Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand that we are on the Wicker amendment. I have listened to the statements made about it. It is hard to understand what the real purpose of the amendment is, although the junior Senator from Mississippi says the purpose is as follows: To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. I do not know anybody who would disagree with that. But apparently he believes that his amendment is necessary to prevent funds from being used for coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Let me state what is in the bill, because it is the same as current law. It already prohibits funds for abortions of any kind, whether coercive or otherwise. No funds in this bill can be used for abortion. So the amendment is unnecessary for that purpose. His amendment prohibits funds for involuntary sterilization. Well, none of us is going to permit the use of Federal funds for involuntary sterilization. I urge him to read the bill. We already prohibit that. So the amendment is unnecessary for that purpose. Actually, if he is on the floor, I would urge him to declare victory and withdraw his amendment. Long before he was in the Senate, we were already prohibiting the things he wants to prohibit. His amendment also prohibits funds for the U.N. Population Fund for a program in China. Well, again, our bill already does that. We already prohibit explicitly any funds being used in China by the U.N. Population Fund. His amendment says we should put funds for the U.N. Population Fund in a separate account and not commingle them with other sums. We already do that. Again, there is no need for it. His amendment prohibits funds to the U.N. Population Fund unless it does not fund abortion. Well, the bill already says that. For the Record, the U.N. Population Fund has always had a policy of not supporting abortion. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that it ever did. It supports the same voluntary family planning and health programs the United States Agency for International Development does, but it does it in about 97 more countries than the United States Agency for International Development does. The amendment by the Senator from Mississippi would deduct, dollar for dollar, from the U.N. Population Fund for a program it spends in China. The bill already does that. So for all practical purposes, the amendment of the junior Senator from Mississippi does nothing that the bill already does not do, with one exception. His amendment would also strike the six limited purposes that are specified in the bill for which funds are made available to the U.N. Population Fund. For example, he would strike the funds that are provided ``to promote the abandonment of female genital mutilation and child marriage.'' Why would we want to cut programs to help encourage an end to child marriage? Is there anybody in the Senate in favor of child marriage? Is there anyone in the Senate in favor of female genital mutilation? I find it amazing I have to even come to the floor to talk about this. Yet his amendment would remove the funds we provide to try to stop child marriage and female genital mutilation. Why should we vote for something like that? Why should we prohibit funding to reduce the incidence of child marriage in countries where girls as young as 9 years old are forced to marry men they have never met, sometimes five times their age, who then abuse them? The bill also provides funds to prevent and treat obstetric fistula. For those who are not familiar with this, it is a terrible, debilitating condition that can destroy the life of any woman who suffers from it. But it can be treated with surgery. I ask unanimous consent that a February 24 article in the New York Times on obstetric fistula be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. Why we would want to prohibit funds to save the lives of women who otherwise could die or be painfully debilitated for the rest of their lives, I cannot understand. None of us would hesitate for a moment to provide funds to help someone in our family who might be in this condition. I see the Senator from Mississippi on the floor. His amendment prohibits funds to the U.N. Population Fund for that. The bill provides funds to reestablish maternal health care in areas where medical facilities and services have been destroyed or limited by natural disasters, armed conflict or other factors, such as in Pakistan after the earthquake that destroyed whole villages. Why would we not want to support maternal health care? Any one of us, be it our sisters and daughters, our wives, we would want them to access to these medical services. Or in Congo, where armed conflict has destroyed what limited health services existed and where thousands of women and girls have been raped, some barely old enough to walk. This bill provides funds for programs to help them. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi would prohibit funding for the U.N. Population Fund for that. Funds are provided to promote access to clean water, sanitation, food and health care for poor women and girls. His amendment would prohibit that. I have traveled to different parts of the world. I have seen the differences in the lives of women and young girls that are made with these programs. The Senator prohibits that. The U.S. Agency for International Development has these types of programs in 53 countries, but the U.N. Population Fund works in about 150 countries. If you live in the Republic of the Congo or the Central African Republic, two of the poorest countries in Africa, and you are a 16-year-old girl with obstetric fistula, you are out of luck because USAID does not have programs there. That is why we fund the U.N. program. If you have a 7-year-old daughter who has been raped there, we don't have a program to help her. But we give funds to the U.N. to help her. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi would stop that. If you live in Niger or Mauritania, where genital mutilation is common, or in Sri Lanka where child marriage is common, we don't have funds there, but we give funds to the U.N. to help. The Senator's amendment creates a problem where there is none. It denies funding to address the basic needs of poor women and girls who are subjected to practices that would be crimes in this country. Our law already prohibits funds for abortion of any kind, whether coercive or voluntary. We already prohibit funds for involuntary sterilization. We prohibit funds for the U.N. Population Fund's program in China. We have already done all these things. But we do provide funds to help girls who are being forced into marriages at the age of 9. We do support care for women who suffer from these debilitating conditions. We do have funds for maternal care, clean water, and voluntary family planning. But if the amendment of the junior Senator from Mississippi is agreed to, we would prohibit those funds in many parts of the world. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Feb. 24, 2009] After a Devastating Birth Injury, Hope (By Denise Grady) Dodoma, Tanzania.--Lying side by side on a narrow bed, talking and giggling and poking each other with skinny elbows, they looked like any pair of teenage girls trading jokes and secrets. But the bed was in a crowded hospital ward, and between the moments of laughter, Sarah Jonas, 18, and Mwanaidi Swalehe, 17, had an inescapable air of sadness. Pregnant at 16, both had given birth in 2007 after labor that lasted for days. Their babies had died, and the prolonged labor had inflicted a dreadful injury on the mothers: an internal wound called a fistula, which left them incontinent and soaked in urine. Last month at the regional hospital in Dodoma, they awaited expert surgeons who would try to repair the damage. For each, two previous, painful operations by other doctors had failed. ``It will be great if the doctors succeed,'' Ms. Jonas said softly in Swahili, through an interpreter. Along with about 20 other girls and women ranging in age from teens to 50s, Ms. Jonas and Ms. Swalehe had taken long bus rides from their villages to this hot, dusty city for operations paid for by a charitable group, Amref, the African Medical and Research Foundation. The foundation had brought in two surgeons who would operate and teach doctors and nurses from different parts of Tanzania how to repair fistulas and care for patients afterward. ``This is a vulnerable population,'' said one of the experts, Dr. Gileard Masenga, from the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center in Moshi, Tanzania. ``These women are suffering.'' The mission--to do 20 operations in four days--illustrates the challenges of providing medical care in one of the world's poorest countries, with a shortage of doctors and nurses, sweltering heat, limited equipment, unreliable electricity, a scant blood