A bill to clarify the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, and I am pleased to do so with a great champion on this issue: Senator Sam Brownback. For many years, we have both sought to bring attention to the terror orchestrated by the Lord's Resistance Army, the LRA, and the suffering of the people of northern Uganda. We have come a long way in just a few years, thanks especially to young Americans who have become increasingly aware of and outspoken about this horrific situation. As a result, the U.S. has made increased efforts to help end this horror. Those efforts have yielded some success, but if we are now to finally see this conflict to its end, we need to commit to a proactive strategy to help end the threat posed by the LRA and support reconstruction, justice, and reconciliation in northern Uganda. This bill seeks to do just that.

For over two decades, northern Uganda was caught in a war between the Ugandan military and rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army, leading at its height to the displacement of 1.8 million people, nearly 90 percent of the region's population. Just a few years ago, northern Uganda was called the world's worst neglected humanitarian crisis. In 2007, I visited displacement camps in northern Uganda and saw firsthand the terrible conditions and the desperation of people forced to endure such conditions year after year. Meanwhile, the LRA survived throughout this conflict by kidnapping an estimated 66,000 children, indoctrinating them, and forcing them to become child soldiers.

In recent years, the LRA have come under increasing pressure. In 2005 and 2006, they largely withdrew from northern Uganda and moved into the border region between northeastern Congo, southern Sudan and even the Central African Republic. Then for almost two years, there was a lull in the violence as representatives from the Ugandan government and LRA engaged in sporadic peace negotiations in southern Sudan. The parties brokered a comprehensive agreement, but then hopes were dashed as the LRA's megalomaniac leader Joseph Kony refused to sign the agreement and reports surfaced that the LRA had been conducting new abductions to replenish his rebel group.

In December 2008, the Ugandan, Congolese and South Sudanese militaries launched a joint offensive against the LRA's primary bases in northeastern Congo. The operation failed to apprehend Kony and over the following two months, his forces retaliated against civilians in the region, leaving over 900 people dead. It's tragically clear that insufficient attention and resources were devoted to ensuring the protection of civilians during the operation. Before launching any operation against the rebels, the regional militaries should have ensured that their plan had a high probability of success, anticipated contingencies, and made precautions to minimize dangers to civilians. It is widely known that when facing military offensive in the past, the LRA have quickly dispersed and committed retaliatory attacks against civilians.

However, this botched operation does not mean that we should just give up on the goal of ending the massacres and the threat to regional stability posed by this small rebel group. Moreover, given that the U.S. provided assistance and support for this operation at the request of the regional governments, we have a responsibility to help see this rebel war to its end. In order to do that, I strongly believe we need a regional strategy to guide U.S. support--which includes political economic, intelligence and military support--for a multilateral effort to protect civilians and permanently end the threat posed by the LRA. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 requires of the administration to develop such a strategy. It leaves it up to the discretion of the administration to determine the most effective way forward, but it ensures this issue will not get put on the back burner and that we will not continue to rely on a piecemeal approach.

In addition to removing the threat posed by the LRA, we cannot lose sight of the importance that the Ugandan government address the conditions out of which the LRA emerged and which could give rise to future conflict if unchanged. Rebuilding northern Uganda's institutions and addressing political and economic grievances is the surest safeguard against future violence and instability. The government of Uganda committed last year to move forward with that reconstruction and reconciliation process under the framework of its Peace, Recovery and Development, the PRDP plan. International donors, including the United States, have already put forth substantial funds for that process. However, thus far it has been hampered by a lack of strategic coordination, weak leadership and the government's limited capacity. In particular, there has been very little progress toward establishing the mechanisms envisaged by the peace agreement to address the original causes of the war and promote reconciliation and justice.

Our legislation recognizes the importance of helping the Ugandan government to reinvigorate the PRDP process. The second part of the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 encourages the U.S. to increase assistance in the upcoming fiscal years for recovery with the condition that the Ugandan government demonstrates a commitment to genuine, transparent and accountable reconstruction. We should better leverage our contributions to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Finally, this legislation authorizes a small amount of additional assistance to see that mechanisms are finally established to promote accountability and reconciliation in Uganda on both local and national levels. A failure to address the underlying political grievances in northern Uganda could lead to new conflicts in the future.

As my colleagues know, I make it a practice to pay for all bills that I introduce, and the authorization in this bill is offset by reducing funds appropriated for excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force. A report by the Government Accountability Office in 2007 found that more than half of the Air Force's secondary inventory or spare parts, worth roughly $31.4 billion, were not needed to support required on-hand and on-order inventory levels for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. The GAO report concluded that this is not only wasteful, but could also negatively impact readiness. The Air Force has acknowledged that it currently has over $100 million of spare parts on order for which it has no need.

