Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey to address the crisis in Darfur, Sudan. This amendment appropriates $95 million to support the African Union mission that will help to provide desperately needed security in Darfur. We simply must act: What is happening there is genocide. The Congress has said it. The Secretary of State has said it. The world knows it. People are dying at a staggering rate, and it will only get worse. After we appropriate this money, there is one other important piece of the puzzle--the administration must spend it. I will be working with the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Ohio to ensure that the President does the right thing and spends this money. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his strong leadership on this issue.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, a lot of people watch and don't fully understand what goes on. We have quorum calls during the day. They are watching on TV. They can see different huddles of Senators. We are oftentimes getting a lot of work done. I once joked that more laws get passed in the Senators' dining room or the Senators' gym than on the floor. That is where Senators get together. The Senator from Kentucky and I, based on our years and years of personal friendship, along with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the chairman, and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the ranking member, know how to work these things out. We have done this. We keep our word to each other. We do it the old-fashioned way, sort of the way we called a law being passed when I first came here 30 years ago. That is why we are at this point on a bill that used to take sometimes 2 or 3 weeks. I like the working relationship with the Senator from Kentucky, and I think we are very close to setting a record.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, there is a rock group that I have been reputed to have spent time with and listened to. One of their songs is ``Keep on Trucking.'' I might say, a long strange trip it has been. But if we keep on trucking, at least those of us with a touch of gray will complete this. I will at this point, while the distinguished Senator from Kentucky tries to maintain his composure, stop going through the song, the playbook of the Grateful Dead.

Mr. LEAHY. I also commend the Senator from Kansas. We have had long discussions on some of these efforts. He knows the Senator from Kentucky and I have been trying to work out as nonpartisan a bill as possible on these issues. His sense of morality and concern--I say it in the best sense of the word--has been very helpful. All 100 of us live a comfortable life. None of us go hungry except by choice. Some of us do that off and on for whatever reason. But it is only by choice. We have people in parts of the world we have been talking about who cannot even be fed by choice. They starve to death. They have no choice. On these amendments, what the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Kentucky and I, the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Ohio, and others have tried to do is let them know in this country, the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on earth, there are people who know they are starving, they know they are dying, they know this goes beyond a question of politics. This is a question of morality, deepest moral sense of human beings to make sure we feed them. I commend him for his work.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to echo what my friend from Kentucky has just said. This is a good bill. Our subcommittee allocation is below the President's request, so we had to make some tough choices, but we did the best we could with what we had. I want to thank Senator McConnell for working in the best spirit of the Senate to produce a bipartisan bill and accommodate the overwhelming majority of requests from Senators. Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd also deserve a great deal of credit for this year's Foreign Operations bill. Senator McConnell went over the details of the bill so I will highlight just a few items: The bill contains much-needed increases in refugee assistance that goes to some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The bill rolls back proposed cuts to the Child Survival and Health and the Development Assistance accounts. This is important because most of the requests we received from Senators on both sides of the aisle were for projects or activities funded in these accounts. The bill provides a total of $2.4 billion to combat AIDS, TB and Malaria, including $150 million in emergency money for the global fund that we added by Senators Durbin and Brownback during the committee markup. When combined with the funds in the Labor-HHS bill, this brings the Senate total for AIDS prevention and treatment to $3.1 billion, including $550 million for the global fund. The bill added $150 million in emergency funds to address the crisis in Darfur. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in additional disaster and food assistance for Sudan in this bill and in the Agriculture appropriations bill. The bill includes several other important provisions dealing with accountability at the multilateral development banks, human rights in Colombia, corruption in Nicaragua and Guatemala, the interim government in Haiti, environmental conservation, international family planning, and assistance for Afghan women and girls, to name a few. This is a good, balanced bill. We are on a fast track to get this done, so I hope Senators will come to the floor to offer their amendments. We want to move to third reading as soon as possible.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I concur about the importance of this funding and will try to address these concerns in our continued deliberation of the Foreign Operations Appropriations legislation.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to, once again, thank Senator McConnell for his hard work to pass a very good Foreign Operations bill. I also thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd. I want to thank the staff--Paul Groove and LaShawnda Smith for the Majority. Paul worked countless hours to put this bill together. His patience, high standards, meticulous attention to detail, and unwavering good humor are appreciated by all of us. LaShawnda Smith literally kept the office going. I want to thank Reb Brownell, a detailee from the State Department, who was extremely helpful at every turn. Reb represents the very best that the State Department has to offer. And finally, I want to thank Bob Lester of USAID's Office of General Counsel. We literally could not write this bill without Bob. His knowledge of the Foreign Assistance Act and his drafting skills are unequaled. Although Bob talks of retiring, I don't see any way that we can get along without him. None of us are indispensable, but Bob Lester certainly comes as close as humanly possible.