Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. I urge Members--if there are others--not to wait until 5. And I ask those on the other side of the aisle, if you wish to speak, please do so as soon as possible, because at some point--and we will do this only with notice to the Republican side--I am going to ask unanimous consent to yield back all time and go to a vote. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of debate here today. I remind Senators of one thing: The Kagan nomination is not controversial. Every Solicitor General who served from 1985 has endorsed her nomination. That is every Democratic one, every Republican one, across the political spectrum. Let me read some of the names who have endorsed this woman Charles Fried, Ken Starr, Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, Seth Waxman, Ted Olson, Paul Clement, Greg Garre. Here is what they wrote in their letter of support: We who have had the honor of serving as Solicitor General over the past quarter century in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William Clinton and George W. Bush, write to endorse the nomination of Dean Elena Kagan to be the next Solicitor General of the United States. We are confident that Dean Kagan will bring distinction to the office, continue its highest traditions, and be a forceful advocate for the United States before the Supreme Court. One of the conservative professors whom Dean Kagan helped bring to Harvard Law School was Professor Jack Goldsmith. You may remember, he took charge of the Office of Legal Counsel after the disastrous tenures of Jay Bybee and John Yoo. Professor Goldsmith, a conservative, praised Dean Kagan as someone who takes to the Solicitor General's Office a better understanding of the Congress and the executive branch that she will represent before the Court than perhaps any prior Solicitor General. I ask unanimous consent that a list of these and the dozens of other supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. It is time for our daughters and granddaughters to see a woman serving as the chief legal advocate on behalf of the United States. I urge all Senators, just as the Republican and Democratic former Solicitors have supported her, to support President Obama's nomination. Vote to confirm Elena Kagan to be Solicitor General of the United States. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry: I thought the vote was going to be at 5 o'clock.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time for both sides be yielded back.

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 move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, today, we introduce the Statutory Time- Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009. I thank Senator Specter, the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee and Senators Whitehouse and Sessions, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Administrative Oversight and Courts Subcommittee for cosponsoring. This legislation incorporates recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States to alter deadlines in certain statutes affecting court proceedings to account for recent amendments to the Federal time-computation rules. This bipartisan bill would provide judges and practitioners with commonsense deadlines that are less confusing and less complex than current deadlines, and also ensure that existing time periods are not shortened. After much study and significant public comment, the Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Rules arrived at proposed new rules intended to provide predictability and uniformity to the current process of calculating court deadlines. The proposed rules respond, in part, to findings from the Judicial Conference that the current time-computation process is confusing and can lead to missed deadlines and litigants' loss of important rights. Under the current time-calculation rules, weekends and holidays are not counted when calculating court deadlines of less than 30 days, but are counted for calculating court deadlines longer than 30 days. The proposed new rules simplify this process by counting holidays and weekends regardless of a court deadline's time period. According to the Judicial Conference, these proposed changes would respond to practitioners' complaints and criticism from judges. This legislation would amend a number of Federal civil and criminal statutes affecting court proceedings and harmonize them with the proposed rules. First, this remedial bill would alter certain statutory court deadlines to counterbalance any shortening of the time period resulting from the ``days are days'' approach. For example, the bill changes 5 days to 7 days, and 10 days to 14 days, to prevent time periods from becoming shorter when a practitioner counts all days, including weekends. This change would, in effect, maintain the same time periods in the statutes. In addition, if a time period ends on a holiday or a weekend the time period would be extended to the next business day. The bill would also change some statutory deadlines that would otherwise be inconsistent with the amended rules deadlines and lead to confusion. This bipartisan legislation is time-sensitive. Both the Department of Justice and Judicial Conference urge swift consideration of this proposal, to allow it to take effect on December 1, 2009, the same date as the amendments to the rules. According to a letter the Department of Justice sent to the Judicial Conference last year: ``Failure to adopt statutory changes that move in concert with the proposed rule changes will result in exactly the opposite effect of what is intended--changes to the rules alone will introduce greater confusion rather than desirable simplification.'' Although the Obama administration has not formally weighed in on this legislation, I anticipate that the Justice Department will again support this proposal. In addition, this bill mirrors the proposal from the Judicial Conference which enjoyed broad support from numerous legal and bar organizations, including of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the Council of Appellate Lawyers, and the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation and Criminal Justice Section. I hope we will consider this measure expeditiously and improve the effectiveness of our judicial system. Passing this bill will create a consistent and standard method for lawyers and judges to calculate court deadlines. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, today, we introduce the Statutory Time- Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009. I thank Senator Specter, the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee and Senators Whitehouse and Sessions, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Administrative Oversight and Courts Subcommittee for cosponsoring. This legislation incorporates recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States to alter deadlines in certain statutes affecting court proceedings to account for recent amendments to the Federal time-computation rules. This bipartisan bill would provide judges and practitioners with commonsense deadlines that are less confusing and less complex than current deadlines, and also ensure that existing time periods are not shortened. After much study and significant public comment, the Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Rules arrived at proposed new rules intended to provide predictability and uniformity to the current process of calculating court deadlines. The proposed rules respond, in part, to findings from the Judicial Conference that the current time-computation process is confusing and can lead to missed deadlines and litigants' loss of important rights. Under the current time-calculation rules, weekends and holidays are not counted when calculating court deadlines of less than 30 days, but are counted for calculating court deadlines longer than 30 days. The proposed new rules simplify this process by counting holidays and weekends regardless of a court deadline's time period. According to the Judicial Conference, these proposed changes would respond to practitioners' complaints and criticism from judges. This legislation would amend a number of Federal civil and criminal statutes affecting court proceedings and harmonize them with the proposed rules. First, this remedial bill would alter certain statutory court deadlines to counterbalance any shortening of the time period resulting from the ``days are days'' approach. For example, the bill changes 5 days to 7 days, and 10 days to 14 days, to prevent time periods from becoming shorter when a practitioner counts all days, including weekends. This change would, in effect, maintain the same time periods in the statutes. In addition, if a time period ends on a holiday or a weekend the time period would be extended to the next business day. The bill would also change some statutory deadlines that would otherwise be inconsistent with the amended rules deadlines and lead to confusion. This bipartisan legislation is time-sensitive. Both the Department of Justice and Judicial Conference urge swift consideration of this proposal, to allow it to take effect on December 1, 2009, the same date as the amendments to the rules. According to a letter the Department of Justice sent to the Judicial Conference last year: ``Failure to adopt statutory changes that move in concert with the proposed rule changes will result in exactly the opposite effect of what is intended--changes to the rules alone will introduce greater confusion rather than desirable simplification.'' Although the Obama administration has not formally weighed in on this legislation, I anticipate that the Justice Department will again support this proposal. In addition, this bill mirrors the proposal from the Judicial Conference which enjoyed broad support from numerous legal and bar organizations, including of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the Council of Appellate Lawyers, and the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation and Criminal Justice Section. I hope we will consider this measure expeditiously and improve the effectiveness of our judicial system. Passing this bill will create a consistent and standard method for lawyers and judges to calculate court deadlines. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, our Nation celebrates Sunshine Week--a time to recognize and promote openness in our Government. At this important time of year, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the OPEN FOIA Act--a bipartisan bill to promote more openness regarding statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. This bipartisan bill builds upon the work that Senator Cornyn and I began several years ago to reinvigorate and strengthen FOIA. Together, we introduced, and Congress ultimately enacted, the OPEN Government Act--the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work and leadership on this important issue. I also thank President Obama--who was a cosponsor of the OPEN Government Act when he was in the Senate--for his deep commitment to FOIA. President Obama clearly demonstrated his commitment to open Government when he issued a new directive to strengthen FOIA during his first full day in office. The OPEN FOIA Act simply requires that when Congress provides for a statutory exemption to FOIA in new legislation, Congress must state its intention to do so explicitly and clearly. This commonsense bill mirrors bipartisan legislation that the Judiciary Committee favorably reported, and the Senate unanimously passed, during the 109th Congress, S. 1181. While no one can fairly question the need to keep certain Government information secret to ensure the public good, excessive Government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant democracy. For more than four decades, FOIA has served as perhaps the most important Federal law to ensure the public's right to know, and to balance the Government's power with the need for Government accountability. The Freedom of Information Act contains a number of exemptions to its disclosure requirements for national security, law enforcement, confidential business information, personal privacy and other circumstances. The FOIA exemption commonly known as the ``(b)(3) exemption,'' requires that Government records that are specifically exempted from FOIA by statute be withheld from the public. In recent years, we have witnessed an alarming number of FOIA (b)(3) exemptions being offered in legislation--often in very ambiguous terms--to the detriment of the American public's right to know. The bedrock principles of open Government lead me to believe that (b)(3) statutory exemptions should be clear and unambiguous, and vigorously debated before they are enacted into law. Too often, legislative exemptions to FOIA are buried within a few lines of very complex and lengthy bills, and these new exemptions are never debated openly before becoming law. The consequence of this troubling practice is the erosion of the public's right to know, and the shirking of Congress' duty to fully consider these exemptions. The OPEN FOIA Act will help stop this practice and shine more light on the process of creating legislative exemptions to FOIA. That will be the best antidote to the ``exemption creep'' that we have witnessed in recent years. When he recently addressed a joint session of the Congress and the American people, President