Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims Act of 2009 to make urgently needed improvements to the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. The bill makes corrections and improvements so that this law, a law that has helped so many, can continue to serve as a powerful tool to combat domestic violence and other crimes perpetrated against women and families. In introducing this measure, I recognize the leadership shown on these issues by Senator Joe Biden who now serves as our Vice President. Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of the Federal government's commitment to combating domestic violence and other violent crimes against women. Its passage and reauthorization made a strong statement in support of the rights of women in America. This landmark law filled a void in Federal law that had left too many victims of domestic violence and sexual assault without the help they needed. Since the bill's passage, there has been a 27 to 51 percent increase in domestic violence reporting rates by women and a 37 percent increase in reporting rates by men. The number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 24 percent for women and 48 percent for men. I have been proud to work with then-Senator Biden on these matters for the more than 15 years. I look forward to working with the Obama-Biden administration to ensure that this law remains a vital resource for prosecutors, social workers, and all of those committed to ending crimes against women and alleviating the terrible harms that result from these crimes. I crafted the legislation I introduce today with the assistance of advocates and those in the field who work with the Violence Against Women Act every day. It contains changes to VAWA that will improve the law's operation and implementation. I want to thank the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Legal Momentum, and the National Center for Victims of Crime for their assistance with and support for this legislation, and for their tireless work on behalf of women and families in the United States. These groups and others across the country play a crucial role in fulfilling the promise that Congress made with the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act. Among several other fixes, the bill strengthens privacy protections for victims of domestic violence. It contains provisions to ease the burden on victims of domestic violence to obtain public housing benefits. It eliminates an existing loophole that often results in the inappropriate administration of polygraph examinations to victims of terrible crimes. The legislation also contains provisions to strengthen protections in existing law for battered immigrant women. With these important changes to the Violence Against Women Act, Congress will ensure that the law is as effective and strong as it was intended to be and that it can meet the needs of those it seeks to protect as we move forward. I hope all Senators will join in support of this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record,.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims Act of 2009 to make urgently needed improvements to the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. The bill makes corrections and improvements so that this law, a law that has helped so many, can continue to serve as a powerful tool to combat domestic violence and other crimes perpetrated against women and families. In introducing this measure, I recognize the leadership shown on these issues by Senator Joe Biden who now serves as our Vice President. Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of the Federal government's commitment to combating domestic violence and other violent crimes against women. Its passage and reauthorization made a strong statement in support of the rights of women in America. This landmark law filled a void in Federal law that had left too many victims of domestic violence and sexual assault without the help they needed. Since the bill's passage, there has been a 27 to 51 percent increase in domestic violence reporting rates by women and a 37 percent increase in reporting rates by men. The number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 24 percent for women and 48 percent for men. I have been proud to work with then-Senator Biden on these matters for the more than 15 years. I look forward to working with the Obama-Biden administration to ensure that this law remains a vital resource for prosecutors, social workers, and all of those committed to ending crimes against women and alleviating the terrible harms that result from these crimes. I crafted the legislation I introduce today with the assistance of advocates and those in the field who work with the Violence Against Women Act every day. It contains changes to VAWA that will improve the law's operation and implementation. I want to thank the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Legal Momentum, and the National Center for Victims of Crime for their assistance with and support for this legislation, and for their tireless work on behalf of women and families in the United States. These groups and others across the country play a crucial role in fulfilling the promise that Congress made with the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act. Among several other fixes, the bill strengthens privacy protections for victims of domestic violence. It contains provisions to ease the burden on victims of domestic violence to obtain public housing benefits. It eliminates an existing loophole that often results in the inappropriate administration of polygraph examinations to victims of terrible crimes. The legislation also contains provisions to strengthen protections in existing law for battered immigrant women. With these important changes to the Violence Against Women Act, Congress will ensure that the law is as effective and strong as it was intended to be and that it can meet the needs of those it seeks to protect as we move forward. I hope all Senators will join in support of this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record,.