Floor Statements

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and I know he is waiting to go and I appreciate his courtesy that I might go first. Let me speak in my capacity as chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Two weeks ago, when the Senate confirmed only 1 of the 19 judicial nominations on which votes were delayed from last year, I urged Senate Republicans to join with Democrats and take long overdue steps to remedy the serious vacancies crisis on Federal courts throughout the country. Nearly 1 out of every 10 Federal judgeships is vacant. Nonetheless, Senate Republicans refuse to consent to votes on consensus nominees who could fill many of those vacancies without further delay. These are well-qualified judicial nominees who were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee many months ago; there has been no explanation for the delay in their confirmation. During the last 2 months, Senate Republicans have consented to votes on only 2 of the 23 judicial nominees ready for final Senate action.

Of the 19 judicial nominations now awaiting a final vote by the Senate, 16 were reported by the Judiciary Committee with the support of every Senator on the Committee, Democratic and Republican. No Senator can or should have any reason to oppose these nominees in the Senate. But, month after month and year after year, Senate Republicans find new reasons and new tactics to delay confirmation of consensus judicial nominees for no good reason. I have never seen anything like this. These delays are a disservice to the American people. They prevent the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty. And they are damaging to the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans around the country.

Regrettably, the last 2 weeks evidences more of the same, a continuation of the delaying tactics we have seen for years, as Senate Republicans continue their across-the-board obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominations. For the second year in a row, Senate Republicans refused to consent to votes on judicial nominations before the end of the Senate's session in December. At the end of 2011, they again refused to follow Senate's traditional, longstanding practice of

voting to confirm consensus nominations before the end of the Senate session, a practice followed by Democrats and Republicans with Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush.

Their tactics have worked, to the detriment of the Federal courts and the American people. By nearly any measure we are well behind where we should be. Three years into President Obama's first term, the Senate has confirmed a lower percentage of President Obama's judicial nominees than those of any President in the last 35 years. The Senate has confirmed just over 70 percent of President Obama's circuit and district nominees, with more than one in four not confirmed. This is in stark contrast to the nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush's nominees who were confirmed, nearly nine out of every 10 nominees he sent to the Senate.

We remain well behind the pace set by the Senate during President Bush's first term. By this date in President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 170 Federal circuit and district court nominations on the way to 205, and had lowered judicial vacancies to 46. By the time Americans went to the polls in November 2004, we had reduced vacancies to 28 nationwide, the lowest level in the last 20 years. In contrast, the Senate has confirmed only 125 of President Obama's district and circuit nominees, and judicial vacancies remain over 85. The vacancy rate is double what it was at this point in the Bush administration.

I wonder when I hear some Republican Senators claim credit for progress on nominations and point to what they like to call ``positive action''--how they can ignore the 19 judicial nominations being blocked for no reason. I wonder how they can claim progress for the American people when judicial vacancies remain well above 80 more than 3 years into President Obama's first term. In this setting, after years of delay and lack of real progress, it is troubling to hear Senate Republicans already talking about how they plan to resort to the Thurmond Rule to shut down all judicial confirmations for the rest of the year. Their obstruction has already resulted in the Senate having confirmed 45 fewer judicial nominations after 3 years of the Obama administration than after 3 years of the Bush administration. We still have a long way to go to catch up and to lower judicial vacancies before anyone talks about a confirmation shutdown.

I wish Senate Republicans would abandon their rhetoric and do as Senate Democrats did when we worked to confirm 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees in 17 months. In fact, we continued to work to reduce judicial vacancies by considering and confirming President Bush's judicial nominations late into the Presidential election years of 2004 and 2008, reducing the vacancy rates in those years to their lowest levels in decades.

The cost of this across the board Republican obstruction is borne by the American people. More than half of all Americans, nearly 160 million, live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled today if Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations that have been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee. It is wrong to delay votes on these qualified, consensus judicial nominees. The Senate should fill these numerous, extended judicial vacancies, not delay final action for no good reason.

The result of the Senate Republicans' inaction is that the people of New York, California, West Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Missouri, Washington, Utah, the District of Columbia, Nevada, Louisiana, and Texas are without the judges they need. The result is that judicial emergency vacancies in Florida, Utah, California, Nevada and Texas remain unfilled.

Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who seek their day in Federal court to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait for 3 years before a judge hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute. With one in 10 Federal judgeships currently vacant, the Senate should have come together to remedy the serious judicial vacancies crisis on Federal courts around the country.

This Republican obstruction began long before President Obama's recent recess appointment of a handful of Executive branch nominees needed for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board to function. Indeed, despite 3 years of delays and across the board obstruction of his judicial nominations, President Obama has not recess appointed a single judicial nominee. That is something President Bush did, not President Obama. Senate Democrats that year consented to consider noncontroversial judicial nominations, confirming a total of 205 circuit and district court nominations in President Bush's first term and lowering judicial vacancies dramatically. In fact, the Senate proceeded to an up or down vote and confirmed 1 of the judicial nominees President Bush had recess appointed, William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit.

Senate Republicans have been blocking votes on 18 of the President's judicial nominees since last year. Eight of the judicial nominations Republicans are blocking were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee in September and October last year. Another 5 nominations were reported in November, and 4 in December. All of these judicial nominations could and should have been considered by the Senate last year. Indeed, when Republicans held up scores of nominees in December, including these judicial nominees, they did so to ``punish'' the administration for not assuring them that the President would not use his recess appointment power. That delay, now of more than 2 months, has already taken a measure of revenge. They continue to hurt the country by engaging in more obstruction and delay now to seek a double measure of retaliation.

Instead of exacerbating the conflict, Senate Republicans should reconsider their tactics and moderate their use of filibusters and stalling. This President has reached out to work with Senators from both parties with respect to judicial nominations. Every one of the 19 judicial nominations awaiting final Senate action has the support of his or her home State Senators, Republican as well as Democratic. There is no excuse for continued stalling of President Obama's consensus judicial nominees. The courts and the country cannot afford another year of across the board delays of President Obama's judicial nominations. I urge votes on Jesse Furman for the Southern District of New York, Cathy Bencivengo for the Southern District of California, Gina Groh for the Northern District of West Virginia, Margo Brodie for the Southern District of New York, Adalberto Jordan for the Eleventh Circuit, Beth Phillips for the Western District of Missouri, Thomas Rice for the Eastern District of Washington, David Nuffer for the District of Utah, Stephanie Thacker for the Fourth Circuit, Michael Fitzgerald for the Central District of California, Ronnie Abrams for the Southern District of New York, Rudolph Contreras for the District of Washington DC, Susie Morgan for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Jacqueline Nguyen for the Ninth Circuit, Gregg Costa for the Southern District of Texas, David Guaderrama for the Western District of Texas, and Brian Wimes for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Today, nearly a year after the Senate passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the Senate is being asked to adopt the conference report to accompany it.

