Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators Feinstein and Kerr and others to reintroduce the Veterans Voting Support Act. This legislation will enable the Nation to better preserve and protect the fundamental right to vote for veterans in facilities operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Our men and women in uniform have risked their lives to serve our country and spread democracy around the globe. We must do all we can to protect their right to participate in the democratic process when they return home.

When we introduced this legislation last Congress, I had hoped that it could be signed into law before last year's historic election. Millions of Americans went to the polls last November and yet far too many of our wounded warriors were left behind. That is wrong, and I hope the Senate will consider this important legislation to remedy the disenfranchisement of our disabled veterans. Senators Feinstein and Kerry, the respective Chairpersons of the Rules and Foreign Relations Committees, have been leaders on this important issue.

Today, veterans of the armed services who reside in a VA facilities face a voting rights crisis. Far too often in recent years, the Department of Veterans Affairs has neglected to assist veterans with voting, or to allow nonpartisan groups access to VA facilities to register voters. Until last year, for example, the VA's national policy was silent on whether it could provide support to wounded warriors seeking to vote. There have also been reports that the Department of Veterans Affairs may have even prohibited its own staff from providing voter assistance to veterans in VA hospitals. In addition, since 2004, reports indicate that the VA has often sided in Federal court against allowing nonprofit voter registration organizations access to VA run facilities.

I welcome the recent strides the Department of Veterans Affairs has made to correct its flawed policies, but it has not gone far enough. I am glad that last year, the Department changed its policy from a blanket prohibition against voter registration efforts to one that would permit its patients to register to vote. That change, however, was only a first step. We need legislative action to ensure that these changes are permanent and complete. For example, I remain concerned that the VA's voter registration policy stops short of mandating that VA facilities offer disabled veterans a chance to register to vote. To paraphrase Paul Sullivan, the Executive Director of Veterans for Common Sense, the new policy directive only changed the Department from being in active opposition to veterans' voter registration to passively supporting it. It is common sense that the Department of Veteran Affairs should make services available to wounded veterans who reside in VA facilities and yet face hardships in traveling off campus to register to vote. This legislation will ensure that VA facilities have an affirmative duty to provide our wounded warriors with access to, and assistance with, voter registration materials in the same way they help veterans fill out other forms.

The Veterans Voting Support Act we introduce today would also require the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide voter registration forms to veterans whenever they enroll in, or make changes to, their status under the VA

health care system. It would also require the VA to provide assistance to veterans who wish to file absentee ballots. In addition, the bill would require facilities to allow access for nonpartisan voter assistance organizations, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. To ensure accountability and transparency, the bill also provides certain reporting requirements on the Department of Veteran Affairs. This legislation has the support of voting rights and veterans groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice and Veterans for Common Sense.

I believe it is essential for the Nation to do everything possible to honor our veterans. Ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as interventions across the globe, means more and more men and women are coming home as veterans. These brave men and women must know that the country will honor their sacrifice when they return. Recognizing their service not only means paying continual tribute through services on such holidays as Memorial Day and Veterans Day. It also means ensuring that our veterans in Vermont and across the country have the ability to fully participate in the democratic process. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue it is an American issue. We should all be able to agree that Americans who have ventured into harm's way to defend our values and spread democracy abroad must also have full enjoyment of those freedoms here at home.

The disabled veterans of the Nation have given extraordinary service to our country and have advanced democracy around the globe. Enactment of the Veterans Voting Support Act is the very least we owe our citizen soldiers for their many sacrifices on our behalf. I urge all Senators to support the Veterans Voting Support Act and help us to enact this critical measure into law before next November's midterm elections.

Madam President, the Senate is considering the bipartisan Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 as an amendment to the pending the pending National Defense Authorization Act. This important civil rights bill has been pending for more than a decade and has passed the Senate numerous times--in 2007, 2004, 2000, and 1999. It also has the support of the Attorney General, and the President has asked Congress to take swift action on this bill.

I thank Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, and the 33 other bipartisan cosponsors for their support for my amendment, which contains the full text of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act introduced by Senator Kennedy.

I wish my friend could be here with us today. I commend the senior Senator from Massachusetts for his steadfast leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crimes laws.

I thank the majority leader for offering this amendment on my behalf while I chaired the hearing on Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. I had hoped that we would reach a time agreement or at least an agreement to proceed to this bipartisan amendment. Yet some have sought to further delay passage of this critical measure.

The hate crimes amendment would improve existing law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes of racial, ethnic, or religious violence. Victims will no longer have to engage in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a juror, to be protected under Federal law.

