Floor Statements

Mr. President, since I last came to the floor to discuss a proposal for a Commission of Inquiry, Americans have learned disturbing new facts that underscore the need for such a nonpartisan review. In the last 8 years, expansive views of Presidential authority and misguided policies have dominated the question of how best to preserve and protect national security. As Senators, we each take an oath to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' In the months and years following 9/11, driven by an inflated view of executive power, the Bush-Cheney administration compromised many of the very laws and

protections that are the heart of our democracy. Their policies, which condoned torture, extraordinary renditions, and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans, have left a stain on America's reputation in the world.

In recent weeks, we have also seen a few more opinions previously issued by the Office of Legal Counsel after 9/11 that had been kept secret until now. I commend the new Attorney General on their release. I have asked that more be released, and it is my hope that they will be soon. These opinions sought to excuse policies that trample upon the Constitution and our duly enacted legal protections. These opinions arise from an arrogant rationale that the President can do anything he wants to do, that the President is above the law. The last President to make that claim was Richard Nixon. We saw the results of that policy in Watergate. It was through efforts like the Church Committee that we revised our laws and moved forward. In my view, it is time to do so again.

Perhaps the most persuasive new revelation that demonstrates why we cannot just turn the page without reading it is Mark Danner's account of a leaked copy of a report on the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The report, compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross, is nothing short of chilling. One detainee interviewed describes: ``Two black wooden boxes were brought into the room outside my cell. One was tall, slightly higher than me and narrow .The other was shorter, perhaps only [3\1/2\ feet] in height. I was taken out of my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck, they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room. . . . I was then put into the tall black box for what I think was about one and a half to two hours. . . . They put a cloth or cover over the outside of the box to cut out the light and restrict my air supply. It was difficult to breathe.''

The report continues to describe how these men were kept naked, shackled to a chair for weeks in freezing cold temperatures, forced with cold water to stay awake for days on end, bombarded with loud music, starved, and beaten over and over again. In one interview, a man describes how he was waterboarded: He was ``dragged from the small box, unable to walk properly and put on what looked like a hospital bed, and strapped down very tightly with belts.'' As they poured water on him, he said ``I struggled against the straps, trying to breathe, but it was hopeless. I thought I was going to die.''

The report concludes that from those descriptions, this was torture. And there is mounting evidence to suggest it was a Bush administration policy. Media reports suggest that the CIA briefed high-level administration officials on the interrogation plan. Vice President Cheney admitted in an interview with ABC News that he supported the plan that authorized these measures, including waterboarding. In fact he continues to claim, without any basis, that the Bush administration's interrogation tactics, including torture, were appropriate and effective.

This past Sunday, a Washington Post article described how the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida failed to produce any useful intelligence. Of course, Zubaida is a detainee who many Bush administration officials had long claimed provided useful intelligence only after he was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques. According to Post interviews of former senior government officials, ``not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions . . . Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida . . . was obtained before waterboarding was introduced.''

Jack Goldsmith refers to the August 2002 ``Bybee memo'' as the ``golden shield,'' because it redefined torture in order to shield decisionmakers from liability for these tactics. The release of related memos is needed. Whether they end up shielding decisionmakers from prosecution, they should not shield them from accountability. Accountability does not only happen in a courtroom. We need to know what was done. Transparency and accountability can help restore our reputation around the world. Most importantly, to reestablish the trust of the American public in their government, they deserve to know and understand what happened.

Just last week, we heard about the Bush administration's attempt to silence Binyam Mohammed, a British citizen held for years as an enemy combatant at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. He claims that he was tortured during the course of his detention. Bush administration officials apparently demanded that he sign a secret plea bargain which would have prohibited him from ever suing the United States over his alleged torture in order to be sent back to the United Kingdom. He did not and now Britain is investigating his allegations. When asked about the involvement of a particular British intelligence agent, Mr. Mohammed said, ``I feel very strongly that we shouldn't scapegoat the little people. We certainly shouldn't blame `Witness B,' he was only following orders.''

One of my concerns in proposing the Commission of Inquiry is that we not scapegoat or punish those of lesser rank. Such a commission's objective would be to find the truth to provide accountability for the past. People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts, to know what happened and to make sure mistakes are not repeated. We have had successful oversight in some areas, but on issues including harsh interrogation tactics, extraordinary rendition and executive override of the laws, the last administration successfully kept many of us in the dark about what happened and who ordered it.