Some may disagree with me on the need for an offset, but last year's Office of Management and Budget's projections confirm that we have the biggest budget deficit in the history of our country. We cannot afford to be fiscally irresponsible so we must make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of our reckless spending. I believe reducing the excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force by $40 million, a small amount, to pay for this bill is a responsible move that we can all support.

Americans from all states and all walks of life have been touched by the stories of children from northern Uganda abducted and forced to commit unspeakable acts. Congress, too, has a long history of being involved with efforts to help end this rebel war, dating back to the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act that we passed in 2004, which committed the United States to work vigorously for a lasting resolution to the conflict. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 reaffirms and refocuses that commitment to help see this--one of Africa's longest running and most gruesome rebel wars--to its finish. I believe that, with the necessary leadership and strategic vision envisioned by this legislation, we can contribute to that end. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Robocall Privacy Act of 2009.

This is a bill that is cosponsored by Senator Snowe and Senator Durbin, and that would protect American families from being inundated by automated political calls all through the day and night.

The bill would allow political outreach through these prerecorded ``robocalls'' to continue, but it would put some commonsense limits on them--to make sure that they are used in a way that informs voters, rather than harasses or misleads them.

In recent years, we have seen amazing development in technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters.

This is a good thing. Political speech is essential, and new technology that facilitates communication between candidates and voters serves to bolster the democratic process. When more information is available to voters, it promotes a more meaningful interchange of ideas.

The robocall is one of these recent developments. A robocall is a pre-recorded phone message that can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a low cost through computer automation.

With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these robocalls can play a positive role in alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls.

But it is also a technology that can be abused. We all have heard stories about people being called over and over and over again at all hours of the day and night.

I believe this is wrong. When these calls are used improperly, they interrupt American families during their private time at home and interfere with their privacy rights. They can also turn people away from the political process itself.

When people become frustrated or annoyed by calls that are commercial in nature, they have the option to request to be put on the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list. To date, millions of Americans have chosen to be part of that list.

But political calls are specifically exempted from this ``Do Not Call'' registry.

The First Amendment gives special protection to political speech, because the interchange of political ideas is essential to our democracy.

For that reason, the ``Robocall Privacy Act'' would not wholly ban political robocalls. It would, however, impose some carefully drawn restrictions that I think we can all agree are reasonable.

Let me tell you exactly what the bill would do.

It would apply during the 60 days leading up to a general election and the 30 days before a primary election.

It would ban robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m.--to try to prevent these calls from disturbing people when they are sleeping or trying to put their children to sleep.

It would stop any campaign or group from making more than two robocalls to the same telephone number in a single day.

It would prohibit groups making robocalls from locking the ``caller identification'' number that is supposed to show up on many phones; and it would require robocallers to include an announcement at the beginning of each call explaining who is responsible for the call and that it is a prerecorded message. This is to prevent people from using these calls in a way that is misleading.

The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and intent on stopping the worst of these calls.

The bill creates a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law.

The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but to not receive money damages.

A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls.

Why are these provisions so important? Let me give you a few facts and stories from recent elections:

According to the Pew Foundation, the use of robocalls is on the rise. By April of 2008, 39 percent of voters overall had received pre- recorded political calls, and a full 81 percent of likely caucus-goers in Iowa had been contacted with robocalls.

As the 2008 campaign went forward, voters expressed disagreement both with the number of these calls, and with their content, saying that some calls were deliberately misleading.

In 2007, hundreds of voters in New York were woken up at 2 am because of a software programming error with a robocall. The calls were supposed to occur at 2 p.m.

In 2006, there were complaints about robocalls across the country. In the Nebraska 3rd District Congressional Election, voters complained to candidate Scott Kleeb when they received dozens of calls, containing poor-quality versions of his voice. Kleeb's supporters claim that his voice was recorded, and used in an abusive robocall against him.

In Illinois, voters received a recorded call about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean that did not clearly identify the caller. Voters called Representative Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--but only after the time that most voters had

hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call.

In a Maryland race, voters in a conservative area received a middle- of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, in part because of the false, late-night call.

Quantity is an added problem. Voters frequently receive multiple robocall calls a day from the same group or candidate in the days leading up to an election.

The National Do Not Call Network--a nonprofit focused on this issue-- has indicated that 40 percent of its membership says they received between 5 and 9 calls a day during the election season. Some frustrated voters reported receiving as many as 37 calls in a day.

This is just counterproductive. The goal of political speech is to inform and engage voters, not to mislead them or turn them off of the democratic process.

I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and its protection for political speech, but these robocalls have become a problem. Something must be done.

I believe this bill presents the right solution--it imposes clear time, place, and manner restrictions, but it also allows campaigns and groups to use robocalls to inform voters of issues and their positions.