I am pleased that the conference report does retain bipartisan language that I worked on to protect the public's right to know under the Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom of Information Act is one of our Nation's premier open government laws. The language included is intended to allow the Government to protect sensitive aviation information while still ensuring that the American public has access to aviation-related health and safety information.

I am very disappointed that the conference report does not contain the amendment that Senator Inhofe and I worked hard to pass when the bill was considered and passed by the Senate. Following passage of our amendment in the Senate, which contained important improvements to the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act--PSOB--and the Volunteer Protection Act, I worked with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith to revise the Senate language into a bipartisan set of PSOB reforms.

Among these reforms, and the basis of my Senate amendment, was the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act. This measure was prompted by the tragic death of Dale Long, a decorated emergency medical technician from Bennington, VT, who spent his career helping his fellow Vermonters. Following Mr. Long's death, I became aware of a gap in PSOB coverage for emergency medical responders, and this amendment was designed to close that gap so that Mr. Long, and others who serve as medical responders for private, non-profit ambulance services, have the protection of the PSOB program.

In addition to the Dale Long measure, the agreement that Chairman Smith and I drafted included provisions to improve the administration and efficiency of the PSOB program. These reforms would have made the claims process faster, easier, and fairer for those disabled in the line of duty, and for the surviving family members of those who lose their lives during service. I regret very much that the Conference Committee decided to remove these improvements from the final version of the bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention the recent accomplishments of King Arthur Flour of Norwich,

Mr. President, am I correct that amendment No. 1483, the Leahy-Cornyn amendment, is next?

We would be happy to answer the Senator's questions.

You cannot bribe a former public official, at least not under the terms of this amendment. Section 205 does ensure that when a public official accepts a bribe in return for taking an official act, the official cannot escape liability by leaving public service before the bribe is received or discovered.

The former public official must accept the bribe or gratuity ``for or because of'' the official act. If the public official does not know that a matter is pending, the public official cannot accept a bribe ``for or because'' of it.

This phrase is in the current bribery and gratuities statute and has been part of the law for decades. Our amendment does not change its definition or the scope of its use. It appears in section 205 because of the way that the amendment is drafted, and it is interpreted consistent with the extensive body of case law on corruption.

Without this codification, there is no Federal law prohibiting certain public officials from acting in their own financial interest, at the expense of the public, and in violation of existing State and local law.

This is an area where there is a particular Federal interest because if the corrupt official is in State or local law enforcement, there may be no other way to ferret out the corruption. In fact, in Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court invited Congress to criminalize undisclosed self-dealing in the specific and narrowly tailored way we do today.

No, it does not. Criminal liability only attaches when the public official acts with fraudulent intent and does so in knowing violation of existing rules and regulations.

A trivial, attenuated financial benefit could not lead to this violation because the public official must still act knowingly and with fraudulent intent to receive the benefit, and they must do so in violation of existing law. For example, if State ethics rules do not require disclosure of financial interests below a certain threshold, then undisclosed self-dealing--even with fraudulent intent--below that threshold could not be charged under this statute. Moreover, the amendment requires the public official to act for the purpose of benefiting a financial interest.

No, the local official has not committed a Federal offense in the hypothetical you describe. Criminal liability under Federal law only exists if the official knowingly fails to disclose the interest and further intentionally acts to benefit that financial interest and does so with the fraudulent intent required of the mail and wire fraud statute. In the hypothetical you describe, there is no fraud and therefore no criminal activity.

Senator Cornyn and I worked hard to ensure that our amendment addresses the issue of undisclosed self-dealing in a narrow and precise manner. To make sure there are no ambiguities in the updated honest services statute our amendment creates, we carefully defined the term ``material information'' and made sure we did so in such a way that our definition would apply only to the precise section of the Criminal Code where the new undisclosed self-dealing provision will appear.

Our definition will have no effect on the term ``material information'' as it appears in other parts of the STOCK Act because it is drafted to apply only to the new Criminal Code provision and not to other criminal laws or the Federal securities laws. On page 12, line 11 of amendment 1483, it says ``definitions--as used in this section:'' and then provides a set of definitions which includes ``material information.'' That provision very clearly applies the definition only to that new Criminal Code section, not to the rest of title 18, to the remainder of the STOCK Act, or to Federal securities law. In fact, this language was drawn from S. 401, the Leahy-Cornyn Public Corruption Prosecutions Improvement Act, and it is the legislative history of that bill and not that of the STOCK Act, that will apply when our amendment is interpreted.

Mr. President, the Leahy-Cornyn amendment is drawn from our Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act. Our bill has been supported by the United States Department of Justice in a March 2009 letter, and this amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers Union, the FBI Agents Association, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, and Democracy 21. I am working with Senator Cornyn, the lead Republican cosponsor of our bill and this amendment. We thank Senators Casey and Kirk for cosponsoring this amendment.

This amendment will provide investigators and prosecutors with the tools they need to hold officials at all levels of government accountable when they act corruptly by closing legal loopholes. This amendment, which reflects a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide. The Senate Judiciary Committee has now reported this bill with bipartisan support in three successive Congresses. The House Judiciary Committee recently reported a companion bill unanimously. It is time for Congress to act to pass serious anti-corruption legislation.

Importantly, the amendment includes a fix to reverse a major step backward in the fight against fraud and corruption. In Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court sided with a former executive from Enron and greatly narrowed the honest services fraud statute, a law that has been used for decades as a crucial weapon to combat public corruption and self-dealing. The Court's decision leaves corrupt conduct unchecked. Most notably, the Court's decision would leave open the opportunity for state and Federal public officials to secretly act in their own financial self-interest, rather than in the interest of the public. This amendment closes this gaping hole in our anti- corruption laws.

The amendment includes several other provisions designed to tighten existing law. It fixes the gratuities statute to make clear that public officials must not be bought. It reaffirms that public officials may not accept anything worth more than $1,000, other than what is permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of their official position. It strengthens key sentences and gives prosecutors and investigators time to make complex and difficult cases.

As a former State prosecutor, I am sensitive to the dangers of creating too many Federal crimes. In the area of public corruption, however, sometimes it is only the Federal government that can effectively pursue complex corruption matters. Conflicts and relationships can make it difficult for State and local law enforcement, and these matters can require extensive resources that cannot be diverted from hard-pressed local budgets. This Federal law stands as a backstop to help ensure against public corruption.

I also know how important it is that our criminal laws be fair and precise, giving sufficient notice to those who may break the law. It is in that spirit that Senator Cornyn and I, working with Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Quigley, have refined this legislation. We have made it careful and precise and built in important safeguards. This amendment will only target corrupt conduct.

Right now, a mayor who takes a $1,000 payment to award a contract to a specific company can be prosecuted for corruption, but a mayor who conceals his interest in a company, awards a contract, and secretly makes $1 million out of the deal likely cannot be prosecuted. A contracting officer who accepts thousands of dollars in gifts from a frequent bidder hoping for favorable treatment on some unspecified future contract likely cannot be prosecuted. The Department of Justice has been dismissing counts and cases because of these gaps in the law. It is time to fix them.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have witnessed in recent years in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to enforce our laws. Public corruption erodes the faith the American people have in those who are given the privilege of public service. This amendment will help us to take real steps to restore confidence in government by rooting out criminal corruption.

