Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I regret to have to inform the Senate of the passing of a truly great American: John W. Ripley, a retired Marine Corps colonel and hero of the Vietnam war. Colonel Ripley will be best known for his achievements and self- sacrifice during the Vietnam war--particularly on April 2, 1972, when he singlehandedly blew up the Dong Ha bridge. That bridge over the Cua Viet River was a major thoroughfare for an invasion force from North Vietnam. Colonel Ripley, serving with a marine unit from South Vietnam, moved around the bridge like it was a trapeze and hung charges that would blow it up and prevent the enemy's advance. That story is the subject of innumerable books and articles. It is an absolutely incredible feat, showing us how an act of individual bravery can have a large strategic impact that affects an entire force. Indeed, the removal of that bridge created a bottleneck that allowed allied forces to apply overwhelming air power and blunt that invasion. After Vietnam, Colonel Ripley had a distinguished career that included going through some of the most challenging training programs among the world's militaries, including U.S. Army Ranger School. In his willingness to undergo the ardors of combat and training, he emerged a marine's marine, a steely and strong individual always ready to put his country and his fellow marines before himself. John Ripley is a symbol for the vibrancy of the Marine Corps, one of the most storied military forces in the globe's history, and a testament to how--amid the enormity and vast confusion of war--a single person can make a difference. I will miss seeing him at various events, including those of the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. We will continue to honor his service through support of the Marine Corps and of all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. I ask unanimous consent that an obituary on Colonel Ripley, which appeared in the November 4 edition of the New York Times, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, last week, I joined Senator Cardin and Senators Specter, and others in sending a letter to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, in an effort to preserve the viability of the Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account program, IOLTA. We have asked the FDIC to ensure that the Transaction Account Guarantee Program, TGLP, through which the FDIC guarantees funds in bank accounts, will also cover lawyer trust accounts. The IOLTA program, which distributes interest on client funds held in lawyer trust accounts to legal aid programs, has been an enormous success in securing legal representation for lower-income Americans. All 50 States have IOLTA programs, and many States mandate participation by practicing attorneys. This program provides funding to important legal aid programs and helps ensure that no person goes without legal representation because of a lack of resources. Our concern stems from the fact that the TGLP Interim Rule concerning account insurance issued on October 23 would not extend unlimited FDIC insurance to interest bearing lawyer trust accounts, ultimately hurting the public benefit generated by these accounts. According to the FDIC's proposed rules for the TGLP, noninterest-bearing accounts would be insured to protect an unlimited amount of funds. But the insurance for interest-bearing accounts would be limited to $250,000. The lack of an exception for lawyer trust accounts threatens the IOLTA program because it poses a potential conflict for attorneys. Many lawyer trust accounts contain pooled client funds, often in excess of $250,000. As a result of the FDIC's proposed rules, there is legitimate concern that attorneys would move client funds in excess of $250,000 to noninterest- bearing accounts in order to gain the insurance protection, and in an effort to manage client funds as responsibly as possible. This potential ethical dilemma could be prevented by a modification of the proposed rules. Senator Cardin, Senator Specter, and I have suggested to the FDIC that it modify its proposed rules to make an exception for lawyer trust accounts and provide unlimited insurance on interest bearing accounts containing client funds. This would be an important step towards preserving the success of the IOLTA program, and would remove any potential ethical dilemma for attorneys. Such a modification would ensure that the interest generated by IOLTA accounts continues to be distributed through local nonprofit organizations in each State to fund invaluable legal aid services for low-income families. I am hopeful that the FDIC will recognize the national importance and success of this program, and will create the exception we have proposed. I would like to particularly thank the Vermont Bar Association for its advocacy in this regard, as well as the American Bar Association for its attention to this issue. Legal representation for everyone is an imperative for a fair and effective judicial system. The IOLTA program has been successful in helping to ensure legal representation for more Americans, and where these goals can be accomplished without the use of tax dollars, such a program should be preserved.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have long been a champion of the intellectual property rights enshrined in the Constitution, and have sponsored much of the significant legislation in that realm over the decades I have served in the Senate. On October 24, 2008, Judge Richard Linn of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court entrusted exclusively with Federal appeals involving patent issues, gave the keynote address before the American Intellectual Property Law Association's annual meeting. In that address, Judge Linn discusses the challenges facing the intellectual property system in the coming years, offers advice on moving forward as a nation to meet those challenges, and provides food for thought for anyone interested in this important part of our national economy. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Judge Richard Linn from October 24, 2008, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I would like to share with my friends in the Senate a great story of personal triumph and success as told by Vermont Supreme Court Associate Justice Marilyn Skoglund, the keynote speaker for Vermont's 12th Annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference. Marilyn forged her own remarkable path to success. She received her bachelor's degree in fine arts from Southern Illinois University, and after moving to Vermont, passed the bar exam on her first try all while raising her 7-year-old daughter. Marilyn continued to rise through the ranks of the Vermont Office of the Attorney General where she served as both chief of the civil law division and chief of the public protection division before her appointment in 1994 to the district court, and subsequently the Vermont Supreme Court in 1997. In addition to her accomplishments, Marcelle and I admired Marilyn's candidness as she walked us through her journey. She offered more than 300 Vermont women a very honest and inspirational perspective on the realities of balancing both a career and a family. Marcelle and I have hosted the Vermont Women's Economic Opportunity Conference for 12 years, and we look forward to attending each year because we consider it one of the most important events in which we take part. Though our economy may be facing difficult challenges, this year's conference, and Marilyn's story, showed that adversity can be overcome and met with great success--especially by motivated and talented women of all ages. Vermont's economic future depends on the countless talented women who drive it. According to the Vermont Center for Women's Business Studies, women-owned firms generate an impressive $1.5 billion annually and currently employ more than 35,000 Vermonters. In 2006, approximately 39 percent of all Vermont businesses were owned, or partially owned, by women. Even though the number of Vermont