in generating those opinions legalizing brutal interrogations. Last week, the Judiciary Committee held our most recent hearing into these matters. I thank Senator Whitehouse for chairing the hearing before the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Philip Zelikow testified about how dissent over the legal justifications and implementation of these practices was stifled and overridden. Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator of Abu Zubaydah, testified about his success using traditional interrogation techniques, and about how ineffective and counterproductive the use of extreme practices was in that case. And Professor David Luban critiqued the released memoranda as legally and ethically dishonest. Last week also evidenced, yet again, why the approach of an independent, nonpartisan review is the right one. Partisans defending the Bush-Cheney administration's actions chose not to look for the truth, but to mount partisan attacks. They have succeeded in fulfilling the prophecy they created--that any effort to consider these matters would break down into partisan recriminations--by themselves doing just that. They elevated the minor role of a former minority member of the House Committee on Intelligence into their principle concern, thereby ignoring the driving force of the former Vice President, other officials in the Bush-Cheney administration, and the complicity of the Republican congressional officials who were in control of both the House and the Senate. They raised straw men, went on witch hunts, and sought to distract from the fundamental underlying facts. All they really succeeded in demonstrating is that they will continue to view these matters through a partisan lens, and that they have yet to show any willingness to join in a fair, nonpartisan inquiry. Their recent actions reinforce why we need the independent, nonpartisan inquiry for which I have been calling over the last several months. For those who have reflexively opposed my proposal for a comprehensive, nonpartisan, independent inquiry, I ask these questions: If we never find the truth and understand the mistakes we have made, what incentive is there to avoid them in the future? What guarantee is there that the Government will not repeat the same mistakes? What incentive will future administrations have to respect the very rule of law that distinguishes us as a nation? The risk that the past will again be prologue is too great to take simply because it is not easy to face the truth. I continue to believe that we must know what happened, and why, to ensure that America does not go down this dark road, again. Before we turn the page, we need to read the page. We should proceed without partisanship, not as Republican or Democratic politicians, but as Americans who recognize, as Philip Zelikow testified last week, that torture was ``a collective failure and it was a mistake.'' During the last several weeks, we have seen the release of the Senate Armed Services report documenting the complicity of top Bush-Cheney administration officials. News reports have indicated that in April 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. arrested a top officer in Saddam Hussein's security force, and that some acting on behalf of then Vice President Cheney urged the use of waterboarding in an effort to coerce a ``confession'' supporting the link between al-Qaida and Iraq. That link, of course, has proven to be an illusory justification for the war, as were the nonexistent stockpiles of nuclear weapons and others weapons of mass destruction. Likewise, COL Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to President Bush's first Secretary of State, has written that these brutal interrogations, conducted in the spring of 2002 before the legal authorizations of the OLC memoranda were crafted, were aimed at the ``discovery of a smoking gun linking Iraq and al Qaida.'' Perhaps these reports help explain why former Vice President Cheney continues to adamantly support these discredited practices. Perhaps they explain why the proposed amendment's language is so vague with regard to those who, in its words, ``provided input into the legal opinions.'' There are strong passions on all sides. It is not only former Vice President Cheney and his apologists who feel strongly. There are those who will not be satisfied by anything less than prosecutions for war crimes. I have always believed that there is a fundamental middle ground, one that focuses on the most important issue at stake--finding out what happened and why. I appreciate the support of so many who have rallied to this idea of a nonpartisan commission and a comprehensive review of what took place. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission and a former State Department counselor, have both testified in favor of this idea. Former Bush administration official Alberto Mora, and the former FBI Director under President Reagan, Judge William Sessions, have both recognized the need for accountability. Distinguished former military officers, who are familiar with commissions of inquiry, have been supportive. These officers include ADM Lee Gun and MG Antonio Taguba, as well as the National Institute of Military Justice. Senators Feingold and Whitehouse, both members of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, have strongly endorsed the idea, as has Senator Robert Byrd. The Speaker of the House has spoken favorably about getting to the bottom of these matters, and she has shown her willingness to cooperate with such an inquiry. Human rights leaders and organizations have endorsed the approach, including Amnesty International, the Constitution Project, the International Center for Transitional Justice, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, the Open Society Institute, the Brennan Center, Human Rights First, and others. Prominent religious leaders such as those represented by the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, which is composed of a broad spectrum of religious denominations, support this idea. Thoughtful commentators like Jon Meachem, Nicolas Kristof, Tom Ricks, Frank Rich, and Maureen Dowd have come to endorse a nonpartisan commission. Editorials in support of a nonpartisan commission have appeared over the last several weeks in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and in Vermont's Rutland Herald. Last week, the Attorney General of the United States testified that the Justice Department would, of course, cooperate with such a commission were Congress to establish one. The President of the United States has said that he, too, feels that such a pursuit would be better conducted ``outside of the typical hearing process'' by a bipartisan body of ``independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility.'' I urge those Republicans who truly believe, as Senator Cornyn said, that in looking at these matters we must ``maintain our sense of perspective and objectivity and fairness'' to join in a bipartisan effort to provide for a nonpartisan review by way of a commission of inquiry. Such a commission would allow us to put aside partisan bickering, learn from our mistakes and move forward. Just as partisan Republicans were wrong to try to hold up the