Madam President, I would like to draw the Senate's attention to recent developments in Egypt, and I begin by referring to the outburst of violence yesterday by rival soccer fans after a match in that country in which 73 people were reportedly killed and hundreds injured.

This is a shocking tragedy, and I want to express my condolences to the Egyptian people and the families of the victims.

Last week tens of thousands of Egyptians gathered in Tahrir Square in Cairo to celebrate the 1 year anniversary of the popular revolution that overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak. That courageous and largely peaceful expression of popular will was inspirational to people everywhere, including millions of Americans.

The United States and Egypt share a long history of friendship and cooperation. Thousands of Americans travel and study in Egypt, and over the years we have provided tens of billions of dollars in economic and military aid to Egypt. Our countries share many interests, and it is critically important that we remain friends and allies in that strategically important part of the world during this period of political, economic, and social transition.

During the past 12 months, Egypt has been governed by a group of senior military officers, each of whom held positions of leadership and privilege in the repressive and corrupt Mubarak government. To their credit, for the most part they did not attempt to put down the revolution by force, and they pledged to support the people's demand for a democratically elected civilian government that protects fundamental freedoms.

The transition process is a work in progress. On the positive side, two democratic elections have been held and a new Parliament has been seated. On the negative side, civilian protesters have been arrested and prosecuted in military courts that do not protect due process, and in December Egyptian police raided the offices of seven nongovernmental organizations, including four U.S.-based groups whose work for democracy and human rights has for years been hindered by laws and practices that restrict freedom of expression and association. Files and computers were confiscated, and some of their employees have been interrogated.

There are also reports that as many as 400 Egyptian nongovernmental organizations are under investigation, allegedly for accepting foreign donations. Apparently, to the thinking of Egypt's military rulers, there is nothing wrong with the Egyptian Government receiving billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers, but private Egyptian groups that work for a more democratic, free society on behalf of the Egyptian people and that cannot survive without outside help do so at their peril.

Despite repeated assurances from Egyptian authorities that the property seized from these organizations would be promptly returned, that has not happened. To the contrary, the situation has gotten worse as several of their American employees have been ordered to remain in Egypt. Some of them have obtained protection at the U.S. Embassy. With each passing day there are growing concerns that these groups could face criminal charges for operating in the country without permission.

This is a spurious charge, since registration applications were submitted and deemed complete by the government years ago, because the organizations regularly reported to officials on their activities, and since, while registration was pending, they were permitted to operate. Ironically, while the previous regime did not seek to expel them for their prodemocracy work, Egypt's current authorities, whose responsibility it is to defend and support the democratic tradition, are attempting to do just that.

There is abundant misinformation about the work of the American-based

organizations, with some Egyptian officials accusing them--without offering any evidence--of trying to subvert Egypt's political process. Without belaboring the point, their work was no secret as they had nothing to hide. They were helping to build the capacity of Egyptian organizations engaged in peaceful work for democracy and human rights, supporting the development of political parties, and working with Egyptian groups to provide nonpartisan voter education.

The military argues that since these groups were not registered, they were in violation of Egyptian law, but this is a transparently specious excuse for shutting them down. Their repeated applications for registration were neither granted nor denied. The government simply chose to ignore them.

Egyptian officials also insist that this is simply a matter of upholding the rule of law, but the complaint against these organizations was issued by a Minister with no direct authority over legal matters, and a negative propaganda campaign was unleashed in the state-controlled media. The conduct of the raids, seizure of the files and computers, interrogation of the employees, and the no-fly order have not been conducted consistent with legal standards but instead seem to be politically motivated. No warrants have been issued, no charging documents made public, and no inventory of seized property made available.

Many suspect that the force behind this crackdown is Minister of International Cooperation Faiza Aboul Naga, who was described in a Washington Post editorial this week as ``a civilian holdover from the Mubarak regime'' and ``an ambitious demagogue [who] is pursuing a well- worn path in Egyptian politics--whipping up nationalist sentiment against the United States as a way of attacking liberal opponents at home.'' Given Minister Aboul Naga's recent statements, I strongly believe that no future U.S. Government funds should be provided to or through that ministry as long as she is in charge. As the chair of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on the State Department and Foreign Operations, I am confident there is strong support in Congress for this position.

A related issue is the Egyptian military's continued use of vaguely worded emergency laws to silence dissent. While it is encouraging that the head of the military, General Tantawi, announced plans to lift the 30-year state of emergency, that is only a first step.

As I have mentioned, for decades the United States and Egypt have been friends and allies. While we have differed over issues of democracy and human rights, our two countries have worked together in pursuit of common goals. Our partnership needs to be strengthened and broadened to respond to the interests and aspirations of the Egyptian people themselves. Our longstanding legacy of cooperation with the Egyptian Government is now in jeopardy, and it is in the interests of both countries that this crisis is promptly and satisfactorily resolved and that we focus instead on moving forward to build an even stronger and enduring relationship.

In December, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2012. Section 7041(a)(1) of division I of that act provides that prior to the obligation of $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2012 U.S. military aid for Egypt, the Secretary of State shall certify that ``the Government of Egypt is supporting the transition to civilian government including holding free and fair elections; implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law.''

These unprecedented requirements, which I wrote, were included for two reasons. First, we want to send a clear message to the Egyptian people that we support their demand for democracy and fundamental freedoms. Second, we want to send a clear message to the Egyptian military that the days of blank checks are over. We value the relationship and will provide substantial amounts of aid, but not unconditionally. They must do their part to support the transition to civilian government. If the assault against international and Egyptian nongovernmental organizations continues, several of the requirements for certification could not be met.

Egypt has an extraordinary history dating back thousands of years. Anyone who has stood at the base of the pyramids cannot help but be in awe of what that society accomplished centuries before Columbus arrived in America. It is a destination for thousands of American tourists and students each year. It has the potential to be a strong force for democratic change and moderation in the Middle East and north Africa.

I hope the Egyptian authorities fully appreciate the seriousness of this situation and what is at stake. They need to permit these organizations to reopen their offices, return the confiscated property, end investigations of their activities and the activities of Egyptian groups, and register them without conditions so they can continue to support the democratic transition.

I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will shortly be offering, as an amendment, an amendment to the substitute. It will be on behalf of myself and Senator John Cornyn. I will ask consent in a moment to suggest the absence of a quorum but, upon the rescission of the absence of a quorum, that I be recognized for up to 3 minutes.

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

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

Mr. President, I am soon going to offer an amendment to the substitute. I am going to offer it on behalf of myself and Senator Cornyn.

I hear Senators saying that with the public's opinion of Congress at a low point, we need to take action to restore public confidence. I think our amendment does that by closing loopholes in the laws that have allowed corruption to escape accountability.

I believe we have to provide investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to hold officials at all levels of government accountable when they act corruptly.