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank both the distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Reid, and the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. McConnell. They were able to finish up the bill. I say again--as I said in my statement complimenting the Senator from Kentucky and his able staff and also my able staff--we have set an all- time record on a very complex piece of legislation in getting it through. I compliment the Senator.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I concur about the seriousness of these locust swarms. Hunger and famine increase the susceptibility to malaria and other dangerous diseases, and we must help our friends in West Africa fight the spread of locusts. I will call on the USAID Administrator to do more to address this crisis.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 2742, which is a short but important piece of legislation that Senator hatch and I have cosponsored at the request of the Supreme Court. This legislation would renew authority to provide security for the Justices when they leave the Supreme Court. Recent reports of the assault of Justice Souter when he was outside of the Supreme Court highlight the importance of security for Justices. If no congressional action is taken, the authority of Supreme Court police to protect Justices off court grounds will expire at the end of this year. Another provision in this legislation allows the Supreme Court to accept gifts ``pertaining to the history of the Supreme Court of the United States or its justices.'' The administrative office of the Courts currently has statutory authority to accept gifts on behalf of the judiciary. This provision would grant the Supreme Court authority to accept gifts but it would narrow the types of gifts that can be received to historical items. I think this provision strikes the proper balance. Finally, this legislation also would provide an additional venue for the prosecution of offenses that occur on the Supreme Court grounds. Currently, the DC Superior Court is the only place of proper venue despite the uniquely Federal interest at stake. This legislation would allow suit to be brought in United States District Court in the District of Columbia.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have worked closely with the United States Secret Service for many years. Their tradition of excellence and the quality of their protective services and investigations is well known. I know that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, William Pickle, proudly served with them for many years. As the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, with jurisdiction regarding United States Secret Service matters, Senator Hatch and I have introduced an amendment to ensure that the Service remains a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security. It is important that the Secret Service continue, as they did under the Department of the Treasury, to function as a cohesive unit and not have its functions divided. It is also important that the Secret Service, as they did under the Department of the Treasury, not be merged with other agencies which would dilute the Service's ability to achieve their crucial mission. It is also important to preserve their current chain of command structure. Our amendment requires that the United States Secret Service be maintained as a ``distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security'' and that the Secret Service not be merged with any other Department function. Further, our amendment requires that all personnel and operational elements of the Service report at all times to ``the Director of the United States Secret Service'' who shall report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security without having to report through other officials. The United States Secret Service is doing an outstanding job in tough times and this amendment will assure that they keep fully devoted to their critical missions in the same excellent manner as they have done in the past. I hope all Members will join us in including this important amendment in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my wife Marcelle and I have been privileged to know Bill and Dorothy McSweeny during the time I have been in the Senate. During my conversations with them, I have especially appreciated their sense of history. When Mr. McSweeny writes an op-ed piece, based on his knowledge and experience, I think we should pay special attention. Recently, he wrote one for the Washington Post. Nothing I could say would add to the value of this fine statement, so I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this Saturday, the Green Mountain Audubon Nature Center in Huntington, VT will celebrate its 40th anniversary. In 1964, Mrs. Christine Hires of Philadelphia, offered the 150-acre Vermont farm she had owned since 1940, to the newly formed Green Mountain Audubon Society. Mrs. Hires' dream was to keep the land open to visitors and in its natural condition. An open house was held on September 19 and 20 of that year. The Green Mountain Audubon Nature Center was established. Since 1964, the center has grown to 255 acres of varied habitat including hardwood forest, cedar swamp, beaver pond, meadows, pristine stream and river edge. The original farmhouse and barn are currently used as office and program space for Audubon Vermont. The center also includes a sugar house, the ``Clubhouse'' for summer camps and programs and a full-scale replica of an Abenaki longhouse. Annually, nearly 15,000 visitors enjoy the nature trails, bird and other wildlife watching as well as a variety of environmental education programs the center is known for. Some 4,500 children and adults take part in educational programs led by Audubon teacher-naturalists each year. I want to congratulate Green Mountain Audubon on 40 years of bringing people closer to nature through environmental education, natural resources stewardship, its citizen science efforts and, of course, sound conservation advocacy. This weekend's celebration will honor the oldest operating nature center in Vermont and the many individuals who have contributed to its success. Well done.