Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 108, submitted earlier today.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Captain Phillips of Underhill, VT, held hostage by Somalians, where his own courage allowed the release of his crew, and the courage of the U.S. Navy and the courage of our military and the courage of our leadership, at the White House, the Department of Defense, and elsewhere brought about his release. The Phillips family is a wonderful family. They live in a small and beautiful town in Vermont. There are few things that unite everybody. I can say as a lifelong Vermonter, I know my State is united in pride for Captain Phillips. All of us felt our prayers were answered on Easter Sunday when we received word that he was safe and was going back home. I know how much it meant to me to pick up the phone and call Mrs. Phillips, and the day before he arrived back home, to call her up and wish her a happy birthday and say: The best birthday present this Nation can give you is tomorrow afternoon at the Burlington Airport when your husband will arrive. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is there on S. 386?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, under the normal circumstances, I would speak as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and as the chief sponsor of this bill. Then we would go, by normal protocol, to either the Republican ranking member or the senior Republican who is cosponsor, which I assume will be done. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Kaufman, be recognized next. I ask further unanimous consent that at the completion of my statement, if there is no member of the Republican party seeking recognition, Senator Kaufman be recognized; if there is a member of the Republican party seeking recognition on this bill, that, of course, they be recognized first, and then the next person to be recognized be Senator Kaufman.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this afternoon we begin consideration of the bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. What this does is to strengthen the Federal Government's capacity to investigate and prosecute the kinds of financial frauds that have so severely undermined our economy; that not only undermined our economy, they have hurt so many people in this country. It is going to give the resources and the legal tools needed to police and deter fraud. We have massive recovery efforts now being implemented. But if we do not go after those who are committing fraud against people in this country, much of that effort is going to be wasted. I commend the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, our lead cosponsor, for his contributions to this package, and his dedication to protecting taxpayer funds by deterring, investigating, and prosecuting fraud. He worked with me to write this bill. He has been a leader on this legislation every step of the way. I thank our many cosponsors for their steadfast support for this effort. Senator Schumer has not only supported this measure but has also introduced additional legislative proposals with Senator Shelby. Senator Kaufman is an original cosponsor and has been a strong ally. He has spoken and written about the need for fraud enforcement all year. Senator Klobuchar has participated throughout the course of Judiciary Committee consideration of this bill. As former prosecutors, she and I both know how important it is to have sufficient resources on the ground committed to deterring and discovering these devastating crimes. More recently, we have been joined in our efforts by the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, another former prosecutor and friend, Senator Specter, and by Senators Snowe, Harkin, Levin, Dorgan, Whitehouse, Bayh, Shaheen, and Murray. It is a bipartisan effort. And, actually, if you are going to go after people committing crimes and fraud, you should not consider it a Democratic or a Republican effort; this is a bipartisan effort. And we ought to be able to do it, because those who are committing the frauds did not ask if the person they are going to defraud is a Republican or Democrat, they want to defraud them. But what we want to do is to stop them. So whether one supported the economic recovery efforts proposed by President Bush and President Obama or not, I think we can all agree no one wants that money squandered by fraud. Whether we want to help homeowners in hard times or people who have lost their jobs or were lured into subprime mortgages--some may think it may be their fault they were lured into their subprime mortgages. But if you had people involved in mortgage fraud, they should be held accountable. I thank the majority leader for moving to proceed to this measure. It is my hope we can get to a time agreement without being filibustered. I hope we will not have to spend a lot of time in a filibuster before we consider antifraud efforts on behalf of the American people. Everybody I talk to, whether it is in Vermont or any other State, says those who are involved in mortgage fraud, those who are involved in stealing the money, especially at a time of economic downturn, ought to be prosecuted. Frankly, as a former prosecutor, I can tell you nothing so focuses the minds of those who want to commit fraud as if they think they might actually be arrested, convicted, and sent to prison. We are returning from the Easter recess. During these first months of the year, the Judiciary Committee has concentrated on what it can do to assist in the economic recovery. We have already considered and reported this fraud enforcement bill, we considered and reported a patent reform bill, and we also put law enforcement assistance in the economic recovery legislation. The President's efforts are beginning to show dividends. As he said last week at Georgetown University, this administration has responded to an extraordinary set of economic challenges with extraordinary action, action that has been unprecedented both in terms of its scale and its speed. We have seen the recovery plan enacted, the bank capitalization program, the housing plan, the strengthening of the nonbank credit market, the auto plan, and the work with the G-20. Those are signs intended to generate economic progress. That is good. That is necessary. I agree with that. But it is not enough. We have to make sure when we send public money, taxpayers' money, that it is going to what it is supposed to go to, it is not being stolen, it is not being dissipated by fraud, it is not going to the hands of people whom nobody in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, would want it to go to. We need to ensure those responsible for the downturn through fraudulent acts of financial markets and in the housing market are held to account. That is why we have to enact the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. We have to make every effort to ensure accountability, and this bill will do that. It will build our Nation's capacity to investigate and prosecute financial fraud. Take a look at this chart. These are the reports of mortgage fraud. This is at near epidemic levels. Look at the number of reports in 1998. Look at them now. In 1998, 2,269. Last year, 65,049. Frauds are up 682 percent over the past 5 years and more than 2,800 percent in the past decade. Some would estimate that we are losing $4 billion each year in mortgage fraud alone. Then you have massive new corporate frauds, such as the $65 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff. These are being uncovered. How many more are there? In the past 2 weeks alone, the Justice Department announced prosecutions in mortgage and security scams involving more than $200 million in fraud. This kind of fraud has even touched my own State of Vermont. We are a very small State. We are the second smallest State in the Union, 650,000 people. But last fall, Federal authorities uncovered a $26 million mortgage scam involving more than 50 properties being run out of the small town of Highgate, VT. It is affecting everybody. Let's go after these people. Let's prosecute them. Let's throw them in jail. Because, otherwise, if you simply give them a fine, it is a cost of doing business and nobody is deterred by it. The victims of these frauds must be protected now more than ever. They are homeowners who have been fleeced by unscrupulous mortgage brokers or so-called foreclosure experts who promise to help. Instead of helping them, they leave them unable to keep their homes and in further debt than before. We have retirees who have lost their life savings with stock scams and Ponzi schemes. These have come to light only when the markets and corporations have collapsed. They also include the American taxpayers who have invested billions of dollars to restore our economy and support our banking system, and they assume that taxpayers' dollars are going to be there to support our industries, that taxpayer dollars are going to be there to help bail out our economy, that somebody is not going to steal it. As the economic crisis worsened last fall, I called upon Federal law enforcement to track down and punish those who were responsible for the corporate and mortgage frauds that helped make the economic downturn far worse than anyone predicted. This year, as Congress reconvened, I joined with Senator Grassley to draft and introduce the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, the legislation we consider today, which will provide the new tools and resources needed by law enforcement to carry out this effort. Now, I call on all Senators to support and promptly pass this bill, so we can make sure that those responsible for these frauds are held fully accountable and that the many millions, likely even billions, of dollars lost will be recovered for fraud victims and for the American taxpayer. 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 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, we faced a similar financial crisis with the collapse of the federally insured savings and loan industry. At the time, Congress responded by passing legislation to hire prosecutors and agents similar to the bill we consider today, and that effort resulted in more than 600 fraud convictions nationwide and recovery of more than $130 million in ordered restitution. But the savings and loan collapse is dwarfed in scale by the current crisis, as financial institutions have lost more than $1 trillion in assets in the past year, compared to only $160 billion in assets lost during the entire savings and loan era. Clearly, we must respond at least as strongly as we have in the past. 