Obama said that ``I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But, I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done.'' Sunshine Week reminds all of us that open Government is not a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue and a virtue that all Americans can embrace. Democratic and Republican Senators alike have rightly supported and voted for this bill in the past. It is in this same bipartisan spirit that I urge all Members to support this bipartisan FOIA reform bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, our Nation celebrates Sunshine Week--a time to recognize and promote openness in our Government. At this important time of year, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the OPEN FOIA Act--a bipartisan bill to promote more openness regarding statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. This bipartisan bill builds upon the work that Senator Cornyn and I began several years ago to reinvigorate and strengthen FOIA. Together, we introduced, and Congress ultimately enacted, the OPEN Government Act--the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work and leadership on this important issue. I also thank President Obama--who was a cosponsor of the OPEN Government Act when he was in the Senate--for his deep commitment to FOIA. President Obama clearly demonstrated his commitment to open Government when he issued a new directive to strengthen FOIA during his first full day in office. The OPEN FOIA Act simply requires that when Congress provides for a statutory exemption to FOIA in new legislation, Congress must state its intention to do so explicitly and clearly. This commonsense bill mirrors bipartisan legislation that the Judiciary Committee favorably reported, and the Senate unanimously passed, during the 109th Congress, S. 1181. While no one can fairly question the need to keep certain Government information secret to ensure the public good, excessive Government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant democracy. For more than four decades, FOIA has served as perhaps the most important Federal law to ensure the public's right to know, and to balance the Government's power with the need for Government accountability. The Freedom of Information Act contains a number of exemptions to its disclosure requirements for national security, law enforcement, confidential business information, personal privacy and other circumstances. The FOIA exemption commonly known as the ``(b)(3) exemption,'' requires that Government records that are specifically exempted from FOIA by statute be withheld from the public. In recent years, we have witnessed an alarming number of FOIA (b)(3) exemptions being offered in legislation--often in very ambiguous terms--to the detriment of the American public's right to know. The bedrock principles of open Government lead me to believe that (b)(3) statutory exemptions should be clear and unambiguous, and vigorously debated before they are enacted into law. Too often, legislative exemptions to FOIA are buried within a few lines of very complex and lengthy bills, and these new exemptions are never debated openly before becoming law. The consequence of this troubling practice is the erosion of the public's right to know, and the shirking of Congress' duty to fully consider these exemptions. The OPEN FOIA Act will help stop this practice and shine more light on the process of creating legislative exemptions to FOIA. That will be the best antidote to the ``exemption creep'' that we have witnessed in recent years. When he recently addressed a joint session of the Congress and the American people, President Obama said that ``I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But, I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done.'' Sunshine Week reminds all of us that open Government is not a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue and a virtue that all Americans can embrace. Democratic and Republican Senators alike have rightly supported and voted for this bill in the past. It is in this same bipartisan spirit that I urge all Members to support this bipartisan FOIA reform bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I won't object, but I would ask that 3 minutes be added to the time for the Ogden debate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand my time has been used. We are supposed to vote at 2 p.m. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to use the time until 2 o'clock.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for his support of both David Ogden and Thomas Perrelli, both superbly qualified candidates, both of whom will be confirmed this afternoon. I will speak further about Mr. Perrelli after this vote. Again, I go back to David Ogden. David Ogden has been strongly supported by Republicans and Democrats, those who served in the Bush administration and other administrations. I thought it was a scurrilous attack on him because he and his firm supported libraries, supported perfectly legal publications, and some Republicans saying they could not vote for him because of that. I note that these same Republicans all voted for Michael Mukasey, a fine gentleman, to be Attorney General, who listed as one of his primary cases his representation of the TV channel that carries ``Dial- a-Porn.'' Now, certainly when a Republican, nominated by a Republican, represented Dial-a-Porn, that seems to be wrong; when a Democrat, nominated by a Democrat, represents libraries and basically a mainstream men's magazine, that is wrong. I hope we will avoid in the future such double standards. I see a man who has helped children, who has volunteered his time, who has given great charity to children, and who has been supported by the Boys and Girls Clubs, by the Missing and Exploited Children's groups, by the National District Attorneys Association, and by every major law enforcement organization. So, Mr. President, I know time has expired, and I would ask for the yeas and nays on confirmation of the nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the agreement on the Perrelli nomination?