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, from the start of his transition to the White House, I have urged President Obama to make a clear commitment to open government. By issuing his directive to strengthen one of our Nation's most important open government laws, the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, the President is turning the page and moving away from the overreaching secrecy of the last administration. I commend President Obama for recognizing that our Government is accountable to the people it represents. I also commend the President for taking immediate steps during his first full days in office to send this important message to the American people. I was delighted with the answer of the President's nominee to be the next Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, when I asked him at his confirmation hearing last week about how he intended to implement the Freedom of Information Act. He, too, believes that the presumption should be toward disclosure and openness. In fact, that was the policy before Attorney General Ashcroft reversed it. Today, our Government is more open and accountable to the American people than it was just a few weeks ago. With the President's new FOIA memorandum, the implementation of the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade in the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act, and the nomination of Eric H. Holder Jr., to be the Attorney General of the United States, the American people have more openness and accountability regarding the activities of the executive branch. I am pleased that the President also issued a Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government that will promote accountability and transparency in government and an Executive Order on Presidential records that will provide the American people with greater access to Presidential records. The right to know is a cornerstone of our democracy. Without it, citizens are kept in the dark about key policy decisions that directly affect their lives. Without open government, citizens cannot make informed choices at the ballot box. Without access to public documents and a vibrant free press, officials can make decisions in the shadows, often in collusion with special interests, escaping accountability for their actions. And once eroded, these rights are hard to win back. The Sunshine in Government Initiative has been vigilant and steadfast on behalf of open government. I have been pleased to work with this coalition of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, National Association of Broadcasters, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Radio-Television News Directors Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Society of Professional Journalists in connection with these initiatives and correcting the government's presumption toward openness. As we celebrate the inauguration of our new President and the start of a new administration, we are reminded that a free, open, and accountable democracy is what our forefathers envisioned and fought to create. I believe that it is the duty of each new generation to protect this vital heritage and inheritance. In this new year, at this new and historic time for our Nation, I am pleased that we have once again reaffirmed a commitment to an open and transparent government on behalf of all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee from Massachusetts. It is interesting, this is the first day after the inauguration of President Barack Obama--my ninth inauguration, by far the most impressive--and I have the great pleasure to speak in support of the confirmation of my friend and colleague, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to be our next Secretary of State. Secretary-designee Clinton's stature, intellect, her experience make her uniquely qualified to take on this role, a role which comes at a critical time in our history. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department and our foreign assistance programs, I look forward to working closely with her and President Obama as they embark on the critical task of restoring America's leadership and image abroad. I appreciate the conversations I have had with both of them in this regard. Some 8 years ago, President Bush inherited a balanced Federal budget. We were actually paying down the national debt. We had the biggest surplus in history. The U.S. economy was strong, and the country was at peace. Now, 8 years later, his successor, President Obama, has inherited from him the largest deficit in our Nation's history, an economic crisis and unemployment rate unlike any this country has experienced since the Great Depression, a budget deficit greater than any nation on Earth has ever had, Osama bin Laden has yet to be captured, more than 180,000 U.S. troops are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process is in shambles, the country is more dependent than ever on foreign oil, and the country's international reputation has been badly damaged as a result of policies that were contemptuous of the values of which this Nation was founded. That is the good news for the new President and the Secretary of State- designee. I do not envy President Obama for the multitude of misguided policies and problems he has inherited, but all the more reason he needs the best men and women to work with him. Secretary of State-designee Clinton is going to serve him and the country well as they take on these challenges. During the election, I remember saying to President Obama that we needed him to reintroduce America to the rest of the world. I have, in conversations with Senator Clinton, told her, what better person to go around the world than Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State to reintroduce America and the great core values of this Nation. What better person to do it than Hillary Clinton? In her confirmation before the Foreign Relations Committee last week, she discussed the need to use ``smart power,'' including ``the full range of tools at our disposal.'' I am glad to see her support for foreign assistance reform. We need that, and we have learned over the past several years we cannot take for granted the unwavering allegiance of any country in the world. We have to work at keeping those relationships. It is not amateur hour, and I appreciate Secretary-designee Clinton's recognition of the value and experience of dedicated international affairs public servants and her plans to support and enhance that capacity. She is going to become immersed in the immensely difficult problems that were ignored or badly mishandled by the outgoing administration: the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Mexico, Somalia and central Africa. All these pose particularly vexing challenges which she has to confront immediately, and the sooner she is there, the better. I will mention a couple of other items. The Federal law prohibiting U.S. assistance to units of foreign security forces that violate human rights was first enacted a dozen years ago. The State Department is still struggling with implementing