One month ago, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to explore my proposal. A bipartisan panel of respected witnesses explained why we need such a commission. Since that time, this idea has received a wide range of support from people all across this country. I am not interested in a panel comprised of partisans intent on advancing partisan conclusions. I regret that Senate Republicans have approached this matter to date as partisans. That was not my intent or focus. Indeed, it will take bipartisan support in order to move this forward.

I continue to talk about this prospect with others in Congress, and with outside groups and experts. I continue to call on Republicans to recognize that this is not about partisan politics. It is about being honest with ourselves as a country. We need to move forward together.

I recently heard from the Nobel Prize recipient Bishop Desmond Tutu about this proposal. Bishop Tutu, respected throughout the world for his efforts for peace and justice in his own country of South Africa, offered his support for what we are trying to do.

The legacy of the last administration left us facing crises in more areas than just the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the worst recession since the Great Depression. There is no question that those are all pressing issues. But we cannot ignore the failures of government forever. We do so at our peril.

We are tackling tough issues in these difficult and uncertain times. The Judiciary Committee has a full legislative agenda, having reported bipartisan legislation to fight fraud, public corruption and to aid the economy through patent reform. But the fact remains that under the most remarkably broad expansion of executive authority in my lifetime, we have seen policies on detention and interrogation that undermined our values, our reputation and, many believe, our efforts to ensure national security.

The country will need to have an honest discourse about what happened and what went wrong. I continue to feel strongly that a Commission of Inquiry would provide us the best nonpartisan setting in which to undertake that study and national conversation. I think we should proceed sooner rather than later. I am continuing to reach out and to work on the proposal. But a conversation is not something I can undertake unilaterally. As strongly as I feel, it will take the cooperation and commitment of others for this proposal to serve its intended purpose so that we can join together to move past the mistakes of the recent past.

Mr. President, I am in strong support of the amendment offered by Senators Kerry and Lugar which I and many other Senators on both sides of the aisle have cosponsored to restore $4 billion to the international affairs function of the budget.

This amendment would not have any effect on the top line for nondiscretionary spending. It is budget neutral.

We have two choices. Cut $4 billion from the President's Fiscal year 2010 budget for national security and diplomacy programs as the budget resolution would do, or restore those funds, as the Kerry-Lugar-Leahy- Durbin amendment would do, and which both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have said is vital.

This $4 billion is an insignificant amount when it comes to having an appreciable effect on the deficit over the long term, but it will pay immediate dividends in restoring United States influence around the world where it is desperately needed.

The difference we are talking about is whether to freeze funding for international assistance programs at the 2009 level, or to step up to the plate and fund the initiatives President Obama, and Members of Congress of both parties, have recognized are urgently needed.

These funds will be used to put the United States back in the driver's seat on climate change. They will support the increases for Pakistan and Afghanistan that the Secretary of Defense says are critical elements of our counterterrorism strategy there. It is not just a military strategy. It is also a diplomatic and development strategy.

These are the funds to support that. They will support treatment for millions of people infected with HIV/AIDS. Lifesaving drugs that represent the best of America.

Years from now, countries in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, and Central Asia will remember what we do today. China is expanding its influence

around the globe. We can step back and watch that happen, or we can show once again that the United States is going to lead by example.

Not very long ago we had that chance with Russia. But rather than look for ways to put past hostilities and distrust behind us and embark on a new relationship, we sought to take advantage in ways that exacerbated that distrust.

Today the relationship is a far cry from what it could and should be, and it will require significant investments in diplomacy to rebuild it.

We can lead in the world, we can build new alliances and work to solve conflicts, promote stability and develop new markets, or we can turn inward. That is the choice we face with this amendment. We are part of a global economy. We face grave challenges, from al-Qaida in Pakistan to drug cartels in Mexico. Climate change threatens the survival of species in ways that may profoundly affect our own survival not fifty million years from now, but within the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren.

This is no time to trifle with the need for American leadership. I thank all Senators for supporting this amendment.

Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is moving forward to vote on final passage of the bipartisan Serve America Act. Practical participation in the goals and ideals of our country through service is a cornerstone of our success as the world's most enduring democracy, and we must continue to work together to promote such volunteerism on a national level. Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly to promote national service by authoring and passing the National and Community Service Trust Act, which created AmeriCorps. Senator Kennedy's career of public service serves as an example to so many Americans, and I am proud to have joined alongside him as a cosponsor of this legislation.