confirmation of Attorney General Holder to extort a pledge from him that he would not exercise independent prosecutorial judgment, it is wrong to shoe horn this amendment onto this emergency spending bill. I opposed the effort by some Republican Senators who wanted the Nation's chief prosecutor to agree in advance that he would turn a blind eye to possible lawbreaking before investigating whether it occurred. Republican Senators asked for such a pledge, a commitment that no prosecutor should give. To his credit, Eric Holder did not. Similarly, passing a broad and unrelated amendment on an emergency appropriations bill that seeks to instruct the Attorney General how to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities is not the path forward. Before we even know how these legal opinions were generated and who was responsible for what, this amendment calls for the Senate to usurp the Justice Department's role in determining whether and, if so, who to investigate or prosecute. Any former prosecutor, any lawyer and any citizen should know that it is not the decision of or an appropriate role for the U.S. Senate. Amendment No. 1156

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to see that the committee provided more than $3 billion for smaller, more agile, but still highly protective vehicles know as the MRAP-all-terrain-vehicle. That is $1.55 billion above what the administration requested in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental. We received a lot of testimony on this armored vehicle program from witnesses before our subcommittee, including the Chief of Staff of the Army, and I had a personal conversation with Secretary of Defense Gates. Everyone said that the MRAP-ATV, as it is known in short, is absolutely critical to achieving our goals in Afghanistan.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is so right, and I appreciated the way the subcommittee thoroughly looked at the administration's budget request, scrubbed the numbers, and listened to what our senior defense leaders had to say. The 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Vermont National Guard--the only Army brigade in the Army with a ``Mountain'' fighting designation, comprised of upwards of 1,800 proud citizen- soldiers from Vermont--will begin a yearlong deployment to Afghanistan next year. They will help train the Afghan National Army, which is critical to our success there. We want all our deployed forces--from Vermont, Hawaii, and every State, and every armed service--to have the best protection from roadside bomb attacks. That need is reflected in the urgent request from Central Command, in the so-called Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement.

Mr. LEAHY. I think it is tremendous that the subcommittee has shown such leadership on working to secure funds that we all know is essential to protecting our brave men and women deployed abroad. I look forward to continuing to work with my good friend and colleague from Hawaii to hold this funding in our conference negotiations with the House of Representatives. I thank the esteemed chairman.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2003, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I, along with 68 other Senators, introduced a bill to allow qualified retired or current law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm across State lines. The Senate passed our bill by unanimous consent, and it was signed into law in July 2004. Passage of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act indicated strong confidence in the men and women who serve to protect their communities and their Nation as the first line of defense in any emergency. Introduction of this legislation to benefit active and retired law enforcement officers across the country is especially timely as the Congress and the country have just recognized National Peace Officers Memorial Day. I am proud to introduce this legislation today and thank Senator Kyl for joining me as a cosponsor. This year, the Senate Judiciary Committee has turned its attention to State and local law enforcement. It has held hearings about the importance of Federal funding at the local level, and how strong community policing and positive community relationships are fundamental to a prosperous economy. I agree, and appreciated having the perspective at recent Judiciary Committee hearings of the State and local officials like Chief Michael Schirling and Lieutenant Kris Carlson from the Burlington, Vermont, Police Department. I hope the Senate will continue its strong support of our law enforcement officers with support for this legislation. In 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee twice reported the legislation I introduce today--once as a stand-alone bill and again as part of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvements Act. I hope the Senate will act in the interest of so many law enforcement officers across the United States by improving and building upon the current law. Since enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, I have heard feedback from many in law enforcement that qualified retired officers have been subject to varying certification procedures from State to State. In many cases, differing interpretations have complicated the implementation of the law, and retired officers have experienced significant frustration in getting certified to lawfully carry a firearm under the law. With the input of the law enforcement community, this bill proposes modest amendments to the current law, and will give retired officers more flexibility in obtaining certification. It also provides room for the variability in certification standards among the several States. For example, where a State has not set active duty standards, the retired officer can be certified pursuant to the standards set by a law enforcement agency in the State. In addition to these changes, the bill makes clear that Amtrak officers, along with law enforcement officers of the Executive branch of the Federal Government, are covered by the law. The bill also reduces the years of service required for a retired officer to qualify under the law from 15 to 10. The bill now contains clearer standards to address mental health issues related to eligibility for officers who separate from service or retire. These are positive changes to the current law, and the requirements for eligibility would continue to require a significant term of service for a retired officer to qualify, a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement, and retirement in good standing. The dedicated public servants who are trained to uphold the law and keep the peace deserve our support not just in their professional lives, but also when they are off-duty or retire. As a former prosecutor, I have great confidence in those who serve in law enforcement and their ability to exercise their privileges under this legislation safely and responsibly. The responsibilities they shoulder day to day on the job deserve our recognition and respect. I hope all Senators will join us in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act. This legislation will help bring recognition to New England's largest river ecosystem and one of our Nation's 