it, particularly with regard to the monitoring of military equipment provided to foreign governments. This law, known as the Leahy amendment, has been applied unevenly depending on the country, and I urge Secretary-designee Clinton to review the Leahy amendment to ensure its vigorous and consistent implementation. Ten years ago this March, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction came into force. Today, there are 156 countries that have signed this treaty. The most powerful Nation on Earth, the United States, has not. The U.S. military has not used the types of antipersonnel landmines prohibited by the treaty since 1991, and it has no plans to do so. I would urge her to go back to that. Mr. President, like President Obama, Secretary-designee Clinton recognizes the need for strong United States leadership in an increasingly complex, dangerous, and interdependent world. She understands that most global and regional problems cannot be solved by the U.S. alone, that we need to act boldly and change the status quo when it no longer serves our interests or reflects our values, strengthen and expand our alliances, help the poorest countries develop effective and accountable institutions, and pursue policies that enhance our image abroad. Today, as we leave the troubled policies of the past 8 years behind us, the American people should feel fortunate, as I do, that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be our new Secretary of State. I commend the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I will be joining with him proudly to vote for the confirmation of Hillary Rodham Clinton to be our next Secretary of State.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I crafted the Ledbetter matter that is now before the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, am I correct that I was seeking recognition when the Republicans suggested the absence of a quorum, and I was still seeking recognition--

Mr. LEAHY. Again, I object to somebody asking for a quorum call to be placed, Madam President. Perhaps I don't understand the rules after 34 years here, but I was the first one seeking recognition.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as I said when a similar question was propounded by the distinguished Senator from Texas, I wish to speak on the Ledbetter bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I was seeking recognition when the quorum call was put in. I am still seeking recognition. Obviously--well, I would just note that, that I was--

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--and, of course, the Senator from Texas can object and has every right to object--I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue for all of 7 minutes, all on the Ledbetter bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas, and I especially thank my dear friend from Ohio, whom we are going to miss around here. Madam President, I held a hearing at which Miss Lilly Ledbetter testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was one of the most moving hearings we have had. The fact that a very activist, very Republican Supreme Court had basically written new law to deny her rights was shocking to everybody before that committee. I believe we have to pass the bipartisan Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act so employers are not rewarded for deceiving workers about their illegal conduct and maybe signal to the Supreme Court to stop legislating, and stop being an activist Court, but to uphold the law as we write it. One of the Justice Department's roles in our Federal system of government is to protect the civil rights of all Americans, including those that protect them against discrimination. The Bush administration's erosion of longstanding interpretation of our antidiscrimination laws has created a new obstacle for victims of pay discrimination to receive justice. That was a mistake when it was advanced by the Bush-Gonzales et al. Justice Department. It was a mistake when five Justices on the Supreme Court adopted the Justice Department's erroneous interpretation of congressional intent. It culminated in an erroneous opinion written by Justice Alito. I understand the Members on the other side of the aisle introduced partisan amendments to the legislation. They have that right. But it is my belief that the amendments should be opposed for one simple reason: they are going to allow illegal pay discrimination to continue. We are going to hear that this might encourage workers who are being paid less as a result of discrimination to delay filing for equal pay. That argument defies logic. Anyone who heard Ms. Ledbetter's testimony before either the Senate Judiciary Committee or the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee knows that she, like other victims of pay discrimination, had no incentive to delay filing suit. But employers, based on the erroneous interpretation by the Supreme Court, the activist interpretation by the Supreme Court, now have a great incentive to delay revealing their discriminatory conduct: blanket immunity. The reality is, many employers do not allow their employees to learn how their compensation compares to their coworkers'. They can hide it and hide it and hide it until these women finally retire, pray that they never find out how they were discriminated against, and then say when they are found out: Oh, my goodness gracious, you should have filed suit earlier. The fact that we had it all locked up and you couldn't possibly have known you were being discriminated against is your fault. These victims have the burden of proving the discrimination occurred and that evidentiary task is only made more difficult as time goes on. It seems it is always the woman employee's fault. That is wrong. Workers like Ms. Ledbetter and her family are the ones hurt by the ongoing diminished paychecks, not their employers. The bipartisan Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 does not disturb the protections built into existing law for employers, such as limiting backpay in most cases to 2 years. It does not eliminate the existing statute of limitations. Instead, it reinstates the interpretation of when the 180-day time limit begins to run, an interpretation that was run over roughshod by the Bush administration at its urging by their appointees on the Supreme Court. The bill corrects this injustice to allow workers who are continuing to be short-changed to challenge that on-going discrimination when the employer conceals its initial discriminatory pay decision. Opponents of the bipartisan Ledbetter Fair Pay Act may raise other excuses. They will no doubt claim that somehow trial lawyers will benefit, but the reality is the Supreme Court in the Ledbetter decision could actually lead to more litigation because people will feel they have to file premature claims so that time does not run out. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that this legislation ``would not establish a new cause of action for claims of pay discrimination'' and ``would not significantly affect the number of filings with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission'' or with the Federal courts. Congress passed title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin but the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision goes against both the spirit and clear intent of our antidiscrimination laws. It also sends the message to employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one-third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is the only bill that gives workers the time to consider how they have been treated and the time to work out solutions with their employers. Our bipartisan bill fulfills Congress's goal of creating incentives for employers voluntarily to correct any disparities in pay that they find. Most importantly, our bipartisan bill ensures that employers do not benefit from continued discrimination. I will not support amendments that weaken this bipartisan bill. I support the ability of all employees to receive equal pay for equal work. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is the only bill that gives workers the time to consider how they have been treated and the time to work out a solution with their employers. Our bipartisan bill fulfills Congress' goal of creating incentives for employers voluntarily to correct any disparities in pay they find. I am not going to support amendments that weaken this bipartisan bill. I support the ability of all employees to receive equal pay for equal work. It comports completely with what we learned in the Judiciary Committee. I applaud the Senator from Maryland. I applaud her cosponsors. I am proud to be one of them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam Presdient, today, the Judiciary Committee is conducting the confirmation hearing of Mr. Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States. One of the Justice Department's essential roles in our Federal system of government is to protect the civil rights of all Americans, including those that prohibit discrimination. The Bush administration's erosion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's long held interpretation of our discrimination laws has created a new obstacle for victims of pay discrimination to receive justice. The Justice Department has advocated a position that has set back the progress we had made toward eliminating workplace discrimination. This was a mistake. Unfortunately, five Justices on the Supreme Court adopted the Justice Department's erroneous interpretation of congressional intent. That decision necessitates our action here today. We must pass legislation so that employers are not rewarded for deceiving workers about their illegal conduct. Equal pay for equal work should be a given in this country. I expect we will hear from some opponents of the bill that somehow this legislation will encourage workers who are being paid less as a result of discrimination to delay filing suit for equal pay. This argument defies logic. Anyone who heard Lilly Ledbetter's testimony last year before either the Senate Judiciary Committee or the Senate Heath, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee knows that Ms. Ledbetter, like other victims of pay discrimination, have no incentive to delay filing suit. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter, their employers now have a great incentive to delay revealing their discriminatory conduct--blanket immunity. The reality is that many employers do not allow their employees to learn how their compensation compares to their coworkers. Workers like Ms. Ledbetter and their families are the ones hurt by reduced paychecks, not their corporate employers. These victims have the burden of proving the discrimination occurred and that evidentiary task is only made more difficult as time goes on. The bipartisan Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009 does not disturb the protections built into existing law for employers such as limiting back pay in most cases to 2 years. The legislation does not eliminate the existing statute of limitations. Instead, it reinstates the interpretation of when the 180 day time limit begins to run. In this way it allows workers who are continuing to be short-changed to challenge that ongoing discrimination when the employer conceals its initial discriminatory pay decision. Opponents of the Fair Pay Restoration Act will no doubt raise even more absurd reasons for opposing equal pay for equal work. They will no doubt claim that somehow trial lawyers will benefit. The reality is that the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision could actually lead to more litigation because workers will feel the need to file premature claims so that time does not run out. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that this legislation ``would not establish a new cause of action for claims of pay discrimination'' and ``would not significantly affect the number of filings with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission'' or with the Federal courts. Congress passed title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin but the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision goes against both the spirit and clear intent of title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It also sends the message to employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one-third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed. As the executive director of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce recently noted, ``The Fair Pay Restoration Act rewards those who play fair--including women business owners--unlike the Supreme Court's decision, which seems to give an unfair advantage to those who skirt the rules.'' This legislation will encourage all corporations to treat their employees fairly. Unfortunately, this bipartisan civil rights legislation was filibustered in the last Congress. Considering how deeply the recent economic downturn has affected American families, we cannot afford another filibuster of this common sense legislation. I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski, Snowe, Kennedy and others in pressing