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. At a February 11, 2009, Judiciary Committee hearing, we heard from the FBI, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, and the Justice Department. All witnesses testified concerning the need for this legislation and these additional law enforcement resources. Deputy Director Pistole of the FBI testified that the number of mortgage fraud cases opened by the FBI had more than doubled in the past 3 years, with 721 cases open in 2005, and more than 1,800 open at the end of 2008. He warned that the losses in this economic crisis dwarf those of the savings and loan debacle, and the need for more enforcement is even greater now than it was then. Special Inspector General Barofsky described how law enforcement resources had understandably been diverted from traditional white collar crime to terrorism following the attacks on September 11, 2001. This trend left the Justice Department's capacity to respond to financial and securities fraud significantly weakened, and with the recent trends shifting even more resources to mortgage frauds, other white collar efforts were even further ``underfunded and underprosecuted.'' He warned that with trillions of dollars being spent under TARP and other associated programs, ``it is essential that the appropriate resources be dedicated to meet the challenges of both deterring and prosecuting fraud.'' I agree. Acting Assistant Attorney General Glavin of the Justice Department testified that our bill would provide the Justice Department with needed tools ``to aggressively fight fraud in the current economic climate'' and ``provide key statutory enhancements that will assist in ensuring that those who have committed fraud are held accountable.'' The committee also received written testimony supporting this enforcement effort from the inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and from the Acting Chief Postal Inspector. We all know about Bernard Madoff's infamous $65 billion Ponzi scheme that went undetected for years. And every month we learn of more and more kinds of schemes. We have to clean this up. This would allow the FBI, the Justice Department, other agencies, to respond to the crisis. In total, the bill authorizes $245 million a year over the next two 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. Because today the ranks of fraud investigators, of prosecutors, are drastically understocked. Some have said, well, we cannot afford to authorize additional money for fraud investigations. I think that is a bad mistake. The only way you are going to stop it is to show you are going to stop it. The only way you are going to deter it is if you act to deter it, if you investigate the people, if you go after them, if you make them pay, and if we recover money for American taxpayers. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota on the floor. She is a former prosecutor. She knows that the way you go after these people is to really go after them. If fraud goes unprosecuted and unpunished, then victims across America lose money. In many cases, American taxpayers take the loss directly. For example, in the case of many mortgage frauds where the Federal Government has guaranteed the loans, and when the fraud remains hidden, American taxpayers, as well as the victim, lose out. If we don't take action to investigate and prosecute this kind of fraud, Americans will lose far more money than this bill costs. In fact, fraud enforcement is an excellent investment for the American taxpayers. According to recent data provided by the Justice Department, the Government recovers, on average, $32 for every dollar spent on criminal fraud litigation. Think about that. If you are an investor, you would love to invest and get that kind of return. We spend $1 on criminal fraud litigation, we get back $32. The nonpartisan group, Taxpayers Against Fraud, has found that in civil fraud cases, the Government recovers $15 for every dollar spent in civil fraud cases. Last year the Justice Department recovered nearly $2 billion in civil false claims settlements, and in criminal cases, the courts ordered nearly $3 billion in restitution and recovery. That is why we should pass this and pass it quickly. I do not want, 8 months from now, when suddenly we find here another hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, taken from American taxpayers in fraud and theft that we could have stopped, but to say: Gosh, if only that bill had passed. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act also makes a number of straightforward, important improvements to fraud and money laundering statutes to strengthen prosecutors' ability to combat this growing wave of fraud. Specifically, the bill amends the definition of ``financial institution'' in the criminal code in order to extend Federal fraud laws to mortgage lending businesses that are not directly regulated or insured by the Federal Government. These companies were responsible for nearly half the residential mortgage market before the economic collapse, yet they remain largely unregulated and outside the scope of traditional Federal fraud statutes. This change will apply the Federal fraud laws to private mortgage businesses like Countrywide Home Loans and GMAC Mortgage, just as they apply to federally insured and regulated banks. The bill would also amend the major fraud statute to protect funds expended under the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the economic stimulus package, including any government purchases of preferred stock in financial institutions. The U.S. Government has provided extraordinary economic support to our banking system, and we need to make sure that none of those funds are subject to fraud or abuse. This change will give Federal prosecutors and investigators the explicit authority they need to protect taxpayer funds. This bill will also strengthen one of the core offenses in so many fraud cases--money laundering--which was significantly weakened by a recent Supreme Court case. In United States v. Santos, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the money laundering statutes, limiting their scope to only the ``profits'' of crimes, rather than the ``proceeds'' of the offenses. The Court's mistaken decision was contrary to congressional intent and will lead to financial criminals escaping culpability simply by claiming their illegal scams did not make a profit. Indeed, Ponzi schemes like the $50 billion fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff, which by definition turn no profit, are exempt from money laundering charges under this formulation. This erroneous decision must be corrected immediately, as dozens of money laundering cases have already been dismissed. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act 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 $11 billion using the False Claims Act since it was modernized through the work of Senator Grassley in 1986, but the statute still can be more effective. Recent court decisions and changes in government-- contracting practices have limited the effectiveness of the False Claims Act. As we did in the last Congress, Senator Grassley and I have joined together to update and restore the False Claims Act to protect the American taxpayer. Some may argue that the legal fixes in this bill constitute overreaching by the Federal Government, In fact, this bill does not over-federalize or over-criminalize, as we took great care in crafting it to avoid those kinds of excesses. The bill creates no new statutes and no new sentences. Instead, it focuses on modernizing existing statutes to reach unregulated conduct and on addressing flawed court decisions interpreting those laws. This bill has broad bipartisan support. It has the strong backing of the Justice Department and the Obama administration, along with Senator Grassley and Senator Specter, the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee. We have Senator Snowe joining us as a cosponsor. They have joined with Senators Kaufman, Schumer, Klobuchar, Levin, Harkin, Dorgan, Whitehouse, Bayh, Shaheen, and Murray who have cosponsored this bill. The Justice Department sent us a letter. They said: The Department strongly supports enactment of [the bill]. The provisions of the legislation would provide Federal investigators and prosecutors with significant new tools and resources . . . to combat mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud. Look what the Director of the FBI said: FERA [referring to our bill,] will be tremendously helpful in giving us the tools to investigate . . . to help prosecutors prosecute, and finally to obtain the convictions and jail sentences that are the deterrent to this activity taking place in the future. Remember, we certainly want to recover money. Certainly we want those forfeitures. Certainly we want those fines. But I want people to go to jail for this. Because if you think if you are going to defraud someone or groups defraud people of $100 million, you might get a $10 million fine, that is 10 percent of your cost of doing business. But if you think you might go to jail, then you are going to think twice. That is why we received this 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. The current epidemic of fraud went hand in hand with the greed and neglect that poisoned our economy in recent years. As banks and private mortgage companies relaxed their standards for loans, approving ever riskier mortgages with less and less due diligence, they created an environment that invited fraud. Private mortgage brokers and lending businesses came to dominate the home housing market, and these companies were not subject to the kind of banking oversight and internal regulations that had traditionally helped to prevent fraud. We are now seeing the results of this lax supervision and lack of accountability. The problem spread as home mortgages were packaged together and turned into securities that were bought and sold in largely unregulated markets on Wall Street. Here again, the environment invited fraud. As the value of the mortgages started to decline with falling housing prices, Wall Street financiers began to see these mortgage-backed securities unravel. Some were not honest about these securities, leading to even more fraud, and victimizing investors nationwide. Only by reinvigorating our antifraud measures and giving law enforcement agencies the tools and resources they need to root out fraud can we ensure that fraud can never again place our financial system at risk and victimize so many Americans. Taxpayers, who bear the burden of this financial downturn, deserve to know that the government is doing all it can to hold responsible those who committed crimes in the run-up to this collapse. There should be strong support for this. The Justice Department supports it. The FBI supports it. The Secret Service supports it. The Postal Inspection Service supports it, the HUD Inspector General supports it, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program supports it, on and on and on. And, most importantly, some of the most thoughtful members of this body, Republican and Democratic Members alike, support it. So let's go as quickly as we can. Let's have a decent time agreement on this bill. Let's get it passed. Let's get it through the other body. Let's get it on the President's desk. Then let's go and investigate and lock up the people who cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars. I see the distinguished cosponsor, the Senator from Iowa. I yield the floor and withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this evening, the Senate should act to confirm three of President Obama's Justice Department nominees: Tony West to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Lanny Breuer to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and Christine Varney to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. I am disappointed that Republican Senators have delayed action on these nominations. In my view, they should have been confirmed before the 2-week Easter recess. There was once a time in the Senate when we acted on nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar before a long recess. Certainly at the beginning of a presidential term, it makes sense to