In addition, the hate crimes amendment will provide assistance and resources to State, local and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes. It also focuses the attention and resources of the Federal Government on the problem of crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, which is a long-overdue protection.

As a former State prosecutor, respect for local and State law enforcement is important to me. This amendment was carefully crafted to strike a proper balance between Federal and local interests by allowing the Federal Government to appropriately support, but not to substitute for, State and local law enforcement.

I come from a State that passed a law almost a decade ago to expand protections for victims of violence motivated by sexual orientation and gender identity and to increase penalties for hate crimes to deter such violence.

Unfortunately, not all States offer these protections--protections that all Americans deserve. We need a strong Federal law to serve as a backstop to prevent hate motivated violence in America.

The recent tragic events at the Holocaust museum have made clear that these vicious crimes continue to haunt our country. This bipartisan legislation is carefully designed to help law enforcement most effectively respond to this problem.

We stand to make real progress toward expanding Federal protections for victims of bias-motivated violence when we vote for cloture to end debate on the motion to proceed to this amendment.

Senators from both sides of the aisle support this amendment. I call on all my fellow Senators to join me in support of this amendment and to vote to end the delay of Senate consideration of this important measure because expanding hate crimes protections and providing support to State, local, and tribal enforcement efforts are long overdue. That is why a vote for this amendment is necessary.

Mr. President, once this amendment of the Senator from Kansas is disposed of, I will then offer an amendment. My amendment would preserve the first amendment protections in the hate crimes bill and add language to clarify that nothing in this act diminishes the protections of the first amendment. Of course, we could not pass a bill, as I am sure the Senator from Kansas knows, Congress could not pass legislation that would diminish the protections of the first amendment, the first amendment being in the Constitution, the first amendment protecting our right to practice whatever religion we want or none if we want and protecting our right of free speech.

At the appropriate time, I will have an amendment which would preserve first amendment protections in the hate crimes bill and add language to clarify that nothing in this act diminishes the protections of the first amendment. I would assume the Senator from Kansas would have no objection to that.

Mr. President, I have no objection to just accepting by voice vote his amendment if the language was previously voted on in the last Congress and has been pending for some time.

Mine is very short. I call on any Senator to tell me if there is anything they disagree with. It says:

Nothing in this division, or amendment made by this

division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the

first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any

constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or

activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central

to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of

religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution

of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration.

The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or

activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit,

or committing an act of violence.

Does any Member of this body, Republican or Democratic, disagree with that language? Basically, it says the Constitution is the Constitution. We follow the Constitution. Does anyone disagree with that language?

Yes.

I recall that very well. I also note that every single Republican, every single Democratic member on the committee agreed with Attorney General Holder on that.

My amendment simply says that the Constitution of the United States controls. That is the ultimate law of the land. I can't imagine anybody in this body disagreeing with that, especially as every single Member of this body has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Of course.

I agree with that. And speaking as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am perfectly willing to accept both of them. I would be surprised if my friend from Kansas feels otherwise.

Mr. President, to answer the Senator from Michigan, I am perfectly willing to voice vote both of them. I intend to vote for both of them. We are saying that you have a freedom of religion, and the courts cannot undermine the first amendment.

This is hornbook law. This is your first week of law school. No court is going to disagree with that. I am perfectly willing to accept both by a voice vote.

Amendment No. 1613 to Amendment No. 1511

So, Mr. President, I offer my amendment and send it to the desk.

Mr. President, I know the hour is late. The matter is very simple. The Hatch amendment kills the hate crimes legislation. If you want to kill the hate crimes legislation, vote for the Hatch amendment. If you do not want to kill the hate crimes legislation, if you want a chance to vote on something the Senate has voted for time and time again, then vote against the Hatch amendment.

The Attorney General testified at the request of the Republicans. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and endorsed the legislation before us. The Hatch amendment--perhaps well-meaning; I assume it is--would, in effect, eviscerate the hate crimes legislation. It would kill the hate crimes legislation.

The question is very simple: Vote for Hatch; you kill the hate crimes legislation. Vote against it, we have a chance to vote for the hate crimes legislation--something the Senate has voted for several times before and something the Attorney General supports based on a hearing we had at the request of the Republicans within the past month.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. Anybody can read it in about a minute. It says that nothing shall add to or detract from the first amendment to the Constitution. No court in the country would rule otherwise. It simply says that regarding the right of free speech in this country, nothing can be taken from it and nothing added to it.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for accepting the amendment. I also thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, and the distinguished majority leader for their work, as well as my staff, Bruce Cohen, Kristine Lucius, Noah Bookbinder, and others.