women-owned businesses is on the rise, we must continue working to encourage greater growth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Justice Skoglund's speech, written for Vermont's 12th annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference, detailing her journey to success, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight an emerging rural economic model that some say serves as the perfect example of how rural America can survive and thrive in today's global markets. My good friend Marian Burros recently wrote an article in the New York Times highlighting the sustainable agricultural economy of Hardwick, VT, and Hardwick's surrounding communities. These Northeast Kingdom communities have begun attracting the attention of local, regional and national media after the area began attracting some unique characters with great ideas. From a community-owned restaurant to renowned cheese makers, Hardwick and its surrounding towns are at the center of an experiment in social agricultural entrepreneurship. I ask unanuimous consent that the text of Marian Burros October 8, 2008, New York Times article entitled ``Uniting Around Food to Save an Ailing Town'' be printed in the Record to allow my colleagues an opportunity to hear about the future of Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to no one in my support of the freedoms set out in the first amendment to the Constitution, and I have devoted considerable time and energy to their protection and preservation. On October 21, 2008, I enjoyed a very special evening honoring Peter Chernin, the CEO of Fox News, and a man who shares my belief in the need to vigorously defend the first amendment. That night, I congratulated Peter on receiving the Media Institute's First Amendment Award, an award that he richly deserved for his stand against rigid and unyielding application of so-called indecency rules at the Federal Communications Commission. I believe that his words in defense of the first amendment should be heard and heeded by all Americans, not just by those who were fortunate enough to attend that event. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Peter Chernin from October 21, 2008, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the very beginning of the 110th Congress, I joined with Senators Reid, Specter, Feinstein, and Cornyn to pass legislation to authorize a cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for the salaries of U.S. Justices and judges for fiscal year 2007. Now as we wrap up this session, we are again compelled to take remedial action, because a COLA for our Federal judiciary was not included in the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2009. Earlier today, we attempted to pass a bipartisan bill to repeal the section of the U.S. Code that is a barrier to Federal judges receiving an automatic cost-of-living adjustment. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts notes that when adjusted for inflation the pay rate for Federal judges has declined by 25 percent since 1969. In 1975, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, intended to give judges, Members of Congress, and other high-ranking executive branch officials automatic COLAs as accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. However, in 1981, Congress enacted section 140 of Public Law 97-92, mandating specific congressional action to give COLAs to judges. This action has resulted in judges failing to receive a cost-of-living adjustment when other Federal employees have received one. Unfortunately, there was an objection on the other side of the aisle that prevented passage of the measure to repeal this antiquated section and to ensure that the wages of our Federal judges can keep up with inflation. The bipartisan legislation we are now trying to move provides a COLA for Federal judges consistent with the law and with fairness. I hope that this measure, providing judges with a COLA for fiscal year 2009, can pass by both sides of the aisle by unanimous consent. I had sincerely hoped that we could have passed a more comprehensive judicial pay bill this Congress given all the work we dedicated to the issue in the Judiciary Committees of both the Senate and the House of Representatives but at a minimum we should not allow judicial salaries to slip even further behind.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to call attention to the recent action of the Government of Indonesia to preserve the endangered rain forests an ecosystems of Sumatra. On October 10, 2008, the Indonesian Government, in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund, WWF, announced an agreement between the 10 provincial governors of Sumatra to protect biodiversity on the world's sixth largest island. Although long overdue, this is an important first step towards conservation of a unique habitat at a critical time. Sumatra is the only place on Earth where tigers, elephants, rhinos, and orangutans co-exist. It has also gained a reputation for having lost almost half of its natural forest cover since 1985. The rapid expansion of palm oil and pulpwood plantations, as well as rampant illegal logging, have been largely to blame. These activities have contributed to the precipitous decline in numbers of these endangered species, whose habitat has become a patchwork of disconnected small parcels of forest. This action to protect the forests is important not only for Indonesia but for the rest of the world. Thirteen percent of Indonesia's remaining forests grow on peat soil, which emits large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when trees are felled. Further destruction of these forests will contribute to global warming at a time when we should be doing everything possible to reduce greenhouse gases. This agreement represents a significant change of attitude and policy, for which President Yudhoyono and his government deserve credit. Implementing the agreement will be difficult, requiring additional resources for alternative economic opportunities for people living in these areas, and for enforcement, and I urge the U.S. Agency for International Development and other donors to support it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as Chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I want to take a moment to speak about the budget of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC. The fiscal year 2009 State and Foreign Operations bill, reported by the Appropriations Committee on July 18, 2008, recommends $254 million for the MCC. Since this is substantially less than the $2 billion requested by the President, it was predictable that the Senate committee's action would cause concerns among the MCC and many of its supporters, as well as governments that seek MCC funding. Those concerns have been expressed and I want to address them briefly today. While differences are inevitable in the legislative process, it is important that such differences not be based on a misunderstanding or confusion about the facts. During the past several months, I have heard that some of those who have complained about the Senate committee's action have suggested that it was motivated by an antipathy towards the MCC and a desire to close it down or dramatically curtail its functions. That is incorrect. To begin with, we have commended the MCC for what it has accomplished since its inception 4 years ago. Several compacts are beginning to show tangible results, including the implementation of agriculture, infrastructure and other projects. Ambassador John Danilovich, the MCC's CEO, has been a strong leader at a critical time, and I commend him as well as deputy CEO Rodney Bent. They have both done a fine job of representing the MCC, both here and abroad. Earlier this year, when the subcommittee was dividing up funds allocated to State and Foreign Operations, we faced many difficult choices. Our fiscal year 2009 allocation was $2 billion below the President's budget request, and the President underfunded or failed to fund many critical programs of interest to both Democrats and