for the immediate passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we received a report from the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility about their investigation of allegations of politicized hiring and other improper personnel actions in the Civil Rights Division. I held hearings on this situation. At the time, there was a Mr. Bradley Schlozman who testified. I stated, at the time, that I did not find his testimony credible. Today's report confirms some of our worst fears about the Bush administration's political corruption of the Justice Department. Not only did senior Republican appointees violate Federal law by hiring based on politics in the Civil Rights Division, they also lied about it. Indeed, they lied about it under oath when they were called to explain themselves to Congress. I am particularly disturbed about the findings that a senior Justice Department appointee, a very senior Justice Department appointee, Bradley Schlozman, made false statements under oath when appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Lying to Congress undermines the very core of our constitutional principles and blunts the American people's right to open and transparent Government. It is one thing to have a witness come and say they disagree with the Members of Congress. That is fine. Everybody has a constitutional right to do that. Nobody has a right to lie under oath. Nobody has the right to break the law. And certainly a senior member of the Justice Department should not be able to consider himself above the law. Not only did Mr. Schlozman lie to me and the Committee, but he then refused to cooperate with the Justice Department's own internal oversight offices' investigation into illegal hiring practices in the Department's Civil Rights Division. The clear determination that he broke the law corrodes our trust in our system of justice and in the Nation's top law enforcement agency. If somebody can break the law in our Nation's top law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, what does that say to the rest of Americans? His actions, in fact, undermine the very mission of the Department's Civil Rights Division, which is charged with enforcing Federal law and prohibiting discrimination. A strong and independent Civil Rights Division has long been crucial to the enforcement of our precious civil rights laws, and experienced and committed career attorneys have always been the heart and soul of that Division. In the past, the people who worked there, no matter how much time you spent with them, you wouldn't know if they were Republicans or Democrats. All you would know is that these folks, who are among the brightest and best lawyers in the country, are dedicated to serving the United States of America and upholding our laws. Contrary to those traditions, however, which we have had in both Republican and Democratic administrations, this report details troubling revelations of political appointees who marginalize and force out career lawyers because of ideology, and, corrupt the hiring process for career positions. It should come as no surprise that the result, and of course the intent, of this political makeover of the Civil Rights Division has been a dismal--a dismal--civil rights enforcement record. This report is just one of the final chapters in the regrettable legacy of the Bush administration at main Justice, and it reinforces the need for new leadership. Now, more than ever, it is necessary to confirm new leadership at the Justice Department, starting with Attorney General-designee Eric Holder. I compliment the Department's Office of Inspector General. They did not allow politics to stand in their way. They went and investigated this situation. I do wish the current U.S. Attorney's Office, appointed by this administration, had decided to prosecute someone for these deplorable acts. I think the only way you stop such blatant criminal violations, especially by people who know better, people who are sworn to uphold the law, is that they know they will go to jail for breaking the law. That is what should have been done. They broke the law in the Bush administration, and the Bush administration decided not to prosecute, and I think that raises real questions. Prosecution should be done no matter who breaks the law. I recall one of the people who testified in that same investigation who said: We swear an oath to President George Bush. I said: No, you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Mr. President, that Constitution is the Constitution you are sworn to uphold and I am sworn to uphold. It is a Constitution that reflects all Americans. The Government is not of a person; indeed, whether you support an individual or not, the Government is for all Americans. The Constitution is for all Americans. When somebody deliberately, purposely, sets out to subvert the Constitution of the United States and then lies about it--lies about it, Mr. President--I find that a heinous crime. When we see some child who steals a car, they will be prosecuted, as probably they should. But when you have a key member of the Department of Justice who lies under oath, who subverts the Constitution of the United States, that is all the more reason to prosecute that person. What Mr. Schlozman did was reprehensible, it was disgusting, and it was wrong, but it also contradicts the very core of America's principles. The distinguished Presiding Officer, like me, had the great opportunity to serve as a prosecutor, and I have every reason to believe he did not show fear or favor when he brought a prosecution, as I did not. I did not show fear or favor. Most prosecutors do not. Yet here we have somebody who is part of the Justice Department lie under oath and do it in a way to cover up and subvert the very laws that protect all of us. Our civil rights laws are on the books to protect all of us. It protects all of us--White, Black, brown--no matter what our race, our creed. It protects all of us. What has marked this country since the time I was a young lawyer in the 1960s has been our adherence to those civil rights laws. We can't go back to a time where they are enforced for some and not for others. Mr. President, I hope people read--I will not put it in the Record because it is available--this investigation of allegations of politicized hirings and other improper political actions in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. It is chilling. I am going to suggest that every new person coming into the Department of Justice read this investigation. It is a handbook--not of what to do-- but a handbook of what not to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is reserved for this side of the aisle?