For dozens of years, programs aimed at assisting Americans of all ages to participate in year-long service activities have thrived and national service applications are higher than they have ever been. This bill would expand the opportunities for Americans to serve by boosting AmeriCorps programs over 8 years to a goal of 250,000 volunteers, engaging youth and low-income individuals to participate in Summer of Service or Semester of Service programs, making expansions to programs for retirees, and authorizing a program for short-term international service opportunities. These programs have helped thousands engage in their communities and become involved in civic life and we should encourage even greater participation by passing this bill.

In this time of economic hardship, Americans are struggling to pay the high costs of tuition and those who do make it through school are struggling to find ways to pay the bills. Many that may be drawn toward year-of-service programs are unable to commit because they cannot afford to do so. The Serve America Act increases the education award for volunteers to $5,350 to keep up with education costs and to link it to Pell Grants in order to help it increase in the future.

The dedicated young people who have answered the honorable call to national service contribute enormously to the strength of our communities. Whether they are helping to house the homeless, feed the hungry, or keep disadvantaged youth safe in fun and educational after- school activities, they are often filling a sorely needed gap that the community cannot otherwise fill. Since AmeriCorps' inception in 1994, more than 2,900 Vermonters have

qualified for education loans through the program, allowing about 390 Vermont students to serve each year. Additionally, 2,800 Vermont seniors contribute their time to the Senior Corps program by becoming foster grandparents, senior companions for homebound seniors, or by serving in the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. The expansion of the year-of-service opportunities this bill contains will greatly increase the capacity of Vermonters to join national service programs.

Last week, a large group of volunteers from YouthBuild came to Washington to participate in Green Building Service Day to build an energy efficient home on the National Mall. YouthBuild volunteers have been participating in similar projects for more than 20 years. Several members of YouthBuild Burlington came to Washington to participate in Green Building Service Day and described how the program turned around their lives and how they are inspired to continue public service after their time with YouthBuild is completed. National service programs such as YouthBuild are not merely volunteer programs, but programs that invigorate the spirit of national service that will influence volunteers for a lifetime.

We must work to make this vital part of our social safety net in Vermont and across the nation. Service to our country is not only noble, but it enriches the lives of those served as well as the volunteers who commit their time to helping others. I urge support of this bill as the Senate prepares to vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Durbin once again to introduce the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, DREAM. This legislation has the potential to change the lives of many young people in an extraordinary and positive way and is an investment in America's future.

The Senate has attempted several times to pass the DREAM Act, but the bitter politics of immigration have stalled our best efforts in the past. I appreciate Senator Durbin's persistence, and I share his commitment to the young people whose lives this bill would profoundly improve. Those who came to the U.S. as minors under the care of their parents are not guilty of their parents' transgressions. For many, the U.S. is the only home they know. We will further the Federal policy that supports educational opportunity and military service if we exercise the forbearance to defer rigid application of our laws upon those who have the potential to be citizens that will move our country forward. We all recognize the value of higher education and service to our country. To serve these Federal policy interests by giving legal stability and opportunity to young people caught in the limbo of our laws through no fault of their own is the right thing to do.

As Congress and the administration work through the immediate challenges that lie ahead, and begin to restore the faith of Americans in our economy and our government, I hope Congress will not shy away from other important issues such as immigration reform. When our Federal Government confronts the issue of immigration, I hope we will see not only the opportunity to correct what is wrong, but also to improve and build upon what is good and just about the traditions of welcoming and refuge that define our immigration system. The promise this bill holds for so many young people will reinforce the spirit that underlies the history of American immigration and the diversity that has moved us so far.

I thank Senator Durbin and hope all Senators will join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Durbin once again to introduce the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, DREAM. This legislation has the potential to change the lives of many young people in an extraordinary and positive way and is an investment in America's future.

The Senate has attempted several times to pass the DREAM Act, but the bitter politics of immigration have stalled our best efforts in the past. I appreciate Senator Durbin's persistence, and I share his commitment to the young people whose lives this bill would profoundly improve. Those who came to the U.S. as minors under the care of their parents are not guilty of their parents' transgressions. For many, the U.S. is the only home they know. We will further the Federal policy that supports educational opportunity and military service if we exercise the forbearance to defer rigid application of our laws upon those who have the potential to be citizens that will move our country forward. We all recognize the value of higher education and service to our country. To serve these Federal policy interests by giving legal stability and opportunity to young people caught in the limbo of our laws through no fault of their own is the right thing to do.