Republicans. For example, he cut funding for family planning/ reproductive health by over $100 million below the fiscal year 2008 level. He cut the U.S. contribution to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria by $350 million. He shortchanged humanitarian relief programs, peacekeeping, democracy programs, environment and energy programs. There are many other examples. We also considered the fact that Congress had appropriated $7.5 billion for the MCC, and by July 18 only $235 million had been disbursed of which a significant portion was for administrative expenses. While we made clear that we were not advocating faster disbursements, we do not support additional compacts until more of the funds we have already appropriated produce sustainable results. Many compacts were slow getting off of the ground, in some cases because the MCC rightly insisted that governments make further refinements, or because the contracting process took longer than expected. These kinds of delays are predictable and do not reflect poorly on the MCC. Unfortunately, I have heard that some MCC personnel in country are being urged to disburse funds more quickly. As we have said before, this is not our intent, particularly if it risks short- cutting procurement guidelines or other safeguards, or otherwise negatively affects the quality of implementation of compacts. I do not know what the optimal rate of disbursement is for the MCC. It may be disbursing funds at the right rate. By pointing out the rate of disbursement the committee has simply sought to explain why, in part, we are unable to support hundreds of millions of dollars for new compacts when compacts that are several years old have only disbursed a fraction of their funds. More time is required to review the effectiveness of the 18 compacts that already exist. I am told that the MCC's board of directors will meet in December to discuss which additional countries will be eligible to apply for compact funding in fiscal year 2009. Since we will not have a final fiscal year 2009 funding level for the MCC until late January at the earliest, I urge board members to act judiciously and to keep in mind that eligibility does not assure that a compact will be funded. The many competing demands placed on the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill will only increase over the next few years, given the global financial crisis, which will have direct and indirect consequences for the world's poorest countries. We also expect to be asked to increase funding for international HIV/AIDS programs due to the recent PEPFAR reauthorization. The MCC is a new and innovative form of assistance, and we want it to succeed. I was involved in drafting the authorizing legislation that established the MCC, and I have said many times that I strongly support the concept of providing governments with incentives to combat corruption, improve governance, and address the basic needs of their people. If the MCC shows that it can achieve the results we all want, it could become a model for other forms of foreign assistance. But we cannot ignore other pressing short-term and long-term needs. Some have claimed that not providing another billion dollars for the MCC in fiscal year 2009 will delay progress toward long-term development goals. I would argue that funding to address the acute personnel shortages at the Department of State and USAID, which the President's budget largely ignores, is a priority for effective U.S. diplomacy and development assistance programs now and in the future. It is also notable that a number of governments that were awarded compacts are not performing as expected. According to the 2009 Country Scorecard Index, 5 of the 8 MCC lower middle income countries that have compacts have failed 8 of 17 indicators. Similarly, with the reports of systemic voter fraud in the recent Nicaraguan elections, I am concerned that President Ortega's government may have jeopardized the MCC compact in that country. The future of the MCC is now up to the Obama administration, and I expect President-elect Obama will explore all options for how the MCC should by managed and implemented, as he will for other Federal programs. However, before major adjustments, if any, take place, Congress has to finish the remaining fiscal year 2009 spending bills. Senator Gregg and I will be working with our colleagues in the House. There are several areas in the State and Foreign Operations bill where the Senate and House positions differ, and the MCC is one obvious example. Until then, I would encourage those who care about the MCC, as many of us do, to focus on ensuring that funds already appropriated are used effectively.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the great achievements of a wonderful Vermont businessman, Bob Miller, president of R.E.M. Development Company in Williston. Bobby started R.E.M. Development in 1984, and over the last quarter century, the company has grown to become one of Vermont's largest commercial real estate developers. While it is hard to travel around Vermont without running into one of Bobby's projects, his lifelong commitment to bettering his community is both admirable and commendable. Bobby recently received two special awards for his outstanding business practices and devotion to the community. Citing ``their determination, success, and philanthropy,'' the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce honored R.E.M. Development as its 2008 Large Business of the Year. In addition, saying that Bobby ``typifies the true spirit of service and self-sacrifice in representing the finest ideals of Vermont citizenship,'' the Vermont Chamber of Commerce presented him with its 2008 Citizen of the Year Award. I congratulate Bobby and R.E.M. Development for both of these well-deserved achievements. I ask unanimous consent to have a November 17, 2008, Burlington Free Press article about Bobby Miller's successful career printed in the Record so all Senators can read about a prosperous Vermont businessman who continually gives back to his community.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate confirmed five more executive nominations that were reported by the Judiciary Committee, including the nomination of Greg Garre to be Solicitor General of the United States, one of the highest and most prestigious positions at the Department of Justice. The nominations considered today also include Jeffrey Leigh Sedgwick to run the Department's Office of Justice Programs, George W. Venables to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of California, Brian Albritton to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, and another that I have agreed to discharge from Committee: Dennis Michael Klein to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Kentucky. I thank Senator Kennedy for his expedited consideration of Mr. Klein's nomination. He has long been focused on maintaining the qualifications of those appointed to be U.S. Marshals. We tried as well to move forward with the President's nominations to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and the Sentencing Commission, but Republican holds prevented us from making progress and confirming President Bush's nominees to those important posts. After today's confirmations, we have confirmed 40 executive nominations this Congress, including the confirmations of 13 U.S. attorneys, 9 U.S. marshals, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, another Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and Solicitor General. Eighteen of those nominations will have been confirmed this year alone, despite this being a Presidential election year. Of course, we have considered these executive nominations while simultaneously moving forward with the confirmation of dozens of President Bush's judicial nominations. I have spoken many times about the partisan actions of the Republican-led Senate that created a judicial vacancies crisis by not considering circuit court nominees in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Those years included the congressional