have the President's nominees in place earlier, rather than engage in needless delay, especially when there is no controversy. I know of no controversy regarding any of these outstanding nominations. All three nominees were named by the President on January 22, 3 months ago. They each participated in a confirmation hearing on March 10, 6 weeks ago. After allowing time for follow-up written questions and answers, they were each considered by the Judiciary Committee, approved without a single negative vote, and reported to the Senate on March 26. Another week passed, but Republicans remained unwilling to confirm them before the April recess. That is how we find ourselves here, more than 12 weeks after they were designated by the President, without having acted on those named to head the Criminal Division, the Antitrust Division, or the Civil Division. I will be very interested to hear why these nominations could not be approved before the Senate recessed on April 2, and why these additional weeks of delay were needed. I will be interested to see who opposes these nominees, who comes to the floor to speak against them, and who justifies the delay in their confirmations. To date, I know of no one who opposes them. I know that no Republican member of the Judiciary Committee voted against any of them when they were considered by the committee at a business meeting more than 3 weeks ago. As I say, there used to be a tradition of comity, and of acting on executive nominations before a recess. I will be interested to learn how that delay is justified to the Justice Department, to the country and to each of these nominees. In a statement 2 weeks ago, I noted my disappointment that the Republican minority has returned to the tactics of anonymous and unaccountable holds, and needless delays. Attorney General Holder needs his leadership team in place to rebuild and restore the Department. None of these are controversial nominees. They all received numerous letters of strong support, and endorsements from both Republican and Democratic former public officials. They were all reported out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent. They should have been confirmed weeks ago. What accounts for the delay? I hope that someone will explain. To date no one has. I am left to think back to a February column written by William Kristol, where he urged the Republican minority to practice obstruction and delay. He was specifically referring to the Republican efforts to oppose the President's proposals to revive our economy and build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. That they have done. Not one Republican Member of the House or Senate voted for the budget and not one Republican Member of the House voted for the emergency economic recovery package. They are adhering to a pundit's advice on important legislation and on the President's nominations. Their creed is to ``obstruct and delay.'' It is not one of bipartisanship to help the President enact his agenda this year. It is one designed to ``slow down the train.'' Mr. Kristol counseled Republicans to insist on ``lengthy debate,'' while noting that they ``can't win politically right now,'' but they can ``pick other fights--and they can try in any way possible to break Obama's momentum.'' That is a destructive prescription, and we see it being played out day after day, issue after issue, nomination after nomination. Rather than join with the new President as he rallies the country and the world to economic recovery and enhanced security, they persist in their efforts to obstruct and delay. Recently the New York Times described the results of a New York Times/CBS News poll of the American people. Since the Republican opposition is so interested in poll-driven politics, I urge them to consider it, and reconsider their own ill-fated course. The Obama administration is just 11 weeks old, and already the American people have grown more optimistic about the economy and the direction of the country. Americans approve of the President's handling of the economy and foreign policy with fully two-thirds saying they approve of his overall job performance. Following his recent trip to Europe, meetings with other world leaders, his outreach to Turkey and his visit to Iraq, I expect those numbers may be even higher today. More and more people feel that things are headed in the right direction--despite Republican obstruction. Two and one half months into office, President Obama has broad support on economic and national security matters with almost two-thirds of Americans believing that President Obama is likely to make the right decisions. By contrast, only 20 percent of Americans believe that congressional Republicans would more likely make the right decisions about the nation's economy. The Republican nay-saying is sinking in. So I urge Senate Republicans, if they will not honor our traditional deference to a new President and vote for his nominees, if they will not join together with President Obama at a time of great challenges to America by working cooperatively and quickly to approve the administration's law enforcement leadership team, if none of those worthwhile reasons convince them to do the right thing, then I urge them to consider how the American people are reacting to their obstruction. I urge them to abandon the across-the-board tactics of resistance and delay. The majority of the American people are calling for us to work together and are rejecting Republican obstruction and delay. Tony West knows the Department of Justice well. He served in the Department as a Special Assistant to Deputy Attorneys General Philip Heymann and Jamie Gorelick. He then worked as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. His commitment to public service continued when he became a Special Assistant Attorney General in the California Department of Justice. He has also worked in private practice. Mr. West is a graduate of Harvard University and Stanford University Law School, where he served as president of the Stanford Law Review. His nomination has earned support from both sides of the aisle. The former chairman of the California Republican Party, George Sundheim, sent a letter to the committee stating that Mr. West is admired by ``both sides of the aisle'' for his ``integrity, honesty and decency,'' and that there is no one ``more qualified to assume a position of leadership in the Department of Justice.'' The Federal prosecutors who worked across the table from Mr. West during the high-profile prosecution of John Walker Lindh witnessed Mr. West's ``extraordinary professionalism,'' and ``smart advocacy . . . executed with the highest degree of integrity.'' We should confirm this outstanding leader for the Civil Division and should not have delayed his confirmation this long. President Obama has said that Lanny Breuer has the ``depth of experience and integrity'' to fulfill the highest standards of the American people and the Department of Justice. I agree. Mr. Breuer began his legal career as an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. He told us during his hearing that his commitment to ensuring justice for all Americans stemmed from his days working on the front lines of the fight against crime as a Manhattan prosecutor. His call to public service continued while serving in the White House Counsel's Office as a special counsel to President Clinton. Mr. Breuer has also worked in private practice for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Covington & Burling. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School and Columbia University. Michael Chertoff, who led the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice during the Bush administration, endorsed Mr. Breuer's nomination, saying he has ``exceptionally broad legal experience as a former prosecutor and defense attorney'' and has ``outstanding judgment, a keen sense of fairness, high integrity and an even temperament.'' Brad Berenson, a veteran of the Bush administration's White House counsel's office, writes that Mr. Breuer is ``everything one could hope for in a leader of the Criminal Division.'' Mr. Breuer's former colleagues from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office have said that as a criminal prosecutor, he ``distinguished himself as a tenacious but scrupulously fair trial lawyer, driven by the unwavering goal of achieving justice.'' Former Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson and former Congressman and DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson have also written to the committee in support of Mr. Breuer's nomination. I agree with all their comments and wish the Republican minority had not stalled the confirmation of Mr. Breuer's nomination needlessly for an additional 2 weeks. Christine Varney was confirmed to be a U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner in 1994, after being nominated by President Clinton. As a Federal Trade Commissioner, Ms. Varney gained valuable experience in antitrust enforcement and in reducing anticompetitive measures that harm American consumers. Her Government service work includes a high level position in President Clinton's White House, where she served as an assistant to the President and secretary to the Cabinet. She has worked in private practice for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. She also graduated from my alma mater, the Georgetown University Law Center. Her nomination is supported by individuals who served in the Antitrust Division during both Democratic and Republican administrations. John Shenefield and James Rill, both former heads of the Antitrust Division, say that she is ``extraordinarily well qualified to lead the Antitrust Division.'' Twenty former chairs of the American Bar Association section of antitrust law have described Ms. Varney as a ``highly accomplished, capable nominee who will serve consumers and this country with distinction'' and who will have ``immediate credibility'' in her new position. I agree. At a time when our economy is suffering, there is a temptation to act anticompetitively. We need to make sure that we have a strong and effective advocate for competition and the interests of consumers in place. This was not the time for delay. Republican Senators delayed for weeks the confirmation of Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan to be the Solicitor General of the United States, before demanding an extended debate on her nomination. They delayed for 2 weeks what was a unanimous vote in favor of David Kris to serve as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the National Security Division at the Justice Department. And they have refused for more than a month to consent to a time agreement for debate and a vote on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to lead the critical Office of Legal Counsel. The nominations the Senate considers this evening are three additional nominations they held up needlessly this month. On April 1, both the New York Times and Roll Call featured reports suggesting that Senate Republicans intend to, and are planning to, filibuster the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. That was no April fool's joke. That is a serious matter and one that hurts the President's efforts to restore the rule of law. I cannot remember a time when Democratic Senators filibustered a Justice Department nomination. Speech after speech by Republican Senators just a few short years ago