As Congress and the administration work through the immediate challenges that lie ahead, and begin to restore the faith of Americans in our economy and our government, I hope Congress will not shy away from other important issues such as immigration reform. When our Federal Government confronts the issue of immigration, I hope we will see not only the opportunity to correct what is wrong, but also to improve and build upon what is good and just about the traditions of welcoming and refuge that define our immigration system. The promise this bill holds for so many young people will reinforce the spirit that underlies the history of American immigration and the diversity that has moved us so far.

I thank Senator Durbin and hope all Senators will join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, the Senate has confirmed four nominees to fill top leadership positions at the Justice Department officials, and today we take another step forward to put in place Attorney General Holder's leadership team. Today, the Senate turns to the nomination of David Kris to lead the National Security Division.

I thank the Democratic and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee for working with me to expedite this nomination when it was in committee. Senator Feinstein chaired our Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination on February 25. We were able to report his nomination out of the committee by a voice vote on March 5. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence worked quickly to consider and report his nomination as well. Finally, the Senate today considers his nomination to this critical national security post.

The Judiciary Committee's renewed oversight efforts in the last 2 years brought into sharper focus what for years had been clear--that during the last 8 years, the Bush administration repeatedly ignored the checks and balances wisely placed on executive power by the Founders. The Bush administration chose to enhance the power of the President and to turn the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice into an apologist for White House orders--from the warrantless wiretapping of Americans to torture.

Attorney General Holder has already taken steps toward restoring the rule of law. With the confirmation of David Kris to lead the National Security Division, we fill another key national security position in the Department.

David Kris is a highly regarded veteran of the Department of Justice. He is former Federal prosecutor who spent 8 years as a career attorney in the criminal division at the Department, handling complex cases in Federal trial and appellate courts, including the Supreme Court. Mr. Kris was then a political appointee under both President Clinton and President Bush, serving as Associate Deputy Attorney General from 2000- 2003, supervising the government's use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, representing the Justice Department at the National Security Council and in other interagency settings, briefing and testifying before Congress, and assisting the Attorney General in conducting oversight of the U.S. intelligence community.

Mr. Kris understands the role the Bush administration's excesses have played in undermining the Department of Justice and the rule of law. In 2006, Mr. Kris released a 23-page legal memorandum critical of the legal rationale offered by the Bush administration, and in support of the legality of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program. Mr. Kris was an early advocate for the creation of the National Security Division he has now been confirmed to lead, leaving a lucrative practice as an in-house counsel for a major corporation to return to government service.

Mr. Kris' nomination has also earned support from both sides of the aisle. Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson, who worked with Mr. Kris at the Department, describes Mr. Kris as ``a very sound lawyer,'' who ``is committed to the defense of the United States and its citizens, and respects the rule of law and civil rights.'' Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, who asked Mr. Kris to remain in his post during the Bush administration, writes that he asked Mr. Kris to stay after finding that ``he had a passion for national security issues but also a deep respect and appreciation for the related civil liberties concerns.'' Former Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former Attorneys General Janet Reno and John Ashcroft have all written in support of Mr. Kris' nomination.

President Obama has reminded Americans and the world that, ``to overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend--because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America.'' The President reminded us that ``living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger.''

David Kris understands the moral and legal obligations we have to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans and to respect the human rights of all. He knows, as do the President and the Attorney General, that we must ensure that the rule of law is restored as the guiding light for the work of the Department of Justice.

I congratulate Mr. Kris and his family on his confirmation today.

Mr. President, I am introducing today important legislation designed to protect our communities and particularly our most precious asset, our children. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Specter and Senator Kohl, who have been leaders in this area of the law for decades, and Senator Durbin, who is the new Chairman of the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee. Our legislation is intended to keep children safe and out of trouble and also to help ensure they have the opportunity to become productive adult members of society.

The Senate Judiciary Committee reported this important bill last July. I was disappointed that Republican objections prevented this vital bipartisan legislation from passing the Senate in the last Congress, but we will redouble our efforts to pass this bill this year.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act sets out Federal policy and standards for the administration of juvenile justice. It authorizes key Federal resources for states to improve their juvenile justice systems and for communities to develop programs to prevent young people from getting into trouble. We are recommitting ourselves to these important goals with this proposed reauthorization. We also push the law forward in key ways to better serve our communities and our children.

The basic goals of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act remain the same: keeping our communities safe by reducing juvenile crime, advancing programs and policies that keep children out of the criminal justice system, and encouraging states to implement policies designed to steer those children who do enter the juvenile justice system back onto a track to become contributing members of society.