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am only going to speak for 2 or 3 minutes. I have had a number of Senators, both Republican Senators and Democratic Senators, ask if there is a possibility of this to be a voice vote. A number of them have airplanes to catch. I mention that for Senators on both sides of the aisle. I am perfectly willing at some appropriate time to yield back all our time and have a voice vote on President Obama's nomination of Thomas J. Perrelli to be the Associate Attorney General, the number three position at the Justice Department. He is a superbly qualified veteran of the Department of Justice who has chosen to leave a lucrative private practice to return to public service. This nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee one week ago by a strong, bipartisan vote of 17-1. I thank Senator Specter, Senator Hatch, Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions, Senator Graham and Senator Cornyn for their support of this important nomination. Given Tom Perrelli's background and qualifications, this strong support is no surprise. He is the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Jenner & Block. Before that he held important posts at the Justice Department, earning a reputation for independence and integrity, as well as the respect of career lawyers at the Department. Mr. Perrelli joined the Justice Department in 1997 as Counsel to the Attorney General. In that role, Mr. Perrelli assisted the Attorney General in overseeing the civil litigation components of the Department of Justice, and also worked on a wide variety of special projects, including professional responsibility issues for Department attorneys, and law enforcement in Indian Country. From 1999 to 2001, Mr. Perrelli served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division, supervising the Federal Programs Branch. That branch defends Federal agencies in important constitutional, regulatory, national security, personnel and other litigation. In addition, he played a leading role on significant policy issues ranging from medical records privacy, the use of adjusted figures in the census to Indian gaming, and social security litigation. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Brown University and graduate of Harvard Law School where he served as the Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review, Mr. Perrelli has demonstrated throughout his years in Government that he understands that the role of the Department of Justice is to be the people's lawyer, with first loyalty to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. He clerked for Judge Royce Lamberth, a no nonsense judge. In private practice, first as an associate at Jenner & Block from 1992 to 1997 and then, again, from 2001 to the present where he became a partner and then the managing partner of its well-respected Washington office, he is recognized as an outstanding litigator and manager. He will need all those skills to call on all his experience in the challenging work ahead. Numerous major law enforcement organizations have endorsed Mr. Perrelli's nomination, including the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations. Paul Clement, who worked for Senator Ashcroft and then Attorney General Ashcroft and was appointed by President Bush to be Solicitor General, wrote that career professionals at the Department who had worked with Mr. Perrelli ``held him in uniformly high regard'' and that Mr. Perrelli's ``prior service in the Department should prepare [him] to be a particularly effective Associate Attorney General.'' He also described Mr. Perrelli as ``an incredibly skilled lawyer'' whose ``skills would serve both Tom and the Department very well if he is confirmed as the Associate Attorney General.'' I urge the Senate to confirm Tom Perrelli to the critical post for which President Obama has nominated him. I look forward to congratulating him, his wife Kristine and their two sons, James and Alexander on his confirmation. I will withhold the remainder of my time. Before I do that, I know the floor staff on both parties are seeing whether it is possible to shorten the time. If it is--I am stuck here this afternoon, but for those Senators who are trying to grab a flight out of here, it would be good to let them know. I retain the remainder of my time. I see a distinguished former member of our committee, the Senator from Kansas, on the floor. I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator would yield on that point. I disagree with him on this. I do not believe Mr. Perrelli is a right-to-die advocate or that the positions he represented on behalf of clients was extreme. In fact, all seven justices of the Florida Supreme Court, most appointed by Republican governors, agreed with Mr. Perrelli's argument. They struck down unanimously the law that gave Governor Jeb Bush authority over Ms. Schiavo's medical care. It is wrong to caricature Mr. Perrelli as a ``right to die'' advocate. Mr. Perrelli did not become involved in the Schiavo litigation to further any personal or political agenda and did not become involved in the litigation when the issue was Ms. Schiavo's wishes. In fact, he did not become involved in the case until after the Florida State courts had fully and finally litigated the question of Ms. Schiavo's wishes and her medical condition. Mr. Perrelli's concern was for an unprecedented challenge to the judicial process. He argued that the Florida Legislature passed a law that imposed one set of rules on Ms. Schiavo and a different set of rules on everyone else in Florida. And he was proven right, when the Florida Supreme Court unanimously struck down the law taking the decisions out of the hands of the family and giving them to the Governor. I ask unanimous consent that the long list of those who have written to the committee in support of Mr. Perrelli's nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. This list includes numerous major law enforcement organizations that have endorsed Mr. Perrelli's nomination, including the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations. It also includes Paul Clement, who worked for Senator Ashcroft and then Attorney General Ashcroft and was appointed by President Bush to be Solicitor General.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time on the Perrelli nomination be yielded back and that the provisions of the previous order governing this nomination remain in effect.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time on the Perrelli nomination be yielded back and that the provisions of the previous order governing this nomination remain in effect.