Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, at last, the Senate considers President Obama's nomination of Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske to be Director of National Drug Control Policy. This highly qualified nominee has drawn widespread support, and I had hoped the Senate would confirm him before our last recess. I look forward to his being confirmed today with strong bipartisan support. Chief Kerlikowske has almost 40 years of experience in law enforcement, including in his current role as chief of police for the Seattle Police Department. In his long career in public service, Chief Kerlikowske has demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of narcotics issues. He currently serves as the elected president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and he began his career as an Outstanding Military Police Officer Honor Graduate in the U.S. Military Police in 1970. He served as the police commissioner of Buffalo, NY, and as the police chief in two Florida cities, Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. He worked in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration, where he served as the Deputy Director of the Office of Community Oriented Police Services. I thank the Senators from Washington State, Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell, for their strong endorsement of this outstanding nominee at our April 1 hearing and for their continued efforts in support of his confirmation. Chief Kerlikowske's nomination has received numerous letters of support, including strong endorsements from Republican and Democratic public officials, State and local law enforcement officials, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the United States Conference of Mayors, the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police, and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. General Barry R. McCaffrey, who led the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Clinton administration, writes that Chief Kerlikowske ``is known and highly respected internationally for his knowledge of crime and drugs.'' Mary Lou Leary, the executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, describes Chief Kerlikowske as a ``strong manager,'' who is ``committed to crime prevention'' and who ``understands the connection between illegal drugs and crime.'' Arthur T. Dean, the chairman and CEO of the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, wrote that Chief Kerlikowske understands that drug policy ``must be comprehensive and coordinated'' and ``recognizes that the perspectives of those closest to the ground--state and local enforcement, prevention, treatment, and recovery professionals--play a critical role in this strategy.'' As a former prosecutor, I have always advocated vigorous enforcement and punishment of those who commit serious crimes. Along with others who serve in law enforcement, I also know that punishment alone will not solve the problems of drugs and violence in our rural communities. I am pleased that Mr. Kerlikowske supports combating drug use and crime with all the tools at our disposal, including enforcement, prevention, and treatment. I congratulate Chief Kerlikowske and his family on his confirmation today, and I look forward to working with him in the years ahead. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this week, LTG Clyde Vaughn, Director of the Army National Guard, retires after almost 35 years of excellent service to the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army. He has been an absolutely superb Army Guard Director. Under General Vaughn's watch, the Guard has undertaken one of the most successful recruiting programs in history. The Army Guard has become more capable, ready, and better equipped than at any point over the past several decades. Under his watch, the Army Guard has helped make the country stronger. General Vaughn leaves big shoes to fill. The Army National Guard is a critically important part of the Army and the entire Armed Forces. Citizen-soldiers from the Army National Guard have comprised a high percentage of the forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. The members of the Army Guard also are our military first responders for emergencies at home, ready to quickly support our elected leaders and other civilian authorities in such emergencies as flooding and hurricanes. General Vaughn has brought an acute understanding of the Army National Guard, built from his experiences in the Missouri National Guard and from successful joint assignments in Washington and further afield. During his time as Army Guard Director, the National Guard has racked up some extraordinary accomplishments. Soldiers--the proud citizen- soldiers from all the States and Territories--and families have remained foremost in General Vaughn's mind. In recent years, the Army Guard has reversed a downward trend in filling its ranks and boosted enlistments tremendously. We have a more educated and a healthier force with more full-time personnel. In his last months on the job, General Vaughn has laid out a sensible plan to build readiness within the Army Guard, ending the harmful practice of counting untrained and transient soldiers against the end-strength of various units. Working closely with Congress, General Vaughn has also ensured that the Guard has more modern equipment. The Army Guard has much better gear today than it did 4 years ago. Lieutenant General Vaughn is a leader who forthrightly lays out his views, whether to Congress or his counterparts in the active Army. It is this deep honesty and intelligence that has made him an inspiration to his subordinates and a close adviser to his superiors. Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn knows and loves the Army National Guard, having lived and breathed with this force of citizen-soldiers for more than three decades. The country owes General Vaughn, as well as his wife Carol and kids Chad and Kristi, our thanks and hearty congratulations on a job, very well done.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am honored once again to submit this resolution to the Senate commemorating our Nation's law enforcement officers and National Peace Officers Memorial Day. The Senate's official recognition of National Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week is a tradition I am proud to carry out each year, and I look forward to the Senate taking up and passing this resolution. In 2008, 133 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty. We honor their memory. Though this is a decrease from 2007, it is no less tragic a loss to our Federal and state law enforcement community and to their families and friends. The fact that we commemorate the loss and bravery of so many in law enforcement each year should remove any doubts in Congress that it is necessary to give our peace officers everything they need to stay safe and to do their jobs as effectively as they can. Currently, more than 900,000 men and women work tirelessly to protect our communities, our schools, and our children. They investigate and apprehend the most violent criminals and do more than we know in keeping our communities safe and secure. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, the names of 18,274 law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice have been added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. I also take this opportunity to recognize that the names of 387 fallen officers will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on May 13 during a candlelight vigil that will be held in their honor. These are officers from the past and present whose memory will be preserved for all time at the memorial, ensuring that their bravery and sacrifice will not be forgotten. National Peace Officers Memorial Day provides the people of the United States, in their communities, in their State capitals, and in the Nation's Capital, with the opportunity to honor and reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by those members of our police forces. More than 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington in the days leading up to May 15, to join with the families of their fallen comrades. It is right that the Senate show its respect on this occasion, and I am proud to honor their service and their memory. I urge all Senators to join me in approving this resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in early April of 2003, a professor of engineering at United Arab Emirates University contacted an American professor at the Worcester, MA, Polytechnic Institute about spending the summer in Worcester as a visiting professor. By late May his visit had been arranged--he would come for the months of July and August, the time when he was not teaching in the UAE, and they would collaborate on research on axiomatic design and fractal analysis of manufactured surfaces. On June 7 the UAE professor applied for a nonimmigrant visa for June 27--August 26. Apart from being called back to the consulate for fingerprinting on June 22 and told that he would receive an answer in the next 2 to 3 weeks, he heard nothing in response to his inquiries other than a reminder to check his visa application status on the embassy Web site. On August 9, with still no sign of his record on the Web site and the beginning of his fall semester approaching, he cancelled his plans and stayed at home in the UAE. Without any information about the reason for the delay it is impossible to determine whether it was due to some legitimate concern or more likely the result of a bureaucratic logjam. But at a minimum, the professor should have received a response informing him of the status of his application before June 27. Instead, he and his American colleague were left in the dark to wonder, and had no choice but to cancel their research plans which would have been mutually beneficial, as well as for their students. This is one incident; however, it is illustrative of the larger problem of foreign scholars and teachers being denied entry into the United States not because of travel bans, but because of delays and inefficiencies in the visa application process, particularly in geographical regions of concern for the Department of Homeland Security. Transnational academic collaboration is, if not politically blind, politically myopic. Diplomats sit across from each other, even when meeting in friendship, to resolve differences. To study, the parties sit on the same side of the table and, irrespective of national, religious, ethnic or political backgrounds, focus on what they have in common. Some fields of study are so universal that they transcend language--mathematics does not need a common tongue for collaboration to happen. This is in no way meant to disparage diplomacy, which has been and will continue to be the keystone of how governments interact. It emphasizes differences because it addresses them--academic collaboration will never negotiate an arms reduction treaty. But neither should we be limited by thinking that diplomacy is the only way of working towards understanding between two societies. Nor is this type of academic exchange limited to technical or scientific work. I am reminded of when, after Robert Frost's visit to the Soviet Union in 1962, Siberian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko wrote to him ``I have read your poems again and again today, and I am glad you live on Earth.'' I picture Frost and Yevtushenko talking about the rural beauties of their homeland, Frost of Ripton, VT and Yevtushenko of Stantsiya Zima, Siberia. It is not only relations that we damage and the resentment we create by limiting these partnerships. The United States and the world also lose the body of scholarship that would have been produced. In no academic discipline is anyone so bold as to suggest that knowledge lies only on one side of a fence or of an ocean. To the foreign scholars who would study and do research here, I would say that in the post-9/11 world our immigration laws and procedures have indeed become more stringent, burdensome and time consuming. But do not interpret that as a sign that you are not welcome or that your presence is not desired. To the contrary, it is valuable--indispensable to you, to us and to the rest of the world. It is also undeniable that during the Bush administration some of the immigration laws and regulations, enacted in haste to respond to 9/11, crossed the line between keeping a vigilant watch over our borders and creating unnecessary and illogical barriers to entry for those who pose no danger. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State deserve credit for their efforts to keep our borders secure, but I also urge them to continually review their policies and procedures to make sure they are keeping out those who need to be kept out, but facilitating the entry of those whose presence we want and need. The case of the UAE professor is, again, one example. But it did not only inconvenience the two professors; such cases can have a compounding, ripple effect as family members, friends and colleagues conclude that it is pointless, and potentially humiliating, to apply for a visa to study, teach or conduct academic research in the United States. At a time when we should be doing everything possible to rebuild our image abroad, particularly in predominantly Muslim countries, this is not the message we should be sending. As the Departments of Homeland Security, State and Justice continue to review their policies they should look closely at these issues. If existing laws regarding who and what constitute legitimate security risks need to be clarified, then the administration should come to Congress with a recommendation. If the problem is a lack of staff or other resources to process visa applications in a timely manner, we can allocate the funds necessary to ensure that legitimate visa applicants get the prompt and fair consideration they are due. But whatever the cause of the problem, it needs to be fixed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the administration considers ways to reform our foreign aid programs, I want to call attention to a recent Op Ed piece by a Vermont friend who has over 30 years of experience dealing with these issues. Dr. George Burrill founded Associates in Rural Development--ARD--in Burlington in 1977 and since then he has brought Vermont common sense and values to international aid and development work. Since its founding, it has implemented some 600 projects around the world including extensive work with the U.S. Agency for International Development. Today ARD, a for-profit international development firm, has $100 million in annual revenue operating out of 43 field offices around the world. Throughout his career, Dr. Burrill has thought long and hard about ways to make foreign aid more effective. In his recent piece in the Burlington Free Press, a copy of which I will ask to be printed in the Record, Dr. Burrill calls for a ``modernization'' of our thinking about foreign aid; the creation of a global development strategy to give U.S. foreign aid agencies a way to effectively evaluate past actions and determine what reform is needed; and tools for evaluating progress. Beyond that, he proposes developing a ``coherent strategy that will foster economic opportunity'' in the developing world, enacting legislation that ``elevates development as a foreign policy pillar equal with diplomacy and military defense,'' and creating an independent executive agency bringing together the relevant Federal agencies and departments into a single group ``giving the executive branch the authority it needs to develop solutions to 21st century problems while providing accountability to Congress.'' Foreign aid reform means many things to different people, but there is one thing we all agree on--it is overdue. Dr. Burrill's voice is one that should be listened to, and I commend him for speaking out. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on May 3, people from across the country and around the world will celebrate World Press Freedom Day--a time to commemorate and honor the principles of freedom of expression. Established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993, World Press Freedom Day provides an important opportunity for us all to remember the journalists and other members of the news media--of all nationalities--who have sacrificed their personal safety, and in some cases their lives, to ensure the free flow of information to the public. Charles Caleb Colton said that ``Despotism can no more exist in a nation until the liberty of the press be destroyed, than night can happen before the sun is set.'' According to the International Federation of Journalists, at least 109 journalists and other members of the media have been killed in the line of duty during 2008. Countless others have been arrested and/or detained simply for performing their professional duties. Our Founders prized and protected freedom of the press in our national charter, the Constitution. Courageous American journalists have documented volatile turning points in our history--and the world's history--and some have suffered or even died for their efforts, beginning with America's first martyr to press freedom, Elijah Lovejoy. Recently, we witnessed the troubling case of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, who was arrested by Iranian authorities in January for buying a bottle of wine and was later tried behind closed doors and detained on absurd and unfounded charges of espionage. Two other American journalists--Laura Ling and Euna Lee--were detained by North Korean officials last month, while working on a story about the plight of female Chinese refugees living along the Chinese border. These troubling events are just two examples of the growing threat facing journalists around the world. Preserving press freedoms and freedom of expression is one of my highest priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. That is why I am pleased to join Senators Feingold, Kaufman and Lugar in cosponsoring a resolution in honor of World Press Freedom Day. Next week, the Judiciary Committee will consider legislation that I introduced and that is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Specter, Feingold, Whitehouse, McCaskill and Tester to roll back the government's excessive use of the state secrets privilege to shield government information. The State Secrets Protection Act, S. 417, will help guide the Federal courts to balance the government's legitimate interests in protecting national security, with accountability and the rights of citizens to obtain government information and seek judicial redress. The committee also has on its agenda long-overdue legislation to establish a qualified privilege for journalists to protect the confidentiality of their sources and the public's right to know--the Free Flow of Information Act, S. 448 and H.R. 985. Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported a similar measure that I cosponsored with Senators Lugar, Dodd, Specter, Schumer, and Graham, with a strong, bipartisan 15 to 4 vote. I am very pleased that President Obama has stated his support of Federal shield legislation, and that Attorney General Eric Holder has also expressed his support of a carefully crafted federal shield law. At my request, the Obama administration is working closely with the committee to help reach consensus on a meaningful Federal shield bill that we can enact this year. As we celebrate World Press Freedom Day, we are reminded that an open and accountable society comes with the duty of its citizens to seek out the truth and to empower themselves with that knowledge. All of us-- whether Republican, Democrat or Independent--have an interest in preserving press freedoms and protecting the public's right to know. Enacting the State Secrets Protection Act and the Free Flow of Information Act will send a powerful signal to the entire world about this Nation's commitment to freedom of expression. For this reason, I strongly encourage all Members to join me in supporting the resolution in honor of World Press Freedom Day and in supporting these very important bills.