session in the 1996 Presidential election year, when the Republican Senate majority confirmed only 17 judicial nominations and refused to allow the Senate to confirm even one circuit court judge. That same presidential election year the Republicans confirmed just four of President Clinton's executive nominees. By comparison, with today's confirmations, we have confirmed 18 of President Bush's. As we prepare to close this Congress, I thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for the tireless work that resulted in the confirmation of 68 of President Bush's nominees to lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. This work was all the more impressive because of the time and effort we devoted to rebuilding and restoring the Department of Justice after years of scandals led to the resignations of the Department's entire senior leadership. At the beginning of this Congress, the Judiciary Committee began its oversight efforts. Those efforts revealed a Department of Justice gone awry. The leadership crisis came more and more into view as I led a bipartisan group of concerned Senators to consider the U.S. attorney firing scandal, a confrontation over the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, the untoward political influence of the White House at the Department of Justice, and the secret legal memos excusing all manner of excess and subverting the rule of law. What our efforts exposed was a crisis of leadership that took a heavy toll on the tradition of independence that has long guided the Justice Department and provided it with safe harbor from political interference. It shook the confidence of the American people. Through bipartisan efforts among those from both sides of the aisle who care about Federal law enforcement and the Department of Justice, we joined together to press for accountability. After we exposed and uncovered the abuses at the Department, we referred a number of matters to the Department's Inspector General, OIG, and Office of Professional Responsibility, OPR, for further investigation. The three reports we have now received from those internal investigations have confirmed the worst of our findings and our fears. The first two reports confirmed what the Judiciary Committee uncovered about the politicization of hiring practices at the Department. They confirmed that the same senior Department officials involved with the firing of United States Attorneys were injecting improper political motives into the process of hiring attorneys for career positions throughout the Department, from career prosecutors, to immigration judges, to young attorneys through the Department's prestigious honors program. Just this week, OIG and OPR issued a third report, this one validating our findings about the improper and unprecedented firing of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. These findings add up to another disturbing report card on the conduct of the Gonzales Justice Department. This report confirms that the two most senior officials at the Department of Justice--Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty--``abdicated their responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the Department by failing to ensure that the removal of U.S. Attorneys was not based on improper political considerations.'' It confirms what I have said all along--the responsibility for this debacle was not the work of a few bad apples, as Attorney General Mukasey, former Attorney General Gonzales have suggested. Responsibility rests at the top, and at the White House. This report might have told us even more if the investigation had not been impeded by the Bush administration's refusal to cooperate and provide documents and witnesses. In this debacle as in others, the Bush administration's self-serving secrecy has shrouded many of their most controversial policies--from torture, to investigating the causes of 9/ 11, to wiretapping. The evidence in our investigation and in reports from the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility shows that Karl Rove and others from the highest ranks of the White House were involved in the firings and focused on the political impact of Federal prosecutions. The White House should not be allowed to hide from accountability. Even though it has been clear for a long time that Attorney General Gonzales allowed politics to permeate the Department's ranks, he continues to try to avoid accountability. He has provided the Inspector General the same response he gave so frequently to Congress: I don't recall. The threads of secrecy of this administration--from the White House to the Executive agencies--will continue to unravel for years to come. When this investigation was handed over to a Federal criminal prosecutor recently to determine whether there was criminal wrongdoing, I warned the President that the American people will see any use of the pardon power or any grant of clemency or immunity to those from his administration involved in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal as an admission of wrongdoing and another misuse of power. His administration has stonewalled the Congress and the inspector general. They should come clean. They should have testified and given us the information we were forced to subpoena. We do not want to see another repeat of the Scooter Libby misuse of power where the President's people misled investigators and then he excused them from their lies and evasiveness. There should be accountability and consequences. Our oversight efforts did not complete our work. In the last year alone we have held eight hearings to replenish the leadership ranks at the Department. We confirmed the new Attorney General last November. Today, in confirming Mr. Garre's nomination to be Solicitor General, we complete that work. The position of Solicitor General is a critical post that encompasses duties quite different than any other lawyer in the Government. The Solicitor General is not only one of the highest ranking officials at the Justice Department and the chief advocate on behalf of the United States Government, but also holds a unique position as an officer of the court, with a duty to bring forward aspects of cases that the Supreme Court might not otherwise know. Because of this critical role, the Solicitor General is often called ``the Tenth Justice.'' I remain concerned about many of the positions he has advocated while serving in the Solicitor General's office and more recently as Acting Solicitor General. For example, I strongly disagree with the administration's position last year in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., a case in which the Supreme Court stuck a severe blow to the rights of working women to equal pay for equal work and to all working Americans. The amicus brief filed by the government, which Mr. Garre signed as Principle Deputy Solicitor General, helped bring about that wrong decision. I strongly believe it was contrary to the purpose and intent of Congress' bipartisan efforts to root out discrimination against working women. For nearly two decades, Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire, was paid significantly less than her male counterparts. Nevertheless, the brief Mr. Garre signed contended that she was not eligible for title VII protection against discriminatory pay because she did not file her claim within 180 days of Goodyear's discriminatory pay decision. That view contradicted the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which had stated that each paycheck could separately provide a cause of action. The administration's position was wrong and provided cover for the Court to throw out a jury verdict and compound the harm from the discrimination against Ms. Ledbetter. I hope that, once confirmed, Mr. Garre will take seriously the intent of Congress and the need for equal justice for all in advocating the position of the United States before the Federal courts. I also disagree strongly with the position taken in an amicus brief this year signed by Mr. Garre in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In