14 American Heritage Rivers. The purpose of this legislation is to help the communities along the river protect and enhance their rich cultural history, economic vitality, and the environmental integrity of the river. From its origin in the mountains of northern New Hampshire, the Connecticut River runs over 400 miles and eventually empties into Long Island Sound. The river forms a natural boundary between my home state of Vermont and New Hampshire, and travels through the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut. The river and surrounding valley have long shaped and influenced development in the New England region. This river is one of America's earliest developed rivers, with European settlements going back over 350 years. The industrial revolution blossomed in the Connecticut River Valley, supported by new technologies such as canals and mills run by hydropower. I am pleased that the entire Senate delegations from Vermont and New Hampshire have cosponsored this bill. For years our States have worked together, to help communities on both sides of the river develop local partnerships to protect the Connecticut River valley of Vermont and New Hampshire. While great improvements have been made to the river, its overall health remains threatened by water and air pollution, habitat loss, hydroelectric dams, and invasive species. Historically, the people throughout the Upper Connecticut River Valley have functioned cooperatively and the river serves to unite Vermont and New Hampshire communities economically, culturally, and environmentally. Citizens on both sides of the river know just how special this region is and have worked side by side for years to protect it. Efforts have been underway for some time to restore the Atlantic salmon fishery, protect threatened and endangered species, and support urban riverfront revitalization. In 1989, Vermont and New Hampshire came together to create the Connecticut River Joint Commissions--a unique partnership between the states, local businesses, all levels of Government within the 2 States and citizens from all walks of life. This partnership helps coordinate the efforts of towns, watershed managers and other local groups to implement the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. This Plan has become the blueprint for how communities along the river can work with one another with Vermont and New Hampshire and with the federal government to protect the river's resources. The Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act would help carry out the recommendations of the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan, which was developed under New Hampshire law with the active participation of Vermont citizens and communities. This act would also provide the Secretary of the Interior with the much needed ability to assist the States of New Hampshire and Vermont with technical and financial aid for the Upper Connecticut River Valley through the Connecticut River Joint Commissions. The act would also assist local communities with cultural heritage outreach and education programs while enriching the recreational activities already active in the Connecticut River Watershed of Vermont and New Hampshire. Lastly, the bill will require that the Secretary of the Interior establish a Connecticut River Grants and Technical Assistance Program to help local community groups develop new projects as well as build on existing ones to enhance the river basin. In the future, I hope this bill will help bring renewed recognition and increased efforts to conserve the Connecticut River as one of our Nation's great natural and economic resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, very few people in America today would argue that our health care system is not in need of reform. It is a travesty that in the richest, most powerful country in the world, there are more than 47 million people without health insurance. That is an absolutely shocking number. It represents roughly one in six people who are going without regular trips to the doctor, forgoing needed medications and resorting to emergency rooms for care because they have nowhere else to turn. These are our friends, our neighbors, and millions of our children. An estimated 87 million people--one in every three Americans under the age of 65--were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. While my home State of Vermont has made significant strides in creating a plan for comprehensive coverage, there are still far too many Vermonters without health insurance. While we beat the national average, roughly 10 percent, or 66,000 Vermonters remain uninsured. Those Americans who are fortunate enough to have health coverage often cannot afford to access care. Every day, Americans across this country are struggling to afford premiums for health insurance, which have nearly tripled since 2000. In fact, new estimates show that the cost for health care for the average American family is more than $16,000 per year--an increase of over $1,100 from the previous year. Health care reform has been put on hold for far too long and cannot be delayed any further. It is encouraging that this Congress has already taken a few constructive steps toward insuring more Americans and making our health care system more effective. One of the first bills that President Obama signed into law was the reauthorization and expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program. This bill has extended and renewed health care coverage for over 10 million children and provided 4 million more with new coverage. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress extended health benefits for Americans who lost their jobs as part of the economic downturn and invested over a billion dollars to help States implement electronic health records to help make care more efficient with strong personal privacy protections, which I was proud to coauthor with others. While these bills have moved our country in the right direction, it would be a mistake to stop short of larger scale changes to our health system. The need for comprehensive reform has never been more urgent. Health care reform legislation must create a system where all Americans have the opportunity to access health insurance that is affordable and provides adequate coverage. For far too long, an unregulated health insurance market has cherry-picked healthy Americans to provide coverage to, while offering unaffordable coverage to individuals with ``pre-existing conditions.'' Many others who have insurance do not have adequate coverage and are insured only for certain conditions. Others have high premiums or unaffordable deductibles so accessing care is unrealistic. Competition among private insurers has not driven down costs to consumers and the current private insurance market has a clear incentive to offer coverage only to the healthiest Americans. Comprehensive health care reform can change this calculus and that is why I support the creation of a federally backed, public health insurance option. For those who are satisfied with their current insurance there is no need to change. A public option would only give consumers more choices to purchase an affordable and quality health insurance plan and will