I think it is time for us to find a reasonable solution to these calls that are intruding on the privacy of the American home and misleading voters.

I want to thank Senators Snowe and Durbin for co-sponsoring this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act of 2009.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Rating Accountability and Transparency Enhancement, RATE, Act to strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission's, SEC's, oversight of credit rating agencies and improve the accountability and accuracy of credit ratings.

Credit ratings have taken on systemic importance in our financial system, and have become critical to capital formation, investor confidence, and the efficient performance of the U.S. economy. However, in recent months we have witnessed a significant amount of market instability stemming in part from the failure of these agencies to accurately measure the risks associated with mortgage-backed securities and other more complex products.

As the Chairman of the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I chaired a hearing in September of 2007 to examine the role of credit rating agencies in the mortgage crisis, and these issues were also addressed at a hearing by the full Committee last year. From these hearings, it is clear that problems at credit rating agencies contributed to the significant financial sector instability our country has been experiencing. In fact, an SEC investigation last summer found that credit rating agencies such as Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings conducted weak analyses and failed to maintain appropriate independence from the issuers whose securities they rated.

Credit rating agencies are in the business of providing investors with unbiased analysis, but the current incentive structure gives them too much leeway to hand out unjustifiably favorable ratings. Let us be clear: not every rating is suspect and these firms provide crucial information for investors and the marketplace, but credit rating agencies like any other industry should be held accountable if they knowingly or recklessly mislead investors.

According to a mortgage industry trade publication, the three major credit rating agencies have each downgraded more than half of the subprime mortgage-backed securities they originally rated between 2005 and 2007. Ratings agencies made these mistakes in part because of conflicts of interest and other problems with internal controls, underscoring the need for enhanced oversight of this industry.

The bill I introduce today gives the SEC strong new authority to oversee and hold rating agencies accountable for conflicts of interest and other internal control deficiencies that have weakened ratings in the past. The bill includes a carefully crafted liability provision that allows investors to take action when a rating agency knowingly or recklessly fails to review key information in developing the rating.

It also enhances disclosure requirements to allow investors and others to learn about the methodologies, assumptions, fees, and amount of due diligence associated with ratings. It requires rating agencies to notify users and promptly update ratings when model or methodology changes occur. Finally, the bill requires ratings agencies to have independent compliance officers, and to take other actions, to prevent potential conflicts of interest.

I hope my colleagues will join me in helping improve the accountability and transparency of credit ratings that are so critical to the functioning of our financial markets.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill that would clarify the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation over program activities associated with the C.C. Cragin Project in northern Arizona. A companion measure was introduced last month by Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from Arizona.

Pursuant to the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, AWSA, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept from the Salt River Project, SRP, title of the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir for the express use of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. While it's clear that Congress intended to transfer jurisdiction of the Cragin Project to the Department of Interior, and in particular, the Bureau of Reclamation, the lands underlying the Project are technically located within the Coconino National Forest and the Tonto National Forest. This has resulted in a disagreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Forest Service concerning jurisdiction over the operation and management activities of the Cragin Project.

For more than two years, SRP and Reclamation have attempted to reach an agreement with the Forest Service that recognizes Reclamation's paramount jurisdiction over the Cragin Project. Unfortunately, the Forest Service maintains that this technical ambiguity under the AWSA implies they have a regulatory role in approving Cragin Project operations and maintenance.

Speedy resolution of this jurisdictional issue is urgently needed in order to address repairs and other operational needs of the Cragin Project, including planning for the future water needs of the City of Payson and other northern Arizona communities. This clarification would simply provide Reclamation with the oversight responsibility that Congress originally intended. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill that would clarify the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation over program activities associated with the C.C. Cragin Project in northern Arizona. A companion measure was introduced last month by Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from Arizona.

Pursuant to the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, AWSA, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept from the Salt River Project, SRP, title of the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir for the express use of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. While it's clear that Congress intended to transfer jurisdiction of the Cragin Project to the Department of Interior, and in particular, the Bureau of Reclamation, the lands underlying the Project are technically located within the Coconino National Forest and the Tonto National Forest. This has resulted in a disagreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Forest Service concerning jurisdiction over the operation and management activities of the Cragin Project.

For more than two years, SRP and Reclamation have attempted to reach an agreement with the Forest Service that recognizes Reclamation's paramount jurisdiction over the Cragin Project. Unfortunately, the Forest Service maintains that this technical ambiguity under the AWSA implies they have a regulatory role in approving Cragin Project operations and maintenance.

Speedy resolution of this jurisdictional issue is urgently needed in order to address repairs and other operational needs of the Cragin Project, including planning for the future water needs of the City of Payson and other northern Arizona communities. This clarification would simply provide Reclamation with the oversight responsibility that Congress originally intended. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.