this Supreme Court case Mr. Garre argued that Indiana's requirement of a photo identification for voting was ``reasonable'' and furthered the State's interest in combating vote fraud. He made this argument even though in-person voter fraud has proven time and time again to be a myth, and evidence shows that photo ID laws have already served to disenfranchise some of the most vulnerable American voters. In several instances elderly nuns who were not able to vote as a result of Indiana's laws. Although the Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Garre's position, 6-3, the Court left the door open for ``as applied'' challenges and statutory challenges to laws that burden voters' fundamental right to participate in the electoral process by mandating a photo ID. If confirmed, I hope Mr. Garre will act as he said in his hearing he would to enforce the Voting Rights Act's antidiscrimination provisions against State photo ID laws that deter minority voter participation. I hope Mr. Garre shares my view that it is vital that we ensure that we have a functioning, independent Justice Department, and that we ensure that this sad era in the history of the Department is not repeated. We have seen what happens when the rule of law plays second fiddle to a President's agenda and the partisan desires of political operatives and it is a disaster for the American people. Both the President and the Nation are best served by a Justice Department that provides sound advice and takes responsible action, without regard to political considerations--not one that develops legalistic loopholes and ideological litmus tests to serve the ends of a particular administration. Jeff Sedgwick will also have an important role to play in the few months remaining in this administration. The Office of Justice Programs plays a vital role in developing the Nation's capacity to prevent and control crime and compensating and assisting crime victims. Crime, including violent crime, has been on the rise, particularly in rural areas and smaller cities. Many of us think it is in part the consequence of this administration's failure to provide financial assistance to our state and local law enforcement partners. Despite our repeated warnings, the Bush administration has systematically tried to dismantle Federal support for local and state law enforcement that was being provided through our successful Community-Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program, Byrne grants and other programs. Under President Bush, billions have been cut from our state and local law enforcement efforts while we continue writing blank checks for police in Iraq. I hope that Mr. Sedgwick helps us reverse this trend and turn the tide back against crime in rural areas and smaller cities where it has been on the rise. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. As the Senate considers extraordinary legislation to address the current economic crisis, I believe it is imperative for the Record to reflect the intent behind the provisions I worked with Senator Dodd to include in this legislation. In an effort to ensure that there is no doubt about what we intended, I would ask the Banking Committee chairman, Senator Dodd, whether it is his understanding that our efforts to ensure that any actions taken by the Treasury Secretary, under the authority of this legislation, be reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Mr. LEAHY. And with the savings clause we have added to the legislation, we also intend to prohibit the Treasury Secretary from interfering with or impairing in any way the claims or defenses available to any other person. For example, no person's claims in relation to any assets purchased by the Treasury Secretary under the Truth in Lending Act should be impaired, and no person who has been harmed by the conduct of a financial institution should have their claims affected in any way. Is this the understanding of the Senator from Connecticut as well?

Mr. LEAHY. We also included a provision to make sure that mortgagers whose mortgages are purchased by the Treasury maintain all of the claims and defenses they have in relation to those loans, whether pursuant to their contracts, or under State or Federal consumer protection law. It is not our intent to deprive homeowners any recourse they may have against lenders who committed fraud or other violations of law in inducing any homeowner into taking a mortgage. Does the Chairman of the Banking Committee agree with me on this point?

Mr. LEAHY. And finally, I ask as a general matter whether the Senator from Connecticut agrees with me that civil litigation brought by shareholders, or by or on behalf of financial institutions that purchased troubled assets, against officers, directors, and in some cases counterparties whose alleged misconduct caused or contributed to their losses, are matters for the justice system to resolve?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished, chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, for engaging in this colloquy. And I thank him for consulting me early in this process to ensure that any legislation the Senate considers contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that the extraordinary authority given to the Treasury Secretary is reviewable, and that the rights of American citizens are preserved. auto financing company loans

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this financial crisis is rooted in material actions involving executive greed and ineptitude, flawed economic policies, and the incompetence of on-the-scene regulatory agencies. And we are dealing with this crisis at the unfortunate intersection of two toxic trends: the loss of confidence in our financial system, and the public's loss of confidence in the Bush administration. Many have come to agree with those of us who have long felt that ``trust me'' is not enough when this White House asks for sweeping new powers. As this crisis spreads, threatening to harm our families, businesses and communities, the clock has been running out on the Federal Government's opportunity to try to staunch the damage. I opposed the original Bush plan, which was fatally flawed on several counts. Since then I have worked in good faith to fix its shortcomings, and by now several constructive changes have been made. After many fits and starts and long negotiations that have run through many nights, the clock is close to running out. As the Senate has prepared to vote on this revised plan, I have weighed its flaws and its improvements against the need for action to avert a wider credit crisis and the harm that would bring to Vermont and the Nation. I decided that this national emergency tips the balance in favor of this revised plan. Vermonters are divided on this, and I know that many Vermonters feel strongly that this is the wrong answer. But with credit conditions for businesses, public institutions, States, localities, and average Americans deteriorating every day, I believe that acting now to help put our economy on an even keel has become an urgent priority. The bill that the Senate is voting on tonight has changed significantly since President Bush first proposed a $700 billion blank check last week. It provides greater checks and balances on the Government's authority and preserves the rights of people affected by the conduct of financial institutions that participate in the Government's plan. Any actions taken by the Treasury Secretary should be approved by an oversight board, supervised by an inspector general, reviewed under the Administrative Procedures Act, and examined by the courts if there is a question of fraud or abuse. I fought and won in adding the check and balance of judicial review. It increases the Government's insurance of consumers' and business's bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000. This would safeguard the savings deposits of families and businesses and farmers in Vermont and protect the checking accounts of businesses that continually need to buy materials, sell their products and make payroll. This plan now also tightens the restrictions on executive pay and banning golden parachutes for firms participating in the program. Under current law, there are no restrictions on the amount of executive compensation that Wall Street CEOs can be paid. With these people having their hand out for a Federal bailout, we should limit executive pay and prohibit greedy executives from walking away from the mess they created with millions while regular American investors lose their savings and retirement funds. Senator Obama spoke eloquently and persuasively on this tonight. His argument weighed heavily with me. My decision to support this remedy did not come easily, but the worsening crisis has made the choice increasingly clear and the stakes of doing nothing, significantly higher.