This amendment, which reflects a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide.

I should note, the Senate Judiciary Committee has reported this bill with bipartisan support in three successive Congresses, and I would note that the House Judiciary Committee, under a Republican chairman, recently reported a companion bill and did so unanimously. Every Republican and every Democrat voted for it. So I believe it is time for Congress to pass serious anticorruption legislation. We have demonstrated that this is something that could bring both Republicans and Democrats together, and we ought to pass it.

Public corruption erodes the trust the American people have in those who are given the privilege--and it is a privilege--of public service. Too often, loopholes in existing laws have meant corrupt conduct can go unchecked. The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of government, and that victimizes every American by chipping away at the foundation of our democracy. The amendment, I believe, will help to restore confidence in government by rooting out criminal corruption. It includes a fix to reverse a major step backward in the fight against crime and corruption.

In Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court sided with a former executive from Enron and greatly narrowed the honest services fraud statute, a law that has actually been used for decades in both Republican and Democratic administrations as a crucial weapon to combat public corruption and self-dealing. Unfortunately, whether intended, the Court's decision leaves corrupt conduct unchecked. Most notably, the Court's decision would leave open the opportunity for State and Federal public officials to secretly act in their own financial self- interest rather than in the interest of the public.

The amendment Senator Cornyn and I have put together would close this gaping hole in our anticorruption laws. It includes several other provisions designed to tighten existing law. It fixes the gratuities statute to make clear that while the vast majority of public officials are honest, those who are not cannot be bought. It reaffirms that public officials may not accept anything worth more than $1,000, other than what is permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of their official positions. It also appropriately clarifies the definition of what it means for a public official to perform an official act under the bribery statute. It will increase sentences for serious corruption offenses. It will provide investigators and prosecutors more time to pursue these challenging and complex cases. It amends several key statutes to clarify their application in corruption cases to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading prosecution based on legal ambiguities.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct we have seen in some of these high-profile corruption cases, then let's enact meaningful legislation. Let's give investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to enforce our laws. It is one thing to have a law on the books; it is another to have the tools to enforce it. So I hope this bipartisan amendment will be adopted.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the substitute proposed by myself and Senator Cornyn.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to commend the University of Vermont for its close relationship with the Peace Corps. This year, UVM ranked fifth in the Nation among midsized colleges and universities that are the top producers of Peace Corps volunteers. I am proud of the 42 UVM alumni currently serving in the Peace Corps around the world.

UVM has highlighted Eric Smith as one of its current alumni volunteers. Eric, who is stationed in Costa Rica, is applying his business degree by teaching microfinance and helping young women develop small businesses. He says that such efforts ``would not have been possible without my education at UVM.''

Like Eric, all of the UVM volunteers have devoted 2 years to promoting cultural understanding and improving the lives of people in countries such as Cambodia, El Salvador, Tanzania, and Uganda. Some are employing innovative teaching methods to inspire young people. Some work on small farms, increasing food production in rural villages. Others help provide safe drinking water or combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Yet all of the UVM volunteers display an admirable commitment to civic engagement with the dream of building a better world.

This dream is emblematic of the Vermont spirit. For the second year in a row, in 2011 our State produced the most Peace Corps volunteers per capita in the Nation. The Upper Valley region of Vermont ranks eighth in the Nation among metropolitan areas whose citizens are serving in the Peace Corps. In 2010, the Burlington area ranked second in the same category.

As the Peace Corps continues its 50th year of building understanding between Americans and the citizens of other countries, I want to applaud the contributions of Vermonters and the University of Vermont. These volunteers deserve our appreciation and support.

I ask unanimous consent that a January 25, 2012, Burlington Free Press article entitled ``UVM ranks 5th in producing Peace Corps vols.'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, two years ago, with the stroke of a pen, five Supreme Court justices acted in a case known as Citizens United to overturn a century of law designed to protect our elections from corporate spending. They ran roughshod over longstanding precedent to strike down key provisions of our bipartisan campaign finance laws, and ruled that corporations are no longer prohibited from direct spending in political campaigns. I was troubled at the time and remain troubled today that in that case, the Supreme Court extended to corporations the same First Amendment rights in the political process that are guaranteed by the Constitution to individual Americans.

Now, 2 years later, the American people have seen the sudden and dramatic effects of the Citizens United decision. The flood of corporate money flowing into campaigns from undisclosed and unaccountable sources has had an enormous influence in the Republican primary elections this year, just as it did in the 2010 mid-term elections. Instead of hearing the voices of voters, we see a barrage of negative advertisements from so-called Super PACs. This comes as no surprise to the many of us in Congress and around the country who worried at the time of the Citizens United decision that it turns the idea of government of, by and for the people on its head. We worried that the decision created new rights for Wall Street at the expense of the people on Main Street. We worried that powerful corporate megaphones would drown out the voices and interests of individual Americans. Two years later, it is clear those concerns were justified.

We held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee last year to explore how the Citizens United decision affects the lives of hardworking Americans. I began that hearing by talking about how our Constitution starts with the words, ``We the People of the United States.'' In designing the Constitution, ratifying it, adopting the Bill of Rights and creating our democracy, we spoke of, thought of, and guaranteed, fundamental rights to the American people, not corporations.

There are reasons for that. Corporations are not the same as individual Americans. Corporations do not have the same rights, the same morals or the same interests. Corporations cannot vote in our democracy. They are artificial legal constructs to facilitate business. The Founders understood this. Americans across the country have long understood this.

Corporations are not people. That is common sense rooted in core American values. Nowhere does our Constitution mention corporations. The great Chief Justice John Marshall understood this distinction when he wrote in 1819 that, ``A corporation is an artificial being . . . the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it. . . .''

The distinction between corporations and people is one that was at the heart of the campaign finance reforms proposed by Teddy Roosevelt more than a century ago limiting the role of corporations in the political process. Those reforms were preserved and extended through another century of legal developments that followed. Nine years ago, it was these same values that informed bipartisan efforts in Congress, on behalf of the American people, to enact the landmark McCain-Feingold Act. That legislation strengthened the laws protecting the interests of all Americans by ensuring a fair electoral process where individual Americans could have a role in the political process, regardless of wealth.

As I pointed out at our hearing last year, when the Supreme Court first reviewed the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2003, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, it upheld the key provisions of the Act against a First Amendment challenge. Six years later, a thin majority of the Supreme Court, made possible by President Bush's appointment of Justice Samuel Alito, reversed course on the very same question. In so doing, the conservative activist majority discarded not only the McConnell decision, but ignored longstanding precedent to effectively redraft our campaign finance laws. As Justice Stevens noted in dissent: ``The only relevant thing that has changed since . . . McConnell is the composition of the Court.'' The Constitution had not changed, but five Justices rewrote it.