We have made it very clear--the Senate has made it very clear--how we hold in abhorrence hate crimes. I thank my colleagues for standing up and so strongly voicing, in a bipartisan way, their opposition to hate crimes.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask that Joseph Thomas of the Judiciary Committee be allowed privileges of the floor throughout the debate on the pending legislation.

Mr. President, as the world goes through this difficult economic period it is important that we continue efforts that began when times were better.

A June 10, 2009 article in the New York Times entitled ``Battle to Halt Graft Scourge in Africa Ebbs'' notes that because of a series of assassinations, dismissals, and changes in power across the African Continent, some of Africa's previous efforts to fight corruption are weakening. It is estimated that a trillion dollars obtained through corrupt practices changes hands every year around the world, and a large part of it in Africa. This staggering amount is often the revenues from the extraction of natural resources like oil or diamonds, but instead of going to help the impoverished people of the country where the resources are located, it too often goes to line the pockets of corrupt officials. If it were possible to reduce by just one-quarter the amount of money stolen, the amount saved would be five times as much as we spend annually on foreign aid.

On his recent visit to Accra, Ghana, President Obama made it clear that the responsibility for good government and with it, development, in Africa ultimately rests on the shoulders of Africans. He said ``repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves . . . or if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims twenty percent off the top . . . or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end.''

I wholeheartedly agree with the President, and I also know that bribery depends on at least two parties--those who get paid and those who pay. Halliburton/KBR, a name we have all become familiar with for brazenly overcharging American taxpayers in Iraq, is reportedly under investigation for allegedly paying over $100 million in bribes in Nigeria in order to secure oilfield contracts. Although we do our best to investigate terrorist financing, U.S. banks are not required to fully investigate the sources of their funds, and the proceeds of corruption can sometimes get through. Offshore shell companies and bank accounts, and lax rules for identification of account holders, make it relatively easy to launder illicit money. The lack of information across borders hampers investigations and prosecution efforts and slows the return of stolen money.

The New York Times article tells the story of Nuhu Ribadu, the former director of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in Nigeria, who led a courageous effort to begin to rid Nigeria of its endemic corruption problem but barely avoided an assassination attempt and was dismissed last year after reportedly refusing a $15 million bribe from a state official he was investigating. In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee earlier this year, Mr. Ribadu pleaded that this country do all that it can to fight this global problem saying, ``What can you do as a country, as a good people of the world, as leaders, to help be on the side of the 140 million desperately poor Nigerians?''

While there is no question that this is a problem that requires the hard work and sacrifice of citizens of the countries where these crimes are taking place, we also need to do what we can in the United States to stand with those people who are taking risks to rid their countries of the corruption that destroys governments and whole societies.

There are a few things we can start doing now. We can do more to hold our domestic banks accountable for the money they have. We can put regulations in place that will make the holding of illegal international money no longer a profitable enterprise. We can open up international channels of communication to make sure that, while maintaining appropriate levels of privacy, we provide investigators overseas access to the records they need to track down and prosecute cases of graft in their countries. We should do all we can to prosecute those who receive bribes by cutting off funds and, as much is possible, expanding our courts' jurisdictions to prosecute those who extort money. And finally, we can come down hard on companies in the United States that are using bribery to increase their profitability in third world markets.

This is a problem that many brave Africans have tried to tackle head on, and it has cost some of them their lives. Let us make sure that we are doing all we can to help.

Mr. President, I would like to salute Tom Ryan and his daughter, Maggie, of Shelburne, VT, for their goodwill gesture at a recent Boston Red Sox game.

Last week, Tom and Maggie were at Fenway Park cheering on the Red Sox, and they ended up with the baseball David Ortiz--better known in Red Sox Nation as Big Papi--hit over the Green Monster for the 300th home run of his career.

I had the good fortune to meet Big Papi last year at the White House celebration honoring the 2007 Red Sox World Series championship, and I was delighted to learn Tom and Maggie had the opportunity to meet Big Papi too and present him with the historic ball.

In honor of the Ryans, and this important moment in Red Sox history, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Burlington Free Press's story, Vermont Man, Daughter Make Big Papi's Day, by Sam Hemingway be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, moments ago I left the Judiciary Committee hearing room where we are considering the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. In considering this historic and well-qualified nominee, many Americans may believe our country has completely turned the corner in terms of equality and civil rights. While I certainly hope Judge Sotomayor's nomination will unite us as a nation, I am aware that there is a lot more that still has to be done to protect the civil rights of all Americans.