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, responding to the national economic crisis has been the focus of our efforts here in the Senate for over a week. I have been consulted by Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee, on the financial bailout proposal. I thank him for all of his hard work to address this complex problem. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I wish to inform all my fellow Senators about the intent with which the judicial review provisions were drafted. I believe it is especially important for Senators to have this understanding before Members of the Senate vote on this legislation. From the very moment I received the administration's proposal, I have objected to any measure that strips the courts from playing their indispensible role as a check on executive power. I have insisted at every stage in the negotiations that the traditional Administrative Procedures Act review apply to the Secretary of Treasury's actions, as well as any constitutional review that our courts are charged with in our democracy. It was of utmost importance to me to see that judicial review has been maintained in the version that we will be considering in light of the authority this legislation will give to the Treasury Secretary. This review is primarily based on traditional court review under the Administrative Procedures Act. In that section, the word ``law'' means any State or Federal law or common law interpreting such State and Federal laws. This is a crucial distinction, and it is not the intent of the drafters of these provisions to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to vitiate any private right of action on behalf of shareholders based on Federal statute or judicial interpretation of a Federal statute. With this legislation, Congress does not intend to allow any financial institution that participates in this plan to gain immunity from suit, nor permit the Secretary to confer such immunity on any participant. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, my other top priority for this legislation has been that the Secretary not be able to interfere with or impair the claims or defenses available to any other person. Americans harmed by corruption on Wall Street should not have their causes of action affected by the Secretary in any way. Truth in Lending Act claims should be allowed to proceed in due course. Shareholders who have been injured by the misconduct of corporate board members or executives should be able to file and continue their claims against those corporations. It is my understanding and intention that none of these causes of action should be harmed or otherwise affected by our bailout legislation. This is why we included a savings clause to make this explicit. We heard repeatedly from the administration that they were concerned that rogue judges would award injunctions and thwart the emergency actions needed for the Secretary to calm the financial crisis. By agreeing to the administration's request on injunctions, we intend for damages actions to be the avenue of relief for any misconduct, should it occur, on the part of the Secretary. We were assured that existing waivers of sovereign immunity under the Tucker Act, the Contracts Dispute Act, the Little Tucker Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act and relevant civil rights laws would apply to the Treasury Department's new responsibilities, just as these laws have applied to the Treasury Department's actions prior to the bailout measure. We have also insisted on protection for consumers who are parties to mortgage agreements by including a provision to make sure that any rights or claims held by a consumer in relation to those loans, whether under the terms of the mortgage or Federal or State law, are preserved in the event those loans are transferred to the Federal Government. It is not the intent of Congress to deprive homeowners of recourse against those lenders who, through greed, irresponsible lending, or outright fraud, led people into taking out unadvisable loan products and who were responsible for contributing to those homeowners' current mortgage struggles. Once again, it is imperative that the extraordinary authority Congress has given to the Treasury Secretary not be at the expense of the rights of American citizens to enforce the terms of their contracts or to rely upon State and Federal laws that protect against fraudulent lending practices or other deceptive behavior. Even in emergencies, it is important that the Federal Government exercise its authority consistent with the rule of law. Congressional negotiators were aware of the administration's call for immediate reaction, but I believe we acted responsibly by taking the time to ensure that adequate legal protections were provided in the legislation. The courts play a fundamental role in our democratic system of government and will be especially important in ensuring that these new authorities are used responsibly. Americans must have the confidence that those harmed by the conduct of any financial institution can access their courts for redress, despite this legislation. The Congress is aware of civil litigation brought by shareholders or by or on behalf of financial institutions that purchased troubled assets, against officers, directors, and in some cases counterparties whose alleged misconduct caused or contributed to their losses. The Congress is also aware of media reports of criminal investigations. These matters are for the justice system to resolve on an individual basis, but the Secretary and the executive branch should generally cooperate with public and private efforts to recover losses from wrongdoers in the financial markets, whether brought by a governmental entity, securities purchasers, the corporation itself, or asserted on behalf of the corporation derivatively. Nothing in this act is meant to detract from any rights or recovery against private parties to redress wrongdoing that exist under Federal or State law. I thank the leadership for consulting me during the drafting and redrafting process and for incorporating my language into the provisions providing for judicial review.