help drive down overall health care costs by introducing real competition into the health care market. I was proud to join Senator Brown and over twenty other Senators to introduce a resolution stating our support of a public option as part of comprehensive health care reform legislation. I appreciated the recent news that leaders of the health care industry are working with the Obama administration and have unveiled a plan to voluntarily trim roughly $200 billion in health care costs per year. While this is a movement in the right direction, this should not distract from the fact that coverage must be affordable for Americans or the larger goal of reducing overall costs will not be realized. A public option should recognize an individual's ability to pay and offer subsidies for those who are still unable to afford care. Leaving individuals without insurance drives up health care costs for us all, and we must work toward a goal of insuring all Americans. Insuring more Americans is of no use unless we work toward incentivizing people to become nurses, doctors, and health care professionals. My wife Marcelle is a nurse, and I understand the threat that nursing shortages pose to health care access and safety. Additionally, with the costs of a medical education rising, many aspiring physicians are choosing to specialize instead of pursuing a career in primary care. Especially in a rural State like Vermont, we are struggling to maintain primary and preventative care services throughout the State. I have heard from far too many Vermonters who use the emergency room for everyday health care needs because there are not enough primary care physicians to handle the demand for services. I support efforts to establish programs to help students repay their loans should they choose to practice in underserved fields or areas high in need of physicians and nurses across the country. Strengthening our primary care workforce will also help Americans access preventative services to help maintain good health and reduce the incidence of debilitating chronic conditions. Chronic diseases are often preventable or manageable with treatment, yet currently account for 75 percent of our health care spending. Already we have seen a movement to target preventable diseases by focusing on ways to promote healthy lifestyles and choices. As part of its Blueprint for Health, Vermont has begun a series of pilots across the State to enhance health care coordination and patient outcomes through patient centered medical homes. Vermont is seeing good results and is finding that a coordinated approach to health care prevents repeated hospital visits and the emergence of chronic conditions. Prevention must be seen as a cornerstone to both reducing costs and keeping Americans healthy. Some argue that in our current economic climate it would be irresponsible to reform health care because we simply cannot afford it. What we cannot afford is to stick with the status quo, which is crippling our economy and neglecting millions of Americans who want coverage but cannot afford it. Health care costs currently consume 16 percent of the United States's gross domestic product, which is expected to double in the next decade if nothing is done to slow the trend. Strengthening our enforcement efforts to crack down on rampant fraud, waste, and abuse in the health care system is vital to lowering costs associated with health care. The scale of health care fraud in America today is staggering. According to conservative estimates, about 3 percent of the funds spent on health care are lost to fraud--that totals more than $60 billion a year. For the Medicare Program alone, the Government Accountability Office estimates that more than $10 billon was lost to fraud just last year. Unfortunately, this problem appears to be getting worse, not better. The answer to this problem is to make our enforcement stronger and more effective. We need to deter fraud with swift and certain prosecution, as well as prevent fraud by using real-time internal controls that stop fraud even before it occurs. We need to make sure our enforcement efforts are fully coordinated, not only between the Justice Department and other agencies, but also between federal, state, and private health care fraud investigators. Much has been done to improve enforcement since the late 1990s, but we can and must do more. Health spending cannot be controlled without a comprehensive approach that focuses on all aspects of our health system. We cannot afford to stop the growth in health spending without ensuring that Americans have access to primary care to prevent and treat chronic conditions before they begin. We must target inefficiencies and fraud within the system and incentivize quality of care not necessarily quantity of care. We have the opportunity to create a system that maintains patient choice, gives all Americans access to quality care and reduces overall health spending. We cannot afford to neglect true reform to our health system any longer. I look forward to working with the Finance and HELP Committees and all Senators to pass a comprehensive health care reform bill this year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act. This legislation will help bring recognition to New England's largest river ecosystem and one of our Nation's 14 American Heritage Rivers. The purpose of this legislation is to help the communities along the river protect and enhance their rich cultural history, economic vitality, and the environmental integrity of the river. From its origin in the mountains of northern New Hampshire, the Connecticut River runs over 400 miles and eventually empties into Long Island Sound. The river forms a natural boundary between my home state of Vermont and New Hampshire, and travels through the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut. The river and surrounding valley have long shaped and influenced development in the New England region. This river is one of America's earliest developed rivers, with European settlements going back over 350 years. The industrial revolution blossomed in the Connecticut River Valley, supported by new technologies such as canals and mills run by hydropower. I am pleased that the entire Senate delegations from Vermont and New Hampshire have cosponsored this bill. For years our States have worked together, to help communities on both sides of the river develop local partnerships to protect the Connecticut River valley of Vermont and New Hampshire. While great improvements have been made to the river, its overall health remains threatened by water and air pollution, habitat loss, hydroelectric dams, and invasive species. Historically, the people throughout the Upper Connecticut River Valley have functioned cooperatively and the river serves to unite Vermont and New Hampshire communities economically, culturally, and environmentally. Citizens on both sides of the river know just how special this region is and have worked side by side for years to protect it. Efforts have been underway for some time to restore the Atlantic salmon fishery, protect threatened and endangered species, and support urban riverfront revitalization. In 1989, Vermont and New Hampshire came together to create the Connecticut