I plan to offer the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 as an amendment to the pending National Defense authorization bill. I thank Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, and a number of other bipartisan cosponsors for their support. This measure has long been a priority bill for Senator Ted Kennedy. I commend him for his steadfast leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crime laws.

The amendment I will offer aims to address the serious and growing problem of hate crimes. We all saw the recent event at the Holocaust Museum here in Washington which made it clear that these vicious crimes continue to haunt our country. This bipartisan legislation is carefully designed to help law enforcement most effectively respond to this problem. It has been stalled for far too long. The time to act is now.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act has been pending for more than a decade and has actually

passed the Senate several times. Despite its long history in the Senate, and despite the fact that it is cosponsored by both Democratic and Republican Senators, it continues to draw the same tired, old attacks. Less than 2 years ago the Senate passed a hate crimes bill as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. It also passed the Senate in 2004, in 2000, and 1999.

Last month, at the request of the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, and all Republican members of the committee, I chaired a hearing on this bill to assure that this legislation has been adequately discussed and considered, and to allow an opportunity to explore the minor changes that were made to the bill in this Congress.

It is no doubt a testament to the urgency of this legislation that the Attorney General of the United States returned to the Judiciary Committee to testify in support of the bill. I say it reflects the urgency of it because the Attorney General had been before the committee less than a week before in an oversight hearing. Normally we would not see him before the committee for another 6 to 10 months. Yet, he came back within 6 days so he could testify in support of this important legislation. I commend Attorney General Holder for that. We have also heard from State and local law enforcement organizations, all supportive of the measure, and our committee record includes support letters from dozens of leaders of the faith community and the civil rights community.

I agreed with Senator Sessions when he commented at the end of the hearing that it was a good hearing with a good exchange of views. We have now had more than enough process and consideration of this bill, and it is time to bring it to another Senate vote.

The hate crimes amendment will improve existing law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes of racial, ethnic, or religious violence. Victims will no longer have to engage in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a juror, to be protected under Federal law. It also focuses the attention and resources of the Federal Government on the problem of crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, which is a long overdue protection. In addition, the hate crimes amendment will provide assistance and resources to State and local and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes.

Last Congress this legislation was attached to the Department of Defense authorization bill and had the bipartisan support of 60 Senators, and I expect we will have even more support today.

President Obama supports the immediate passage of hate crime legislation. In his first few months in office, he has acted to ensure that Federal benefits are awarded more equitably, regardless of sexual orientation. He has shown through his selection of a nominee for the Supreme Court that he understands the greatest talent and experience and the highest devotion to law exists across lines of gender and ethnicity. Unlike in previous years, our bipartisan hate crimes bill does not face a veto threat because we have a President who understands that crimes motivated by bias are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and those victims' families.

I know. In a previous career, I prosecuted crimes that were committed based solely or primarily on bias against the victims. It is a hateful, terrible thing. It is hateful to the victim, to the victim's family, the victim's friends.

Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. If you feel somebody with whom you share that connection may have been the victim of a hate crime, you may fear that you will be next.

For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 continues that great and honorable tradition. That is why so many law enforcement--State and local, Federal--support this legislation. Adoption of this amendment will show, once again, that America values tolerance and protects all of its people. I urge the opponents of this measure to consider the message it sends when, year after year, we have been prevented from enacting this broadly supported legislation. The victims of hate deserve better, and those who fear they may be the next victim of a hate crime deserve better. So I hope all Senators will join me in support of this important amendment.

At the appropriate point, I will call up the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letters in support of this amendment from the Human Rights Campaign dated July 14, 2009, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights dated July 9, 2009, be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the list of supporters for the legislation be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I ask unanimous consent the military fellow in his office, CPT Lindsay George, be granted the

privilege of the floor for the remainder of this legislation session.

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that LTC Joseph J. Martin, a U.S. Army Special Forces officer currently serving as his military legislative fellow this year, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1407 as a second- degree amendment to the amendment that has been proposed by Mr. Sessions.

Mr. President, I believe I have the right to offer the second degree; do I not?

While we are determining that, let me explain what this does. It would create a permanent EB-5 immigrant investor regional center program. This is a program that has generated billions of dollars of capital investment in American communities. It has created thousands of domestic jobs.

There are 24 of these centers now around the country. I mention to the Senator from Alabama that Alabama has a strong track record with it statewide. The problem we have had in the past is we keep reauthorizing for just a few months at a time, and people in this economy don't want to put a large investment in it because of that. So I would offer this as a second-degree amendment.

I ask for its acceptance.