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Marcelle and I have gotten to know Buddy and Julie Miller over the years--especially with their friend of ours, Emmy Lou Harris. So many times when I have traveled I have listened to Buddy and Julie's music on my headphones and one of the great thrills I had was when they dedicated a song to Marcelle and me years ago at the Birchmere. The Wall Street Journal this week wrote an excellent article about the ``first couple of Americana.'' I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Marcelle and I have been privileged to have known Judy Collins for years. We have heard her sing in New York, in Washington, DC, and in Vermont, and every time we have been thrilled. I have even been known to call her phone just to hear her sing on her answering machine. The New York Times on April 23 of this year wrote a review of her current engagement at the Cafe Carlyle, and I talked with Judy about it. I know that she and Louis keep a very busy schedule, but I just wanted to congratulate her on another well deserved review. I would ask unanimous consent to have the New York Times article printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am happy to have this opportunity to honor the many accomplishments and contributions of my good friend, Marilyn Bergman. Marcelle and I have had the pleasure of knowing both Marilyn and her husband Alan for years. They are as accomplished songwriters as I have ever met. For the past 15 years, Marilyn has served as the distinguished president and chairman of the board of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, a position never before held by a woman. Marilyn's list of achievements is vast and impressive. Her work as a champion of the arts has brought about many important changes. She was instrumental in developing ``A Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers''--an initiative designed to raise public awareness of the tremendous contribution and rights of those who make music. In addition, she has gone to great lengths to support and promote the work of female songwriters. This month, Marilyn will step down from her position as chairman of the board of ASCAP and will move on to the next phase of her career. I know that she will bring the same commitment to excellence and vitality to all of her future endeavors and Marcelle and I wish her only the best. I ask unanimous consent that the text of an April 8, 2009 ASCAP press release describing Marilyn's work be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend from Vermont, Senator Sanders, to introduce legislation that will help our environment and our economy by providing a 25 percent tax credit towards the purchase of environmentally friendly lawn, garden, and forestry power equipment. There are an estimated 50 million acres of lawns and managed turf grass in the U.S. and the small engines used in power equipment predominantly used today to maintain these lawns emit a variety of pollutants that can be harmful to people and the environment. By promoting the use of alternative fuels, we can reduce the carbon footprint of lawn and garden equipment and reduce air and water pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, recently finalized a new emission control program to reduce hydrocarbon emissions and evaporative emissions from the small, spark-ignition engines that are commonly used in lawn, garden, and forestry equipment. I applaud the EPA for setting these new emissions standards because they eventually will reduce the harmful health effects of ozone and carbon monoxide. I also appreciate the work being done in the State of California to set the stage for these tougher standards and to provide State funds for rebates to consumers who purchase the cleanest types of lawn and garden equipment. We can do more, though, to advance the use of cleaner, alternative fueled equipment. Currently, the cleanest, alternative powered equipment typically costs dramatically more to produce--in part due to their relatively low volumes--compared to higher volume products powered by traditional technologies. Our bill is designed to help partially close this price differential so that consumers can afford the very cleanest products and help advance the most cutting-edge, new technologies. That is why the bill we are introducing today would reduce air pollution even further than the EPA or California standards by providing an immediate incentive for people to go beyond the current powered equipment emission standards and purchase cleaner, alternatively powered or alternative fuel engines and equipment that emit half of the emission levels called for by the EPA and that operate on little or no fossil fuels. In line with past tax credits that were successful in advancing new technologies and boosting consumer demand for environmentally friendly products like hybrid vehicles and energy efficient home appliances, our new tax credit would give Americans a powerful incentive to buy clean, alternative energy power equipment. I want to thank the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and the National Audubon Society for their early endorsements of this bill. As the Senate prepares to take a thorough look at our energy and environmental policies this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to find new ways to further reduce the air emissions and fossil fuel consumption of our Nation's lawn, garden, and forestry equipment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate considers another of President Obama's highly-qualified nominees for an important post in the executive branch. Earlier today, the Judiciary Committee reported favorably the nomination of Ron Weich to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Justice. I had hoped that we could expedite this nomination before the recess so that Mr. Weich could begin doing his job for the American people, but lack of cooperation from the Republican side prevented us from confirming the nomination then. I am pleased that with cooperation today, we will confirm Mr. Weich. In more than a decade on Capitol Hill, Ron Weich has advised three Senators: Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, and now Majority Leader Reid, who introduced Mr. Weich at his hearing 3 weeks ago and strongly recommended his confirmation. At his hearing, I put into the record a letter from Senator Kennedy describing Mr. Weich as a ``lawyer of exceptional intelligence, skill, and sound judgment'' and praising his ``remarkable ability . . . to work extremely well with Members and staff on both sides of the aisle and to guide us toward creative solutions to seemingly intractable problems.'' Many of Mr. Weich's former Republican colleagues wrote to this committee to attest to the fact that he is highly regarded among both Republican and Democratic staff, and they spoke of his ``respect for opposing views'' and his ``constructive approach to difficult legal issues.'' They described him as ``honorable and trustworthy.'' And of course, Mr. Weich is equally well-respected outside of this chamber. A letter from the Fraternal Order of Police highlights his ``long and sterling career as a public safety policymaker'' and notes that he is ``a passionate champion for justice.'' In addition, Mr. Weich has a distinguished record of public service as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan, and as a special counsel to the United States Sentencing Commission. He is an experienced Senate hand who has earned the respect of Senators on both sides of the aisle. We know him well as a former member of the staff of the Judiciary Committee. I am confident he will be a welcome addition to the leadership at the Justice Department, and will make the Department more responsive to congressional concerns than we have seen over the last several years. I congratulate Mr. Weich and his family on his confirmation today and look forward to working with him in his new capacity at the Justice Department.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is in order to ask for the yeas, I understand. I do ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend from Vermont, Senator Sanders, to introduce legislation that will help our environment and our economy by providing a 25 percent tax credit towards the purchase of environmentally friendly lawn, garden, and forestry power equipment. There are an estimated 50 million acres of lawns and managed turf grass in the U.S. and the small engines used in power equipment predominantly used today to maintain these lawns emit a variety of pollutants that can be harmful to people and the environment. By promoting the use of alternative fuels, we can reduce the carbon footprint of lawn and garden equipment and reduce air and water pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, recently finalized a new emission control program to reduce hydrocarbon emissions and evaporative emissions from the small, spark-ignition engines that are commonly used in lawn, garden, and forestry equipment. I applaud the EPA for setting these new emissions standards because they eventually will reduce the harmful health effects of ozone and carbon monoxide. I also appreciate the work being done in the State of California to set the stage for these tougher standards and to provide State funds for rebates to consumers who purchase the cleanest types of lawn and garden equipment. We can do more, though, to advance the use of cleaner, alternative fueled equipment. Currently, the cleanest, alternative powered equipment typically costs dramatically more to produce--in part due to their relatively low volumes--compared to higher volume products powered by traditional technologies. Our bill is designed to help partially close this price differential so that consumers can afford the very cleanest products and help advance the most cutting-edge, new technologies. That is why the bill we are introducing today would reduce air pollution even further than the EPA or California standards by providing an immediate incentive for people to go beyond the current powered equipment emission standards and purchase cleaner, alternatively powered or alternative fuel engines and equipment that emit half of the emission levels called for by the EPA and that operate on little or no fossil fuels. In line with past tax credits that were successful in advancing new technologies and boosting consumer demand for environmentally friendly products like hybrid vehicles and energy efficient home appliances, our new tax credit would give Americans a powerful incentive to buy clean, alternative energy power equipment. I want to thank the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and the National Audubon Society for their early endorsements of this bill. As the Senate prepares to take a thorough look at our energy and environmental policies this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to find new ways to further reduce the air emissions and fossil fuel consumption of our Nation's lawn, garden, and forestry equipment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we finally come to a vote on final passage of the bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, S. 386. It has taken longer to arrive at this point than it should have, and we have had to consider too many extraneous issues that would have been better suited for another debate. We nonetheless stand ready to make real progress. This bill is a step toward holding accountable those who have caused so much damage to our economy. It should 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, their equity, and costs too many their homes. These are serious matters that should not be delayed. 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 end as I began by commending Senator Grassley, our lead cosponsor, for his leadership in helping to write this legislation and to manage it on the floor. He has once again proven his dedication to protecting taxpayer funds by deterring, investigating, and prosecuting fraud. 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. Senator Klobuchar, a former prosecutor as I am, understands how important it is to have sufficient resources on the ground committed to deterring and discovering these devastating crimes. We have been joined by a growing bipartisan group of cosponsors that now stands at 27. And I thank the majority leader and our underappreciated cloakroom and floor staff for all that they have done to bring us to this moment. The majority leader had to file for cloture to even proceed to this bipartisan fraud enforcement bill last week, and then had to file a second cloture petition late Thursday night when Republicans would not agree to a finite list of amendments to be considered in order to complete action on the bill. A matter like this should not require one cloture vote, let alone two. A matter like that that is designed to help law enforcement and protect the savings of Americans should be acted upon by the Senate without partisanship, delay, and obstruction. 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 dollar 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. Federal law enforcement needs this legislation now 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 dollars 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. 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. This is and has been bipartisan legislation. Our cosponsors come from across the political spectrum--Democrats, Republicans, and an Independent. 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. We need to pass this bill and give law enforcement the resources and tools they desperately need. 