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have offered this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Jeffords, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Feinstein. I rise today to offer an amendment that would end an ill-advised attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to privatize jobs that are vital to keeping Americans safe. This amendment would prohibit DHS from spending money to contract out immigration information officer, contact representative, or investigative assistant positions. I am pleased to have Senators Ben Nelson, Lieberman, and Jeffords as cosponsors. The House voted for this exact amendment earlier this year by a vote of 242 to 163, with 49 Republicans supporting it. I trust that we will have a similar bipartisan majority in the Senate. Immigration information officers, IIOs, are responsible for screening applications for immigration benefits for fraud and for performing criminal background checks on applicants. There are more than 1,200 IIOs and contact representatives around the Nation working for the Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, branch of DHS. The work they do in attempting to discover and prevent immigration fraud--and prevent dangerous people from abusing the immigration system--is clearly ``inherently governmental,'' making them an inappropriate target of a privatization effort. As our Nation continues to face the threat of terrorism, CIS carriers a heavy burden in its attempt to process immigration and naturalization applications while ensuring that terrorists--along with other fraudulent actors--do not abuse our immigration system. Information officers have played a vital role in meeting this burden. Indeed, the agency's own job description requires that IIOs have the ``[s]kill to identify fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from appealing for benefits for which they are not eligible,'' a skill that is obviously all the more important in this era. They are also required by DHS to have ``[k]nowledge and skill in interviewing techniques and observation of applicants in order to determine if an applicant is misrepresenting the facts in order to appear eligible for a benefit.'' I am offering this amendment because I believe that weeding out potential fraud in our immigration system must remain a responsibility of Government employees, especially when the perpetrator of the fraud may be a dangerous criminal or terrorist. In addition to their security-related work, these IIOs perform duties that are directly related to achieving President Bush's goal, stated during his 2000 campaign and since, of providing more efficient services to lawful immigrants. IIOs increase efficiency by, as their job description states, exploring ``all avenues of assistance available to the customer; determin[ing] the benefit most advantageous if more than one exists, and try[ing] to motivate the customer to file the appropriate application(s).'' IIOs also have extensive knowledge and use discretion in their positions--they are required to have ``knowledge of the exclusion and deportation regulations'' and ``knowledge and familiarity with the immigration and nationality laws.'' As CIS continues its efforts to reduce the backlog faced by immigration applicants to 6 months, the last thing we should be doing is replacing knowledgeable immigration professionals with inexperienced contract workers. Should a private contractor win the work currently performed by IIOs, that contractor will be responsible for adjudicating immigration benefits and detecting fraud and criminal activity, requiring the contractor to make decisions that are both sensitive to national security and have a huge impact on the lives of millions of immigrants. This would be a bad idea in any era, but it is particularly inappropriate now. I have a personal interest in this issue because about 100 fine Vermonters currently work as IIOs. I know the fine work they do, and I know that my staff and, indeed, all of our staffs rely on them and their counterparts throughout the country when we are seeking to help our constituents. I know that our Nation will be better off if these fine men and women remain in their current positions. Thirty-five members of this body are already on record in opposition to contracting out the IIO positions. We wrote to Secretary Ridge a year ago, seeking the cancellation of the A-76 process. I have since joined with Senators Lieberman, Byrd, and Kennedy in obtaining documentation from DHS about its decision to launch the A-76 process to hire private contractors to perform the work currently done by IIOs. The documents the Department has provided have proven illuminating. They have shown that officials within CIS did not think there should be private sector competition for these jobs, and believed that the IIOs were performing inherently governmental work. These officials took their concerns to the leadership at DHS, but their views were overruled, and the competition proceeded. Grant Thornton and PEC Solutions, outside consultants hired by DHS, drafted memoranda and presentations to demonstrate that going forward with the job competition was unwise. These views, too, were ignored. The decision to contract out these positions is all the more disturbing because it has the hallmarks of a decision made simply to meet a quota. The Bush administration set a goal of privatizing 15 percent of Government jobs shortly after it took office. When the original decision to submit the IIO positions to competition was made, they were still INS and Department of Justice employees. According to a senior official at CIS, that original decision was made when the Office of Management and Budget informed DOJ that it had only hours to submit 1,200 positions that could be privatized. Only James Ziglar, then the INS Commissioner, even knew that the IIO positions would be submitted to OMB. After the INS was transferred to DHS, the new Department had to decide whether to continue with the competition. DHS announced its decision to subject the jobs to competition in August 2003, and DHS documents suggest that the 15-percent goal remained a major factor in the decision, with the leader of the DHS privatization office referring to the need to meet