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

I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the current political crisis in Honduras. Vermont and Honduras have had a long, close relationship through the Partners of the Americas, and many Vermonters regularly travel to Honduras to engage in health care and other humanitarian and development work in rural communities.

Last week a lawfully elected President--Manuel Zelaya--was forcibly removed from office and flown to a neighboring country by the Honduran military. The military and the Supreme Court apparently believed that President Zelaya was acting in a manner that was contrary to the Honduran Constitution. While such an accusation is troubling, military coups cannot be condoned, particularly when Honduras' Constitution contains provisions to handle such concerns--impeachment, for one.

The sooner the Honduran military reverses course and allows President Zelaya to return the better it will be for Honduras and all of Central America. He has pledged to leave office at the end of his term, unlike other Latin American leaders who seem to believe constitutions are to be amended with the stroke of a pen so they can remain in office. When President Zelaya returns, if there is credible evidence that he broke laws, he should be held accountable in accordance with the laws of the country.

While I condemn the actions of the Honduran military, I applaud the efforts of the Organization of American States, with the support of the Obama administration, to defuse this situation diplomatically. Removing Honduras' membership and beginning to impose sanctions in concert with widespread international condemnation is the appropriate response.

We should also recognize that the people of Honduras appear to be deeply divided over President Zelaya. Rural Hondurans in particular have been dissatisfied with his performance as President. When he returns to office I hope he reconsiders his priorities and focuses his efforts on improving the lives of the people of Honduras who are most in need of the government's assistance.

Mr. President, I am sorry to see Republican obstructionism in the Senate return with such a vengeance. Just last November, the American people voted for change. They sent a new President to the White House to lead our government and sent a strong message that they expected Washington to put aside pettiness and work on their behalf on the serious problems facing them and the country. After only 6 months, it seems Republicans in the Senate have already forgotten that message.

The Senate majority leader has spoken about the difficulties he is having getting any semblance of reasonable cooperation from across the aisle. The Republicans' obstruction of Presidential nominees is a stark example. Just a few years ago, they were intent on employing the ``nuclear option'' and risking destruction of longstanding Senate rules and practices in order to ensure that every one of President Bush's nominees was confirmed. This year, with President Obama making the nominations, they have reverted to the anonymous holds that characterized their actions during the Clinton years. It is impossible to find a principle that justifies this obstruction. It is likewise difficult to see what ``extraordinary circumstances'' exist to justify filibusters and unwillingness to proceed to consider these nominations.

The Senate's last week in session before the July 4th recess witnessed a Republican filibuster of the President's nominee to serve as the Legal Advisor at the State Department. The target was Harold Koh, the distinguished dean of the Yale Law School, a former high- ranking official in the State Department as well as a former official at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. That filibuster was unsuccessful, although 31 Republican Senators supported it. That was not the first attempt by Senate Republicans to filibuster executive branch nominees. Earlier this year, the Senate was forced to file for cloture to avert a Republican filibuster against the nomination of David Ogden to serve as the Deputy Attorney General.

The destructive strategy culminated on June 25 when Republicans objected to confirming nine executive branch nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee for action by the Senate. They included five U.S. attorneys, 3 Assistant Attorneys General and the Chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In addition, the Judiciary Committee has reported 3 judicial nominees to begin filling the 74 vacancies in our Federal courts around the country. Republicans are turning the clock back to 10 years ago, when their obstructionism led to more than 100 judicial vacancies and earned rebukes from Chief Justice Rehnquist.

In an editorial entitled ``Call It Obstructionism,'' the New York Times on June 28 noted that the Senate adjourned for the July 4th recess with ``21 nominees for important posts awaiting confirmation.'' Thirteen had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee but remained stalled before the Senate by Republican objections. I hope this work period sees the cooperation from Senate Republicans that the American people have demanded.

Mr. President, on July 4, the Nation will celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the signing of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. The tragic events unfolding in Iran are a powerful reminder of the vital role of a free press and the free flow of information in an open society. Now in its fifth decade, FOIA remains an indispensable tool for shedding light on bad policies and government abuses. The act has helped to guarantee the public's ``right to know'' for generations of Americans.

Today, thanks to the reforms contained in the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act, Americans who seek information under FOIA will experience a process that is much more transparent and less burdened by delays than it has been in the past. A key component of the OPEN Government Act was the creation of an Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, within the National Archives and Records Administration. This office will mediate FOIA disputes, review agency compliance with FOIA, and house a newly created FOIA ombudsman.