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 we need to enact the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. Two decades ago we responded during the savings and loan crisis by hiring more agents, analysts, and prosecutors and allocating the resources needed to catch those who took advantage to profit through fraud. We need to do so again. 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 by passing this commonsense bill now.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the remarkable leadership of Mr. Shap Smith who represents the towns of Elmore, Morristown, Woodbury, and Worcester, and who is now the current speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives. Having recently assumed the role of speaker at the beginning of this legislative session in January, Mr. Smith has already made his mark as a fair-minded and seasoned leader. He has driven the successful passage of several pieces of legislation, addressing Vermont's sexual abuse response system and legalizing same- sex marriage, among other important issues. Marcelle and I recently had dinner with Shap and his wife Dr. Melissa Volansky. We are both impressed with his commitment to Vermont. I am looking forward to watching Shap Smith continue to lead the Vermont Legislature and build a record of fiscal and social responsibility. I wish him luck as he undertakes this challenging job during these difficult times. I ask unanimous consent that the text of an April 20, 2009, Rutland Herald article about Mr. Smith be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased that yesterday the Senate passed the Statutory Time-Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009, H.R. 1626. This good-government bill creates a more consistent and standard method for lawyers and judges to calculate court deadlines. It is a small but important bipartisan bill that will improve the effectiveness of our judicial system. Last week, the House of Representatives passed this bill on their suspension calendar. The Senate has given its unanimous support to this legislation, and I look forward to the President signing this bill. Last month, I introduced an identical measure in the Senate with Senators Specter, Whitehouse, and Sessions. In the last few weeks, I have worked with many others in the House and Senate to ensure that this legislation proceeded quickly through both Chambers of Congress. Representative Hank Johnson has worked especially hard to move this bill through the House. We have a strong bipartisan bill that will result in significant improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of our judicial system. This legislation incorporates the full recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States to alter deadlines in certain statutes affecting court proceedings to account for recent amendments to the Federal time-computation rules. It provides judges and practitioners with commonsense deadlines that are less confusing and less complex than current deadlines and also ensures that existing time periods are not shortened. After much study and significant public comment, the Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Rules arrived at proposed new rules intended to provide predictability and uniformity to the current process of calculating court deadlines. The proposed rules respond, in part, to findings from the Judicial Conference that the current time-computation process is confusing and can lead to missed deadlines and litigants' loss of important rights. Under the current time-calculation rules, weekends and holidays are not counted when calculating court deadlines of less than 30 days but are counted for calculating court deadlines longer than 30 days. The proposed new rules simplify this process by counting holidays and weekends regardless of a court deadline's time period. According to the Judicial Conference, these proposed changes would respond to practitioners' complaints and concerns from judges. This legislation amends a number of Federal civil and criminal statutes affecting court proceedings and harmonizes them with the proposed rules. First, this remedial bill alters certain statutory court deadlines to counterbalance any shortening of the time period resulting from the ``days are days'' approach. For example, the bill changes 5 days to 7 days, and 10 days to 14 days, to prevent time periods from becoming shorter when a practitioner counts all days, including weekends. This change would, in effect, maintain the same time periods in the statutes. In addition, if a time period ends on a holiday or a weekend, the time period would be extended to the next business day. The bill also changes some statutory deadlines that would otherwise be inconsistent with the amended rules deadlines and lead to confusion. Both the Department of Justice and the Judicial Conference urge swift consideration of this proposal on or before December 1 of this year, the date the Judicial Conference's amendments to the rules take effect. I am pleased that we are able to accommodate their request. Passing this bill is the right thing to do. I know that the legal community will benefit from the uniform court deadlines that this legislation provides. American citizens will have their rights more fully protected by court deadlines that are clear and unambiguous. Even more, public confidence in our justice system can only be strengthened when court procedures operate in a manner that is free of any unnecessary confusion. I thank the Department of Justice and the wide array of legal and bar organizations that have supported the Judicial Conference's recommendations incorporated in this bill, including of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the Council of Appellate Lawyers, and the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation and Criminal Justice Section. I am especially grateful to the Administrative Office of the Courts which, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, sent us those policy recommendations from the Federal judiciary. Those recommendations are included in this bill, and I commend them for their hard work and attention to this issue. Only a few months into a new administration and a new Congress, it is incumbent upon us to continue to focus on the requirements of the Federal judiciary that our citizens and our Republic need and deserve. The measure we passed yesterday is a positive step in the right direction. I look forward to President Obama promptly signing it into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am both proud and saddened today to salute Mr. Al Myers, a beloved teacher at Williston Central School in Vermont who recently passed away after being injured while working on the set of a school play. Mr. Myers was best known as a popular educator who was remembered by former school principal Lynn Murray as being ``brilliant with children.'' As a U.S. Senator, I remember Mr. Myers bringing students to Washington, DC every year. He truly wanted them to understand the importance of living in the world's greatest democracy. In memory of Mr. Myers, I ask unanimous consent that the following memorial article, by Matt Ryan of the Burlington Free Press, be printed into the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is National Crime Victims' Rights Week--a time when communities in Vermont and across the Nation recognize the needs of crime victims, and work together to promote victims' rights and services. There is no more important time than now to renew our commitment to address the needs of crime victims and their families. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy, Senator Collins, and more than 30 other Senators from both sides of the aisle to reintroduce the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. This is a bipartisan bill designed to combat crimes that have long terrorized communities and remain a serious problem in this country. This legislation is a matter of simple justice. It is past time for Congress to enact this bill and strengthen the Federal Government's role in preventing and punishing crimes motivated by hate. I commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crimes law, and I am proud to once again be an original cosponsor of this legislation. A bipartisan majority of the Members in the House of Representatives voted to pass this legislation in the last Congress. Unfortunately, there were partisan attempts to filibuster and prevent passage of the Senate bill. The measure was ultimately attached to the Department of Defense Authorization bill with the bipartisan support of 60 Senators. While I am disappointed that the hate crime provision was taken out of that bill at conference, I am hopeful that our efforts to enact this civil rights measure into law will be successful this year. Violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate are tragedies that haunt American history. From the lynchings that plagued race relations for more than a century, to the well-publicized slayings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., in the 1990s, this is a story that we have heard too often in this country. Unfortunately, in my home state of Vermont, there have been two attacks in recent years that appear to have been motivated by the victims' religion or sexual orientation. Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that hate crimes are becoming more prevalent and more nationalized is a leaked copy of the Department of Homeland Security report on violent extremism in the United States. The report is nothing short of chilling. The DHS report found that ``the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment'' and these elements in turn have the potential to drive hate groups to carry out violence. It also found that anti-immigrant fervor by organized hate groups ``has the potential to turn violent.'' The DHS report concluded that the ``advent of the Internet'' has potentially made ``extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.'' Of course, these findings comport with a recent Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, report on hate group activity in the United States entitled ``The Year in Hate.'' The SPLC repot found that activity by known domestic hate groups has increased by 50 percent since 2000, from 602 hate groups in 2000, to 926 hate groups in 2008. The recent and rapid growth in hate group activity is simply astonishing. It remains painfully clear that as a Nation, we still have serious work to do in protecting all Americans from these crimes and in ensuring equal rights for all our citizens. While the answer to hate and bigotry must ultimately be found in increased tolerance, strengthening our Federal hate crimes laws is a step in the right direction. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 improves existing law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. 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. This bill also expands Federal protections to include the problem of hate crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, which is a key and long-overdue expansion of protection. Finally, this bill provides assistance and resources to state, local, and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes. This bill strengthens Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a back-up, but not a substitute, for state and local law enforcement. States will still bear primary responsibility for prosecuting most hate crimes, which is important to me as a former state prosecutor. In a sign that this legislation respects the proper balance between Federal and local authority, it has received strong bipartisan support from state and local law enforcement organizations across the country. Moreover, this bill accomplishes the critically important goal of protecting all of our citizens without compromising our constitutional responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts and threats of violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. But it does not target pure speech, however offensive or disagreeable. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it. To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it. We crafted this legislation after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the advocates who work so hard to promote civil rights and with Justice Department attorneys in the field who work on hate crimes prosecutions every day. It contains changes to Federal hate crime law that will improve the law's operation and implementation. I want to thank the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Human Rights First, and the more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, religious, and other professional organizations for their assistance with and support for this legislation, and for their tireless work on behalf of hate crimes victims in the United States. The crimes targeted in this bill are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and those victims' families. They inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. That is wrong. All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they choose. In the past we have responded as a Nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for nearly 150 years. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act continues that great and honorable tradition, and brings us one step closer towards ensuring an America that values tolerance and protects all of its people. I hope all Senators will support passing this important bipartisan bill this year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is National Crime Victims' Rights Week--a time when communities in Vermont and across the Nation recognize the needs of crime victims, and work together to promote victims' rights and services. There is no more important time than now to renew our commitment to address the needs of crime victims and their families. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy, Senator Collins, and more than 30 other Senators from both sides of the aisle to reintroduce the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. This is a bipartisan bill designed to combat crimes that have long terrorized communities and remain a serious problem in this country. This legislation is a matter of simple justice. It is past time for Congress to enact this bill and strengthen the Federal Government's role in preventing and punishing crimes motivated by hate. I commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crimes law, and I am proud to once again be an original cosponsor of this legislation. A bipartisan majority of the Members in the House of Representatives voted to pass this legislation in the last Congress. Unfortunately, there were partisan attempts to filibuster and prevent passage of the Senate bill. The measure was ultimately attached to the Department of Defense Authorization bill with the bipartisan support of 60 Senators. While I am disappointed that the hate crime provision was taken out of that bill at conference, I am hopeful that our efforts to enact this civil rights measure into law will be successful this year. Violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate are tragedies that haunt American history. From the lynchings that plagued race relations for more than a century, to the well-publicized slayings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., in the 1990s, this is a story that we have heard too often in this country. Unfortunately, in my home state of Vermont, there have been two attacks in recent years that appear to have been motivated by the victims' religion or sexual orientation. Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that hate crimes are becoming more prevalent and more nationalized is a leaked copy of the Department of Homeland Security report on violent extremism in the United States. The report is nothing short of chilling. The DHS report found that ``the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment'' and these elements in turn have the potential to drive hate groups to carry out violence. It also found that anti-immigrant fervor by organized hate groups ``has the potential to turn violent.'' The DHS report concluded that the ``advent of the Internet'' has potentially made ``extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.'' Of course, these findings comport with a recent Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, report on hate group activity in the United States entitled ``The Year in Hate.'' The SPLC repot found that activity by known domestic hate groups has increased by 50 percent since 2000, from 602 hate groups in 2000, to 926 hate groups in 2008. The recent and rapid growth in hate group activity is simply astonishing. It remains painfully clear that as a Nation, we still have serious work to do in protecting all Americans from these crimes and in ensuring equal rights for all our citizens. While the answer to hate and bigotry must ultimately be found in increased tolerance, strengthening our Federal hate crimes laws is a step in the right direction. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 improves existing law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. 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. This bill also expands Federal protections to include the problem of hate crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, which is a key and long-overdue expansion of protection. Finally, this bill provides assistance and resources to state, local, and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes. This bill strengthens Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a back-up, but not a substitute, for state and local law enforcement. States will still bear primary responsibility for prosecuting most hate crimes, which is important to me as a former state prosecutor. In a sign that this legislation respects the proper balance between Federal and local authority, it has received strong bipartisan support from state and local law enforcement organizations across the country. Moreover, this bill accomplishes the critically important goal of protecting all of our citizens without compromising our constitutional responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts and threats of violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. But it does not target pure speech, however offensive or disagreeable. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it. To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it. We crafted this legislation after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the advocates who work so hard to promote civil rights and with Justice Department attorneys in the field who work on hate crimes prosecutions every day. It contains changes to Federal hate crime law that will improve the law's operation and implementation. I want to thank the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Human Rights First, and the more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, religious, and other professional organizations for their assistance with and support for this legislation, and for their tireless work on behalf of hate crimes victims in the United States. The crimes targeted in this bill are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and those victims' families. They inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. That is wrong. All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they choose. In the past we have responded as a Nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for nearly 150 years. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act continues that great and honorable tradition, and brings us one step closer towards ensuring an America that values tolerance and protects all of its people. I hope all Senators will support passing this important bipartisan bill this year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, what time is this bill scheduled for a vote?

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will be kind enough to amend his unanimous consent request to include not to interfere with the vote at 5:20.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to raise a point of order en bloc against all pending amendments; that they are not germane postcloture.