OMB's 15-percent goal as recently as October 2003. This was true even though Congress prohibited agencies in February 2003--10 months earlier--from applying or enforcing any numerical goals or targets for subjecting employees to public-private competition, and even though the administration grudgingly announced it would abide by the law forbidding this quota in July 2003. This amendment would also protect the jobs of investigative assistants. These CIS employees work in the Fraud Detection Unit, searching a variety of private, governmental, and criminal databases to find information about applicants for immigration benefits. These positions were created in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, to ensure that only qualified personnel would have access to highly sensitive databases. Despite the nature of the position and the circumstances under which it was created, DHS has demonstrated interest in privatizing these positions as well. This amendment would put a stop to that misguided effort as well. In conclusion, this amendment would protect Federal employees who are trying to weed out fraud in the immigration system and assist lawful immigrants seeking benefits to which they are entitled. It had overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, passing with nearly 50 Republican votes. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam President, I will summarize what this is about for my colleagues. There is an attempt to privatize a number of jobs in the Department of Homeland Security. These jobs are vital to our American security. I do not believe they should be privatized. A majority of the other body feels the same way. My amendment would prohibit DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, spending money to contract out immigration information officer, contact representative, or investigative assistant positions. That is why I am glad Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Lieberman, Jeffords, and Feinstein have cosponsored this amendment. This is not a partisan issue. The House voted for this exact amendment. They just copied the wording of it. They voted overwhelming for it, 242 to 163, with 49 Republicans supporting it. I hope we will have similar bipartisan support in the Senate. Let me explain immigration information officers. We call them IIOs. They are the people who screen applications for immigration benefits for fraud. They perform criminal background checks on applicants. There are more than 1,200 of these IIOs and contact representatives around the Nation. They work for the Citizenship and Immigration Service, a branch of DHS. The work they do in attempting to discover and prevent immigration fraud and prevent very dangerous people from abusing the immigration system is clearly inherently governmental. This is not a custodial service. This is not a landscape service. These are things preventing immigration fraud. It is clearly inherently governmental. So it should not be part of a privatization effort. As we all know, our Nation continues to face the threat of terrorism. CIS carries a heavy burden to attempt to process immigration and naturalization applications, but they have to ensure that terrorists, along with a lot of fraudulent actors, do not abuse our immigration system. They play a vital role in meeting this burden. In fact, the agency's own job description requires that ``they have the skill to identify fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from appealing for benefits for which they are not eligible.'' That is a skill obviously all the more important in this era. They are also required by DHS to have knowledge and skilled interviewing techniques in observation of applications. What they have to do comes from years of experience. They have to be able to find those people who are seeking a benefit who are not eligible. I have spent a lot of time on immigration matters and I believe that weeding out potential fraud in our immigration system is a major responsibility of our Government. It is a major responsibility of our Government employees. We do not turn it over to somebody else, especially when the perpetrator of that fraud could be a very dangerous criminal or a terrorist. I do not want to have it turned over to Fraud Catchers USA. I want it within our Government so we know what standards are being followed. They also perform duties that are directly related to achieving President Bush's goal of providing more efficient services to lawful immigrants. They increase efficiency, explore all avenues of assistance available to the customer to determine the benefit most advantageous when more than one exists, again based on vast experience. The administration wants to reduce the backlog faced by immigration applicants to 6 months. Well, suddenly putting in a whole new service to do it makes little sense. If a private contractor does it, that contractor is going to be responsible for adjudicating immigration benefits and detecting fraud and criminal activity that will require the contractor to make decisions that are sensitive to our national security. It is also going to have a huge impact on the lives of millions of immigrants. I think this would be a bad idea in any era, but with the terror threat we face now, I think it is a very bad one. The amendment would also protect the jobs of investigative assistants who work in the fraud detection unit. These positions were created in the aftermath of September 11 attacks. Despite the nature of the position, despite the circumstances under which it was created, DHS has demonstrated interest in privatizing these positions as well. I think that is a mistake. As I said, this passed overwhelmingly in the other body, Republicans and Democrats alike supporting it. I hope we would do the same. I see the distinguished Senator from Nebraska on his feet, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I said before, the amendment I have offered is the same amendment that passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, with strong Republican support. It says on these very critical--very critical--steps based in the former INS in which they try to weed out possible terrorists on immigration applications that this not be contracted out to a private company but be done by professionals. That is really the bottom line. We can talk about it for hours. We have had the debate before. I withhold the remainder of my time, and I will ask for the yeas and nays once time is yielded back.