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, my good friend from Montana.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders, to introduce a bill that will help states struggling with meeting non-federal match requirements for federal transportation funding under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, SAFETEA. Representative Peter Welch from Vermont introduced identical legislation in the House today as well. Our States are struggling with enormous budget deficits due to the current economic crisis. As a result, nearly every one of our states has been forced to make drastic cuts to their transportation budgets. On top of that, state and local governments around the country report they do not have the necessary funding in their budgets to match any new Federal transportation money possibly forthcoming in an economic stimulus package. The inability of our states to improve roads and bridges, support public transit agencies facing record demand, and upgrade rail lines puts a strain on our already sagging economy. Waiving the non-federal match requirements for all highway, transit, and rail projects contained in SAFETEA would allow cash-strapped states to implement high priority transportation projects immediately--at no additional cost to the Federal Government. Since State and local transportation officials have ready-to-go projects that simply cannot move forward without untying the strings of the required match, our legislation would waive the non-federal matching requirements of SAFETEA through September 30, 2009. I hope my colleagues will take a good look at our bill and support this important legislation that will stimulate needed transportation infrastructure investments all across the country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders, to introduce a bill that will help states struggling with meeting non-federal match requirements for federal transportation funding under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, SAFETEA. Representative Peter Welch from Vermont introduced identical legislation in the House today as well. Our States are struggling with enormous budget deficits due to the current economic crisis. As a result, nearly every one of our states has been forced to make drastic cuts to their transportation budgets. On top of that, state and local governments around the country report they do not have the necessary funding in their budgets to match any new Federal transportation money possibly forthcoming in an economic stimulus package. The inability of our states to improve roads and bridges, support public transit agencies facing record demand, and upgrade rail lines puts a strain on our already sagging economy. Waiving the non-federal match requirements for all highway, transit, and rail projects contained in SAFETEA would allow cash-strapped states to implement high priority transportation projects immediately--at no additional cost to the Federal Government. Since State and local transportation officials have ready-to-go projects that simply cannot move forward without untying the strings of the required match, our legislation would waive the non-federal matching requirements of SAFETEA through September 30, 2009. I hope my colleagues will take a good look at our bill and support this important legislation that will stimulate needed transportation infrastructure investments all across the country.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, S. Res. 10, the resolution that was adopted today reaffirming U.S. support for Israel, is factually accurate. No one here doubts our commitment to Israel's security or Israel's right to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks. But the resolution, unfortunately, presents an incomplete response to the situation in Gaza. With so much at stake for the United States, for Israel and for the world, we owe the American people and all concerned a clear-eyed, forthright and constructive discussion of such vital matters as these. Hamas's unilateral decision to break the cease-fire was deplorable. It is clear that rather than work for peace, Hamas used the cease-fire to amass more powerful and longer range weapons. Its actions should be universally condemned, and they will achieve nothing positive for the cause of the Palestinian people. Those who have collaborated in supplying weapons that are being used to terrorize and harm innocent civilians in Israel are complicit in the suffering and destruction that has occurred on both sides. For its part, Israel used the cease-fire to pressure Hamas through a blockade that, in the absence of a long-term strategy, has caused extreme hardship for the Palestinian people collectively in Gaza but done nothing to change Hamas's militant policies. The blockade was not coupled with an effective strategy to address the underlying causes of the conflict. In the past 14 days, according to the United Nations, 758 Palestinians have died, including 257 children, as a result of Israel's military operations, and thousands more have been injured. Palestinian homes, schools and other civilian infrastructure have been demolished. Among Israelis, three civilians have been killed, and seven soldiers have died. Israeli homes have also been badly damaged from Hamas rocket fire. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency, which is the principal humanitarian organization functioning in Gaza, suspended its operations earlier today due to risks to the safety of its personnel as a result of Israeli attacks which killed two of its workers and injured one. As has been said here repeatedly, Israel has the right to defend itself. And I have no doubt that the Israeli Defense Forces, using powerful weapons supplied by the United States, can achieve tactical victories in Gaza by damaging Hamas's military capabilities. But the right response is one that will, over the long term, make Israel more secure, and that will be achieved only when Israel is accepted by its neighbors. Those of us who have long worked to support Israel should not lose sight of this crucial goal and this bigger picture. This escalation will, I fear, have the opposite effect. The widening use of force has implications for Israel's long-term security that should concern each of us. This approach may increase support among Palestinians for Hamas as well as anger and resentment toward Israel and the United States within Arab countries and around the world. Israel seeks to deal a fatal blow to Hamas militants, to bomb them into submission