River Joint Commissions--a unique partnership between the states, local businesses, all levels of Government within the 2 States and citizens from all walks of life. This partnership helps coordinate the efforts of towns, watershed managers and other local groups to implement the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. This Plan has become the blueprint for how communities along the river can work with one another with Vermont and New Hampshire and with the federal government to protect the river's resources. The Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act would help carry out the recommendations of the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan, which was developed under New Hampshire law with the active participation of Vermont citizens and communities. This act would also provide the Secretary of the Interior with the much needed ability to assist the States of New Hampshire and Vermont with technical and financial aid for the Upper Connecticut River Valley through the Connecticut River Joint Commissions. The act would also assist local communities with cultural heritage outreach and education programs while enriching the recreational activities already active in the Connecticut River Watershed of Vermont and New Hampshire. Lastly, the bill will require that the Secretary of the Interior establish a Connecticut River Grants and Technical Assistance Program to help local community groups develop new projects as well as build on existing ones to enhance the river basin. In the future, I hope this bill will help bring renewed recognition and increased efforts to conserve the Connecticut River as one of our Nation's great natural and economic resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2003, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I, along with 68 other Senators, introduced a bill to allow qualified retired or current law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm across State lines. The Senate passed our bill by unanimous consent, and it was signed into law in July 2004. Passage of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act indicated strong confidence in the men and women who serve to protect their communities and their Nation as the first line of defense in any emergency. Introduction of this legislation to benefit active and retired law enforcement officers across the country is especially timely as the Congress and the country have just recognized National Peace Officers Memorial Day. I am proud to introduce this legislation today and thank Senator Kyl for joining me as a cosponsor. This year, the Senate Judiciary Committee has turned its attention to State and local law enforcement. It has held hearings about the importance of Federal funding at the local level, and how strong community policing and positive community relationships are fundamental to a prosperous economy. I agree, and appreciated having the perspective at recent Judiciary Committee hearings of the State and local officials like Chief Michael Schirling and Lieutenant Kris Carlson from the Burlington, Vermont, Police Department. I hope the Senate will continue its strong support of our law enforcement officers with support for this legislation. In 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee twice reported the legislation I introduce today--once as a stand-alone bill and again as part of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvements Act. I hope the Senate will act in the interest of so many law enforcement officers across the United States by improving and building upon the current law. Since enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, I have heard feedback from many in law enforcement that qualified retired officers have been subject to varying certification procedures from State to State. In many cases, differing interpretations have complicated the implementation of the law, and retired officers have experienced significant frustration in getting certified to lawfully carry a firearm under the law. With the input of the law enforcement community, this bill proposes modest amendments to the current law, and will give retired officers more flexibility in obtaining certification. It also provides room for the variability in certification standards among the several States. For example, where a State has not set active duty standards, the retired officer can be certified pursuant to the standards set by a law enforcement agency in the State. In addition to these changes, the bill makes clear that Amtrak officers, along with law enforcement officers of the Executive branch of the Federal Government, are covered by the law. The bill also reduces the years of service required for a retired officer to qualify under the law from 15 to 10. The bill now contains clearer standards to address mental health issues related to eligibility for officers who separate from service or retire. These are positive changes to the current law, and the requirements for eligibility would continue to require a significant term of service for a retired officer to qualify, a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement, and retirement in good standing. The dedicated public servants who are trained to uphold the law and keep the peace deserve our support not just in their professional lives, but also when they are off-duty or retire. As a former prosecutor, I have great confidence in those who serve in law enforcement and their ability to exercise their privileges under this legislation safely and responsibly. The responsibilities they shoulder day to day on the job deserve our recognition and respect. I hope all Senators will join us in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator for withdrawing her objection. Again, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1191 to the bill.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Will the distinguished majority leader yield?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to call up an amendment and have it pending to H.R. 2346, an amendment numbered 1191.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand objection has been heard. Among the people on this amendment are Senator Gregg, Senator Shelby, myself, and Senators Kerry and Dodd, as well as Senator Lugar.