I applaud President Obama and Acting Archivist of the United States Adrienne Thomas for recently appointing Miriam Nisbet as the first Director of OGIS. I look forward to working closely with Director Nisbet and I will continue to work very hard to ensure that OGIS has the necessary resources to carry out its mission.

These new reforms to FOIA are very good news. But there is still much more to be done.

Earlier this year, Senator Cornyn and I joined together to reintroduce the bipartisan OPEN FOIA Act, S. 612, a commonsense bill to promote more openness regarding statutory exemptions to FOIA. This FOIA reform measure requires that Congress clearly and explicitly state its intention to create a statutory exemption to FOIA when it provides for such an exemption in new legislation. While there is a very real need to keep certain government information secret to ensure the public good and safety, excessive government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant democracy.

The OPEN FOIA Act has twice passed the Senate this year as a part of other legislation. This bill provides a safeguard against the growing trend towards FOIA exemptions and would make all FOIA exemptions clear and unambiguous, and vigorously debated, before they are enacted into law. I hope that the Congress will enact this good government measure this year.

When describing our vibrant democracy, President Kennedy once wisely observed that ``[w]e are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.'' As we reflect upon the celebration of another FOIA anniversary, we in Congress must reaffirm this commitment to open and transparent government.

Open government is not a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue. It is truly an American value and a virtue that all Americans hold dear. It is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the political spectrum in celebrating the 43rd anniversary of FOIA and all that this law has come to symbolize about our vibrant democracy.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention a recent article published in The Burlington Free Press on Father's Day, which featured father and son botanists Hubert and Thomas Vogelmann from Jericho, VT, and the University of Vermont.

Now professor emeritus at the University of Vermont, Hub Vogelmann was the pioneer researcher calling attention to the impact of atmospheric deposition--acid rain--on the forests of the Northeast. Hub led a field trip on the western slopes of the Green Mountains to view the damage in person with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Administrator. His contributions to the stewardship of our natural resources are many, particularly concerning the health of the forest ecosystem.

Now dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Vermont, Hub's son Tom is carrying on in the Vogelmann family tradition of science, service and stewardship.

As if this were not remarkable enough, Hub and his late wife Marie's two other sons are scientists as well, Jim a botanist and Andy, a physicist.

I value the working relationship I have enjoyed with Hub over the years and look forward to working with Tom in his new role as dean.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article ``Like Father, Like Son--Fellow botanists have a lot in common,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an inequality in the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Program by extending benefits to non-profit EMS providers who die or are disabled in the line of duty. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Sanders.

Vermonters were deeply saddened earlier this week when we received word that veteran EMT specialist Dale Long died in a tragic, on-duty accident in Bennington. Dale Long had a superb 25-year career as a Vermont EMT, and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, to the Bennington Rescue Squad, and to the entire Vermont EMT community.

First responders nationwide literally put their lives at risk every day for the people of their communities. They represent the best of our nation's dedicated service to others, and Dale Long was a solid example of that tradition. He was Bennington Rescue Squad's 2008 EMT of the Year, and a 2009 recipient of the American Ambulance Association's Star of Life Award. I had the pleasure of meeting Dale just last month when he visited my office during the Star of Life festivities.

This tragedy highlights a major shortcoming in the current PSOB program, which Congress established over 30 years ago to provide assistance to police, fire and medics who lose their lives or are disabled in the line of duty. The benefit, though, only applies to public safety officers employed by a federal, state, and local government entity. With many communities around the United States choosing to have their emergency medical services provided by non- profit agencies, medics working for non-profit services unfortunately are not eligible for benefits under the PSOB program.

Non-profit public safety officers provide identical services to governmental officers and do so daily in the same dangerous environments. With a renewed appreciation for the important community service of first responders since the national tragedy of September 11, 2001, more people are answering the call to serve their communities. At the same time, more rescue workers are falling through the cracks of the PSOB program.

The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act would correct this inequality by extending the PSOB program to cover non- profit EMS officers who provide emergency medical and ground or air ambulance service. These emergency professionals protect and promote the public good of the communities they serve, and we should not unfairly penalize them and their families simply because they work or volunteer for a non-profit organization.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Bond in introducing the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2009. This is a clearly needed piece of legislation that will enable the Nation to tap more of the tremendous experience and expertise that exists within the National Guard.

This legislation--known as Empowerment II--ensures that the Department of Defense takes advantage of the Guard's unique strengths and focuses on the critical mission of domestic operations and military support to civilian authorities. This bill is about focusing attention on the military's response to emergencies at home and fleshing out the structure of that response. Doing that will ensure our National Guard, Reserves and active forces can bring their specialized capabilities to bear, all while safely under the control of democratically elected officials and civilian authorities.