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which President Obama signed yesterday, contains $36.6 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of State and Foreign Operations, which is the same amount approved by the Appropriations Committee in July 2008. This represents a $1.6 billion decrease from former President Bush's budget request of $38.2 billion. I repeat--this legislation is $1.6 billion below what former President Bush recommended in his budget. It is a $3.8 billion increase from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, not counting supplemental funds, and $968 million above the fiscal year 2008 level including fiscal year 2008 supplemental and fiscal year 2009 bridge funds. The State and Foreign Operations portion of the omnibus does not contain any congressional earmarks. It does, as is customary and appropriate, specify funding levels for authorized programs, certain countries, and international organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank. I want to thank Chairman Inouye, President Pro Tempore Byrd, and Ranking Member Cochran for their support throughout this protracted process. And I want to thank Senator Gregg, who as ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee worked with me to produce this bipartisan legislation that was reported by the Appropriations Committee with only one dissenting vote. It was imperative that we enacted this legislation. The alternative of a year-long continuing resolution would have been devastating for the operations of the State Department and our embassies, consulates and missions around the world, and for programs that support a myriad of United States foreign policy interests and that protect the security of the American people. Many Senators on both sides of the aisle were encouraged that Senator Clinton was nominated for and confirmed to be Secretary of State. If we want her to succeed we must provide the tools to do so. This legislation supports her highest priority of rebuilding the civilian capabilities of our government. The omnibus provides $7.8 billion for Department of State operations, a decrease of $274 million below former President's Bush's request and $1.2 billion above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, not including supplemental funds. Counting emergency funds provided in fiscal year 2008 for personnel, operations and security costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the omnibus provides a 5.6-percent increase. These increases are attributed to a major investment in personnel, primarily to replace worldwide positions that were redirected to Iraq and invest particularly in countries of growing importance in South Asia. The omnibus supports the request of 500 additional positions, much of which will help posts left depleted, some by 25 percent, due to positions shifting to Iraq during the last 5 years. In addition, the omnibus recommends $75 million for a new initiative to train and deploy personnel in postconflict stabilization. These critical investments would have been lost under a year-long continuing resolution. The omnibus provides $1.7 billion for construction of new secure embassies and to provide security upgrades to existing facilities, which is $178 million below former President Bush's request. He had proposed a 41-percent increase which we did not have the funds to support. But an increase of $99.5 million, or 13 percent, above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level is provided considering the significant threats our embassies faced last year alone, from Yemen to Belgrade. Even this lesser increase for embassy construction and security upgrades would be lost under a year-long continuing resolution. Specifically, the omnibus provides $4.24 billion for diplomatic and consular programs, which funds State Department personnel. This is an increase of $464 million, or 12 percent, above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $42 million above the President's request. This funds a major investment in personnel to increase language training and expand the number of personnel in regions of growing importance. Senators on both sides of the aisle have strongly endorsed this investment, but it would not be funded under a continuing resolution. In fact, under a year-long continuing resolution the State Department would not have the resources to fund the staff currently serving at 267 posts overseas, due to exchange rate losses and the increased cost of security overseas. That means the United States would have even less representation than we do now, which none of us here would find acceptable. The omnibus provides $1.1 billion for worldwide security protection for noncapital security upgrades, an increase of $355 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $46 million below the request. This account funds all the Diplomatic Security agents at every post worldwide, armored vehicles, and training--all investments which, again, have bipartisan support. The increases would fund additional personnel for protection at high-threat embassies and oversight of security contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel-West Bank. This would not be possible under a continuing resolution. Senators of both parties have expressed strong support for expanding international exchange programs, particularly in predominantly Muslim countries. The omnibus provides $538 million for education and cultural exchanges, which is $15.5 million above the President's request and an increase of $36.6 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Those additional funds would be lost under a continuing resolution at the moment when the U.S. has the greatest opportunity to reintroduce our country, our people, and our values to the rest of the world. The same is true of public diplomacy. The omnibus provides $394.8 million for the State Department's public diplomacy activities, including outreach, media and programs in embassies to develop relationships with people in host countries. This is $33.9 million above the fiscal year 2008 level, which would not be available under a continuing resolution. The omnibus provides $1.7 billion for construction of new secure embassies and maintenance of existing facilities, a $280 million increase above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $83 million below the President's request. Of this amount, $801 million is for embassy maintenance, $40 million less than the request and $46 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The omnibus provides $770 million for planning, design and construction of new embassies and office buildings worldwide, $178 million below the request and $99 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Any Senator who has traveled abroad has seen the need to replace insecure and old embassies. There is already a long waiting list, and it would be even longer under a continuing resolution. Former President Bush's budget underfunded the U.S. assessed contribution to U.N. Peacekeeping in fiscal year 2009 by assuming a reduction in every mission except Sudan. That was pie in the sky. The cost of most of these missions is increasing, not decreasing. The omnibus provides $1.5 billion for U.N. Peacekeeping, an increase of $295 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $20 million above the President's request. However, compared to the total amount enacted in fiscal year 2008, the