The reason so many Americans continue to recoil from the Citizens United decision 2 years later is that the brand of conservative judicial activism on display in that decision is a threat to the rule of law and an effective representative democracy. At the core of the First Amendment is the right of individual Americans to participate in the political process to speak and, crucially, to be heard. That is what the campaign finance laws were designed to ensure--that Americans can be heard and fairly participate in elections. Rather than abiding by the limitations that Congress has developed to ensure a multitude of voices in the marketplace of election contests, five justices on the Supreme Court decided that the biggest corporations should be unleashed, and can be the loudest and most dominant, and drown out individual Americans. They showed no deference to Congress, and little deference to the precedents of the Supreme Court.

The risks we feared at the time of the Citizens United decision, the risks that drove Congress to pass bipartisan laws based on longstanding precedent, have been apparent in the elections since that decision. Citizens United has opened the floodgates of corporate influence in American elections. In these tough economic times, I believe individual Americans should not have their voices stifled by unfettered corporate interests. I remain concerned that this decision will invite foreign corporate influence into our elections.

Recently, Justice Scalia responded to the criticism of the Citizens United decision and the advent of Super PACs and their overwhelming influence by saying that if people do not like it, they should turn off their televisions. That response misses the point. Americans should not be told to tune out from democracy or from considering a fair exchange of ideas. American voters should be able to speak, be heard and to hear competing voices, not be overwhelmed by corporate influence and

driven out of the governing process. Even some whose response to the Citizens United decision was more muted have turned a corner, and recently, Senator McCain, a lead co-author of the McCain-Feingold Act, conceded that Super PACs are ``disgraceful.'' They allow nothing more than to have corporations or wealthy individuals dominate and control local elections.

We have tried to curtail some of the worst abuses allowed by the Supreme Court's decision, but Senate Republicans have blocked those efforts. In 2010, Senate Republicans filibustered the DISCLOSE Act, preventing the Senate from even debating the measure, let alone having an up-or-down vote in the Senate. The DISCLOSE Act would have added transparency to the campaign finance laws to help prevent corporations from abusing their newfound constitutional rights. It would have preserved the voices of hardworking Americans in the political process by limiting the ability of foreign corporations to influence American elections, prohibiting corporations receiving taxpayer money from contributing to elections, and increasing disclosure requirements on corporate contributors, among other things.

By preventing us from even debating the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured the ability of wealthy corporations to dominate all mediums of advertising and out the voices of individuals, as we have seen and will continue to see in our elections.

We continue to try to fight the effects of corporate influence unleashed by Citizens United. We have introduced the Fair Elections Now Act, to establish a voluntary program for viable congressional candidates to accept Federal grants, matching funds, and vouchers to supplement money from small dollar donors. Rather than fundraising, this legislation will enable incumbent candidates more time to better represent their constituents, and it will level the playing field to give challengers the chance to better compete with established candidates without relying on wealthy donors to fund their entire campaign. The Fair Elections Now Act represents one important step toward minimizing corporate influence in the electoral process, and ensuring that candidates for Congress are neither beholden to corporate influence, nor so consumed with fundraising that they do not have the time necessary to legislate. I hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will work to enact this important measure.

We continue to work to protect shareholders of publicly held corporations from having their money spent on political activity without their consent, another consequence of the Citizens United decision. I am a cosponsor of the Shareholder Protection Act, which would require shareholder authorization and full disclosure of any political spending by publicly held corporations. Last week, I joined with 14 other Democratic Senators in sending a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, urging it to consider using its authority to immediately implement part of this legislation requiring full disclosure of corporate political spending. Such an action is within the SEC's power to do today. This information is not only material to shareholders, but it is something shareholders continue to request from corporations. As we wrote last week, a corporation's money belongs to the shareholders, not the executives, and they deserve a voice in how it is spent.

Vermont is a small State. It is easy to imagine the wave of corporate money we are seeing spent on elections around the country lead to corporate interests flooding the airwaves with election ads, and transforming even local elections there or in other small States. It would not take more than a tiny fraction of corporate money to outspend all of our local candidates combined. If a local city council or zoning board is considering an issue of corporate interest, why would the corporate interests not try to drown out the view of Vermont's hardworking citizens? I know that the people of Vermont, like all Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election Day. Vermonters cherish their critical role in the democratic process and are staunch believers in the First Amendment. Vermont refused to ratify the Constitution until the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending.

When the Citizens United decision was handed down, I said that it was the most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore. As in Bush v. Gore, the conservative activists on the Supreme Court unnecessarily went beyond the proper judicial role to substitute their preferences for the law. But Citizens United is broader and more damaging, because rather than intervening to decide a single election, we have seen the Court's intervention affecting all elections. On the 2 year anniversary of Citizens United, I call on all Senators, Republican or Democratic, to come together to restore the ability of every American to be heard and participate in free and fair elections.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Major General Michael Dubie, the Adjutant General of the Vermont National Guard. Throughout his career, General Dubie has demonstrated selfless dedication and service to our State and our country. I was very pleased to learn that Vermont's largest newspaper, the Burlington Free Press, recently named General Dubie the Vermonter of the Year. He certainly deserves the honor.

Earlier this year, when Tropical Storm Irene devastated much of Vermont, General Dubie led the Vermont National Guard in confronting one of the most serious crises our State has ever faced. The Guard acted immediately to deliver emergency supplies to victims cut off by the storm's destruction. Helicopters airdropped food and water. When it became apparent that Vermont needed more airlift because some of the

Vermont Guard's helicopters were in Iraq, General Dubie coordinated with other State Guards to get the help Vermont needed.

The Guard's intensive rescue and aid mission eventually evolved into a longer-term recovery and rebuilding mission. Skillfully and tirelessly, Vermont citizen-soldiers set to work removing debris and rebuilding roads and infrastructure.

General Dubie commanded some 500 activated Guard members in the wake of Irene. But that does not account for other ongoing missions in 2011, or the substantial contribution the Vermont Guard has made to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--including a major activation to Afghanistan in 2010. In honoring General Dubie as Vermonter of the Year, we pay tribute to the tremendous sacrifice made both in State and overseas by Vermont National Guard members and their families.

True to form, General Dubie, despite his extensive experience with dangerous overseas missions, has called the Irene deployment the proudest mission of his career because he was able to directly help so many of his fellow Vermonters.

MG Michael Dubie is a proven leader and he embodies the best of Vermont. I am proud to recognize his hard work and I wish him continued success in his career.

I ask unanimous consent that the Burlington Free Press article entitled ``Maj. Gen. Dubie is Vermonter of the Year'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have worked to expedite the Senate's passage of Congresswoman Giffords' legislation. This action today shows what we can do when we work together. The Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act, H.R. 3801, is intended to help ensure that smugglers who use ultralight aircraft along the United States border are held accountable for their actions. Its passage today is an appropriate tribute to the courage and outstanding work of Congresswoman Giffords.

Congresswoman Giffords has long been committed to securing the border against drug smugglers. This legislation is intended to keep Americans who live and work along the border safe.