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on July 1, G. Wayne Clough became the new Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Last week, the New York Times wrote a profile on Dr. Clough that highlights his markedly different leadership and style. This style is a welcome one to me. As a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, I look forward to working with Secretary Clough on the many challenges that face the Smithsonian. So all Senators and their staff can see that he is off to a solid beginning, I ask unanimous consent that the article in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that, today, after several discussions, the Bush administration and lead sponsors of the E-Government Reauthorization Act of 2008, S. 2321, have accepted an amendment I have drafted to ensure that Americans' privacy comes first when the Government purchases and uses their most sensitive personal information. My amendment requires that Federal agencies must conduct privacy impact assessments before employing outside contractors that use and market Americans' sensitive personal data. The addition of privacy protections to the E-Government Reauthorization Act will help to better protect all Americans from the growing threats of data breaches, identity theft, and other cyber crimes. I am particularly pleased about the compromise reached today because I am a proud supporter of this bill. In 2002, I was an original cosponsor of E-Government Act, and in the intervening years, I have worked to promote and strengthen this law. The E-Government Reauthorization Act is a good bill that will now be even better because of the privacy protections added by my amendment. Recently, the Government Accountability Office released a report on lessons learned about the Government data breaches at the Veterans' Administration and elsewhere. That report found that Government contractor responsibilities for preventing and responding to data breaches should be clearly defined. My amendment takes a small but important step toward addressing the growing problem of lax data security by Government contractors by making sure that Americans' privacy rights are not compromised when they entrust their sensitive personal information to our Government. I thank the lead sponsors of this bill for working with me on compromise privacy language for this bill. I also thank the many stakeholders who support this bill and my privacy amendment, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, Symantec, and the Cyber Security Industry Alliance. I urge all Senators to support and pass this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has passed the Trafficking in Persons Accountability Act of 2007, which would improve our efforts to stop the abominable practice of human trafficking in the United States and around the world. This modern-day form of slavery forces, defrauds, or coerces victims into sexual or labor exploitation. It is the world's fastest growing criminal enterprise and generates $9.5 billion annually, $4 billion of which goes to the prostitution industry. Nearly 1 million people, mostly women and children, are trafficked worldwide, including nearly 18,000 persons in the United States. This legislation would expand the Federal court's jurisdiction over human trafficking cases to include offenses committed abroad by noncitizens that enter our borders. Currently, the Department of Justice can only prosecute human trafficking crimes if they occur within the United States or are committed by a U.S. citizen abroad. This legislation would permit the Department of Justice to prosecute offenders of trafficking crimes abroad if they are present in the United States and punish human traffickers who attempt to seek refuge in this country. Nowhere on Earth should it be acceptable to deceive, abuse, and force a person into a life of enslavement. We should not tolerate human trafficking across our borders, nor should we allow trafficking offenders to seek a safe haven in our country. I commend subcommittee chairman Senator Durbin for introducing this legislation and for his hard work to combat human rights abuses worldwide. This is an area in which I have worked for many years as the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. I was proud to work with Senator Durbin to create the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, the first congressional committee to specifically address human rights issues. This subcommittee has held hearings on many important issues, and two important pieces of legislation considered by the subcommittee will become law this Congress. The Genocide Accountability Act closed a loophole that until now allowed those who commit or incite genocide to seek refuge in our country without fear of prosecution for their actions. Soon, the President will sign into law the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, making it a crime to recruit or use child soldiers. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Durbin to make progress towards eradicating these and other human rights abuses. This bill is a step forward towards the prevention of human trafficking, protection of victims, and prosecution of traffickers. I hope the House of Representatives acts quickly on this legislation so it can be enacted before Congress adjourns.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has acted unanimously today to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. This measure marks the fifth time that I have had the privilege of working to reauthorize this life-saving Federal grant program. I first worked with Senator Campbell 10 years ago to author the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998, which responded to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two state troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost. In 2007, as a result of the Bulletproof Vest Grant Program, jurisdictions across the country received over $28 million in Federal funds, which were used to purchase more than 180,000 armor vests. Between 1999 and 2007, $234 million has gone to the States and has assisted in the purchase of an estimated 818,044 vests. It gives me a great sense of pride to know that the law we enacted is having a real impact in directly supporting the safety and security of American law enforcement officers. In May, the Judiciary Committee held an important hearing and learned just how crucial this program has been to our law enforcement officers. Lieutenant Michael Macarilla with the Vermont State Police testified about how valuable this program is to small jurisdictions in Vermont, which often operate on very tight budgets. And Detective David Azur of the Baltimore Police Department testified about his experience of being shot at point-blank range and surviving because he was wearing a bulletproof vest. His testimony left no doubt that this is an issue of life and death. Just this week we were reminded again of the importance of bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers. A police officer in Alexandria, VA, Kyle Russell was shot in the chest during a traffic stop. According to Chief David Baker of the Alexandria Police, Officer Russell's vest saved his life. What was a very tragic situation was prevented from being made worse due to Officer Russell's bulletproof vest. This event, in a city close to the Nation's Capitol, should be another reminder to Members of Congress about why this program is so important. Where Congress can help State and local jurisdictions equip their officers, there should be no hesitation to do so. I regret that due to objections we were not able to include with the reauthorization a waiver system for those jurisdictions that have suffered a natural disaster or severe budget shortfalls. The waiver would have given those jurisdictions a way to keep their officers protected, regardless of whether they can meet the law's matching requirement. The waiver legislation also would provide authority to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Justice Department to waive the grant program's matching requirement in cases of fiscal hardship. If a jurisdiction cannot meet this requirement, it is unlikely it can afford to purchase vests on its own. I hope the next Congress will be allowed to consider these important provisions. I do not wish to return to the days when law enforcement officers were required to purchase their own vests, or simply go without. With tighter budgets and a troubled economy, it makes sense to give the Bureau of Justice Assistance the authority and the flexibility to ensure that no jurisdiction is excluded from such critical assistance simply because it can't afford to meet the matching requirements. We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. We do not thank our Nation's law enforcement officers enough for the sacrifices they make in order to protect all of us. But the actions the Senate has taken today in passing this legislation is a strong step forward in demonstrating Congress' commitment to supporting the men and women who serve us so well. I hope the President will quickly sign this reauthorization