Mr. LEAHY. I apologize. I thought the distinguished Senator from Mississippi had been advised of this amendment. It is basically my underlying amendment as freestanding.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the managers, we have had the basic debate on this amendment. I ask that we have 2 minutes on each side and then go to a vote, if that is agreeable. I will make that request. I ask unanimous consent that we have 4 minutes equally divided and that it then be in order to request the yeas and nays and go to a vote.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, and Mrs. Feinstein, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEAHY. The reason I suggest it is because the Senator from Wyoming is in the Senate, and it is his amendment. That way he could be part of it. The Senator from Mississippi is absolutely right. We go forward with a vote--I was suggesting a way to save having to put the other amendment up at another time. It still becomes a matter of conference. If the distinguished Senator from Mississippi wishes to go forward with the vote on the Thomas, that is fine with me. I would state, as I have before, that is a defeat of the underlying Nelson-Leahy, et al, amendment which will come up in another form at a later time. I am perfectly willing to go ahead and vote now. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if I might ask the senior distinguished Senator from Mississippi a question. He has said this matter has to go to conference. He is absolutely right. He will hold the majority votes in the conference. Why not this: Why not set both the Thomas amendment as a freestanding amendment, the Nelson-Leahy, et al, amendment, as a freestanding amendment, take them both to conference?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would say only this: If the Thomas amendment is adopted, it effectively kills the Leahy amendment and allows the outsourcing to go forward on what is a critical governmental responsibility. As I have said before, I would be happy to see a private enterprise stake. As we know, this administration has dramatically increased the number of Government employees. They went down substantially during the 8 years of President Clinton's administration, and they have increased more than any time in a dozen years by this administration. Maybe they could look for areas of outsourcing but not outsourcing in those areas that are critical to our lives and our national security and fight against terrorism. I am perfectly willing to go to a vote on the Thomas amendment, but I would remind everybody that it kills the Leahy-Nelson et al amendment and allows at a time of heightened terrorist threat the Department of Homeland Security, which dramatically increased the number of employees, to take some very key governmental employees and turn them over to the private sector and say the private sector can handle our security from terrorists who might try to come in under the immigration rubric better than our own Government could do. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have served for over a quarter of a century on the Appropriations Committee with the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi. I hope this doesn't hurt him back home when I can state unequivocally that nobody works harder than he does. Nobody is more conscientious in going through legislation. I know he has worked very hard on the appropriations bill before us. As he knows, I have supported him in the subcommittee on a great deal of measures in this bill. We have similar views. On the question of vetoes, I can remember the last time a piece of legislation I was working on with the White House, saying they would veto legislation if we put in the TRICARE provisions to provide health care for our National Guard and Reserve members and their families, even at a time when an extraordinary, unprecedented number of National Guard and Reserve members were being called up for the war in Iraq and were being required to serve way beyond the time anyone ever anticipated. Nobody could understand why the White House would do that which basically undercuts the brave men and women who are going over there. Fortunately, Republicans and Democrats came together in this body and the other body and passed the legislation with very strong bipartisan support and somehow the veto threat disappeared. I suspect the same thing. This bill is not going to be vetoed on this issue. I understand the threats. I have been here for 30 years, and I have seen Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents and administrations. It never comes through the Presidents. It says their senior advisers would recommend a veto threat. I have seen hundreds of these in my 30 years I have been in the Senate. I have probably seen about a dozen vetoes come out of the hundreds and hundreds of threats, even though they have been ignored. The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has a responsibility to bring that forward. But he knows, as I do, that we hear veto threats almost as though they were being printed and cranked out when any bill comes along. I think it never would have passed a body as tightly controlled by the Republicans as the House of Representatives, it would never have passed with the overwhelming support had they really thought there would be a veto. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, be added as a cosponsor to my amendment to the underlying amendment.