I was part of the tribute to Congresswoman Giffords at the joint session of Congress to hear the President's State of the Union address earlier this week. I was saddened to learn of Gabrielle Giffords' decision to resign from Congress. I know that her commitment to the citizens of Arizona is unwavering. I look forward to working with her in the future, and wish her a continued speedy recovery. She is an inspiration to all.

Mr. President, on January 28, 2012, privacy advocates, industry leaders, and government officials from across our Nation will celebrate Data Privacy Day 2012. I am pleased to join these stakeholders in calling attention to the need to better secure our privacy and security in cyberspace.

In the digital age, our Nation faces the challenge of securing our computer networks from cyber threats and cyber crime, while at the same time, encouraging innovation and protecting Americans' right to privacy. Even as the Internet and other rapidly advancing technologies spur economic growth and expand opportunity, there is growing uncertainty and unease about how Americans' sensitive personal information is collected, shared, and stored. Data Privacy Day provides an important reminder about the importance of data privacy.

After a record year of high-profile data breaches in the private sector and throughout government, it is more important than ever that Congress step forward and enact meaningful data privacy legislation. As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I continue to work toward that goal.

Last year, I reintroduced comprehensive data privacy legislation that will better protect Americans' sensitive personal data and reduce the risk of data security breaches. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act would establish a single nationwide standard for data breach notification and require that companies that have databases with sensitive personal information establish and implement data privacy and security programs. This bill would also help law enforcement better combat cyber crime by strengthening and clarifying the penalties for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and creating a new criminal offense for cyber attacks involving government computers that manage critical infrastructure information.

The Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bill in September 2011. The committee has previously reported similar legislation three times. I urge the 112th Congress to finally enact this much needed legislation.

In the coming weeks, the Senate is expected to consider comprehensive cyber security legislation. Protecting our Nation's data from breaches is at the very core of a comprehensive strategy for improving cyber security. That is why President Obama included a data breach proposal that closely mirrors the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act in his cyber security proposal to Congress. That is why consumer and privacy advocates, business leaders, and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle continue to call for the enactment of data privacy legislation. And that is why I will continue work to ensure that meaningful data privacy legislation is included in any cyber security legislation the Senate considers this year.

I will also continue the important work that the Judiciary Committee began last year to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, so that our digital privacy laws keep pace with changes in technology. Updating this law to reflect the realities of our time is essential to keeping us safe from cyber threats.

Again, I thank and commend the many stakeholders and leaders from across the Nation who are holding events to commemorate Data Privacy Day. I look forward to working with these stakeholders and with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers to ensure that the right to privacy is ensured in the digital age.

Mr. President, Chris Bohjalian is one of the treasures of Vermont, as well as being a gifted writer. We Vermonters are fortunate to be able to read his weekly column. They almost always deal with some aspect of life in the State he and I share.

Marcelle and I were especially touched by his column on Christmas Day about Pastor David Wood, of the United Church of Lincoln, VT.

So many of us go to church on Christmas Day, shake hands with those officiating at the service and thank them for what they have done, and then go home to be with our families. What Chris has done is talk about the Herculean tasks of Pastor David Wood. It reminds us that those who give us spiritual guidance and consolation do far more than what we see on holidays and holy days. I would ask unanimous consent that Chris Bohjalian's column about the extraordinary David Wood be printed in the Record.

Few issues unite the United States Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO; the National Association of Manufacturers and the Teamsters; the cable industry and the broadcast industry. By targeting the worst-of-the-worst and protecting the integrity of the Internet, we have been able to create a broad ranging coalition of support of the PROTECT IP Act. Along with law enforcement groups, more than 400 companies, associations, and unions have come together to support this targeted, bipartisan legislation to combat foreign rogue websites.

Protecting American intellectual property and the American jobs that depend on it is important. Last year we were able to reform our patent laws to unleash American innovators and help boost our economic recovery. Now we need to confront the threat to our economic recovery posed by Internet piracy.

As I have demonstrated throughout my service in the Senate and again during the last two years, I have remained flexible in terms of the legislative language in order to best meet our goals of stemming the criminality when protecting legitimate activities and guarding against doing anything to undercut innovation or fetter free discussion. I have urged those with concerns to come forward and to work with us. We adjusted the very definitions in the bill to narrow them as Senator Wyden had suggested. I announced two weeks ago that I took seriously the concerns about the domain name system provisions and would fix it as part of a manager's amendment when the bill was considered by the Senate.

I regret that the Senate will not be proceeding this week to debate the legislation, and any proposed amendments. I thank the Majority Leader for seeking to schedule that debate on this serious economic threat. I understand that when the Republican leader recently objected and Republican Senators who had cosponsored and long supported this effort jumped ship, he was faced with a difficult decision. My hope is that after a brief delay, we will, together, confront this problem. Everyone says they want to stop the Internet piracy. Everyone says that they recognize that stealing and counterfeiting are criminal and serious matters. This is the opportunity for those who want changes in the bill to come forward, join with us and work with us. This is the time to suggest improvements that will better achieve our goals. The PROTECT IP Act is a measure that has been years in the making, and which has been twice reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee to better enforce American intellectual property rights and protect American consumers. It has been awaiting Senate action since last May. Today the rogue foreign websites based in Russia that are stealing Americans' property are delighted to continue their operations and counterfeiting sweatshops in China are the beneficiaries of Senate delay. People need to understand that the PROTECT IP Act would only affect websites that have been judged by a federal court to have no significant use other than engaging in theft whether through stolen content or the selling of counterfeits. It is narrowly targeted at the worst-of-the-worst. Websites that have some infringing content on their sites but have uses other than profiting from infringement are not covered by the legislation. Websites like Wikipedia and YouTube that have obvious and significant uses are among those that would not be subject to the provisions of the bill. That Wikipedia and some other websites decided to ``go dark'' on January 18 was their choice, self imposed and was not caused by the legislation and could not be.

It was disappointing that sites linked to descriptions of this legislation that were misleading and one-sided. The Internet should be a place for discussion, for all to be heard and for different points of view to be expressed. That is how truth emerges and democracy is served. Last week, however, many were subjected to false and incendiary charges and sloganeering designed to inflame emotions. I am concerned that while critics of this legislation engage in hyperbole about what the bill plainly does not do, organized crime elements in Russia, in China, and elsewhere who do nothing but peddle in counterfeit products and stolen American content are laughing at their good fortune that congressional action is being delayed.

Nothing in PROTECT IP can be used to cut off access to a blog. Nothing in PROTECT IP can be used to shut off access to sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook or eBay. Nothing in PROTECT IP requires anyone to monitor their networks. Nothing in PROTECT IP criminalizes links to other websites. Nothing in PROTECT IP imposes liability on anyone. Nothing in PROTECT IP can be required without a court order, first, and without providing the full due process of our Federal court system to the defendants before a final judgment is rendered. I also note that the guarantees of due process provided in the PROTECT IP Act are those likewise provided every defendant in every Federal court proceeding in the United States, no less. The PROTECT IP Act requires notice to the defendant. If the plaintiff seeks an injunction, the court must apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which is the standard for all courts in determining whether to issue an injunction, including whether to issue the injunction as a temporary restraining order for a limited period of time. When stealing of copyrights are involved, such court orders can be made if, upon a factual showing, a court finds that serious harm would otherwise occur and it is in the public interest to do so while the case is more fully considered.