and moderation. If our country were attacked in a similar way by one of our neighbors we might respond the same way. But there is little if any reason to believe these tactics can work. This latest escalation, with bombs falling and tank artillery striking in heavily populated areas where civilians--more than half of whom are children--have no means of escape, obviously and tangibly is providing ammunition to extremists, inside and outside of Gaza. And in doing so it increases the dangers to both soldiers and civilians--Israeli and Palestinian--and of miring Israel in an open-ended mission in Gaza resulting in far more destruction and loss of innocent life than we have seen so far. Ultimately, extremism is what has hindered a political resolution that ends this conflict with two secure states living side by side. There are some who may argue that the collapse of the recent cease- fire proves that Hamas will only respond to force. Hamas has abused the cease-fire, but that is not the only lesson from the collapse. Any clear-eyed analysis will show that a cease-fire cannot succeed--indeed, it will be exploited by Israel's enemies--if it is treated as an end in itself instead of as an opportunity to materially improve the humanitarian situation and to undertake serious negotiations to end the conflict. There are broadly acknowledged immediate steps that must be taken: put a meaningful ceasefire in place, stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, and open crossings into Gaza to facilitate the flow of licit goods and services. But beyond that, history has shown that absent an inclusive, diplomatic process that effectively addresses the core interests of both Israelis and Palestinians, the cycle of violence will continue. Preconditions are an obstacle to that process in the Middle East as much as they were for another seemingly intractable conflict, in Northern Ireland. Others have asked these questions, which are worth repeating: Does the Gaza war improve Israel's long-term, or even short-term, security? Was it realistic and in Israel's long-term interests to expect Hamas to accept Israel in advance of negotiations, rather than push for a total cessation of the use of violence and blockade, followed by negotiations? Was it realistic to expect the ceasefire to hold while Gaza remained under siege, rife with hunger, illness, joblessness, and hopelessness, and while construction of settlements continued, and even accelerated, in the West Bank? On January 6, Secretary of State Rice spoke to the U.N. Security Council. I do not doubt the sincerity of her concern with the humanitarian situation in Gaza, or for the need for a ceasefire ``that can endure and bring real security.'' We all want that. But her words were noteworthy for what they said about the dismal failure of the Bush administration's approach to the Middle East conflict. Eight years were squandered and mishandled, and President-elect Obama faces a far more difficult situation than his predecessor inherited. Our credibility in the entire world has suffered immeasurably since 9/11. In particular our image in predominantly Muslim countries has been affected by the failure to advance a credible strategy to help resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This has pronounced and obvious implications for our security, for Israel's security, and for the entire Middle East region. At this time of great opportunity in America to change our policies and make a true contribution to peace in the Middle East, we should be careful when we adopt resolutions on subjects as sensitive as this to be cognizant of the history of the region and the complexities of the situation. Above all, our goal should be to enhance our role as a force for peace and our ability to advance our Nation's interests.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski, Kennedy, Snowe and others in introducing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009. This legislation is long overdue and I am pleased that the majority leader will try again to move this legislation in the opening days of this new Congress. The Supreme Court's divided decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our country. More than 40 years ago, Congress acted to protect women and others against discrimination in the workplace. In the 21st century, equal pay for equal work should be a given in this country. Unfortunately, the reality is still far from this basic principle. American women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a male counterpart. That decreases to 62 cents on the dollar for African-American women and just 53 cents on the dollar for Hispanic-American women. For nearly 20 years, Ms. Ledbetter was a manager at a Goodyear factory in Gadsden, Alabama. After decades of service, she learned through an anonymous note that her employer had been discriminating against her for years. She was the only woman among 16 employees at her management level, yet Ms. Ledbetter was paid between 15 and 40 percent less than all of her male colleagues, including several who had significantly less seniority. After filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found that Ms. Ledbetter was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, 5 members of the Supreme Court overturned her jury verdict because she had filed her lawsuit more than 180 days after her employer's original discriminatory act. I was honored to invite Ms. Ledbetter to testify at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in September to examine how the Supreme Court's recent decisions have affected the lives of ordinary Americans. Ms. Ledbetter's case is but one example of how the Supreme Court has dramatically misinterpreted the intent of Congress and offered a liability shield to corporate wrong-doers. This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to overturn juries who hear the factual evidence and decide cases. A recent study revealed that in employment discrimination cases, Federal courts of appeal are 5 times more likely to overturn an employee's favorable trial verdict against an employer than they are to overturn a verdict in favor of the corporation. That is a startling disparity for those of us who expect employees and employers to be treated fairly by the judges sitting on our appellate courts. In the 110th Congress, the House passed the bipartisan Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 225-199. In the Senate, despite the support of 57 Senators who urged its consideration, the majority of Republican Senators objected to even proceeding to consideration of this bipartisan measure. One Republican Senator who supported the filibuster introduced an alternative bill, claiming to offer a solution for victims of pay discrimination. In reality, that partisan alternative proposal would fail to correct the injustice created by the Ledbetter decision. At the Judiciary Committee hearing in September, Ms. Ledbetter confirmed that the alternative bill would not have remedied her case, but instead would have imposed additional burdens and increased the costs of her litigation. Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin-- however the Supreme Court's cramped interpretation of this important law contradicts Congress's intent to ensure equal pay for equal work. This Supreme Court decision goes against both the spirit and clear intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and sends the message to employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one-third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed by employers. Equal pay is not just a women's issue, it is a family issue. With a record 70.2 million women in the workforce, wage discrimination continues to hurt the majority of American families. As a working mother, the discrimination inflicted on Ms. Ledbetter affected her entire family and continues to affect her retirement benefits. As the economy continues to worsen, many Americans are struggling to put food on the table and money in their retirement funds. It is regrettable that recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court and Federal appellate courts have contributed to the financial struggles of so many women and their families. In the next weeks, I hope we can act to overturn the wrongly-decided Ledbetter decision to prevent the devastating consequences of pay discrimination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski, Kennedy, Snowe and others in introducing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009. This legislation is long overdue and I am pleased that the majority leader will try again to move this legislation in the opening days of this new Congress. The Supreme Court's divided decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our country. More than 40 years ago, Congress acted to protect women and others against discrimination in the workplace. In the 21st century, equal pay for equal work should be a given in this country. Unfortunately, the reality is still far from this basic principle. American women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a male counterpart. That decreases to 62 cents on the dollar for African-American women and just 53 cents on the dollar for Hispanic-American women. For nearly 20 years, Ms. Ledbetter was a manager at a Goodyear factory in Gadsden, Alabama. After decades of service, she learned through an anonymous note that her employer had been discriminating against her for years. She was the only woman among 16 employees at her management level, yet Ms. Ledbetter was paid between 15 and 40 percent less than all of her male colleagues, including several who had significantly less seniority. After filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found that Ms. Ledbetter was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, 5 members of the Supreme Court overturned her jury verdict because she had filed her lawsuit more than 180 days after her employer's original discriminatory act. I was honored to invite Ms. Ledbetter to testify at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in September to examine how the Supreme Court's recent decisions have affected the lives of ordinary Americans. Ms. Ledbetter's case is but one example of how the Supreme Court has dramatically misinterpreted the intent of Congress and offered a liability shield to corporate wrong-doers. This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to overturn juries who hear the factual evidence and decide cases. A recent study revealed that in employment discrimination cases, Federal courts of appeal are 5 times more likely to overturn an employee's favorable trial verdict against an employer than they are to overturn a verdict in favor of the corporation. That is a startling disparity for those of us who expect employees and employers to be treated fairly by the judges sitting on our appellate courts. In the 110th Congress, the House passed the bipartisan Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 225-199. In the Senate, despite the support of 57 Senators who urged its consideration, the majority of Republican Senators objected to even proceeding to consideration of this bipartisan measure. One Republican Senator who supported the filibuster introduced an alternative bill, claiming to offer a solution for victims of pay discrimination. In reality, that partisan alternative proposal would fail to correct the injustice created by the Ledbetter decision. At the Judiciary Committee hearing in September, Ms. Ledbetter confirmed that the alternative bill would not have remedied her case, but instead would have imposed additional burdens and increased the costs of her litigation. Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin-- however the Supreme Court's cramped interpretation of this important law contradicts Congress's intent to ensure equal pay for equal work. This Supreme Court decision goes against both the spirit and clear intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and sends the message to employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one-third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed by employers. Equal pay is not just a women's issue, it is a family issue. With a record 70.2 million women in the workforce, wage discrimination continues to hurt the majority of American families. As a working mother, the discrimination inflicted on Ms. Ledbetter affected her entire family and continues to affect her retirement benefits. As the economy continues to worsen, many Americans are struggling to put food on the table and money in their retirement funds. It is regrettable that recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court and Federal appellate courts have contributed to the financial struggles of so many women and their families. In the next weeks, I hope we can act to overturn the wrongly-decided Ledbetter decision to prevent the devastating consequences of pay discrimination.

Mr. LEAHY

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, January 8, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Lessons from the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, January 8, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.