The reauthorization that we introduce today augments these goals in several ways. First, this bill encourages states to move away from keeping young people in adult jails. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that children who are held in adult prisons commit more crimes, and more serious crimes, when they are released, than children with similar histories who are kept in juvenile facilities. After years of pressure to send more and more young people to adult prisons, it is time to seriously consider the strong evidence that this policy is not working.

We must do this with ample consideration for the fiscal constraints on states, particularly in these lean budget times, and with deference to the traditional role of states in setting their own criminal justice policy. We have done so here. But we also must work to ensure that unless strong and considered reasons dictate otherwise, the presumption must be that children will be kept with other children, particularly before they have been convicted of any wrongdoing.

As a former prosecutor, I know well the importance of holding criminals accountable for their crimes with strong sentences. But when we are talking about children, we must also think about how best to help them become responsible, contributing members of society as adults. That keeps us all safer.

I am disturbed that children from minority communities continue to be overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. This bill encourages states to take new steps to identify the reasons for this serious and continuing problem and to work together with the Federal Government and with local communities to find ways to start solving it.

I am also concerned that too many runaway and homeless young people are locked up for status offenses, like truancy, without having committed any crime. In a Judiciary Committee hearing last year on the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, we were reminded of the plight of this vulnerable population, even in the wealthiest country in the world, and inspired by the ability of so many children in this desperate situation to rise above that adversity.

This reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Act takes strong and significant steps to move away from detaining children from at-risk populations for status offenses, and requires states to phase out the practice entirely in three years, but with a safety valve for those states that are unable to move quite so quickly due to limited resources.

As I have worked with experts on this legislation, it has become abundantly clear that mental health and drug treatment are fundamental to making real progress toward keeping juvenile offenders from reoffending. Mental disorders are two to three times more common among children in the juvenile justice system than in the general population, and 80 percent of young people in the juvenile justice system have been found by some studies to have a connection to substance abuse. This bill takes new and important steps to prioritize and fund mental health and drug treatment.

The bill tackles several other key facets of juvenile justice reform. It emphasizes effective training of personnel who work with young people in the juvenile justice system, both to encourage the use of approaches that have been proven effective and to eliminate cruel and unnecessary treatment of juveniles. The bill also creates incentives for the use of programs that research and testing have shown work best.

Finally, the bill refocuses attention on prevention programs intended to keep children from ever entering the criminal justice system. I was struck when Chief Richard Miranda of Tucson, AZ, said during our December 2007 hearing on this bill that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. I heard the same sentiment from Chief Anthony Bossi and others at the Judiciary Committee's field hearing last year on young people and violent crime in Rutland, Vermont. When seasoned police officers from Rutland, Vermont, to Tucson, Arizona, tell us that prevention programs are pivotal, I pay attention.

Just as the last administration gutted programs that support state and local law enforcement, so they consistently cut and narrowed effective prevention programs. It would have been even worse had it not been for Senator Kohl's efforts. We must work with the

Obama administration to reverse this trend and help our communities implement programs proven to help kids turn their lives around.

I thank the many prominent Vermont representatives of law enforcement, the juvenile justice system, and prevention-oriented non- profits who have spoken to me in support of reauthorizing this important Act, and who have helped inform my understanding of these issues. They include Ken Schatz of the Burlington City Attorney's Office, Vermont Juvenile Justice Specialist Theresa Lay-Sleeper, and Chief Steve McQueen of the Winooski Police Department. I know that many Judiciary Committee members have heard from passionate leaders on this issue in their own states.

I have long supported a strong Federal commitment to preventing youth violence, with full respect for the discretion due to law enforcement and judges, with deference to states, and with a regard for difficult fiscal realities. I have worked hard on past reauthorizations of this legislation, as have Senators Specter and Kohl and others on the Judiciary Committee. We have learned the importance of balancing strong law enforcement with effective prevention programs. This reauthorization pushes forward new ways to help children move out of the criminal justice system, return to school, and become responsible, hard-working members of our communities. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing today important legislation designed to protect our communities and particularly our most precious asset, our children. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Specter and Senator Kohl, who have been leaders in this area of the law for decades, and Senator Durbin, who is the new Chairman of the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee. Our legislation is intended to keep children safe and out of trouble and also to help ensure they have the opportunity to become productive adult members of society.