about how it would be unconstitutional to filibuster Presidential nominees appear now to be just speeches that served a partisan political purpose at the time. Last month, in an online column for Slate entitled ``How Many Ways Can Senate Republicans Show Intellectual Hypocrisy?'' Dahila Lithwick observed: ``The irony now on display among Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee is staggering.'' She could have included Republican Senators who have recently championed the principle that ``elections have consequences,'' that the President is entitled to his nominees, and that filibustering is an ``obstructionist tactic'' and ``obscene.'' In her April 8 column in the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus reminded ``the people who are considering a Johnsen filibuster how hypocritical this stance would be.'' She reminded them that Democrats did not filibuster President Bush's nominations of John Ashcroft or Ted Olson, although there were more than 40 negative votes on each of those nominations. She noted: ``[T]he president is entitled, absent extraordinary circumstances, to have the advisers of his choosing. Voting against a president's nominee is a serious step. Voting to prevent that nomination from getting an up-or-down vote kicks it up several notches.'' She concluded by explaining why, from her own experience and knowledge, Dawn Johnsen is not out of the mainstream or extreme: ``This is hardly the kind of nominee so extreme that she should not be entitled to an up-or-down vote.'' The men and women at the Department of Justice have a special duty to uphold the rule of law because, as President Obama reminds us, ``laws are only as effective, only as compassionate, [and] only as fair as those who enforce them.'' The three nominees Republicans agreed to consider this evening, and Dawn Johnsen, whose nomination they refuse to debate and vote on, are all nominees who meet President Obama's standards and will work on behalf of the American people in the best traditions of the Department of Justice. I urge Republican Senators to vote to confirm these Assistant Attorney General nominations tonight. Then I hope we will be able to proceed to a time agreement to consider and vote on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to serve as the Assistant Attorney General to head the important Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. Her work has been delayed too long. The President designated her back on January 5. The time has come to debate that nomination and vote it up or down. The President has suspended the OLC opinions until they can be reviewed; she will head that review. The delay has gone on long enough. The Senate should vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have three nominations that should have been confirmed by voice vote. Before we left on recess, the Republicans asked to hold them up for 2 weeks. I wish they had not because these are nominiees to vital positions in the Department of Justice. Only four Senators, after holding them up for 2 weeks, not allowing them to be there, only four Senators voted against Tony West to be head of the Civil Division. We now have Lanny Breuer to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. These are people who were voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by Republicans and Democrats. I hope we have a similar vote. A rollcall has been requested on the Republican side, which is fine; they have that right. But I hope we will confirm this nomination also.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the 88-to-0 vote, again, was one that, instead of having a voice vote before the recess on a key member of the Department of Justice, our friends on the Republican side insisted we have. We held it up for 2 weeks. I am glad to see that now the right thing has been done with not a single dissenting vote. I wish it could have been done 2 weeks earlier so they could get to work at the Department of Justice.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the third vote is Christine Varney--and I hope we have a similar vote--to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Again, I wish it could have been done 2 weeks ago, but I would hope we would go forward.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination, as the Republicans had requested.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, it is. I am just asking for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate was poised today to confirm three more superbly qualified nominees to fill top leadership positions at the Department of Justice before adjourning for the 2-week April recess. Instead, the Republican minority has returned to the tactics of anonymous and unaccountable holds they employed when they were in the majority to block scores of President Clinton's nominees. Attorney General Holder needs his leadership team in place to rebuild and restore the Department. Tony West, President Obama's nominee to lead the Civil Division, Lanny Breuer, nominated to head the Criminal Division, and Christine Varney, nominated to head the Antitrust Division, have all chosen to leave lucrative private practices to return to Government service. None of these are controversial nominees. They all received numerous letters of strong support, and endorsements from both Republican and Democratic former public officials. They were all reported out of the Judiciary Committee last week by unanimous consent. We should be confirming them today, not holding them hostage to the tired partisan playbook of Senate Republicans. Tony West knows the Department of Justice well. He served in the Department as a Special Assistant to Deputy Attorneys General Philip Heymann and Jamie Gorelick. He then worked as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. His commitment to public service continued when he became a Special Assistant Attorney General in the California Department of Justice. He has also worked in private practice. Mr. West is a graduate of Harvard University and Stanford University Law School, where he served as president of the Stanford Law Review. His nomination has earned support from both sides of the aisle. The former chairman of the California Republican Party, George Sundheim, sent a letter to the committee stating that Mr. West is admired by ``both sides of the aisle'' for his ``integrity, honesty and decency,'' and that there is no one ``more qualified to assume a position of leadership in the Department of Justice.'' The Federal prosecutors who worked across the table from Mr. West during the high-profile prosecution of John Walker Lindh witnessed Mr. West's ``extraordinary professionalism,'' and ``smart advocacy . . . executed with the highest degree of integrity.'' We should be confirming this outstanding leader for the Civil Division today. President Obama has said that Lanny Breuer has the ``depth of experience and integrity'' to fulfill the highest standards of the American people and the Department of Justice. I agree. Mr. Breuer began his legal career as an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. He told us during his hearing that his commitment to ensuring justice for all Americans stemmed from his days working on the front lines of the fight against crime as a Manhattan prosecutor. His call to public service continued while serving in the White House Counsel's Office as a special counsel to President Clinton. Mr. Breuer has also worked in private practice for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Covington & Burling. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School and Columbia University. Michael Chertoff, who led the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice during the Bush administration, endorsed Mr. Breuer's nomination, saying he has ``exceptionally broad legal experience as a former prosecutor and defense attorney'' and has ``outstanding judgment, a keen sense of fairness, high integrity and an even temperament.'' Brad Berenson, a veteran of the Bush administration's White House counsel's office, writes that Mr. Breuer is ``everything one could hope for in a leader of the Criminal Division.'' Mr. Breuer's former colleagues from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office have said that as a criminal prosecutor, he ``distinguished himself as a tenacious but scrupulously fair trial lawyer, driven by the unwavering goal of achieving justice.'' Former Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson and former Congressman and DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson have also written to the committee in support of Mr. Breuer's nomination. I agree with all their comments and wish the Republican minority was not stalling confirmation of Mr. Breuer's nomination. Christine Varney was confirmed to be a U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner in 1994, after being nominated by President Clinton. As a Federal Trade Commissioner, Ms. Varney gained valuable experience in antitrust enforcement and in reducing anticompetitive measures that harm American consumers. Her Government service work includes a high level position in President Clinton's White House, where she served as an assistant to the President and secretary to the Cabinet. She has worked in private practice for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. She also graduated from my alma mater, the Georgetown University Law Center. Her nomination is supported by individuals who served in the Antitrust Division during both Democratic and Republican administrations. John Shenefield and James Rill, both former heads of the Antitrust Division, say that she is ``extraordinarily well qualified to lead the Antitrust Division.'' Twenty former chairs of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law have described Ms. Varney as a ``highly accomplished, capable nominee who will serve consumers and this country with distinction'' and who will have ``immediate credibility'' in her new position. I agree. At a time when our economy is suffering, there is a temptation to act anticompetitively. We need to make sure that we have a strong and effective advocate for competition and the interests of consumers in place. Now is not the time for delay. Republican Senators delayed for weeks the confirmation of Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan to be the Solicitor General of the United States, before demanding an extended debate on her nomination. They have yet to consent to a time agreement on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to lead the critical Office of Legal Counsel. And they are now holding up three nominations today, including the nomination of Christine Varney to head the Antitrust Division. I am concerned that Republican delay tactics are creating a double standard for these highly qualified women. Republicans did not apply the same standards or make the same demands for extensive followup information and meetings when supporting President Bush's nominations to the same posts. Indeed, The New York Times and Roll Call yesterday each featured reports suggesting that Senate Republicans intend to, and are planning to, filibuster the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. I cannot remember a time when Democratic Senators filibustered a Justice Department nomination. Speech after speech by Republican Senators just a few short years ago about how it would be unconstitutional to filibuster Presidential nominees appear now to be just speeches that served a partisan political purpose at the time. During last week's formal installation of the Attorney General, President Obama reminded Americans and the world that what makes our country unique is that ``we are bound together not by a shared bloodline or allegiance to any one leader or faith or creed, but by an adherence to a set of ideals.'' The men and women at the Department of Justice have a special duty to uphold the rule of law because ``laws are only as effective, only as compassionate, [and] only as fair as those who enforce them.'' All of the nominees we should be considering and confirming today fit the mold described by President Obama and the best traditions of the Department of Justice. I urge Republican Senators to reconsider their partisan obstructionist approach and return from recess ready to end the delays and confirm these nominees.