The bill will specifically make the Chief of the National Guard a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while creating a new three- star deputy to the Bureau Chief to reflect the Bureau Chief's increased responsibilities. Additionally, the 2009 Empowerment Act provides the National Guard Bureau with limited budget authority to be able to acquire specially designed equipment for domestic operations, and it requires the Department of Defense to establish procedures to formalize arrangements to allow National Guard forces to have tactical control over active forces that operate in a domestic setting.

Today Senator Bond and I seek to build on some of the major improvements to the Guard that we, together, made in the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill. That landmark bill enacted large portions of the first version of the Guard Empowerment Bill which elevated the Chief of the National Guard from three-star general to full General. The goal of all the changes enacted was to begin to ensure that the Guard has a seat at the table in major budget and policy decisions.

We need to pick up where we left off early last year and sharpen the focus on the National Guard's role as a homeland defense and defense support to civilian authorities force. In fact, we are trying, in the realm of domestic operations and military support to civilian authorities, to do exactly what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is trying to do in the realm of irregular warfare. The Secretary is working to ensure that at least a good portion of the Department of Defense's equipment has utility in counterinsurgency situations. The Secretary has recently testified that he foresees about 10 percent of procured equipment to be dedicated solely for counterinsurgencies. I strongly support the Secretary's initiative.

There also is a need to carve out a small wedge of the defense budget to develop technologies and systems that will help the National Guard, serving in a Title 32 capacity under the control of the Governors. Much of all Guard equipment is considered and should be ``dual use,'' but a sliver should be specially designed and used solely for domestic situations.

The Guard Empowerment bill we are introducing today will also reduce the confusion that sometimes exists when there is a domestic emergency about how National Guard forces, serving under a Governor during an emergency, will interact with active duty forces that serve under the President's command. United States Northern Command in Colorado has unfortunately only exacerbated those concerns through attempts to override Governors and take command-and-control of National Guard assets in a State even though they are in their so-called Title 32 status.

There is nothing in this bill that the National Guard is not already undertaking. The President and the Secretary of Defense look to the Guard Bureau Chief on matters related to defense at home. The Guard works to purchase homeland defense-oriented equipment through the so- called Guard and Reserve Equipment Account, and the Governors already wield active duty personnel during so-called National Security Events. The chain of command arrangements made during last year's political conventions in Minnesota and Colorado are a good example.

The President recognizes that this legislation makes sense. In his ``Blueprint for Change,'' his new Administration's national security plan, President Obama endorsed the idea of making the Guard Bureau Chief a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a move that Vice President Biden also has endorsed. In developing the bill, we worked closely with The National Guard Association of the United States, the Adjutants General Association of the United States and the Enlisted National Guard Association of the United States--organizations that we expect to formally endorse the bill after its introduction.

Everyone recognizes that if there is an emergency like Katrina and our civilian resources at all levels get overwhelmed, the military is going to have to come in to assist. The American people expect no less than a swift, coordinated and effective response. And it is the National Guard that knows how to do this mission right. Providing support to civilian authorities at the State level is what the Guard has done since its inception more than two centuries ago, and it is a mission that the National Guard continues to take seriously.

This legislation solidifies and codifies sensible approaches to improving the Guard's ability to support civil authorities in an emergency. Enactment of this legislation is the very least we owe our proud citizen soldiers and airmen for their efforts.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an inequality in the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Program by extending benefits to non-profit EMS providers who die or are disabled in the line of duty. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Sanders.

Vermonters were deeply saddened earlier this week when we received word that veteran EMT specialist Dale Long died in a tragic, on-duty accident in Bennington. Dale Long had a superb 25-year career as a Vermont EMT, and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, to the Bennington Rescue Squad, and to the entire Vermont EMT community.

First responders nationwide literally put their lives at risk every day for the people of their communities. They represent the best of our nation's dedicated service to others, and Dale Long was a solid example of that tradition. He was Bennington Rescue Squad's 2008 EMT of the Year, and a 2009 recipient of the American Ambulance Association's Star of Life Award. I had the pleasure of meeting Dale just last month when he visited my office during the Star of Life festivities.

This tragedy highlights a major shortcoming in the current PSOB program, which Congress established over 30 years ago to provide assistance to police, fire and medics who lose their lives or are disabled in the line of duty. The benefit, though, only applies to public safety officers employed by a federal, state, and local government entity. With many communities around the United States choosing to have their emergency medical services provided by non- profit agencies, medics working for non-profit services unfortunately are not eligible for benefits under the PSOB program.