into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will pass the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, H.R. 6353--an important bipartisan bill that will create new tools for Federal law enforcement to prosecute those who bill illegally sell drugs online, and allow State authorities to shut down rogue online pharmacies even before they get started. Earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed this important legislation. Earlier this year, the Senate passed a version of this bill, and I am glad that today it has once again given its unanimous support to this bill. I hope that the President will promptly sign this measure into law. Senator Feinstein has been a leader on this issue, and she and others have shown a strong commitment to combating illicit drug trafficking by online predators. I also thank Representative Stupak and all of those who worked on this bill in the House. Through their hard work and diligent efforts, we have a strong bipartisan bill that includes important modifications and clarifications that will protect our children, and grandchildren, from purchasing illegal dangerous drugs online. I hope this bill will help reduce the prevalence of rogue online pharmacies in our society. We are a nation in the midst of a technological revolution. In the digital age, the Internet has provided Americans with better access to convenient and more affordable medicine. Unfortunately, the prevalence of rogue online pharmacies has also made the Internet an increasing source for the sale of dangerous controlled substances without a licensed medical practitioner's valid prescription. Online drug traffickers have used evolving tactics to evade detection by law enforcement and circumvent the proper constraints of doctors and pharmacists. Last year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this issue. We heard compelling testimony from Francine Haight, a mother whose teenage son died from an overdose of painkillers he purchased online from a rogue pharmacy. We also heard from Joseph Califano, the former Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Both strongly supported legislation to fill a gap in existing law and help protect young people from illicit drugs online. Following our hearing, the Internet Drug Advisory Committee held a briefing for the Judiciary Committee on this matter. We heard from various members of the Internet community on how the private sector may effectively collaborate with the public sector to combat the sales of dangerous drugs online. These private sector groups will be vital in that effort, and we were happy to receive the benefit of their insights. I understand full well the growing danger that illegitimate online pharmacies pose to youth. As the longtime cochair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, I know that the Internet offers tremendous benefits, but I also understand that dangerous and addictive drugs are often only a click away. As a former State's Attorney in Vermont, I will never forget how much successful prosecutions depend on whether the investigators and lawyers charged with protecting the public from crime have the right tools to do so. That is why we are in urgent need of this bill. No matter how dedicated we are to solving a problem, if the laws are not clearly and sensibly drafted, no justice will be done. This legislation does many important things. First, the bill requires the Drug Enforcement Administration report to Congress on recommendations to combat the online sale of controlled substances from foreign countries via the Internet and on ways that the private sector can assist in this effort. A key ingredient in diminishing the impact of rogue Web sites on American citizens is combating the international aspect of this problem, and strengthening the public-private sector collaboration can help provide a solution. Second, the legislation narrows the U.S. Sentencing Commission directive to ensure that the most dangerous prescription drugs abused online are treated more severely than less harmful prescription drugs. This addition will ensure that the Commission has clear guidance to issue the guidelines necessary to hold those individuals who peddle dangerous prescription drugs to minors online accountable. Third, the bill protects legitimate retail drug chains with online Web sites for customers seeking refills on prescriptions, by exempting them from the bill's requirements. This ensures that the bill does not target legitimate pharmacies that provide Vermonters and other Americans with access to needed medicines, nor does it burden legitimate pharmacies with additional registration and reporting requirements. I believe this legislation will be even better with these changes. I am confident that this legislation will strengthen our Nation's ability to effectively combat online drug trafficking. It also furthers the goals of drug enforcement and deterrence, while also providing Congress with additional oversight tools. The administration supports this bill--and that is the right thing to do. I know that our hard working men and women at the Drug Enforcement Agency need the added tools this bill will offer to assist their efforts to combat rogue online pharmacies. Even more, our children and grandchildren need the safety and security of operating online free from drug dealers seeking to trick them into purchasing dangerous controlled substances. I urge the President to promptly sign this bill into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, I am pleased that the Senate has passed the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008, a short but important bill for all of us who love to listen to music online. I have long championed the development of new business models for transmitting music to the public, and I have been delighted to see the webcasting community grow and prosper. From tiny operations serving the smallest of musical niches, to collegiate stations playing cutting edge performers, to large established webcasters providing a whole new array of services to listeners, the online music world has truly blossomed in the last 10 years. But with all new growth comes growing pains, and we also must be constantly vigilant to ensure that the development of new business interests does not come at the expense of settled property rights. When webcasting was even younger, I sponsored the Small Webcasters Settlement Act of 2004, which established a Copyright Royalty Tribunal to replace the old Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel as the administrative body for determining--in the absence of privately negotiated contracts--the royalty rates to be paid by online music providers to the performers who hold the copyrights in that music. The new system has seen its first adjudications, and this legislation reflects the need for a slight readjustment in that system. The bill simply extends the time to next February during which the parties can negotiate their own rates, even after the CRB proceeding, and will permit any deal that is negotiated by that time to bind the interested parties. I am not, in the normal course, a proponent of legislative readjustments like this one, but I understand the advisability of this particular extension. I will not, however, sanction repeated returns to Congress if webcasters are again dissatisfied with the results of a system that they urged upon us in 2004, and which they applauded when it was created. The parties on both sides of these agreements--the webcasters and the copyright owners--would be well advised to consider these negotiations seriously, and to behave appropriately. The rights of our creative artists are the life blood of the entire music industry, including that of the online music providers, and we all owe them respect. I trust the parties when they tell us that the time extension will allow them to come to terms that will ensure mutual benefit to them, and ultimate benefit to all the listeners, like myself, who enjoy music transmitted over the Internet. I am pleased the Congress has passed this measure before recessing.