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is a mark of the difference between the Senate's agenda last year and the new Senate's agenda this year that we finally are able to debate and move toward a vote on the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which I strongly support. I thank and commend both Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for their hard work on this important legislation. The Banking Committee has faced a number of extraordinary challenges this year--stabilizing our financial institutions, rescuing our housing market, rooting out bad actors in the financial system, and restoring consumer confidence in our economy--and I applaud Chairman Dodd for the initiative he has taken in tackling these issues and helping ordinary Americans most affected by the current economic downturn. Over the past 6 months, hundreds and hundreds of Vermonters have contacted my office voicing concerns about deceptive practices by the credit card industry. People have shared stories about credit card companies raising interest rates arbitrarily, charging usurious fees, and refusing to work cooperatively with their clients. Most troubling, the biggest offenders appear to be large, national banks that gladly accepted the mercy of taxpayer bailout money when they were in trouble yet show little compassion now when their customers are struggling. In today's economy, Americans need credit that is accessible, affordable, and dependable. Unfortunately, our current credit card system disadvantages many Americans and makes it harder for them to pay off their debt. Credit card contracts have been growing increasingly complicated, deceptively worded, and unfairly stacked against consumers. The time is long overdue for more transparent and equitable credit card practices--which I why I was an early cosponsor of this bill and why I am very pleased that the Senate at last is able to move forward in considering and voting on it. This bill puts fairness and common sense back into the credit card system by changing several unfair billing, marketing, and disclosure practices. Among its many important provisions, the bill prohibits interest charges on credit card debt that is paid on time; requires a 45-day notice of any fee or interest rate changes; prohibits interest charges on credit card transaction fees such as late fees; prohibits overlimit fees unless a consumer opts into the program; requires enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum payments; protects younger consumers from alluring and usurious credit card offers; and requires promotional rates to last at least 6 months. I also am gratified that we now have a President who is taking consumers' needs to heart and who has supported our efforts to move this bill forward. These significant credit card reforms will protect consumers from excessive penalties, ever-changing interest rates, and complex contracts. So once again, I want to thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for bringing forward this important, bipartisan legislation. I believe it will go a long way toward relieving Vermonters who, like Americans everywhere, have had to endure the dictates of credit card issuers when it comes to the onerous and unfair terms in these contracts.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate has passed the bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, S.386. This bill will soon be sent to the President to be signed into law. The House passed this bill overwhelming just last week. This bill is a major step toward holding accountable those who have caused so much damage to our economy. It will also help protect our economic recovery efforts from the scourge of fraud. Our bill will strengthen the Federal Government's capacity to investigate and prosecute the kinds of financial frauds that have so severely undermined our economy and hurt so many hard-working people in this country. These frauds have robbed people of their savings, their retirement accounts, their college funds for their children, and their equity and have cost too many people their homes. The bill will help provide the resources and legal tools needed to police and deter fraud and to protect taxpayer-funded economic recovery efforts now being implemented. I want to once again commend Senator Grassley, our lead cosponsor, for his leadership at every stage in this process. He helped to write this legislation and to manage it on the Senate floor, where it ultimately passed 92 to 4. He also worked tirelessly to make important and difficult compromises with Senate and House leaders, which was crucial to crafting a consensus a bill that could pass both Houses. He has once again proven his dedication to protecting taxpayer funds by deterring, investigating, and prosecuting fraud. I thank Majority Leader Hoyer and the House leadership, as well as Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and Congressmen Berman and Scott on the House Judiciary Committee, for working with us to promptly pass this bill in the House with minimal changes and a number of helpful additions. The new ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, was also very important and supportive in those negotiations. I thank our many cosponsors for their steadfast support for this effort. Senators Kaufman and Klobuchar have worked particularly hard to ensure that this important fraud enforcement bill becomes law, and I thank them for their efforts. Senator Kaufman has spoken and written about the need for fraud enforcement all year. We have been joined by a growing bipartisan group of cosponsors that now stands at 28. And I thank our majority leader and our underappreciated cloakroom and floor staff for all that they have done on this bill. Mortgage fraud has reached near epidemic levels in this country. Reports of mortgage fraud are up 682 percent over the past 5 years, and more than 2800 percent in the past decade. And massive, new corporate frauds, like the $65 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff, are being uncovered as the economy has turned worse, exposing many investors to massive losses. We can now finally take action to better protect the victims of these frauds. These victims include homeowners who have been fleeced by unscrupulous mortgage brokers who promise to help them, only to leave them unable to keep their homes and in even further debt than before. They include retirees who have lost their life savings in stock scams and Ponzi schemes, which have come to light as the markets have fallen and corporations have collapsed. They also include American taxpayers who have invested billions of dollars to restore our economy, and who expect us to protect that investment and make sure those funds are not exploited by fraud. This legislation will immediately give Federal law enforcement agencies the tools and resources they need to combat fraud effectively. In the last 3 years, the number of criminal mortgage fraud investigations opened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, has more than doubled, and the FBI anticipates that number may double yet again. Despite this increase, the FBI currently has fewer than 250 special agents nationwide assigned to financial fraud cases, which is only a quarter of the number the Bureau had more than a decade ago at the time of the savings and loan crisis. At the current levels, the FBI cannot even begin to investigate the more than 5000 mortgage fraud allegations referred by the Treasury Department each month. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Congress responded to the collapse of the federally insured savings and loan industry by passing legislation similar to the bill we consider today, to hire prosecutors and agents. While the current financial crisis dwarfs in scale to the savings and loan collapse, we are poised to once again take decisive action. At its core, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act authorizes the resources necessary for the Justice Department, the FBI, and other investigative agencies to respond to this crisis. In total, the bill authorizes $245 million a year over the next 2 years to hire more than 300 Federal agents, more than 200 prosecutors, and another 200 forensic analysts and support staff to rebuild our Nation's ``white collar'' fraud enforcement efforts. While the number of fraud cases is now skyrocketing, we need to remember that resources were shifted away from fraud investigations after 9/11. Today, the ranks of fraud investigators and prosecutors are drastically understocked, and thousands of fraud allegations are going unexamined each month. We need to restore our capacity to fight fraud in these hard economic times, and this bill will do that. Fraud enforcement is an excellent investment for the American taxpayer. According to recent data provided by the Justice Department, the government recovers more than $20 for every dollar spent on criminal fraud litigation. Strengthening criminal and civil fraud enforcement is a sound investment, and this legislation will not only pay for itself, but will bring in money for the Federal Government. In addition, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act makes a number of straightforward, important improvements to fraud and money laundering statutes to strengthen prosecutors' ability to combat this growing wave of fraud. It also strengthens one of the most potent civil tools we have for rooting out fraud in government--the False Claims Act. The Federal Government has recovered more than $22 billion using the False Claims Act since it was modernized through the work of Senator Grassley in 1986, but this bill will make the statute still more effective. In fact, the amendments the House made to the bill, after extensive input from Senator Grassley and Congressman Berman, strengthen the False Claims Act further still. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act has broad bipartisan support, as well as the strong backing of the Justice Department and the Obama administration. As explained in the Statement of Administration policy: The Administration strongly supports enactment of S. 386. Its provisions would provide Federal investigators and prosecutors with significant new criminal and civil tools and resources that would assist in holding accountable those who have committed financial fraud. Strengthening fraud enforcement is a key priority for President Obama. During the campaign, President Obama promised to ``crack down on mortgage fraud professionals found guilty of fraud by increasing enforcement and creating new criminal penalties.'' And the President made good on this promise in his budget to Congress by calling for additional FBI agents ``to investigate mortgage fraud and white collar crime,'' as well as hiring more Federal prosecutors and civil attorneys ``to protect investors, the market, and the Federal Government's investment of resources in the financial crisis, and the American public.'' The initial Senate-passed recovery package included additional money for the FBI for this purpose, but it was cut during the negotiations that led to its passage. This bill, the bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, is our chance to authorize the necessary additional resources to detect, fight and deter fraud that robs the American people and American taxpayers of their funds. Strong support from the President and the Justice Department has been integral to making progress on this important bill. This is and has been bipartisan legislation. Our cosponsors and our supporters in both Houses of Congress come from across the political spectrum--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. What we share is a commitment to fight fraud and the horrible costs it is imposing on hard-working Americans. I believe that our efforts are supported by most Americans. No one should want to see taxpayer money intended to fund economic recovery efforts diverted by fraud. No one should want to see those who engaged in mortgage fraud escape accountability. Law enforcement agencies desperately need the resources and tools in this legislation. During these first months of the year, the Judiciary Committee has concentrated on what we can do legislatively to assist in the economic recovery. Already we have considered and reported this fraud enforcement bill, the patent reform bill, and worked to ensure that law enforcement assistance was included in the economic recovery legislation. The recovery efforts are generating signs of economic progress. That is good. That is necessary. But that is not enough. We need to make sure that we are spending our public resources wisely and that they are not being dissipated by fraud. We need to ensure that those responsible for the downturn through fraudulent acts in financial markets and the housing market are held to account. That is why the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act is so needed. The bill has also received the support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the Association of Certified Tax Examiners, and Taxpayers Against Fraud. It was strongly endorsed by an editorial in The New York Times on April 18, 2009. I thank Senators for joining with us to take decisive action to protect American families and our economy from fraud.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, once again I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein to introduce the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act AgJOBS. Senator Feinstein has been pursuing these important reforms for several years now, and I commend her dedication to this legislation, and to America's farmers. I join her and the other cosponsors of this legislation in strong support of America's agricultural industry and the men and women who work hard every day to keep our farms running. In Vermont, as in many States across the country, farmers are feeling the effects of a scarce labor pool. This problem is particularly acute for the dairy industry, where the employment needs are year-round and require a significant investment from the farmer in terms of training and development. I have long been concerned about the dairy farmers' difficulties in trying to use the agricultural visa program. It simply makes no sense that the visa program dedicated to agriculture cannot be used by such an important arm of the industry. I have long advocated for the dairy-specific provisions in the AgJOBS bill. I worked to include these protections for dairy farmers during Congress's last two debates on comprehensive reform, and it is time for the immigration law to accommodate the legitimate needs of the Nation's dairy farmers. The AgJOBS bill will change this. It would give dairy farmers needing workers the opportunity to lawfully hire foreign workers who can remain with their employers for a meaningful period of time. The AgJOBS legislation contains other important reforms that will help all of America's farmers. The creation of a blue card for undocumented agricultural workers who have been working to keep our farms running and fields planted and harvested is the right thing to do. It is a targeted and limited proposal that will serve to help farmers and farm workers. I have said before that no American farmer should be forced to choose between his or her livelihood and obeying the law. In Vermont it is estimated that as many as 2000 undocumented workers work on dairy farms in