Non-profit public safety officers provide identical services to governmental officers and do so daily in the same dangerous environments. With a renewed appreciation for the important community service of first responders since the national tragedy of September 11, 2001, more people are answering the call to serve their communities. At the same time, more rescue workers are falling through the cracks of the PSOB program.

The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act would correct this inequality by extending the PSOB program to cover non- profit EMS officers who provide emergency medical and ground or air ambulance service. These emergency professionals protect and promote the public good of the communities they serve, and we should not unfairly penalize them and their families simply because they work or volunteer for a non-profit organization.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Bond in introducing the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2009. This is a clearly needed piece of legislation that will enable the Nation to tap more of the tremendous experience and expertise that exists within the National Guard.

This legislation--known as Empowerment II--ensures that the Department of Defense takes advantage of the Guard's unique strengths and focuses on the critical mission of domestic operations and military support to civilian authorities. This bill is about focusing attention on the military's response to emergencies at home and fleshing out the structure of that response. Doing that will ensure our National Guard, Reserves and active forces can bring their specialized capabilities to bear, all while safely under the control of democratically elected officials and civilian authorities.

The bill will specifically make the Chief of the National Guard a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while creating a new three- star deputy to the Bureau Chief to reflect the Bureau Chief's increased responsibilities. Additionally, the 2009 Empowerment Act provides the National Guard Bureau with limited budget authority to be able to acquire specially designed equipment for domestic operations, and it requires the Department of Defense to establish procedures to formalize arrangements to allow National Guard forces to have tactical control over active forces that operate in a domestic setting.

Today Senator Bond and I seek to build on some of the major improvements to the Guard that we, together, made in the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill. That landmark bill enacted large portions of the first version of the Guard Empowerment Bill which elevated the Chief of the National Guard from three-star general to full General. The goal of all the changes enacted was to begin to ensure that the Guard has a seat at the table in major budget and policy decisions.

We need to pick up where we left off early last year and sharpen the focus on the National Guard's role as a homeland defense and defense support to civilian authorities force. In fact, we are trying, in the realm of domestic operations and military support to civilian authorities, to do exactly what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is trying to do in the realm of irregular warfare. The Secretary is working to ensure that at least a good portion of the Department of Defense's equipment has utility in counterinsurgency situations. The Secretary has recently testified that he foresees about 10 percent of procured equipment to be dedicated solely for counterinsurgencies. I strongly support the Secretary's initiative.

There also is a need to carve out a small wedge of the defense budget to develop technologies and systems that will help the National Guard, serving in a Title 32 capacity under the control of the Governors. Much of all Guard equipment is considered and should be ``dual use,'' but a sliver should be specially designed and used solely for domestic situations.

The Guard Empowerment bill we are introducing today will also reduce the confusion that sometimes exists when there is a domestic emergency about how National Guard forces, serving under a Governor during an emergency, will interact with active duty forces that serve under the President's command. United States Northern Command in Colorado has unfortunately only exacerbated those concerns through attempts to override Governors and take command-and-control of National Guard assets in a State even though they are in their so-called Title 32 status.

There is nothing in this bill that the National Guard is not already undertaking. The President and the Secretary of Defense look to the Guard Bureau Chief on matters related to defense at home. The Guard works to purchase homeland defense-oriented equipment through the so- called Guard and Reserve Equipment Account, and the Governors already wield active duty personnel during so-called National Security Events. The chain of command arrangements made during last year's political conventions in Minnesota and Colorado are a good example.

The President recognizes that this legislation makes sense. In his ``Blueprint for Change,'' his new Administration's national security plan, President Obama endorsed the idea of making the Guard Bureau Chief a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a move that Vice President Biden also has endorsed. In developing the bill, we worked closely with The National Guard Association of the United States, the Adjutants General Association of the United States and the Enlisted National Guard Association of the United States--organizations that we expect to formally endorse the bill after its introduction.

Everyone recognizes that if there is an emergency like Katrina and our civilian resources at all levels get overwhelmed, the military is going to have to come in to assist. The American people expect no less than a swift, coordinated and effective response. And it is the National Guard that knows how to do this mission right. Providing support to civilian authorities at the State level is what the Guard has done since its inception more than two centuries ago, and it is a mission that the National Guard continues to take seriously.

This legislation solidifies and codifies sensible approaches to improving the Guard's ability to support civil authorities in an emergency. Enactment of this legislation is the very least we owe our proud citizen soldiers and airmen for their efforts.

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