bill is $173 million below the operating level in fiscal year 2008 including supplemental funds. These are costs we are obligated to pay by treaty. They support the troops of other nations in Darfur, the Congo, Lebanon, Haiti, and a dozen other countries. The omnibus provides $1.5 billion for contributions to international organizations, the same as the President's request and $186 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The account funds the U.S. assessed dues to 47 international organizations, including NATO, IAEA, OECD, the U.N. and others for which, as a member of the organization, the U.S. is obligated by treaty to contribute. We either pay now or we pay later. The omnibus provides $709.5 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an increase of $39.5 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $10 million above the former President Bush's budget request. This includes funding for languages which the former administration proposed to eliminate in fiscal year 2009, such as Russian, Georgian, Kazak, Uzbek, Tibetan and the Balkans, where freedom of speech remains restricted and broadcasting programs are still necessary to provide unbiased news. For USAID, the omnibus provides $808.6 million for operating expenses, $41.4 million above former President Bush's request and $179 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This continues efforts begun last year to address the serious staff shortage at USAID, but under a continuing resolution USAID's staff problems would continue to worsen. It would not be able to hire additional staff for Afghanistan and Pakistan, or for other posts where there is not sufficient oversight of contracting and procurement. It is a crisis situation that I and Senator Gregg are determined to fix. For bilateral economic assistance, the omnibus provides a total of $17.1 billion, $1.3 billion below former President Bush's request and $623.3 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. We received requests from most Senators--Democrats and Republicans--for funding from within this account, totaling far more than we could afford. A continuing resolution would have made it impossible to fund many, if not most, of those requests. A good example is global health. The omnibus provides $7.1 billion for global health and child survival, an increase of $757 million above the request and $737 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. A continuing resolution would be devastating for these life-saving programs. A total of $495 million is provided for child survival and maternal health, an increase of $125 million above former President Bush's request and $49 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. These funds are for programs that directly decrease child and maternal mortality from preventable diseases, like malaria, polio and pneumonia. Under a continuing resolution USAID would not be able to expand its malaria control programs to other countries in Africa with a high incidence of malaria, which kills a million people, mostly African children, every year. The omnibus provides $300 million for safe water programs, including increasing access to safe drinking water and sanitation, which is a key factor in improving public health. Former President Bush proposed a steep cut in funding for family planning and reproductive health programs, even though they are the most effective means of reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The omnibus, instead, provides a total of $545 million from all accounts for family planning and reproductive health including $50 million for the U.N. Population Fund, which is $82 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. A continuing resolution would eliminate those additional funds, and the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions would increase. The omnibus provides a total of $5.5 billion for programs to combat HIV/AIDS, $388 million above former President Bush's request and $459 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. Of this amount, $600 million is provided for the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, which is $400 million above the request. Additionally within the total, $350 million is provided for USAID programs to combat HIV/AIDS, which is $8 million above the request. These additional funds, which pay for life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs, prevention and care programs, would be lost under a continuing resolution, to the detriment of 1 million people who would receive life-saving treatment this year. With this funding 2 million additional HIV infections would be prevented this year. Instead of 10 million lives we are saving today, we have the opportunity to save 12 million people. We have the opportunity with this bill to save 1 million more orphans or vulnerable children who are either infected with HIV or have been orphaned because a parent died from HIV/AIDS. Why would we not make this investment this year? The development assistance account funds energy and environment programs, microcredit programs, private enterprise, rule of law, trade capacity, and many other activities that Senators on both sides of the aisle support. The omnibus provides $1.8 billion for development assistance which is $161 million above former President Bush's request and $176 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The omnibus provides $350 million for international disaster assistance, $52 million above the request and $30 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, excluding supplemental funds. These funds enable the United States to put its best face forward when disaster strikes, as it did with the tsunami, the earthquake in Pakistan, floods in Central America, and famine in Africa. The omnibus provides $875 million for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. This is $1.3 billion below the request and $669 million below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This reflects the view of the House and Senate that the Congress supports the MCC but wants to see a slowdown in new compacts, while $7 billion in previously appropriated funds are disbursed, and while the new administration decides how it wants to fund the MCC in the future. The agreement provides sufficient funds to continue current operations and to commence two new compacts of $350 million each. For the Peace Corps, the omnibus provides $340 million, which is $9 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. Those additional funds would have been lost under a continuing resolution. The omnibus provides $875 million for international narcotics control and law enforcement, which is $327 million below the request and $321 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Those additional funds for programs in Latin America, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many other countries would be lost under a continuing resolution. There is a total of $405 million for continued support of the Merida Initiative, including $300 million for Mexico and $105 million for the countries of Central America. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental included $400 million and $65 million, respectively. We are all increasingly alarmed by the spread of drug-related violence and criminal gangs in Mexico, but under a continuing resolution there would be nothing for the Merida Initiative. Migration and refugee assistance is funded at $931 million, which is $167 million above former President Bush's request and $108 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. That $108 million would be lost under a continuing resolution. This amount is already $557 million below what was provided in fiscal year 2008 including supplemental and fiscal year 2009 bridge funds. These funds are used for basic care and protection of refugees and internally displaced persons, whose numbers are not expected to decrease this year. The omnibus provides $4.9 billion for military assistance and peacekeeping operations, $173 million below former President Bush's request but $212.6 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The omnibus assumes $170 million provided in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental as fiscal year 2009 bridge funds for military assistance to Israel, making the total amount for Israel equal to the President's request, $2.55 billion. The additional $212.6 million for other important bilateral relationships would be lost under a continuing resolution. For contributions to the multilateral development institutions, which we owe by treaty, the bill provides $1.8 billion. That is $503 million below the former President's request and $251 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. A continuing resolution would have put us another $251 million in arrears, in addition to the arrears we already owe. The omnibus provides the amounts requested by the former President for the Export-Import Bank, an increase of $26.5 million above fiscal year 2008. By not passing this legislation, these additional resources would not have been available to make U.S. businesses competitive in the global marketplace. At this time of economic downturn at home we should be doing everything we can to support U.S. trade. These are the highlights of the fiscal year 2009 State and Foreign Operations portion of the omnibus that passed by a vote of 62-38. It contains funding to meet critical operational costs and programmatic needs which support U.S. interests and protect U.S. security around the world. A handful of our friends in the minority spent days criticizing the omnibus because it contains earmarks. Apparently they would have preferred that unnamed, unelected bureaucrats make all the decisions about the use of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the total amount of the $410 billion omnibus that Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans--have earmarked for schools, fire and police departments, roads, bridges, hospitals, scientific research, universities and other organizations and programs in their states and districts which would not otherwise receive funding, is less than 1 percent. That is what the aggrieved speeches were about. A whopping 1 percent. Some Senators complained that the omnibus--all but a small fraction of which would fund the budget requests of former President Bush--is more than we can afford. Those are the same Senators who, year after year, rubberstamped billions and billions of borrowed dollars to fund an unnecessary war and reconstruction programs in Iraq that were fraught with waste and abuse. Some say that the intervention of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act is why they opposed the omnibus. Regarding the Department of State and Foreign Operations, 99.6 percent of the omnibus has no correlation whatsoever to what was funded by the Recovery Act. This portion of the omnibus funds all of the United States' activities overseas. All of the key new investments I have described would not have been possible under a year-long continuing resolution. The funding for State and Foreign Operations in the omnibus amounts to about 1 percent of the total budget of this country. However one views the Economic Recovery Act, the damage that a year-long continuing resolution would have caused to the functions of our embassies, consulates and missions, and to the foreign service officers who serve the American people around the world, would have been devastating. The damage to programs would be measured in lives. We have seen the image of our country battered beyond recognition. The values our country was founded on were ignored, ridiculed, and diminished. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that the United States needs to reinvigorate its engagement in the world, particularly through rebuilding alliances and using diplomacy more effectively. The omnibus puts our money where our mouths are. The alternative would have been to retract, and to invite others to fill the vacuum. That might save money in the short term, but it would have cost us dearly in the future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this Sunday the people of El Salvador will go to the polls to elect a new President. As one Senator who has followed developments in that country and observed with concern the steady rise in violent crime, including organized crime and drug trafficking, I hope that whoever wins the election makes reforming the police and justice system a priority. United States assistance to El Salvador is a small fraction of what it was during the 1980s, but in 2006 El Salvador signed a 5-year compact with the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The compact totals $461 million, and focuses on road construction, economic and social development in the area of the country bordering Honduras that bore the brunt of the worst consequences of the civil war. I had hoped that a portion of the MCC compact would be used to strengthen El Salvador's dysfunctional judicial system, both to help reduce violent crime and attract foreign investment, but unfortunately that was not the decision of the Salvadoran Government or the Bush administration at the time. Nevertheless, the MCC compact does seek to improve the lives of some of El Salvador's poorest communities and I support it. Recently, I have been concerned with reports that some Salvadorans involved in the election campaign may have asserted that if the opposition party candidate wins the election the United States will stop funding the MCC compact. Such an assertion, presumably to intimidate voters, would be completely false. We take no position on the Salvadoran election. It is entirely for the people of El Salvador to decide who their next President will be. The MCC compact will continue regardless of who wins on Sunday, as long as the policies of the new Government, of whichever party, are consistent with the MCC's eligibility criteria, including controlling corruption and investing in health and education. I look forward to the results of Sunday's election and the opportunity for our two countries to work together for a brighter future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad Republican Senators abandoned their efforts to filibuster the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General. It was only after the majority leader filed for cloture that the Republican caucus came to the conclusion that such a maneuver was futile. I thank the majority leader for scheduling the debate and votes for the President's nominees to serve as Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General. They have now been confirmed by the Senate. The Republican minority, nonetheless, insisted on 7 hours of debate on the Deputy Attorney General nomination this week before allowing the vote. That was longer than the debate they demanded on the nomination of the Attorney General of the United States. I spoke yesterday to open the debate, as did the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, who also supported the nomination. We both spoke, again, today to close the debate. I followed the debate, and have responded by way of additional statements to correct the record on the Deputy Attorney General nominee. Now I would like us to take a step back and see what has occurred. Yesterday, the Republican minority insisted on 5 hours of debate on the Ogden nomination. In fact, the Republican opposition devoted less than 1 hour to comment about the Ogden nomination. The rest of their time they consumed with criticism of the President's budget and policy initiatives to help the country recover from the economic crisis. I am not saying that the budget discussion is unimportant. I may not agree with their criticism, but the budget is certainly a topic about which Senators may wish to make statements. My point is that after delaying debate on the President's nomination for the No. 2 official at the Justice Department for 2 weeks, and demanding extended debate, they failed to use the time to discuss the nomination. Instead, they talked about unrelated issues. In fact, they were so uninterested in debating the nomination that by the time Senator Inhofe came to the floor, all Republican time had been used on other discussions. As a courtesy, we made available time from the Democratic side that should have been used by supporters of the nomination. We accommodated the Senator from Oklahoma so that he could speak against the nomination. Today, an additional 2 hours was demanded by the Republican majority to debate the Ogden nomination further before they would allow a vote. Of course, those Republicans who opposed the nomination used not 1 minute of time to debate it today--not 1 minute. Indeed, of the time that the Republican minority insisted was necessary before the Senate could vote on the Ogden nomination, more than an hour was wasted in quorum calls with no speakers at all yesterday and approximately 1 hour was spent by opposition speakers-- not 7 hours, not 3 hours, barely 1 hour. The Ogden debate could easily have been handled with the opposition taking an hour or an hour and one-half to speak. I wish instead of this campaign to delay and obstruct the President, the minority would work with us on the consideration of matters of critical importance to the American people. I will note just one current example. This morning, the New York Times had a front-page story about financial frauds. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported an antifraud matter to the Senate. The Leahy-Grassley Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, S.386, needs to be considered without delay. It is an important initiative to confront the fraud that has contributed to the economic and financial crisis we face, and to protect against the diversion of the Federal efforts to recover from this downturn. As the New York Times story demonstrates, improving our efforts to hold those accountable for the mortgage and financial frauds that have contributed to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is most timely. We need to do better, and our bipartisan bill, which has the support of the U.S. Department of Justice, can make a difference. In addition to Senator Grassley, I thank Senator Kaufman, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Schumer, and Senator Shelby for working with us and for their interest in this important measure. Our legislation is designed to reinvigorate our capacity to investigate and prosecute the kinds of frauds that have undermined our economy and hurt so many hard-working Americans. It provides the resources and tools needed for law enforcement to aggressively enforce and prosecute fraud in connection with bailout and recovery efforts. It authorizes $245 million a year over the next couple of years for fraud prosecutors and investigators. With this funding, the FBI can double the number of mortgage fraud taskforces nationwide, and target the hardest hit areas. It includes resources for our U.S. Attorneys' Offices, as well as the Secret Service, the HUD Inspector General's Office and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. It includes important improvements to our fraud and money laundering statutes to strengthen prosecutors' ability to confront fraud in mortgage lending practices, to protect TARP funds, and to uncover fraudulent schemes involving commodities futures, options and derivatives as well as making sure the Government can recover the ill-gotten proceeds from crime. Our bipartisan measure was favorably reported on a voice vote by the Judiciary Committee on March 5. I have been trying to get a time agreement to consider the measure ever since. The Senate should consider and pass it without delay. We can help make a difference for all Americans. Instead of wasting our time in quorum calls when no one is speaking, or demanding multiple hours of debates on nominations that can be discussed in much less time before being confirmed, let us work on matters that will help get us out of the economic ditch that we have inherited from the policies of the last administration, and let us begin to work together on behalf of the American people.