supply and two patients at a time in one operating room--patients with an array of injuries, from easily fixable to dauntingly complex. The women filled most of Ward 2, a long, one-story building with a cement floor and two rows of closely spaced beds against opposite walls. All had suffered from obstructed labor, meaning that their babies were too big or in the wrong position to pass through the birth canal. If prolonged, obstructed labor often kills the baby, which may then soften enough to fit through the pelvis, so that the mother delivers a corpse. Obstructed labor can kill the mother, too, or crush her bladder, uterus and vagina between her pelvic bones and the baby's skull. The injured tissue dies, leaving a fistula: a hole that lets urine stream out constantly through the vagina. In some cases, the rectum is damaged and stool leaks out. Some women also have nerve damage in the legs. One of the most striking things about the women in Ward 2 was how small they were. Many stood barely five feet tall, with slight frames and narrow hips, which may have contributed to their problems. Girls not fully grown, or women stunted by malnutrition, often have small pelvises that make them prone to obstructed labor. The women wore kangas, bolts of cloth wrapped into skirts, in bright prints that stood out against the ward's drab, chipping paint. Under the skirts, some had kangas bunched between their legs to absorb urine. Not even a curtain separated the beds. An occasional hot breeze blew in through the screened windows. Flies buzzed, and a cat with one kitten loitered in the doorway. Outside, kangas that had been washed by patients or their families were draped over bushes and clotheslines and patches of grass, drying in the sun. Speaking to doctors and nurses in a classroom at the hospital, Dr. Jeffrey P. Wilkinson, an expert on fistula repair from Duke University, noted that women with fistulas frequently became outcasts because of the odor. Since July, Dr. Wilkinson has been working at the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center, which is collaborating with Duke on a women's health project. ``I've met countless fistula patients who have been thrown off the bus,'' he said. ``Or their family tells them to leave, or builds a separate hut.'' For the women in Ward 2, the visiting doctors held out the best hope of regaining a normal life. Fistulas are a scourge of the poor, affecting two million women and girls, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia--those who cannot get a Caesarean section or other medical help in time. Long neglected, fistulas have gained increasing attention in recent years, and nonprofit groups, hospitals and governments have created programs, like the one in Dodoma, to provide the surgery. Cure rates of 90 percent or more are widely cited, but, Dr. Wilkinson said, ``That's not a realistic number.'' It may be true that the holes are closed in 90 percent of patients, but even so, women with extensive damage and scarring do not always regain the nerve and muscle control needed to stay dry, Dr. Wilkinson said. Ideally, fistulas should be prevented, but prevention-- which requires education, more hospitals, doctors and midwives, and better transportation--lags far behind treatment. Worldwide, there are still 100,000 new cases a year, and most experts think it will take decades to eliminate fistulas in Africa, even though they were wiped out in developed countries a century ago. Their continuing presence is a sign that medical care for pregnant women is desperately inadequate. ``Fistula is the thing to follow,'' Dr. Wilkinson said. ``If you find patients with fistula, you'll also find that mothers and babies are dying right and left.'' The day before her surgery, Ms. Jonas sat on her bed, anxiously eyeing the other women as they were wheeled back from the operating room. Some vomited from the anesthesia, and she found it a distressing sight. Ms. Jonas said that when she was 16, she became intimate with a 19-year-old boyfriend, without realizing that sex could make her pregnant. It quickly did. Her labor went on for three days. By the time a Caesarean was performed, it was too late. Her son survived for only an hour, and she developed a fistula, as well as nerve damage in one leg that left her with an awkward gait. Her boyfriend denied paternity and married someone else, and some friends abandoned her because she was wet and smelled. She was living in a rural village in a two-room mud hut with her parents, two sisters and a brother. She had one year of education and could not read or write, but said that she hoped to go to school again someday. The operating room in Dodoma had just enough room for two operating tables, separated by a green cloth screen. Two at a time, the patients, wearing bedsheets they had draped as gracefully as their kangas, walked in. Some were so short that they needed a set of portable steps to climb up onto the table. The women had an anesthetic injected into their spines to numb them below the waist, and then their legs were lifted into stirrups. Awake, they lay in silence while the doctors worked, Dr. Masenga at one table and Dr. Wilkinson at the other, each surrounded by other doctors who had come to learn. An air-conditioner put out more noise than air. Flies circled, sometimes lighting on the patients. A mouse scurried alongside the wall. There were none of the beeping monitors that dominate operating rooms in the United States. Periodically, a nurse would take a blood pressure reading. Midway through the first operation the power failed, and the lights went out. Dr. Wilkinson put on a battery-powered headlamp and kept working, but Dr. Masenga had to depend on daylight. Their scrubs and gowns grew dark with sweat. Most fistula surgery is performed through the vagina, and can take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours. It involves more than simply sewing a hole shut: delicate dissection is needed to loosen nearby tissue so that there will not be too much tension on the stitches, and sometimes flaps of tissue must be cut and sculpted to patch or replace a missing or damaged area. It can take several weeks to tell how well the operation worked. At the end of the week in Dodoma, the surgeons said that of the 20 operations, some were straightforward and easy, and a few seemed likely to fail. Three patients needed such complicated repairs that they were referred to the Kilimanjaro medical center. At first, it seemed as if Ms. Jonas's operation had worked, while Ms. Swalehe's outlook was uncertain. Shortly after their surgeries, the two young women were violently ill. Ms. Swalehe wept from pain when the surgeons came in to check on her. But both women were smiling the next day, hoping for the best. (Ultimately, Ms. Jonas's surgery failed, and Ms. Swalehe's succeeded.) One day after the last operation, the fistula surgeons moved on, already thinking about the countless new cases that awaited them.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, to go back to the subject at hand, I do wish to speak briefly in opposition to an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe. It is amendment No. 613. According to the unanimous consent agreement entered into by my dear friend, the senior Senator from Mississippi, we are going to vote on that amendment later today. His amendment prohibits any United States funding to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes a tax on any United States person. It's like: My gosh, how did we ever overlook this situation? But this amendment is a textbook case of legislating when there is absolutely no rhyme or reason and shooting ourselves in the foot at the same time. It is not a response to anything that has happened in the entire history of the United Nations. It is something that apparently the author of the amendment imagines maybe, some time, somehow, somewhere this could happen. The United Nations has never levied a tax on anyone. It is not a taxing organization. This provision was originally put in many years ago when anti-United Nations sentiment was high. It was a feel-good, chest-thumping response to a totally imagined, non-existent problem. I call it the Godzilla amendment. Let's pass a law that says if Godzilla comes tromping down the National Mall, he is prohibited from coming within 100 yards of the Nation's Capitol Building. The fact is, of course, there is no Godzilla and there never will be. The U.N. has no taxing authority. It does not impose taxes. There has never been a U.N. tax on Americans. There is no realistic possibility that there ever will be. This would be like saying if the United Nations ever passes a law to rename the United States of America, we will cut off funding. It is not going to happen. Every year each appropriations subcommittee receives requests from Senators for what they want included in the bill. Both the ranking Republican member and the Democratic chairman look at all these requests. No Senator requested the language proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma. The Bush administration never requested this language. Both I and Senator Gregg saw absolutely no reason to continue to include it. It has no practical effect. The Senator from Oklahoma has had since last July, over half a year, to ask for its inclusion if he wanted. He never did. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice--none of them saw any reason for it. This sort of falls into the ``we need to prohibit black helicopters from coming in the middle of the night from the United Nations.'' It is fantasy. But if we did adopt it, what an embarrassment for this country, the only country in the world to adopt such an amendment. At a time when we are trying to reestablish the reputation and leadership of the United States, why would we put Congress on record threatening the United Nations not to do something that it is never going to do? We are not some two-bit country that wants to stand up and wave a flag and show how tough it is. We are not the mouse that roared. We are the United States of America. And doing something like this, the rest of the world is going to look at us and say: Why are you doing such silly things? The Senator's amendment would cut off funding for U.N. peacekeeping, for the operations of the U.N. Security Council, for UNICEF, for all the things we are asking the United Nations to do in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, the Middle East, and around the world. That is what the amendment says. It is an anachronism. It has no basis in fact. Does anyone think that even if they wanted to the other members of the U.N. Security Council could do that over a United States veto? It's impossible. We already pay our assessed dues to the United Nations. Is that a tax? We have to pay it. It comes out of the Federal budget, and the Federal budget is taxpayer money. Should we stop paying that? Let's stop treating the United Nations as the enemy. Let's start showing maturity and leadership. The amendment was an unnecessary piece of legislation years ago when it was first offered by Senator Jesse Helms, and it is no less so today. No President, even if the U.N. had the ability to, which it does not--even if it tried, whoever was President would simply instruct our Representative to the United Nations: Veto it. It is a solution looking for a problem. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEAHY. What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Are we still in morning business?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is hard to respond to all the things that have been misstated about the amendment before us. For one thing, the bill before us does not change the Kemp-Kasten amendment. You can find it on page 763 of the bill. It is in the bill. In fact, let me read what it says: Provided further, That none of the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts may be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. So there is no need to pass the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi to put that language in--I suppose we could just print it twice--it is already in there.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will yield on the time of the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have heard it said several times that we should not spend U.S. taxpayer dollars on coercive abortion. I agree with the Senator from Mississippi. We should not. I have taken that position. I have been chairman or ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee several times. I have always taken that position. We should not, we don't, we never have. It is prohibited in the bill--Republicans and Democrats have always agreed about that. I don't know how many times we have to say it. I am reminded of Senator Mark Hatfield, a revered member of the Republican Party and a former chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I know of no stronger pro-life opponent of abortion, but there is also no stronger pro-life proponent of family planning. He knows that if there are voluntary family planning services, you are most apt to avoid unwanted pregnancies and thus avoid abortion. Now, we have heard Senators say: Well, we don't want to use taxpayer money for coerced abortions. You can't. There is no money in here with which it can be done. We specifically prohibit that. But let me repeat for my colleagues what this amendment does do. The Wicker amendment removes funds we have in here for UNFPA to promote the abandonment of female genital mutilation and child marriage. The funds can be used in countries where we don't have USAID programs, to help prevent child marriage. The Senator from Mississippi would remove those funds. I have listened to some of the harrowing stories: 7, 8 or 9 year-old girls forced into marriage. We ought to all unite to try to stop that, but the Senator from Mississippi takes out the funds that can be used to try to stop that. Obstetric fistula--anybody who is familiar with that knows how terrible it is, a debilitating condition that can destroy the life of any woman who suffers from it, but it can be cured by surgery. If any member of our family was faced with that, of course they would have the surgery to fix it. The funds are not there, not available in many countries. But there are funds in the bill so UNFPA can help women with that terrible condition. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi takes that money out. I can't support something like that. We have funds in the bill to reestablish maternal health care in areas where medical facilities and services have been destroyed or limited by natural disasters. We put in funds to rebuild those health services, but the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi takes that money out. We are talking about countries where the average person doesn't earn even $100 a year. We ought to think about it, as the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth, where there is a certain God-given moral duty to help people less privileged, but the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi takes that money out. Are we concerned with coercion and forced abortion in China, as the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Kansas said? Of course. I have no doubt that they find that morally repugnant. I totally agree with the Senator from Mississippi. I totally agree with him that forced abortions are wrong. I totally agree with the Senator from Kansas about that. That is why, when Senator Gregg and I brought this bill to the Appropriations Committee, we prohibited any funds going to China. We prohibit any funds for abortion. We prohibit those things. It is not correct to suggest otherwise. I don't know what kind of political points are made by bringing up this kind of an amendment, but explain those political points to the mother of a 5-year-old who has been raped in the Congo. Explain those political points to a mother, herself a child, who is giving birth and now has the problem of obstetric fistula, and we can't do anything to help her. Explain it to those families in war-ravaged countries where the U.S. does not have programs. Explain to them when they ask: Why can't you help us--a wealthy nation like America--why can't you help us? And the answer is because we are making a political point. I don't accept that. I oppose this amendment with every fiber of my body. How much time is remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. How much time on the other side?

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will speak briefly about one of the amendments pending, but first I wish to express my support for the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. With all the debate here, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that this is a product of months of bipartisan negotiation and hard work. I serve on the Appropriations Committee and I watch the various subcommittees come together and meet. We had both the Republican leader and the Democratic leader of the committees join together and pass most of the bills that make up the omnibus. It is bipartisan. They passed almost unanimously. Now, we find we are getting into debate on amendments and it is somewhat troubling. We completed a budget process begun more than a year ago to fund the Federal Government and also to fund hundreds of critical programs in the Federal Government. It is unfortunate we are now halfway through the fiscal year. I wish it could have been completed through regular order. But enacting this legislation means funding increases for programs that serve as a lifeline to many Americans. I appreciate what Chairman Inouye has done, what President pro tempore Byrd has done, and what ranking member Thad Cochran has done. These are people with whom I have served for decades on the Appropriations Committee. They put together a piece of legislation that is going to take our country forward by investing in health care, law enforcement, the environment, and public schools. Some have argued that because we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that this legislation is not needed. That is not correct. The economic recovery plan was crafted specifically to create and save millions of jobs through investments, infrastructure, education funding, and so forth. But the recovery plan was not intended to replace the regular order of the Federal budget. This is a comprehensive bill, not a targeted piece of legislation. I have listened to the debate on this legislation throughout the week and heard the arguments that this bill is too expensive, it is unnecessary and we would save money by level funding the government for the rest of the year. Those making these arguments seem to ignore the fact that flat funding the government would mean no additional assistance through child nutrition programs for hungry children whose families struggle to put food on their tables. It would mean less funding is available to help rebuild our crumbling bridges and roads, fewer funds for ensuring Americans have clean and safe water to drink and reductions in critical health prevention programs. In short, not passing this bill would mean turning a blind eye to the millions of Americans who need their Government to extend a helping hand to pull them up off the ground. Some members of this body have argued that because we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act this legislation is not needed. That could not be further from the truth. The economic recovery plan was crafted specifically to create or save millions of jobs through significant investments in infrastructure, education funding, and public safety net programs. I voted for this plan and have confidence that it is a necessary step to protect and strengthen our economy and invest in America's future. But the recovery plan was not intended to replace the regular order for the Federal Budget. While the recovery plan includes numerous important priorities, it was structured to be timely and targeted, not a comprehensive bill to fund the entire Government. Using the rationale of some on the other side of the aisle and passing a yearlong continuing resolution would mean we are less able to ensure our security both at home and abroad. Not passing this legislation means the FBI will not be able to hire new agents, intelligence analysts, and others who protect us from crime and terrorism. It would mean the FDA will not be able to protect us from unsafe food and medicine. Finally, it would mean fewer funds for critical activities such as nuclear nonproliferation, military assistance and peacekeeping operations and security operations for our embassies abroad. Again, I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard work in crafting this bill. It is not an easy job to weigh the thousands of competing priorities of our country and produce a comprehensive bill that addresses these needs. I applaud Chairman Inouye for his work and offer my strong support for this legislation. Madam President, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill 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 bill 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 this omnibus bill does not contain any congressional earmarks. It does, as is customary and appropriate, specify funding levels for authorized programs, certain countries, and international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank. I thank Chairman Inouye, President pro tempore Byrd, and Ranking Member Cochran for their support throughout this protracted process. And I 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 is imperative that we enact this bill. The alternative of a full year continuing resolution would be devastating to the operations of the State Department and our embassies, consulates, and missions around the world, and to 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 bill supports her highest priority of rebuilding the civilian capabilities of our Government. The bill 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 bill 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 bill 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 bill recommends $75 million for a new initiative to train and deploy personnel in post-conflict stabilization. These critical investments would be lost if we do not pass this bill. The bill 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 bill 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 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 bill 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 bill 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 United States 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 bill 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 bill 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 bill 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 UN 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 bill provides $1.5 billion for UN 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 bill 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 UN, and others for which, as a member of the organization, the United States is obligated by treaty to contribute. We either pay now or we pay later. The bill 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 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 bill 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 bill 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 make it impossible to fund many, if not most, of those requests. A good example is global health. The bill 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 lifesaving 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, such as 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 bill 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 bill, instead, provides a total of $545 million from all accounts for family planning and reproductive health including $50 million for the UN 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 bill 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 lifesaving 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 bill 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 bill 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 bill 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 bill provides $340 million, which is $9 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. Those additional funds would be lost under a continuing resolution. The bill 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 bill 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 bill 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 put us another $251 million in arrears, in addition to the arrears we already owe. The bill 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 bill, these additional resources would not be 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 bill before us. 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 have criticized this omnibus because it contains earmarks. Apparently they would prefer that unnamed, unelected bureaucrats make all the decisions about the use of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the total amount of this bill 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 are about. A whopping 1 percent. Some here complain that this 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 the reason they oppose this omnibus bill. 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 will not occur if this bill is not passed. The funding for State and foreign operations in this omnibus bill amounts to about 1 percent of the total budget of this country. However one views the Economic Recovery Act, it would be the height of irresponsibility to oppose this bill. The damage that a continuing resolution would cause to the functions of our embassies, consulates and missions, and to the foreign service officers who serve the American people around the world, would be 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. This bill puts our money where our mouths are. The alternative is to retract and to invite others to fill the vacuum. That might save money in the short term, but it will cost us dearly in the future. Amendment No. 613 Madam President, I will speak briefly in opposition to an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe. Before I do, I might note that I have served here for 35 years. Seeing the distinguished Presiding Officer, when I first came to the Senate, there were two Senators from Minnesota-- Senator Hubert Humphrey, Senator Walter Mondale. Senator Humphrey had been Vice President of the United States; Senator Mondale was to become Vice President of the United States. I was helped immeasurably by the mentoring and the friendship of those two Senators. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I had the opportunity to be present when the distinguished former Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Mondale, or Ambassador Mondale or Vice President Mondale--he had all those titles--was given one of the highest awards that the Japanese Government could give. I mention this only because I still serve with the whole delegation from Minnesota, which is now presiding over the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is an unnecessary amendment. The Senator from Oklahoma asked an obvious question: Why is this language not in there? Nobody wanted it. No Republican asked for it. No Democrat asked for it. The Bush administration didn't ask for it. We constantly remove outdated, unnecessary language from these bills to clean them up. The United Nations has no power to tax the United States or any person in the United States. It would be like saying we want to pass a law that says that if the U.N. were to launch several divisions of soldiers against us, we will cut off their funding. They can't do that any more than they can impose a tax against us. They are not a taxing organization. So we deleted provisions like this that serve no purpose, and which no senator requested. It has no practical effect. The Bush administration didn't want it. No Republican asked for it. No Democrat asked for it. Let's focus on the real problems such as Darfur, the Middle East, and Afghanistan where we are asking United Nations peacekeepers and aid workers to risk their lives to support our goals. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a longtime advocate of greater transparency in our government, I am pleased that the Omnibus appropriations bill includes several key provisions to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act--FOIA--and to protect Americans' privacy and civil liberties. The Omnibus appropriations bill provides $1 million in funding to establish the new Office of Government Information Services--OGIS--in the National Archives and Records Administration. When Congress enacted the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act of 2007, which made the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade, a key component of that bill was the creation of the OGIS to mediate FOIA disputes, review agency compliance with FOIA, and house a newly created FOIA ombudsman. Establishing this new FOIA office within the National Archives is essential to reversing the troubling trend of lax FOIA compliance and excessive government secrecy during the past 8 years. The OGIS will also play a critical role in meeting the goals of President Obama's new directive on FOIA. I thank Senators Cornyn, Inouye and Cochran for their support of funding for this critical new office. I also thank the many FOIA and open government groups, including OpenTheGovernment.org, the Sunshine in Government Initiative and the National Security Archive, who have advocated tirelessly for a fully operational OGIS. The bill also includes much-needed funding to reconstitute the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. When Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in 2004, it implemented a 9/11 Commission recommendation to establish an independent board to help protect Americans' privacy and civil liberties. Since then, I have worked hard to make sure that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has the resources and personnel to fulfill this important mission. During the last Congress, I worked with Senators Lieberman and Durbin to further strengthen this Board in the 9/11 reform bill. Unfortunately, the last administration left the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board with no members or staff. The Board is too important for us to let it fall by the wayside. The funding in the omnibus bill will help to reconstitute the Board so it can get back to work. Now that this initial funding is in place, I hope the President will promptly name qualified nominees so that the Board can carry out its important work. Both of these provisions will help to make our government more open and accountable to the American people. That is something that Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike can--and should-- celebrate. Again, I commend the bill's lead sponsors and the President for their demonstrated commitment to open and transparent government.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at a time when the world seems to finally be speaking in one voice about the need for dramatic action to stop global warming, an article in the Jakarta Post on February 13 reminds us that many difficult obstacles lie ahead. It is well known that Indonesia's forests, and particularly its peat swamps, store huge amounts of carbon. When the trees from these areas are cut and burned, which is happening due to illegal logging and to make way for the cultivation of oil palm, they emit even larger amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. These forests are also home to one of the world's four species of endangered great apes, the orangutan, whose survival in the wild is far from certain. President Yudhoyono has spoken of the importance of protecting the habitat of the orangutan. The U.S. Agency for International Development has been supporting this effort for years, and it is finally beginning to show results. It is focused on improving law enforcement and addressing the economic needs of the people living in areas of Borneo and Sumatra where the orangutans live, so they do not cut down the forests. While illegal logging remains a problem in Indonesia, it is less of one than it was not long ago thanks to President Yudhoyono's government. What looms as potentially an even greater threat to the orangutan, and to climate change, is the expansion of oil palm plantations. The Jakarta Post article says Indonesia's Minister of Agriculture plans to permit the cultivation of oil palm in millions of hectares of peat swamps. The article indicates that the Minister appears to believe that this would not contribute to global warming because while cutting the peat forests would result in emissions of greenhouse gases, oil palm trees would absorb carbon. As convenient as that might sound, it defies both logic and science. Indonesia is already among the largest emitters of carbon in the world and the peat swamps are the primary cause. Any significant expansion of cutting and burning of peat forests would contribute to climate change. It would put Indonesia on the wrong side of an issue of critical, global importance at a time when it should be setting an example for responsible forest management. It would put Indonesia on the wrong side of history. The United States deserves its share of criticism for consuming, and wasting, vast amounts of fossil fuels and being a major contributor to global warming. Many years have been squandered debating whether human development is a significant cause of climate change, even though the overwhelming view of scientists is that it is. Fortunately, we are past that point. Today there is almost universal recognition that we must act together, and urgently, to stop the destruction of forests and the wasteful use of energy that contribute to climate change. President Obama has made clear that he intends to make this issue a priority and invest in alternative energy technologies that do not emit greenhouse gases. Indonesia, like Brazil and Central Africa, is fortunate to possess among the last significant expanses of tropical forests on Earth. The example set by President Yudhoyono and his government will profoundly affect the lives of people everywhere, as well as future generations. I join those in the environmental and scientific communities in urging the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider his position. Finally, it is important to note that American companies are among those that import Indonesian palm oil. China and Singapore are other major importers. They should consider the consequences of using a product that is produced in a manner that causes serious harm to the environment. It is time for corporate America to review its manufacturing and marketing practices to ensure they are consistent with our collective responsibility to stop global warming. I ask unanimous consent to have the Jakarta Post article printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the abuses perpetrated against civilians by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, popularly known as the FARC, are too numerous to list. From kidnappings to bombings, torture and summary executions, the FARC have lost whatever credibility and popular support they may once have had. They are a criminal enterprise, despised by the vast majority of Colombians, funded with proceeds from the production and sale of cocaine, who show no respect for the laws of armed conflict. The FARC have kidnapped hundreds of people, many of whom remain in their custody, their health and welfare unknown. From what we have learned from the few who have escaped or been released, they suffer severe hardship and deprivation. The FARC have also targeted Colombia's vulnerable indigenous people, whose traditional lands are often located in conflict zones. They have also been victimized by other armed groups, including the Colombian army. Two recent incidents illustrate the dangers these people face. According to the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia, on February 11, 2009, the FARC killed 10 members of the Awa tribe in Narino department. This followed the killing of 17 Awa on February 4, also in Narino, and also reportedly carried out by the FARC. There are reports that an unknown number of Awa have been abducted. The killing of defenseless indigenous civilians can best be described as a crime against humanity. It is utterly without justification, and those who engage in such atrocities should pay for their crimes. For years I have worked to help improve respect for human rights in Colombia and to strengthen Colombia's judicial system. I have also supported efforts to protect the rights of Colombia's indigenous people. When we get reports of the FARC attacking and summarily executing members of the Awa, including women and children, we are reminded how much remains to be done to protect these vulnerable groups and before real justice and peace can come to Colombia. In recent years there have been notable improvements in security in some parts of Colombia, particularly Bogota, Medellin, and other cities. There has also been progress in expanding the presence of the state into areas which previously had been ungoverned. We are seeing some promising results from projects that provide coca farmers with titles to land, technical assistance to grow licit crops like coffee and cacao, and access to markets, in return for voluntarily stopping growing coca. These projects deserve our continued support. But many rural areas remain conflicted or controlled by the FARC or other armed groups, some of whose members are demobilized paramilitaries. After more than $7 billion in U.S. aid and 8 years since the beginning of Plan Colombia, the amount of coca under cultivation is close to what it was before. It is now grown in smaller, more isolated plots, in many more parts of the country. More than 200,000 rural Colombians were displaced from their homes as a result of drug-related violence last year alone. Another issue that requires the attention of the Colombian Government is reparations for victims of the conflict. There are tens of thousands of people who had members of their families killed or injured by paramilitaries, the FARC, or the army. Many had land or other property stolen by paramilitaries who often had the active or tacit support of the army. The Colombian Government established mechanisms for returning stolen assets, but for the most part it has not yet happened. Very little of the land has been returned to its previous occupants. This process needs to be urgently invigorated if reconciliation is to succeed in Colombia. Whether a family member was killed or their property stolen by the FARC, paramilitaries, or members of the army, the loss is the same. The judicial process in Colombia is wholly incapable of adjudicating the large number of cases or claims. It is critical that, as was finally done in the United States when Congress appropriated funds to compensate victims of the Japanese internment camps during World War II, the Colombian Government take the necessary steps to provide reparations for the victims so they can rebuild their lives. The issue of extra judicial killings, or ``false positives'' as they have been called, is another major concern. Human rights groups warned repeatedly that Colombian soldiers were luring poor young men with the promise of jobs, summarily executing them, and then dressing the bodies to appear as FARC combatants in order to obtain higher pay, time off, promotions, or other benefits. I also expressed concern about this. Instead of investigating, top Colombian officials, including the President, responded by accusing the human rights groups of being FARC sympathizers. After the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights confirmed these crimes and it was revealed that they were the result of official army policy, the government acknowledged the problem, but the verbal attacks against human rights defenders and journalists who wrote articles about the issue have continued. To his credit, the Minister of Defense has taken some steps to address it, including issuing decrees disavowing the policy of rewarding body counts and dismissing army officers who were implicated in some cases. But few if any have been prosecuted and punished, and there are reportedly hundreds of these cases. Throughout this period, despite report after report that these atrocities were occurring, former Secretary of State Rice continued to certify that the Colombian army was meeting the human rights conditions in U.S. law. That was as shameful as the Colombian Government blaming human rights defenders. The Congress had no responsible alternative to withholding a portion of the military aid for Colombia. Whether or when those funds are released will depend, in part, on how thoroughly the government addresses the problem of false positives, whether the officers involved are held accountable, and whether those who had the courage to report these crimes continue to be the target of government attacks. I also want to mention the recently appointed Army Chief of Staff, GEN Gonzalez Pena, who replaced General Montoya. General Montoya resigned under pressure due to the false positives scandal and was ``punished,'' as too often occurs in Colombia, by being appointed an ambassador. Not long ago, General Gonzalez Pena commanded the 4th Brigade in Antioquia which has one of the worst rates of reported extra judicial killings. It is difficult to believe that he was unaware of what his troops were reportedly doing, and it raises a concern about his qualifications for such an important position. This year, the Appropriations Committee will again review our aid programs in Colombia. We want to continue helping Colombia because we share many interests--in addition to stopping the traffic in illegal drugs to the United States which has not succeeded to the extent some had predicted. We need to determine what has worked and deserves continued U.S. support, whether the Colombian Government is meeting the conditions in U.S. law and what costs should be shifted to the Colombian Government as U.S. aid is ratcheted down in the coming years.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates the 49th anniversary of ``Bloody Sunday,'' a day which marked a crucial turning point in securing the right to vote for all Americans. On March 7, 1965, in Selma, Alabama, John Lewis and his fellow civil rights activists marched for their right to vote but were brutally attacked by state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. We remember the acts of courageous Americans who fought through the years for equality. We honor their legacy by reaffirming our commitment to protect the right to vote for all Americans. On the week of this important anniversary, I am pleased to join Sen. Whitehouse in introducing the Caging Prohibition Act of 2009. This legislation contains commonsense reforms to strengthen the Nation's ability to combat organized efforts to suppress the right to vote and better protect the voting rights of countless Americans. Senator Whitehouse and I introduced a similar bill two years ago in an effort to bring urgent election reform to protect voters during the 2008 presidential election. Although the Rules Committee held a hearing on the measure, the bill was not reported out of Committee before the Senate adjourned last year. I hope the Senate will do its part to prevent shenanigans from disenfranchising voters during the next Federal election, by promptly passing this bill. During my three decades in the Senate, I have devoted a considerable portion of my work to improving democratic participation and make our government more accessible to all Americans. For the past two years, I have been delighted to have Senator Whitehouse as a partner on this important issue. I thank him for his leadership on preserving and strengthening our voting rights. In recent years, we have seen a surge in a particularly alarming form of voter suppression known as voter caging. In voter caging, a political organization sends mail to addresses on voter rolls, compiles a list of returned mail, and uses that list as grounds for partisan and unjustified purges or challenges of voters' eligibility. During the last two presidential election cycles, we have seen evidence of voter caging efforts emerge in numerous States, including Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Chief among the problems with voter caging is that it threatens to disenfranchise voters in an unreliable manner. Rather than preventing votes cast by ineligible voters, far too often the practice prevents legitimate voters from casting their ballots. According to a recent report from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, ``[V]oter caging lists are highly likely to include the names of many voters who are in fact eligible to vote.'' Of course, since government databases are often riddled with typos and clerical errors, these findings are hardly surprising. Even more troubling, voter caging often aims to disenfranchise minority voters. I recall during a Senate race in Louisiana, in 1986, a memorandum from the Republican National Committee concluded that hiring a consultant to distribute 350,000 mailings marked ``do not forward'' to mostly African-American districts would ``eliminate at least 60- 80,000 folks from the rolls . . . [and] could keep the black vote down considerably.'' That is unacceptable. That is wrong. No one's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed, or denied in the United States of America. The practice of voter caging chips away at core protections in our democracy. The right to vote, and have your vote count, is a foundational right because it secures the effectiveness of all other protections. Indeed, the very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process. That is why voting is the cornerstone of our democracy. Any infringement on this right harms the fabric of America. All too often, voter caging efforts have partisan goals. For example, the Judiciary Committee's investigation last Congress into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons shed light on how Tim Griffin, a former Bush White House aide, participated in a voter caging scheme aimed at disenfranchising African-American voters in Florida. He was later appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Rooting out partisan voter caging tactics requires us to give Federal officials the tools and resources they need to investigate and prosecute organized efforts to suppress the right to vote. This bill will do exactly that. This legislation would prohibit challenging a person's eligibility to vote--or register to vote--based on a voter caging list, an unverified match list, or foreclosure status. A challenged voter may feel intimidated or discouraged, and may leave a polling site and not vote. In America, a person should not lose their fundamental right to vote, nor have that vote challenged, on the sole basis of a mistake, error, or because their mail failed to reach them. Similarly, as the current economic crisis reminds us, Americans should not have their fundamental right to vote jeopardized simply because they lose their jobs to layoffs or their homes to foreclosure. The bill would also require any private party who challenges the right of another citizen to vote--or register to vote--to set forth in writing, under penalty of perjury, the specific grounds for the alleged ineligibility. This provision deters illegitimate challenges to voters by requiring, at a minimum, a showing of good cause. It properly balances legitimate efforts to clean voting rolls with forbidding unreliable voter purges. I am pleased that this bill has the support of civil rights and voting rights organizations such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Lawyers Community for Civil Rights under Law, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the People for the American Way. They understand that voter caging is a modern-day barrier to the ballot box that has created unique problems for legitimate voters for many years, and that a Federal ban on these undemocratic practices is necessary. I hope that this year all Senators will support this important legislation and take firm action to stamp out this intolerable voter suppression tactic.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates the 49th anniversary of ``Bloody Sunday,'' a day which marked a crucial turning point in securing the right to vote for all Americans. On March 7, 1965, in Selma, Alabama, John Lewis and his fellow civil rights activists marched for their right to vote but were brutally attacked by state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. We remember the acts of courageous Americans who fought through the years for equality. We honor their legacy by reaffirming our commitment to protect the right to vote for all Americans. On the week of this important anniversary, I am pleased to join Sen. Whitehouse in introducing the Caging Prohibition Act of 2009. This legislation contains commonsense reforms to strengthen the Nation's ability to combat organized efforts to suppress the right to vote and better protect the voting rights of countless Americans. Senator Whitehouse and I introduced a similar bill two years ago in an effort to bring urgent election reform to protect voters during the 2008 presidential election. Although the Rules Committee held a hearing on the measure, the bill was not reported out of Committee before the Senate adjourned last year. I hope the Senate will do its part to prevent shenanigans from disenfranchising voters during the next Federal election, by promptly passing this bill. During my three decades in the Senate, I have devoted a considerable portion of my work to improving democratic participation and make our government more accessible to all Americans. For the past two years, I have been delighted to have Senator Whitehouse as a partner on this important issue. I thank him for his leadership on preserving and strengthening our voting rights. In recent years, we have seen a surge in a particularly alarming form of voter suppression known as voter caging. In voter caging, a political organization sends mail to addresses on voter rolls, compiles a list of returned mail, and uses that list as grounds for partisan and unjustified purges or challenges of voters' eligibility. During the last two presidential election cycles, we have seen evidence of voter caging efforts emerge in numerous States, including Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Chief among the problems with voter caging is that it threatens to disenfranchise voters in an unreliable manner. Rather than preventing votes cast by ineligible voters, far too often the practice prevents legitimate voters from casting their ballots. According to a recent report from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, ``[V]oter caging lists are highly likely to include the names of many voters who are in fact eligible to vote.'' Of course, since government databases are often riddled with typos and clerical errors, these findings are hardly surprising. Even more troubling, voter caging often aims to disenfranchise minority voters. I recall during a Senate race in Louisiana, in 1986, a memorandum from the Republican National Committee concluded that hiring a consultant to distribute 350,000 mailings marked ``do not forward'' to mostly African-American districts would ``eliminate at least 60- 80,000 folks from the rolls . . . [and] could keep the black vote down considerably.'' That is unacceptable. That is wrong. No one's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed, or denied in the United States of America. The practice of voter caging chips away at core protections in our democracy. The right to vote, and have your vote count, is a foundational right because it secures the effectiveness of all other protections. Indeed, the very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process. That is why voting is the cornerstone of our democracy. Any infringement on this right harms the fabric of America. All too often, voter caging efforts have partisan goals. For example, the Judiciary Committee's investigation last Congress into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons shed light on how Tim Griffin, a former Bush White House aide, participated in a voter caging scheme aimed at disenfranchising African-American voters in Florida. He was later appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Rooting out partisan voter caging tactics requires us to give Federal officials the tools and resources they need to investigate and prosecute organized efforts to suppress the right to vote. This bill will do exactly that. This legislation would prohibit challenging a person's eligibility to vote--or register to vote--based on a voter caging list, an unverified match list, or foreclosure status. A challenged voter may feel intimidated or discouraged, and may leave a polling site and not vote. In America, a person should not lose their fundamental right to vote, nor have that vote challenged, on the sole basis of a mistake, error, or because their mail failed to reach them. Similarly, as the current economic crisis reminds us, Americans should not have their fundamental right to vote jeopardized simply because they lose their jobs to layoffs or their homes to foreclosure. The bill would also require any private party who challenges the right of another citizen to vote--or register to vote--to set forth in writing, under penalty of perjury, the specific grounds for the alleged ineligibility. This provision deters illegitimate challenges to voters by requiring, at a minimum, a showing of good cause. It properly balances legitimate efforts to clean voting rolls with forbidding unreliable voter purges. I am pleased that this bill has the support of civil rights and voting rights organizations such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Lawyers Community for Civil Rights under Law, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the People for the American Way. They understand that voter caging is a modern-day barrier to the ballot box that has created unique problems for legitimate voters for many years, and that a Federal ban on these undemocratic practices is necessary. I hope that this year all Senators will support this important legislation and take firm action to stamp out this intolerable voter suppression tactic.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy once again in the introduction of this important legislation. The bill that we introduce today will correct the Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, which misconstrued the intent of Congress and cut off access to our Nation's courts for citizens injured or killed by defective medical devices. Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings to examine the way in which the Supreme Court's decisions in the areas of retirement benefits, consumer product safety, workplace discrimination, and personal finance have consistently trended against the rights of consumers and in favor of big business. In many cases that have profound effects on the lives of ordinary Americans, the Court has either ignored the intent of Congress, deferred to corporate interests, or sided with a Federal agency's flawed interpretation of a congressional statute's preemptive force to disadvantage consumers. The impact of the decisions that were the focus of those hearings continues to be felt by Americans today, whether they are prohibited from seeking redress in the courts for an injury caused by a defective product, paying exorbitant credit card interest rates and fees with no relief from the laws of their own State, or subjected to the unscrupulous practices of some in the mortgage lending industry. These hearings raised awareness in Congress, and among Americans, about the impact the Supreme Court has on our everyday lives. And I am especially proud that following on these hearings, and through the efforts of a determined and principled congressional majority, we witnessed our constitutional democracy at work when President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I am heartened that Congress reclaimed the intent of its original legislation and overrode the Supreme Court to restore the rights of Americans to be free from discrimination in the workplace. Just yesterday in the case of Wyeth v. Levine the Supreme Court foreclosed the need for Congress to act in another important area when it validated the views of many by rejecting the Bush administration and the Food and Drug Administration's extravagant views of a regulatory agency's ability to pre-empt State law. I am glad the Court spoke clearly and decisively on this issue. The Court's decision was not only a vindication of Congress's primary authority to pre-empt State law, but a victory for every American who relies upon pharmaceutical drugs and entrusts the manufacturers of those drugs with insuring their safety. The Court's decision also vindicated the laws and courts of the State of Vermont, and I am proud to have expressed my views to the Court as to Congress's intent in this area and on behalf of Diana Levine. The bill we introduce today is another important step to correct an erroneous reading by the Court of Congress's intent in enacting the medical device amendments of 1976. This legislation will make explicit that the preemption clause in the medical device amendments upon which the Court relied does not, and never was intended to preempt the common law claims of consumers injured by a federally approved medical device. The extraordinary power to preempt State law and regulation lies with Congress alone. Where the Court reaches to the extent it did in the Riegel decision to find Federal preemption contrary to what Congress intended, Congress is compelled to act, just as it was in the case of Lilly Ledbetter. I hope all Senators will join us in this effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy once again in the introduction of this important legislation. The bill that we introduce today will correct the Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, which misconstrued the intent of Congress and cut off access to our Nation's courts for citizens injured or killed by defective medical devices. Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings to examine the way in which the Supreme Court's decisions in the areas of retirement benefits, consumer product safety, workplace discrimination, and personal finance have consistently trended against the rights of consumers and in favor of big business. In many cases that have profound effects on the lives of ordinary Americans, the Court has either ignored the intent of Congress, deferred to corporate interests, or sided with a Federal agency's flawed interpretation of a congressional statute's preemptive force to disadvantage consumers. The impact of the decisions that were the focus of those hearings continues to be felt by Americans today, whether they are prohibited from seeking redress in the courts for an injury caused by a defective product, paying exorbitant credit card interest rates and fees with no relief from the laws of their own State, or subjected to the unscrupulous practices of some in the mortgage lending industry. These hearings raised awareness in Congress, and among Americans, about the impact the Supreme Court has on our everyday lives. And I am especially proud that following on these hearings, and through the efforts of a determined and principled congressional majority, we witnessed our constitutional democracy at work when President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I am heartened that Congress reclaimed the intent of its original legislation and overrode the Supreme Court to restore the rights of Americans to be free from discrimination in the workplace. Just yesterday in the case of Wyeth v. Levine the Supreme Court foreclosed the need for Congress to act in another important area when it validated the views of many by rejecting the Bush administration and the Food and Drug Administration's extravagant views of a regulatory agency's ability to pre-empt State law. I am glad the Court spoke clearly and decisively on this issue. The Court's decision was not only a vindication of Congress's primary authority to pre-empt State law, but a victory for every American who relies upon pharmaceutical drugs and entrusts the manufacturers of those drugs with insuring their safety. The Court's decision also vindicated the laws and courts of the State of Vermont, and I am proud to have expressed my views to the Court as to Congress's intent in this area and on behalf of Diana Levine. The bill we introduce today is another important step to correct an erroneous reading by the Court of Congress's intent in enacting the medical device amendments of 1976. This legislation will make explicit that the preemption clause in the medical device amendments upon which the Court relied does not, and never was intended to preempt the common law claims of consumers injured by a federally approved medical device. The extraordinary power to preempt State law and regulation lies with Congress alone. Where the Court reaches to the extent it did in the Riegel decision to find Federal preemption contrary to what Congress intended, Congress is compelled to act, just as it was in the case of Lilly Ledbetter. I hope all Senators will join us in this effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Follow the Money: Transparency and Accountability for Recovery and Reinvestment Spending.''