the State. We can all agree that this is not an ideal situation--not for the farmer and not for the worker, and not for an overall immigration system that is in need of substantial repair. By providing a mechanism for loyal undocumented foreign workers to come out of the shadows and into the sunlight of the protection of the law and the rights it will provide them, Congress can help begin a new day in American agriculture. No longer will farmers endure the waste and heartbreak of watching fields of crops rot for lack of workers to harvest. Workers will be able to contribute lawfully and openly to our Nation's agricultural industry, and integrate into their surrounding communities, adding to the fabric of our diverse American life. The need for this legislation is clear and present, and I hope that some who have stood in opposition to sensible immigration reform will recognize that hardworking farmers and their communities are as much the victims of their misguided obstructionism as are the immigrants they seek to punish. We will need the strong support in the Senate and from the Obama administration if we are to make these and other reforms to our immigration system. President Obama recognized the need for this legislation as a Senator when he was an original cosponsor last Congress. His leadership will be critical as we move forward. Our bill contains other sensible provisions concerning the rights of workers, fair wages, and a streamlined process for farmers using the H- 2A process. These are all important reforms that I am proud to support. Senator Feinstein is committed to the Nation's farmers and those who work for them, and I am pleased to join her in support of these needed reforms.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, once again I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein to introduce the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act AgJOBS. Senator Feinstein has been pursuing these important reforms for several years now, and I commend her dedication to this legislation, and to America's farmers. I join her and the other cosponsors of this legislation in strong support of America's agricultural industry and the men and women who work hard every day to keep our farms running. In Vermont, as in many States across the country, farmers are feeling the effects of a scarce labor pool. This problem is particularly acute for the dairy industry, where the employment needs are year-round and require a significant investment from the farmer in terms of training and development. I have long been concerned about the dairy farmers' difficulties in trying to use the agricultural visa program. It simply makes no sense that the visa program dedicated to agriculture cannot be used by such an important arm of the industry. I have long advocated for the dairy-specific provisions in the AgJOBS bill. I worked to include these protections for dairy farmers during Congress's last two debates on comprehensive reform, and it is time for the immigration law to accommodate the legitimate needs of the Nation's dairy farmers. The AgJOBS bill will change this. It would give dairy farmers needing workers the opportunity to lawfully hire foreign workers who can remain with their employers for a meaningful period of time. The AgJOBS legislation contains other important reforms that will help all of America's farmers. The creation of a blue card for undocumented agricultural workers who have been working to keep our farms running and fields planted and harvested is the right thing to do. It is a targeted and limited proposal that will serve to help farmers and farm workers. I have said before that no American farmer should be forced to choose between his or her livelihood and obeying the law. In Vermont it is estimated that as many as 2000 undocumented workers work on dairy farms in the State. We can all agree that this is not an ideal situation--not for the farmer and not for the worker, and not for an overall immigration system that is in need of substantial repair. By providing a mechanism for loyal undocumented foreign workers to come out of the shadows and into the sunlight of the protection of the law and the rights it will provide them, Congress can help begin a new day in American agriculture. No longer will farmers endure the waste and heartbreak of watching fields of crops rot for lack of workers to harvest. Workers will be able to contribute lawfully and openly to our Nation's agricultural industry, and integrate into their surrounding communities, adding to the fabric of our diverse American life. The need for this legislation is clear and present, and I hope that some who have stood in opposition to sensible immigration reform will recognize that hardworking farmers and their communities are as much the victims of their misguided obstructionism as are the immigrants they seek to punish. We will need the strong support in the Senate and from the Obama administration if we are to make these and other reforms to our immigration system. President Obama recognized the need for this legislation as a Senator when he was an original cosponsor last Congress. His leadership will be critical as we move forward. Our bill contains other sensible provisions concerning the rights of workers, fair wages, and a streamlined process for farmers using the H- 2A process. These are all important reforms that I am proud to support. Senator Feinstein is committed to the Nation's farmers and those who work for them, and I am pleased to join her in support of these needed reforms.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will act unanimously in support of our Nation's law enforcement officers by passing a resolution to honor their service and sacrifice. I am pleased the Senate will take this action at the start of National Police Week and I thank all Senators for their strong support. I thank Senator Sessions, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for joining me in the introduction of this resolution. This week we will reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by the men and women of our police forces. We do not thank them enough. And as thousands of law enforcement officers arrive in Washington this week to pay tribute to those whose lives were lost in the line of duty, I hope they all know that the Senate stands with them and honors their service and their sacrifice. We welcome these men and women and their families and friends to the Nation's Capital. This week, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to get the perspective from the field as to how funds provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act have been assisting with law enforcement efforts at the State and local level. I look forward to hearing from the Department of Justice and law enforcement officials on Congress and the administration's efforts to assist law enforcement across the country. Along with our respect, America's law enforcement officers deserve Congress's strong support. Once again, I am proud that the Senate will unanimously approve this resolution and formally recognize National Police Week and National Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Mr. LEAHY

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