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since I last came to the floor to discuss a proposal for a Commission of Inquiry, Americans have learned disturbing new facts that underscore the need for such a nonpartisan review. In the last 8 years, expansive views of Presidential authority and misguided policies have dominated the question of how best to preserve and protect national security. As Senators, we each take an oath to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' In the months and years following 9/11, driven by an inflated view of executive power, the Bush-Cheney administration compromised many of the very laws and protections that are the heart of our democracy. Their policies, which condoned torture, extraordinary renditions, and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans, have left a stain on America's reputation in the world. In recent weeks, we have also seen a few more opinions previously issued by the Office of Legal Counsel after 9/11 that had been kept secret until now. I commend the new Attorney General on their release. I have asked that more be released, and it is my hope that they will be soon. These opinions sought to excuse policies that trample upon the Constitution and our duly enacted legal protections. These opinions arise from an arrogant rationale that the President can do anything he wants to do, that the President is above the law. The last President to make that claim was Richard Nixon. We saw the results of that policy in Watergate. It was through efforts like the Church Committee that we revised our laws and moved forward. In my view, it is time to do so again. Perhaps the most persuasive new revelation that demonstrates why we cannot just turn the page without reading it is Mark Danner's account of a leaked copy of a report on the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The report, compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross, is nothing short of chilling. One detainee interviewed describes: ``Two black wooden boxes were brought into the room outside my cell. One was tall, slightly higher than me and narrow .The other was shorter, perhaps only [3\1/2\ feet] in height. I was taken out of my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck, they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room. . . . I was then put into the tall black box for what I think was about one and a half to two hours. . . . They put a cloth or cover over the outside of the box to cut out the light and restrict my air supply. It was difficult to breathe.'' The report continues to describe how these men were kept naked, shackled to a chair for weeks in freezing cold temperatures, forced with cold water to stay awake for days on end, bombarded with loud music, starved, and beaten over and over again. In one interview, a man describes how he was waterboarded: He was ``dragged from the small box, unable to walk properly and put on what looked like a hospital bed, and strapped down very tightly with belts.'' As they poured water on him, he said ``I struggled against the straps, trying to breathe, but it was hopeless. I thought I was going to die.'' The report concludes that from those descriptions, this was torture. And there is mounting evidence to suggest it was a Bush administration policy. Media reports suggest that the CIA briefed high-level administration officials on the interrogation plan. Vice President Cheney admitted in an interview with ABC News that he supported the plan that authorized these measures, including waterboarding. In fact he continues to claim, without any basis, that the Bush administration's interrogation tactics, including torture, were appropriate and effective. This past Sunday, a Washington Post article described how the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida failed to produce any useful intelligence. Of course, Zubaida is a detainee who many Bush administration officials had long claimed provided useful intelligence only after he was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques. According to Post interviews of former senior government officials, ``not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions . . . Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida . . . was obtained before waterboarding was introduced.'' Jack Goldsmith refers to the August 2002 ``Bybee memo'' as the ``golden shield,'' because it redefined torture in order to shield decisionmakers from liability for these tactics. The release of related memos is needed. Whether they end up shielding decisionmakers from prosecution, they should not shield them from accountability. Accountability does not only happen in a courtroom. We need to know what was done. Transparency and accountability can help restore our reputation around the world. Most importantly, to reestablish the trust of the American public in their government, they deserve to know and understand what happened. Just last week, we heard about the Bush administration's attempt to silence Binyam Mohammed, a British citizen held for years as an enemy combatant at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. He claims that he was tortured during the course of his detention. Bush administration officials apparently demanded that he sign a secret plea bargain which would have prohibited him from ever suing the United States over his alleged torture in order to be sent back to the United Kingdom. He did not and now Britain is investigating his allegations. When asked about the involvement of a particular British intelligence agent, Mr. Mohammed said, ``I feel very strongly that we shouldn't scapegoat the little people. We certainly shouldn't blame `Witness B,' he was only following orders.'' One of my concerns in proposing the Commission of Inquiry is that we not scapegoat or punish those of lesser rank. Such a commission's objective would be to find the truth to provide accountability for the past. People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts, to know what happened and to make sure mistakes are not repeated. We have had successful oversight in some areas, but on issues including harsh interrogation tactics, extraordinary rendition and executive override of the laws, the last administration successfully kept many of us in the dark about what happened and who ordered it. One month ago, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to explore my proposal. A bipartisan panel of respected witnesses explained why we need such a commission. Since that time, this idea has received a wide range of support from people all across this country. I am not interested in a panel comprised of partisans intent on advancing partisan conclusions. I regret that Senate Republicans have approached this matter to date as partisans. That was not my intent or focus. Indeed, it will take bipartisan support in order to move this forward. I continue to talk about this prospect with others in Congress, and with outside groups and experts. I continue to call on Republicans to recognize that this is not about partisan politics. It is about being honest with ourselves as a country. We need to move forward together. I recently heard from the Nobel Prize recipient Bishop Desmond Tutu about this proposal. Bishop Tutu, respected throughout the world for his efforts for peace and justice in his own country of South Africa, offered his support for what we are trying to do. The legacy of the last administration left us facing crises in more areas than just the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the worst recession since the Great Depression. There is no question that those are all pressing issues. But we cannot ignore the failures of government forever. We do so at our peril. We are tackling tough issues in these difficult and uncertain times. The Judiciary Committee has a full legislative agenda, having reported bipartisan legislation to fight fraud, public corruption and to aid the economy through patent reform. But the fact remains that under the most remarkably broad expansion of executive authority in my lifetime, we have seen policies on detention and interrogation that undermined our values, our reputation and, many believe, our efforts to ensure national security. The country will need to have an honest discourse about what happened and what went wrong. I continue to feel strongly that a Commission of Inquiry would provide us the best nonpartisan setting in which to undertake that study and national conversation. I think we should proceed sooner rather than later. I am continuing to reach out and to work on the proposal. But a conversation is not something I can undertake unilaterally. As strongly as I feel, it will take the cooperation and commitment of others for this proposal to serve its intended purpose so that we can join together to move past the mistakes of the recent past.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the amendment offered by Senators Kerry and Lugar which I and many other Senators on both sides of the aisle have cosponsored to restore $4 billion to the international affairs function of the budget. This amendment would not have any effect on the top line for nondiscretionary spending. It is budget neutral. We have two choices. Cut $4 billion from the President's Fiscal year 2010 budget for national security and diplomacy programs as the budget resolution would do, or restore those funds, as the Kerry-Lugar-Leahy- Durbin amendment would do, and which both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have said is vital. This $4 billion is an insignificant amount when it comes to having an appreciable effect on the deficit over the long term, but it will pay immediate dividends in restoring United States influence around the world where it is desperately needed. The difference we are talking about is whether to freeze funding for international assistance programs at the 2009 level, or to step up to the plate and fund the initiatives President Obama, and Members of Congress of both parties, have recognized are urgently needed. These funds will be used to put the United States back in the driver's seat on climate change. They will support the increases for Pakistan and Afghanistan that the Secretary of Defense says are critical elements of our counterterrorism strategy there. It is not just a military strategy. It is also a diplomatic and development strategy. These are the funds to support that. They will support treatment for millions of people infected with HIV/AIDS. Lifesaving drugs that represent the best of America. Years from now, countries in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, and Central Asia will remember what we do today. China is expanding its influence around the globe. We can step back and watch that happen, or we can show once again that the United States is going to lead by example. Not very long ago we had that chance with Russia. But rather than look for ways to put past hostilities and distrust behind us and embark on a new relationship, we sought to take advantage in ways that exacerbated that distrust. Today the relationship is a far cry from what it could and should be, and it will require significant investments in diplomacy to rebuild it. We can lead in the world, we can build new alliances and work to solve conflicts, promote stability and develop new markets, or we can turn inward. That is the choice we face with this amendment. We are part of a global economy. We face grave challenges, from al-Qaida in Pakistan to drug cartels in Mexico. Climate change threatens the survival of species in ways that may profoundly affect our own survival not fifty million years from now, but within the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren. This is no time to trifle with the need for American leadership. I thank all Senators for supporting this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is moving forward to vote on final passage of the bipartisan Serve America Act. Practical participation in the goals and ideals of our country through service is a cornerstone of our success as the world's most enduring democracy, and we must continue to work together to promote such volunteerism on a national level. Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly to promote national service by authoring and passing the National and Community Service Trust Act, which created AmeriCorps. Senator Kennedy's career of public service serves as an example to so many Americans, and I am proud to have joined alongside him as a cosponsor of this legislation. For dozens of years, programs aimed at assisting Americans of all ages to participate in year-long service activities have thrived and national service applications are higher than they have ever been. This bill would expand the opportunities for Americans to serve by boosting AmeriCorps programs over 8 years to a goal of 250,000 volunteers, engaging youth and low-income individuals to participate in Summer of Service or Semester of Service programs, making expansions to programs for retirees, and authorizing a program for short-term international service opportunities. These programs have helped thousands engage in their communities and become involved in civic life and we should encourage even greater participation by passing this bill. In this time of economic hardship, Americans are struggling to pay the high costs of tuition and those who do make it through school are struggling to find ways to pay the bills. Many that may be drawn toward year-of-service programs are unable to commit because they cannot afford to do so. The Serve America Act increases the education award for volunteers to $5,350 to keep up with education costs and to link it to Pell Grants in order to help it increase in the future. The dedicated young people who have answered the honorable call to national service contribute enormously to the strength of our communities. Whether they are helping to house the homeless, feed the hungry, or keep disadvantaged youth safe in fun and educational after- school activities, they are often filling a sorely needed gap that the community cannot otherwise fill. Since AmeriCorps' inception in 1994, more than 2,900 Vermonters have qualified for education loans through the program, allowing about 390 Vermont students to serve each year. Additionally, 2,800 Vermont seniors contribute their time to the Senior Corps program by becoming foster grandparents, senior companions for homebound seniors, or by serving in the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. The expansion of the year-of-service opportunities this bill contains will greatly increase the capacity of Vermonters to join national service programs. Last week, a large group of volunteers from YouthBuild came to Washington to participate in Green Building Service Day to build an energy efficient home on the National Mall. YouthBuild volunteers have been participating in similar projects for more than 20 years. Several members of YouthBuild Burlington came to Washington to participate in Green Building Service Day and described how the program turned around their lives and how they are inspired to continue public service after their time with YouthBuild is completed. National service programs such as YouthBuild are not merely volunteer programs, but programs that invigorate the spirit of national service that will influence volunteers for a lifetime. We must work to make this vital part of our social safety net in Vermont and across the nation. Service to our country is not only noble, but it enriches the lives of those served as well as the volunteers who commit their time to helping others. I urge support of this bill as the Senate prepares to vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Durbin once again to introduce the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, DREAM. This legislation has the potential to change the lives of many young people in an extraordinary and positive way and is an investment in America's future. The Senate has attempted several times to pass the DREAM Act, but the bitter politics of immigration have stalled our best efforts in the past. I appreciate Senator Durbin's persistence, and I share his commitment to the young people whose lives this bill would profoundly improve. Those who came to the U.S. as minors under the care of their parents are not guilty of their parents' transgressions. For many, the U.S. is the only home they know. We will further the Federal policy that supports educational opportunity and military service if we exercise the forbearance to defer rigid application of our laws upon those who have the potential to be citizens that will move our country forward. We all recognize the value of higher education and service to our country. To serve these Federal policy interests by giving legal stability and opportunity to young people caught in the limbo of our laws through no fault of their own is the right thing to do. As Congress and the administration work through the immediate challenges that lie ahead, and begin to restore the faith of Americans in our economy and our government, I hope Congress will not shy away from other important issues such as immigration reform. When our Federal Government confronts the issue of immigration, I hope we will see not only the opportunity to correct what is wrong, but also to improve and build upon what is good and just about the traditions of welcoming and refuge that define our immigration system. The promise this bill holds for so many young people will reinforce the spirit that underlies the history of American immigration and the diversity that has moved us so far. I thank Senator Durbin and hope all Senators will join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Durbin once again to introduce the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, DREAM. This legislation has the potential to change the lives of many young people in an extraordinary and positive way and is an investment in America's future. The Senate has attempted several times to pass the DREAM Act, but the bitter politics of immigration have stalled our best efforts in the past. I appreciate Senator Durbin's persistence, and I share his commitment to the young people whose lives this bill would profoundly improve. Those who came to the U.S. as minors under the care of their parents are not guilty of their parents' transgressions. For many, the U.S. is the only home they know. We will further the Federal policy that supports educational opportunity and military service if we exercise the forbearance to defer rigid application of our laws upon those who have the potential to be citizens that will move our country forward. We all recognize the value of higher education and service to our country. To serve these Federal policy interests by giving legal stability and opportunity to young people caught in the limbo of our laws through no fault of their own is the right thing to do. As Congress and the administration work through the immediate challenges that lie ahead, and begin to restore the faith of Americans in our economy and our government, I hope Congress will not shy away from other important issues such as immigration reform. When our Federal Government confronts the issue of immigration, I hope we will see not only the opportunity to correct what is wrong, but also to improve and build upon what is good and just about the traditions of welcoming and refuge that define our immigration system. The promise this bill holds for so many young people will reinforce the spirit that underlies the history of American immigration and the diversity that has moved us so far. I thank Senator Durbin and hope all Senators will join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has confirmed four nominees to fill top leadership positions at the Justice Department officials, and today we take another step forward to put in place Attorney General Holder's leadership team. Today, the Senate turns to the nomination of David Kris to lead the National Security Division. I thank the Democratic and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee for working with me to expedite this nomination when it was in committee. Senator Feinstein chaired our Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination on February 25. We were able to report his nomination out of the committee by a voice vote on March 5. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence worked quickly to consider and report his nomination as well. Finally, the Senate today considers his nomination to this critical national security post. The Judiciary Committee's renewed oversight efforts in the last 2 years brought into sharper focus what for years had been clear--that during the last 8 years, the Bush administration repeatedly ignored the checks and balances wisely placed on executive power by the Founders. The Bush administration chose to enhance the power of the President and to turn the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice into an apologist for White House orders--from the warrantless wiretapping of Americans to torture. Attorney General Holder has already taken steps toward restoring the rule of law. With the confirmation of David Kris to lead the National Security Division, we fill another key national security position in the Department. David Kris is a highly regarded veteran of the Department of Justice. He is former Federal prosecutor who spent 8 years as a career attorney in the criminal division at the Department, handling complex cases in Federal trial and appellate courts, including the Supreme Court. Mr. Kris was then a political appointee under both President Clinton and President Bush, serving as Associate Deputy Attorney General from 2000- 2003, supervising the government's use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, representing the Justice Department at the National Security Council and in other interagency settings, briefing and testifying before Congress, and assisting the Attorney General in conducting oversight of the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. Kris understands the role the Bush administration's excesses have played in undermining the Department of Justice and the rule of law. In 2006, Mr. Kris released a 23-page legal memorandum critical of the legal rationale offered by the Bush administration, and in support of the legality of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program. Mr. Kris was an early advocate for the creation of the National Security Division he has now been confirmed to lead, leaving a lucrative practice as an in-house counsel for a major corporation to return to government service. Mr. Kris' nomination has also earned support from both sides of the aisle. Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson, who worked with Mr. Kris at the Department, describes Mr. Kris as ``a very sound lawyer,'' who ``is committed to the defense of the United States and its citizens, and respects the rule of law and civil rights.'' Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, who asked Mr. Kris to remain in his post during the Bush administration, writes that he asked Mr. Kris to stay after finding that ``he had a passion for national security issues but also a deep respect and appreciation for the related civil liberties concerns.'' Former Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former Attorneys General Janet Reno and John Ashcroft have all written in support of Mr. Kris' nomination. President Obama has reminded Americans and the world that, ``to overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend--because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America.'' The President reminded us that ``living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger.'' David Kris understands the moral and legal obligations we have to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans and to respect the human rights of all. He knows, as do the President and the Attorney General, that we must ensure that the rule of law is restored as the guiding light for the work of the Department of Justice. I congratulate Mr. Kris and his family on his confirmation today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am introducing today important legislation designed to protect our communities and particularly our most precious asset, our children. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Specter and Senator Kohl, who have been leaders in this area of the law for decades, and Senator Durbin, who is the new Chairman of the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee. Our legislation is intended to keep children safe and out of trouble and also to help ensure they have the opportunity to become productive adult members of society. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported this important bill last July. I was disappointed that Republican objections prevented this vital bipartisan legislation from passing the Senate in the last Congress, but we will redouble our efforts to pass this bill this year. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act sets out Federal policy and standards for the administration of juvenile justice. It authorizes key Federal resources for states to improve their juvenile justice systems and for communities to develop programs to prevent young people from getting into trouble. We are recommitting ourselves to these important goals with this proposed reauthorization. We also push the law forward in key ways to better serve our communities and our children. The basic goals of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act remain the same: keeping our communities safe by reducing juvenile crime, advancing programs and policies that keep children out of the criminal justice system, and encouraging states to implement policies designed to steer those children who do enter the juvenile justice system back onto a track to become contributing members of society. The reauthorization that we introduce today augments these goals in several ways. First, this bill encourages states to move away from keeping young people in adult jails. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that children who are held in adult prisons commit more crimes, and more serious crimes, when they are released, than children with similar histories who are kept in juvenile facilities. After years of pressure to send more and more young people to adult prisons, it is time to seriously consider the strong evidence that this policy is not working. We must do this with ample consideration for the fiscal constraints on states, particularly in these lean budget times, and with deference to the traditional role of states in setting their own criminal justice policy. We have done so here. But we also must work to ensure that unless strong and considered reasons dictate otherwise, the presumption must be that children will be kept with other children, particularly before they have been convicted of any wrongdoing. As a former prosecutor, I know well the importance of holding criminals accountable for their crimes with strong sentences. But when we are talking about children, we must also think about how best to help them become responsible, contributing members of society as adults. That keeps us all safer. I am disturbed that children from minority communities continue to be overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. This bill encourages states to take new steps to identify the reasons for this serious and continuing problem and to work together with the Federal Government and with local communities to find ways to start solving it. I am also concerned that too many runaway and homeless young people are locked up for status offenses, like truancy, without having committed any crime. In a Judiciary Committee hearing last year on the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, we were reminded of the plight of this vulnerable population, even in the wealthiest country in the world, and inspired by the ability of so many children in this desperate situation to rise above that adversity. This reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Act takes strong and significant steps to move away from detaining children from at-risk populations for status offenses, and requires states to phase out the practice entirely in three years, but with a safety valve for those states that are unable to move quite so quickly due to limited resources. As I have worked with experts on this legislation, it has become abundantly clear that mental health and drug treatment are fundamental to making real progress toward keeping juvenile offenders from reoffending. Mental disorders are two to three times more common among children in the juvenile justice system than in the general population, and 80 percent of young people in the juvenile justice system have been found by some studies to have a connection to substance abuse. This bill takes new and important steps to prioritize and fund mental health and drug treatment. The bill tackles several other key facets of juvenile justice reform. It emphasizes effective training of personnel who work with young people in the juvenile justice system, both to encourage the use of approaches that have been proven effective and to eliminate cruel and unnecessary treatment of juveniles. The bill also creates incentives for the use of programs that research and testing have shown work best. Finally, the bill refocuses attention on prevention programs intended to keep children from ever entering the criminal justice system. I was struck when Chief Richard Miranda of Tucson, AZ, said during our December 2007 hearing on this bill that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. I heard the same sentiment from Chief Anthony Bossi and others at the Judiciary Committee's field hearing last year on young people and violent crime in Rutland, Vermont. When seasoned police officers from Rutland, Vermont, to Tucson, Arizona, tell us that prevention programs are pivotal, I pay attention. Just as the last administration gutted programs that support state and local law enforcement, so they consistently cut and narrowed effective prevention programs. It would have been even worse had it not been for Senator Kohl's efforts. We must work with the Obama administration to reverse this trend and help our communities implement programs proven to help kids turn their lives around. I thank the many prominent Vermont representatives of law enforcement, the juvenile justice system, and prevention-oriented non- profits who have spoken to me in support of reauthorizing this important Act, and who have helped inform my understanding of these issues. They include Ken Schatz of the Burlington City Attorney's Office, Vermont Juvenile Justice Specialist Theresa Lay-Sleeper, and Chief Steve McQueen of the Winooski Police Department. I know that many Judiciary Committee members have heard from passionate leaders on this issue in their own states. I have long supported a strong Federal commitment to preventing youth violence, with full respect for the discretion due to law enforcement and judges, with deference to states, and with a regard for difficult fiscal realities. I have worked hard on past reauthorizations of this legislation, as have Senators Specter and Kohl and others on the Judiciary Committee. We have learned the importance of balancing strong law enforcement with effective prevention programs. This reauthorization pushes forward new ways to help children move out of the criminal justice system, return to school, and become responsible, hard-working members of our communities. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am introducing today important legislation designed to protect our communities and particularly our most precious asset, our children. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Specter and Senator Kohl, who have been leaders in this area of the law for decades, and Senator Durbin, who is the new Chairman of the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee. Our legislation is intended to keep children safe and out of trouble and also to help ensure they have the opportunity to become productive adult members of society. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported this important bill last July. I was disappointed that Republican objections prevented this vital bipartisan legislation from passing the Senate in the last Congress, but we will redouble our efforts to pass this bill this year. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act sets out Federal policy and standards for the administration of juvenile justice. It authorizes key Federal resources for states to improve their juvenile justice systems and for communities to develop programs to prevent young people from getting into trouble. We are recommitting ourselves to these important goals with this proposed reauthorization. We also push the law forward in key ways to better serve our communities and our children. The basic goals of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act remain the same: keeping our communities safe by reducing juvenile crime, advancing programs and policies that keep children out of the criminal justice system, and encouraging states to implement policies designed to steer those children who do enter the juvenile justice system back onto a track to become contributing members of society. The reauthorization that we introduce today augments these goals in several ways. First, this bill encourages states to move away from keeping young people in adult jails. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that children who are held in adult prisons commit more crimes, and more serious crimes, when they are released, than children with similar histories who are kept in juvenile facilities. After years of pressure to send more and more young people to adult prisons, it is time to seriously consider the strong evidence that this policy is not working. We must do this with ample consideration for the fiscal constraints on states, particularly in these lean budget times, and with deference to the traditional role of states in setting their own criminal justice policy. We have done so here. But we also must work to ensure that unless strong and considered reasons dictate otherwise, the presumption must be that children will be kept with other children, particularly before they have been convicted of any wrongdoing. As a former prosecutor, I know well the importance of holding criminals accountable for their crimes with strong sentences. But when we are talking about children, we must also think about how best to help them become responsible, contributing members of society as adults. That keeps us all safer. I am disturbed that children from minority communities continue to be overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. This bill encourages states to take new steps to identify the reasons for this serious and continuing problem and to work together with the Federal Government and with local communities to find ways to start solving it. I am also concerned that too many runaway and homeless young people are locked up for status offenses, like truancy, without having committed any crime. In a Judiciary Committee hearing last year on the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, we were reminded of the plight of this vulnerable population, even in the wealthiest country in the world, and inspired by the ability of so many children in this desperate situation to rise above that adversity. This reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Act takes strong and significant steps to move away from detaining children from at-risk populations for status offenses, and requires states to phase out the practice entirely in three years, but with a safety valve for those states that are unable to move quite so quickly due to limited resources. As I have worked with experts on this legislation, it has become abundantly clear that mental health and drug treatment are fundamental to making real progress toward keeping juvenile offenders from reoffending. Mental disorders are two to three times more common among children in the juvenile justice system than in the general population, and 80 percent of young people in the juvenile justice system have been found by some studies to have a connection to substance abuse. This bill takes new and important steps to prioritize and fund mental health and drug treatment. The bill tackles several other key facets of juvenile justice reform. It emphasizes effective training of personnel who work with young people in the juvenile justice system, both to encourage the use of approaches that have been proven effective and to eliminate cruel and unnecessary treatment of juveniles. The bill also creates incentives for the use of programs that research and testing have shown work best. Finally, the bill refocuses attention on prevention programs intended to keep children from ever entering the criminal justice system. I was struck when Chief Richard Miranda of Tucson, AZ, said during our December 2007 hearing on this bill that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. I heard the same sentiment from Chief Anthony Bossi and others at the Judiciary Committee's field hearing last year on young people and violent crime in Rutland, Vermont. When seasoned police officers from Rutland, Vermont, to Tucson, Arizona, tell us that prevention programs are pivotal, I pay attention. Just as the last administration gutted programs that support state and local law enforcement, so they consistently cut and narrowed effective prevention programs. It would have been even worse had it not been for Senator Kohl's efforts. We must work with the Obama administration to reverse this trend and help our communities implement programs proven to help kids turn their lives around. I thank the many prominent Vermont representatives of law enforcement, the juvenile justice system, and prevention-oriented non- profits who have spoken to me in support of reauthorizing this important Act, and who have helped inform my understanding of these issues. They include Ken Schatz of the Burlington City Attorney's Office, Vermont Juvenile Justice Specialist Theresa Lay-Sleeper, and Chief Steve McQueen of the Winooski Police Department. I know that many Judiciary Committee members have heard from passionate leaders on this issue in their own states. I have long supported a strong Federal commitment to preventing youth violence, with full respect for the discretion due to law enforcement and judges, with deference to states, and with a regard for difficult fiscal realities. I have worked hard on past reauthorizations of this legislation, as have Senators Specter and Kohl and others on the Judiciary Committee. We have learned the importance of balancing strong law enforcement with effective prevention programs. This reauthorization pushes forward new ways to help children move out of the criminal justice system, return to school, and become responsible, hard-working members of our communities. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Nation celebrates the fifth annual Sunshine Week--a time when open Government advocates raise their voices to renew the call for open and transparent Government. Our democracy works best when citizens know what their Government is doing. There is no more appropriate time to recommit ourselves to defending the public's right to know. Today, I am pleased to join Senators Grassley and Schumer to reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2009. This bipartisan bill will improve access to Federal court proceedings for members of the public who are unable to travel to the courthouse. In the information age, providing the American people access to Federal courts is possible like never before. Not all Americans are able to invest the time and money in travelling to witness public courtroom proceedings. I commend Senator Grassley for his leadership over the last decade to expand access to the courts. A bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to report this legislation in the last Congress, but further consideration stalled on the Senate floor. I hope our efforts to pass this legislation will be successful this year. The Federal courts serve as a bulwark for the protection of individual rights and liberties, and the Supreme Court is often the final arbiter of Constitutional questions that have a profound effect on all Americans. Allowing the public greater access to Federal courts will deepen Americans' understanding of the work that goes on in the courts. As a result, Americans can be better informed about how important judicial decisions are made. I have continually supported efforts in Congress to make our Government more transparent and accessible. During my more than 3 decades in the Senate, I have worked to make Federal agencies more open and accountable to the public through a reinvigorated Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, and last year, the first major reforms to FOIA were enacted with the passage of the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act. I have also supported efforts to make the work of Congress more open to the American people. Just this week, I introduced the OPEN FOIA Act, which would require Congress to openly and clearly state its intention to provide for statutory exemptions to FOIA in proposed legislation. The freedom of information is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. For more than 4 decades, FOIA has been among the most important Federal laws that protect the public's right to know. The work of the Federal judiciary is also open to the public. Proceedings in Federal courtrooms around this country are open to the public, and jurists publish extensive opinions explaining the reasons for their judgments and decisions. Nevertheless, more can and must be done to increase access to the Federal courts. All 50 States currently allow some form of audio or video coverage of court proceedings, but the Federal courts lag behind. The legislation we introduce today simply extends this tradition of openness to the Federal level. Although this bill permits presiding appellate and district court judges to allow cameras in most public Federal court proceedings, it does not require that they do so. An exception is carved out for instances where a camera would violate the due process rights of an involved party. At the same time, the bill protects non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured during their testimony. I believe these protections strike the proper balance between security needs and the protection of personal privacy, while at the same time ensuring the public will always have a right to know what their Government is doing. Finally, the bill authorizes the Judicial conference of the U.S. to issue advisory guidelines for use by presiding judges in determining the management and administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or televising the proceedings. In 1994, the Judicial conference concluded that it was not the right time to permit cameras in the Federal courts, and rejected a recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee to authorize the use of cameras in Federal civil trial and appellate courts. A majority of the Conference was concerned about the intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses and jurors. I understand that the Judicial conference remains opposed to cameras in the Federal courts, and I am sensitive to the conference's concerns. But this legislation grants the presiding judge the authority to evaluate the effect of a camera on particular proceedings and witnesses, and decide accordingly on whether to permit the camera into the courtroom. A blanket prohibition on cameras is an unnecessary limitation on the discretion of the presiding judge. This legislation is an important step towards making the work of the Federal judiciary more widely available for public scrutiny. I hope all Senators will join us in bringing more transparency to the Federal courts.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't know if there are other Members are coming. While the Senator from Alabama is on the floor, let me note that I heard there may be one or two more Members coming over. I hope they will come soon. I am going to be here, as I have a series of meetings until well after 6, but I know a number on both sides have flights to catch. Once everybody has spoken, I will suggest that we yield back all time and have a vote. I know the Senator from Alabama had specific time set aside and didn't use all of it. I hope he might join me in calling for other Senators who wish to speak to come over. If they are to speak, it would be better to do it sooner rather than later. It would be a great help to a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle.