Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, the distinguished only Senator from Minnesota, seeks recognition, the newest member of the Judiciary Committee, an extraordinarily valued addition to the committee. We are especially happy whenever we have a former prosecutor come on the committee. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, point of inquiry. I certainly don't want to interfere with the Senator from Kentucky, but I think Senator Cornyn had locked in a specific amount of time for the Senator from Kentucky; am I correct?

Mr. LEAHY. On the Republican time?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, and I appreciate his support. I understood there were going to be other Senators from this side coming to speak. I note that the time is running, and they will lose their time if they do not come to speak soon. I also add, while we are waiting, that I have had a special and significant interest in the Department of Justice from the time I was a law student. I watched so many attorneys general who have served at the Justice Department, some have been very good, but many have not. There is nobody--certainly, since I have been old enough to vote--who has been Attorney General with the potential to be as great an Attorney General as Eric Holder. Like others in the Senate, I supported him when President Reagan nominated him for a judgeship, and he was unanimously confirmed. With many others in the Senate, I supported him when he was nominated to be a U.S. Attorney. He was unanimously confirmed. I also supported him when he was nominated to be Deputy Attorney General and for weeks he was held up on the floor by an anonymous hold. For some reason, there was an anonymous hold against Eric Holder. When that hold was finally lifted, lo and behold, nobody voted against him. He was again unanimously confirmed. I see the distinguished Senator from Maryland, one of the most valuable members of the Judiciary Committee, on the floor of the Senate. How much time would the Senator like?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection, but it will have to come from the Republican side, of course.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I intend to use the rest of my time. If you want another minute or two, I will give you two minutes of my time, but then I intend to use the rest of it.

Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains for the Republicans?

Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator like 2 minutes of my remaining time?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a feeling we are all going to be spending hours talking about the stimulus package. Right now, I am more concerned to talk about the Holder nomination. I have heard a great deal about the second amendment. I couldn't help but think during the hearing, when he was asked about the second amendment and how he would support the rights of those who are gun owners, and I looked down at some of those asking from the different States. I looked at the States that are represented on the Senate Judiciary Committee--Wisconsin, California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Utah, Iowa, Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, and Oklahoma, as well as the State of Vermont. There is only one of those States that does not have restrictive gun laws--the State of Vermont. We do not have any gun laws in effect, except during hunting season. We limit the number of rounds you might have in your semiautomatic during deer season. It is supposed to give the deer a chance. Anyone who wanted to carry a loaded concealed weapon without a permit in the State of Vermont, the distinguished Senator from Virginia or anyone else, could. I mention that only because several of the Senators who have come from States with very restrictive gun laws went after Eric Holder on gun laws. So I asked him: ``Would you, as Attorney General, support legislation that would require Vermont to change its gun laws?'' And thus make Vermont as restrictive as these Senators who were giving him grief on his support of the second amendment. He said: Absolutely not. I asked him if there was any question whether he would steadfastly protect the second amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to purchase, transport, and use guns. He said he would. I asked if he would follow the law, including the Supreme Court decision in the recent case in the District of Columbia versus Heller. He said, of course he would follow the law. I mention that because I put into the Record already 130 or more organizations. Every single law enforcement organization of any significance in this country is supporting Eric Holder. Civil rights groups are supporting Eric Holder. Past prosecutors, including those of the Bush and Reagan administrations, have supported Eric Holder. Current prosecutors, the members of the immediate past President, President Bush's administration, have endorsed him. I say this because I think we are seeing straw men put up here--straw men who are saying they do not want Eric Holder as Attorney General; yet these same people voted unanimously for Alberto Gonzalez, an Attorney General who left in disgrace. This man restores the lustre of the Department of Justice. This man will be as independent as the Attorney General I talked with in his office when I was a young law student and we were talking about what it would be like to come to the Department of Justice. I asked that Attorney General if he would allow anybody in the White House, up to and including the President, to interfere with any criminal prosecution or civil rights prosecution. He said absolutely not, and I have told the President that. That Attorney General I was talking with was Robert F. Kennedy. He was talking about his brother John F. Kennedy. And when it came time to prosecute a man who had been critical to his brother's election as President of the United States, Robert Kennedy prosecuted him. I left as a young law student, tempted to stay in Washington, but my wife Marcelle and I went back to Vermont, where we were both born and where we wanted to be. But I have never forgotten that discussion with Attorney General Kennedy. That has been the touchstone for me. I don't want another Attorney General who sits in the room while others in our government approve secretly wiretapping Americans in violation of our law, or engaging in torture. I want an attorney who stands up for the rule of law and our long cherished American values. That is the kind of Attorney General Eric Holder would be. Come on the right side of history. Come on the right side of history. Reject what we saw in the past. Vote for Eric Holder. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank all my colleagues who took part in this debate over the past several weeks. It is a historic nomination. And of the last four--I have to check back--the last four attorneys general, Eric Holder had the largest ``aye'' vote of any of them. I think it is a good sign for the country. It is a good sign for the Department of Justice. And this former prosecutor is very happy.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. At a time when our country is moving in a new direction, it is fitting that we are considering this important measure among the first bills considered this Congress. I believe the extension of CHIP will stand out as one of the great accomplishments of this body. By passing this legislation, we would state clearly that the health of children in this country is an issue too important to be dealt with as business as usual. Last time the Senate considered an expansion of CHIP, the measure passed with bipartisan support and represented what can happen when members from both sides of the aisle come together to form a consensus. Unfortunately, providing health coverage for millions of kids was not a priority of our former President and he vetoed the measure. By standing in the way of this legislation, nearly 4 million children have had to wait to receive critical health coverage. With families struggling more than ever to make ends meet, passing this legislation is essential to protecting our Nation's children. This legislation is a matter of priorities, and I see no more important issue than caring for our kids. Regrettably, there are some who remain opposed to this legislation. I have heard some argue that this bill should be opposed because it raises taxes. Anyone who opposes the bill on these grounds is choosing big tobacco over children's health. Others have argued against including a provision that allows States to waive the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrant children. These children, who are lawful immigrants and who will eventually be U.S. citizens, already have the ability to receive CHIP services. Requiring kids to wait 5 years for health care is unconscionable and could create life-long consequences for children. I have heard some claim that allowing legal immigrant children to receive public health care services would violate the conditions on which they entered the United States. This argument is contrary to the position taken by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which does not believe an immigrant's use of health care services such as Medicaid and SCHIP constitutes a violation of these conditions. An immigrant can only become a public charge if they receive direct cash benefits, such as welfare, for their income. Health benefits are expressly removed from this category. During hard economic times, we should give states the ability to remove the restrictive barriers for legal immigrant children and allow them to receive critical health care services. Investing in early health care for all children is sound policy. I support this bill because I believe it is a travesty that in the richest, most powerful, country in the world, there are more than 47 million people without health insurance. That is an absolutely shocking number. It represents roughly one in six people who are going without regular trips to the doctor, forgoing needed medications and are forced to use the emergency room for care because they have no where else to turn. These are our friends, our neighbors, and millions of our children. The legislation before us will extend and renew health care coverage for over 10 million children. After years of increases to the number of uninsured in this country, this is a solid step in the right direction. Our recent economic crisis has left more Americans jobless and without health coverage for themselves and their family members. No one is arguing that this bill is the solution to our health care crisis, but this bill represents significant progress. It covers 4 million more kids and represents the first important step to begin reforming our health care system. In my home State of Vermont, we have been a national leader on children's health care. Even before the creation of CHIP, we knew that this was the right thing to do. Because of our early action, Vermont has one of the lowest rates for uninsured kids in the country. This bill will get us even closer to the goal of covering the thousands of eligible kids in our State who remain uninsured. Further, the provisions in this bill will reverse the Bush administration policies to cut kids off the program and will ensure that thousands of Vermont kids will still have health care. We are faced with many choices here in the Senate. When it comes to our Nation's kids, the choice is clear. This is a must-pass bill that takes important steps to cover all children who deserve to have every opportunity to lead a healthy and productive life. I urge all my colleagues to stand with the children and support this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate on the amendment offered by Senator Martinez to reverse President Obama's decision to overturn the Mexico City policy. I have been struck by the statements of proponents of the amendment that the President's action means Federal funds will now be used for abortions overseas. That is nothing more than a scare tactic and a flagrant misrepresentation of fact. As those who make such statements know well, U.S. law has banned the use of Federal funds for abortion overseas for more than 30 years and that is the law today. Most recently, it can be found in title III of the fiscal year 2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, should they choose to refresh their memories. Whether or not the Martinez amendment passes, no U.S. funds are available for abortion, even in countries where, like the U.S., abortion is legal. The irony of this debate is that the Martinez amendment would prevent funding to private organizations that, thanks to the President's action, would be eligible to receive U.S. funds for contraceptives which prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Yet they claim that unless we pass the Martinez amendment the number of abortions will increase. It is a counterintuitive, disingenuous argument that has been consistently proven to be false. The facts are indisputable. Where family planning services are available, the number of abortions declines. Another false claim by proponents is that unless we pass this amendment U.S. funds will be used to support coercive family planning policies in China. They know that is not true. The Mexico City policy has nothing to do with coercion, pro or con. Another provision, also in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, provides the President with the authority to prohibit funds to any organization that supports coercion. And the law explicitly prohibits the use of U.S. family planning funds in China. The President's action reversing the Mexico City policy does not change that. We all want the number of abortions to decline. But one would hope that even as we disagree on how best to achieve that, those who oppose the President's decision would stick to the facts and not try to distort or misrepresent U.S. law. The Mexico City policy is discriminatory, it would be unconstitutional in our own country, it would deny women in poor countries access to family planning services, and it would increase unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The amendment should be defeated.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 75

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might respond to the distinguished majority leader, my friend from Nevada, if somebody wants to vote against Mr. Holder, let him speak and vote against him. But I do not know, if there are only one or two people who want to hold him up, why should we have to hold it up? We do not have an Attorney General now. We aren't able to put in all the other spots. It is the premier law enforcement office in this country. I would hate to think, over the weekend, we had some major law enforcement crisis. I hope that with a person who has been endorsed by every single law enforcement agency across the spectrum in this country, we could go to him sooner. I am happy to be here Friday. I am happy to be here Saturday if that is what it takes to vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. I understood from my earlier conversation with the distinguished majority leader, and also a conversation with the distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, that once we finish this tomorrow--because of the real need to get somebody in our top law enforcement office, which is a privileged matter--that we would go to the nomination of Eric Holder tomorrow, even if it requires tomorrow evening, and go for a vote. I note he passed after a lengthy time. He has been waiting much longer than the past three Attorneys General did, from the time he was announced to the time he got out of the committee. He passed the committee by 17 to 2 today. I had understood and actually told Mr. Holder and others, based on my conversation with the distinguished leader, that we would go to Mr. Holder tomorrow once this bill was finished.

Mr. LEAHY. I hear the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I was supposed to lead a delegation to Davos, the World Economic Summit. I have canceled that. I am prepared to go. Obviously, the leader is the one who could bring up a privileged matter. I find it very frustrating we are not going to go forward.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, obviously the leader could bring it up any time. If he wants to do it differently than we had discussed earlier, that is his option. I am disappointed. Amendment No. 77

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have all seen the photographs of houses, schools and other civilian infrastructure destroyed in Gaza, and the reports of civilian deaths, including over 400 children, and many thousands more injured. Behind each of these statistics is a story of a family tragedy. I want to take this opportunity to talk about one that has touched the lives of Vermonters, and which should cause each of us deep concern. Amer Shurrab is a recent graduate of Middlebury College, which is located not very far from my home in Vermont. Amer is also a Palestinian, whose family was living in Gaza during the recent Israeli invasion. His father, Muhammed Kassab Shurrah, is a farmer who grows fruits and vegetables on a small plot of land. On January 16, Amer's father and brothers were returning home with provisions from their farm during the 3-hour humanitarian cease-fire that was in effect that day. Although there was apparently no indication that the route was unsafe for a civilian vehicle carrying civilian passengers, Israeli soldiers fired from a civilian house at their car as it passed for reasons that remain unknown. In a panic, Amer's brother, Kassab, already wounded, got out of the vehicle and was shot a total of 18 times and died a short distance away. Israeli bullets also hit Amer's father and younger brother Ibrahim, who were unable to leave the car to get medical attention because Israeli soldiers refused to allow movement in or out of the area. Muhammed tried everything he could to save his son Ibrahim, who was bleeding to death before his eyes. He phoned a hospital with his cell phone, but the hospital told him the Israeli Army was preventing an ambulance from reaching them. He called relatives, who contacted the Red Cross on his behalf to ask for assistance, but the Red Cross had to wait for assurance from Israeli authorities that an ambulance would get through unscathed, assurance which was not forthcoming. He spoke with several members of the press, including the BBC, who even broadcast his plea for help. But an ambulance could not reach them until 22 hours after the incident, even though the hospital was located less than a mile away. By this time, Ibrahim had died in his father's arms. Israeli troops reportedly looked on and ignored Muhammed's pleas for help. This case cries out for an immediate, thorough, credible and transparent investigation by the Israeli Government. Any individuals determined to have violated the laws of war should be prosecuted and appropriately punished. In addition, it is important that the U.S. Embassy determine whether any Israeli soldiers who were equipped by the U.S. violated U.S. laws or agreements governing the use of U.S. equipment, both in relation to this incident and others involving civilian casualties. This should include the use of white phosphorous in heavily populated areas, which is alleged to have caused serious injuries to civilians. Mr. President, this is a heartbreaking story. My thoughts and prayers go out to Amer Shurrab and his family and friends, and to the families of other civilians, Palestinian and Israeli, who died or suffered other grievous losses in this latest escalation of violence.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury. The next Treasury Secretary will face unprecedented challenges as the United States continues to deal with the greatest economic and financial crises since the Great Depression. Not only must the new Secretary oversee an economic recovery at a time when enormous Federal deficits threaten our country's long-term economic outlook, he will have responsibility over the $700 billion Troubled Assets Rescue Program, TARP, to assist struggling homeowners and revitalize our capital markets. While I was extremely disappointed in Mr. Geithner's failure to pay his taxes in a timely manner, I believe that first and foremost we need a Treasury Secretary who is eminently qualified to help steer the country through this difficult period. In my opinion, Mr. Geithner's background as President and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and his previous experience at the Treasury Department has prepared him for this important position. I have many problems with the ways in which the Treasury Department under the previous administration used the TARP funding. After a series of fits and starts, it shifted the intended focus of the program from homeowner relief to financial stabilization. In addition, there have been widespread reports of companies receiving funds and continuing to pay executive bonuses and dividends. Clearly, the Treasury Department has not been as transparent as it should be in detailing how these funds have been spent. I have reviewed Mr. Geithner's testimony before the Finance Committee carefully, and I was pleased to see that he intends to reform the TARP to be more accountable and transparent--and to be more in line with the original intent of alleviating the housing crisis. Proper administration and accounting of the TARP funds is essential for helping facilitate an economic recovery. I expect Mr. Geithner to follow through on these important policy changes on how the TARP funding is distributed in the future. Thus, after weighing all of the various factors, I intend to vote in favor of Mr. Geithner's nomination today. And I wish him well as he undertakes this significant endeavor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

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