The PROTECT IP Act is directed at the foreign websites that are the worst-of-the-worst thieves of American intellectual property and operate from outside the United States and the jurisdiction of our courts. These website operators prey on American consumers, steal from our creators and economy, but are currently beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

The Obama administrative officials were right in a recent post saying ``existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders.'' They called on Congress ``to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights-holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined. . . . We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.'' That is what we are trying to do with the PROTECT IP Act.

What the PROTECT IP Act does is provide tools to prevent websites operated overseas that do nothing but traffic in infringing material or counterfeits from continuing to profit from piracy with impunity. The Internet needs to be free, but not a lawless marketplace for stolen commerce and not a haven for criminal activities.

In the flash of interest surrounding this bill last week, those who were forgotten were the millions of individual artists, the creators and the companies in Vermont and elsewhere who work hard every day only to find their works available online for free, without their consent. There are factory workers whose wages are cut or jobs are lost when low-quality counterfeit goods are sold in place of the real thing they worked so diligently to produce. There are men and women of our National Guard and military who put their lives on the line for all of us every day, and for whom a counterfeit part can literally be a matter of life and death. There are the seniors who are struggling to be able to afford medications and order from what appears to them to be a reputable site, only to find that a foreign website has sent them an untested counterfeit drug that will not control their blood pressure or diabetes or heart problem.

At the end of the day, this debate boils down to a simple question. Should Americans and American companies profit from what they produce and be able to provide American jobs, or do we want to continue to let thieves operating overseas steal that property and sell it to unsuspecting American consumers? I hope that in the coming days the Senate will focus on stopping that theft that is undercutting our economic recovery. I remain committed to confronting this problem. And I appreciate the efforts of Senator Kyl, Senator Alexander and others who want to continue to work in a thoughtful manner with all interested parties to find an effective solution to eliminate online theft by foreign rogue websites. I thank those Senators who called me in Vermont and back here this past week when I got back to Washington to offer their help--Senators on both sides of the aisle. It means a lot.

I know the senior Senator from Nebraska is waiting to speak about the judicial nominee from his State. I will say what I said to him privately because I know this is his last year in the Senate. I have always enjoyed working with him. He has worked hard. He has represented the people of his State well. He has been very honest in his dealings with me. He has been diligent with respect to judicial nominations for vacancies in Nebraska. He has tirelessly pressed to fill vacancies there to ensure cases before the Federal court are not needlessly delayed. He did that to protect everybody in Nebraska, Republicans and Democrats, to make sure the courts are open for them.

I am sorry the confirmation of Justice Gerrard, one he so strongly supported, has been so needlessly delayed for more than 3 months, but I say to the people of Nebraska they are very fortunate to have been represented by the senior Senator from Nebraska, my friend Ben Nelson, who has been there fighting for them. He fought for the people of Nebraska every day from the day he took the oath of office. This may be his last year here, but based on past performance I think it is safe to say he will fight for Nebraska right up until the moment that adjournment bell sounds.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a January 19 article from the Wall Street Journal and a January 22 article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are close to voting on a payroll tax extension bill that includes a House provision designed to force the President to approve the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. Proponents of this tar sands project argue that it belongs on this bill for one reason: building the pipeline would create jobs.

Any construction project creates jobs, and it is no surprise that this debate has come down to this. Unable to sell the pipeline as necessary to meet the country's energy needs, which it is not, or to refute charges that tar sands strip mining and the refining and burning of high carbon oil cause egregious harm to the environment and health, which it does, the Canadian energy company TransCanada has flooded the media with dire warnings about the American jobs that will be lost if the pipeline is rejected.

Not surprisingly, our Republican friends, always ready to fight for the oil companies, have echoed these scare tactics.

What they don't tell you is that the 5,000 or 6,000 temporary construction jobs will disappear once the pipeline is built. Only a few hundred permanent jobs are needed to operate and maintain the pipeline.

And they also don't mention that the choice is not between jobs or no jobs. They ignore the tens of thousands of permanent, safe American jobs that could be created by investing in clean, renewable sources of energy, which, unlike tar sands oil, don't pollute and will not be used up in a few short decades.

People can disagree about building the Keystone Pipeline, but there is more to this than the short-term jobs it would create. Jamming it through Congress on this bill in the waning hours of the session has a lot more to do with politics than jobs.

The Keystone provision in this payroll tax extension would force the President to approve or disapprove the pipeline within 60 days. Any decision to grant a permit would be ``deemed,'' by Congress, to satisfy all the environmental requirements, even if it does not, and any modification to the construction mitigation and reclamation plan ``shall not'' require supplementation of the final environmental impact statement. In other words, don't study the consequences or give the public a chance to comment on the revised plan.

This is from Members of Congress who in the last election ran on a platform of ``open'' government. Yet when it comes to helping Big Oil, it is a different story. They cut the time for making a decision from a year to 60 days and short circuit the environmental review process. Forget the science. Forget the public. Preempt the law. Ignore the risk. The only thing that matters is pumping more oil.

Tar sands are a particularly dirty source of petroleum, from extraction to refinement. Anyone who is interested, regardless of which side of this debate they are on, should look at the photographs of the tar sands mines in the boreal forests of Alberta. What was once an extraordinarily beautiful landscape has been ravaged by heavy machinery, vast ponds filled with polluted water and sludge, and a ruined wasteland where the forests used to be.

We all know that the extraction of oil, minerals, and other natural resources harms the environment, but there are degrees of harm. Extracting heavy oil from tar sands is among the most energy-intensive and destructive.

Under the law, the State Department has the responsibility to approve or disapprove the pipeline because it crosses an international boundary. More than a year ago, I and 10 other Senators--Republicans and Democrats--sent the first of a series of letters to the State Department raising concerns about the proposed pipeline and the impact of tar sands oil on global warming.

Since then, concern about the pipeline has evolved into a heated controversy over the impact the pipeline will have on our Nation's energy policy, our continuing dependence on fossil fuels, and the environment.

From the beginning, I had misgivings about the State Department's ability to conduct a thorough, credible assessment of a project of this complexity that they were approaching with an attitude of inevitability. The State Department did not anticipate the strong reaction of Members of Congress of both parties, including several from Midwestern States that have been coping with multiple oilspills from the original Keystone Pipeline--oilspills that have caused damage costing hundreds of millions of dollars that company officials have treated as inconsequential.

Concerns about the risks of this project have united not only those living along the proposed route but people across the Nation, including in Vermont, as well as in Canada, who care about the environment and who understand the need to wean our Nation from oil and other fossil fuels.

Every President since the 1970s has spoken of the need to reduce our dependence on oil and coal, but despite all the speeches, year after year we are more dependent on these finite, polluting sources of energy than ever before.

Today, energy companies are spending staggering amounts of money in search of new sources of oil in some of the most inhospitable places on Earth, where its extraction involves great risks to the workers involved, to the environment, and to precious sources of water for drinking and irrigation.

No matter what we do today, later this week, or later this month, this country will be dependent on fossil fuels for many years to come. But while TransCanada and its supporters extol the virtues of the Keystone XL Pipeline, as the minority leader and others have done, simply by reducing waste we could eliminate entirely the need for the energy from the oil that would flow through the pipeline. It is one of those inconvenient facts they would prefer to ignore.

I come from a State that shares a border with Canada. My wife's family is Canadian. I have a great fondness for that ``giant to the north.'' But this issue is not about U.S. relations with Canada. We are inseparable neighbors, friends, and allies. There are strong views about this pipeline, pro and con, in both countries. As Americans, we have to do what is right for our country's energy future, for the environment, for our citizens.

Some have argued that if this pipeline is not built, TransCanada will simply build another pipeline to the coast of British Columbia and export the oil to China. But there are significant obstacles and no indication that such an alternative route is a viable option.

Others maintain that the carbon emissions from extracting and refining this oil would not appreciably exceed those from oil shipped by tanker from the Middle East, but they do not address the environmental harm and pollution caused by the strip mining and separation process.

Then there is the jobs issue, which has been shamelessly exaggerated in a last-ditch attempt to win votes in a time of economic hardship.

Last month, in response to concerns about the crucial aquifer that the pipeline would traverse in the Midwest, the White House announced that the State Department would consider alternative routes through Nebraska and that the President would make a decision in 2013. Now, Republican defenders of the oil industry want to short circuit this process, whatever the risks.

Fossil fuels are finite, inefficient, and dirty. The cost we pay at the gas pump bears no resemblance to the long-term environmental and health costs borne by society as a whole.

We cannot lessen our reliance on fossil fuels by continually ignoring it, nor can we do it by spending huge amounts of money, energy, and American ingenuity to search the farthest reaches of the globe for every last drop of oil, regardless of how dangerous or harmful to the environment.

This pipeline would perpetuate a costly dependence that has gotten worse year after year, for which we are all to blame. Keystone XL would once again do nothing to address the problems associated with fossil fuels. It would virtually assure more oilspills, it would do nothing to promote conservation and reduce waste, and it would do nothing to spur investment in clean energy alternatives.

Most important, it would provide yet another excuse to once again postpone for another day the urgent, national security imperative of developing a sustainable energy policy for this country. That is what the decision about the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline has come to represent regardless of what route it takes.

Mr. President, sometimes a bad situation can be the beginning of something better. Once this bill is passed, President Obama will have 60 days to decide if building the pipeline is in the national interest. He should reject these strong-arm tactics by the other party. He should use this blatantly political maneuver as an opportunity to inaugurate a new energy policy that will finally end our dependency on foreign oil. It is time to finally put the environment, and the health and energy security of the American people, above the interests of the fossil fuel industry.

Mr. chairman, as Chairman of the Department of State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I want to speak briefly about the agreement that I and the ranking member, Senator Lindsey Graham, have reached with the House and that is reflected in division I of this Omnibus bill.

I want to thank Senator Graham, along with House Subcommittee chair Kay Granger and ranking member Nita Lowey and their staffs, for working in such a bipartisan way to resolve our many differences. It is a good example of how a divided Congress can deal with controversial issues and produce an outcome that protects a broad range of interests.

The Department of State and Foreign Operations conference agreement is a compromise. It is neither a Democratic nor Republican bill. It will not make anyone completely happy. But while it does not include everything that I or Senator Graham wanted, it does a good job of addressing the key national security needs of the country.

This is a must-pass bill. The alternative is another year of a continuing resolution, which would force drastic cuts in funding for programs about which Republicans and Democrats feel strongly.

This conference agreement does many things. It supports the Nation's counterterrorism efforts in South Asia, the Horn of Africa, and East Asia; responds to turbulent events in the Middle East and north Africa and threats on the Mexican border; combats transnational crime, piracy of intellectual property, and the denial of fundamental freedoms; promotes access for U.S. companies to foreign markets; operates and secures our embassies and consulates that serve millions of Americans traveling, working, and studying overseas; preserves U.S. influence in key international organizations and alliances; supports economic development, governance, and the rule of law in Africa, Latin America, and Asia; and responds to a massive famine in Somalia, floods in El Salvador, and other humanitarian disasters.

We do this and much more with a base budget allocation that is $8.7 billion below the President's request and a combined base and overseas contingency operations total that is $6.1 billion below the President's request.

These are not Democratic or Republican issues. The funds in this conference agreement will determine whether the United States remains the global leader it has been since the Second World War.

Just as past generations rallied to meet the formidable challenges of the Great Depression, the Nazis, and the Cold War, we will bear responsibility if we fail to meet the challenges of today.

It is no wonder that other countries--our allies and our competitors--are spending more each year to project their influence around the world and to compete in the global marketplace.

Our leadership is being challenged unlike at any time since the Cold War. In Latin America, which is a larger market for U.S. exports than any other region except the European Union, our share is shrinking while China's is growing. It is the same story everywhere.

There is simply no substitute for U.S. global leadership. The world is changing profoundly, and we cannot afford to retrench or succumb to isolationism.

The funding in this conference agreement enables us to engage with our allies and deter our adversaries and competitors. It is similar to what was reported by the Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan vote of 28 to 2. For those who are focused on reducing Federal spending, it cuts base spending by $6 billion below the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. It freezes spending or scales back many Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development operations and programs and will force reductions in planned expenditures.

To the extent that there are funding increases in this bill, they are primarily due to the transition from military to civilian operations in Iraq which will mean billions of dollars in savings to American taxpayers, and to meet pledges to the international financial institutions.

I doubt there is a single Member of Congress who does not care if the United States becomes a second-or third-rate power. As a Vermonter, I know the people of my State want the United States to live up to its ideals, to set an example for the rest of the world. We expect the United States to lead, to build alliances, to help American companies compete successfully, and to protect the interests and security of its citizens.

Yet there are unmistakable signs that our global influence is already waning. It is not preordained that the United States will remain the world's dominant power. As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, ``If we don't lead, somebody else will.''

We need to stop acting like these investments do not matter; that the State Department is not important; that we do not need the United Nations; that what happens in Brazil, Russia, the Philippines, Somalia, or other countries does not matter; and that global threats to the environment, public health, and safety will somehow be solved by others.

This conference agreement balances our priorities. Again, funding for these programs was requested by Republicans and Democrats.

This country is at a crossroads. We can retreat from the world, as some in the other body seem to want while China and our other competitors continue to expand their influence, or we can remain a leader. The conference agreement adopts the latter course, and Members on both sides of the aisle deserve credit for that.

Mr. President, the funding in this bill is strongly supported by the Department of Defense. Along with the U.S. military, it is the best form of insurance the American people have.

Finally, I want to thank Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, as well as the majority and minority leaders for their support in completing this omnibus bill.