The Senate Judiciary Committee reported this important bill last July. I was disappointed that Republican objections prevented this vital bipartisan legislation from passing the Senate in the last Congress, but we will redouble our efforts to pass this bill this year.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act sets out Federal policy and standards for the administration of juvenile justice. It authorizes key Federal resources for states to improve their juvenile justice systems and for communities to develop programs to prevent young people from getting into trouble. We are recommitting ourselves to these important goals with this proposed reauthorization. We also push the law forward in key ways to better serve our communities and our children.

The basic goals of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act remain the same: keeping our communities safe by reducing juvenile crime, advancing programs and policies that keep children out of the criminal justice system, and encouraging states to implement policies designed to steer those children who do enter the juvenile justice system back onto a track to become contributing members of society.

The reauthorization that we introduce today augments these goals in several ways. First, this bill encourages states to move away from keeping young people in adult jails. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that children who are held in adult prisons commit more crimes, and more serious crimes, when they are released, than children with similar histories who are kept in juvenile facilities. After years of pressure to send more and more young people to adult prisons, it is time to seriously consider the strong evidence that this policy is not working.

We must do this with ample consideration for the fiscal constraints on states, particularly in these lean budget times, and with deference to the traditional role of states in setting their own criminal justice policy. We have done so here. But we also must work to ensure that unless strong and considered reasons dictate otherwise, the presumption must be that children will be kept with other children, particularly before they have been convicted of any wrongdoing.

As a former prosecutor, I know well the importance of holding criminals accountable for their crimes with strong sentences. But when we are talking about children, we must also think about how best to help them become responsible, contributing members of society as adults. That keeps us all safer.

I am disturbed that children from minority communities continue to be overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. This bill encourages states to take new steps to identify the reasons for this serious and continuing problem and to work together with the Federal Government and with local communities to find ways to start solving it.

I am also concerned that too many runaway and homeless young people are locked up for status offenses, like truancy, without having committed any crime. In a Judiciary Committee hearing last year on the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, we were reminded of the plight of this vulnerable population, even in the wealthiest country in the world, and inspired by the ability of so many children in this desperate situation to rise above that adversity.

This reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Act takes strong and significant steps to move away from detaining children from at-risk populations for status offenses, and requires states to phase out the practice entirely in three years, but with a safety valve for those states that are unable to move quite so quickly due to limited resources.

As I have worked with experts on this legislation, it has become abundantly clear that mental health and drug treatment are fundamental to making real progress toward keeping juvenile offenders from reoffending. Mental disorders are two to three times more common among children in the juvenile justice system than in the general population, and 80 percent of young people in the juvenile justice system have been found by some studies to have a connection to substance abuse. This bill takes new and important steps to prioritize and fund mental health and drug treatment.

The bill tackles several other key facets of juvenile justice reform. It emphasizes effective training of personnel who work with young people in the juvenile justice system, both to encourage the use of approaches that have been proven effective and to eliminate cruel and unnecessary treatment of juveniles. The bill also creates incentives for the use of programs that research and testing have shown work best.

Finally, the bill refocuses attention on prevention programs intended to keep children from ever entering the criminal justice system. I was struck when Chief Richard Miranda of Tucson, AZ, said during our December 2007 hearing on this bill that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. I heard the same sentiment from Chief Anthony Bossi and others at the Judiciary Committee's field hearing last year on young people and violent crime in Rutland, Vermont. When seasoned police officers from Rutland, Vermont, to Tucson, Arizona, tell us that prevention programs are pivotal, I pay attention.

Just as the last administration gutted programs that support state and local law enforcement, so they consistently cut and narrowed effective prevention programs. It would have been even worse had it not been for Senator Kohl's efforts. We must work with the

Obama administration to reverse this trend and help our communities implement programs proven to help kids turn their lives around.

I thank the many prominent Vermont representatives of law enforcement, the juvenile justice system, and prevention-oriented non- profits who have spoken to me in support of reauthorizing this important Act, and who have helped inform my understanding of these issues. They include Ken Schatz of the Burlington City Attorney's Office, Vermont Juvenile Justice Specialist Theresa Lay-Sleeper, and Chief Steve McQueen of the Winooski Police Department. I know that many Judiciary Committee members have heard from passionate leaders on this issue in their own states.

I have long supported a strong Federal commitment to preventing youth violence, with full respect for the discretion due to law enforcement and judges, with deference to states, and with a regard for difficult fiscal realities. I have worked hard on past reauthorizations of this legislation, as have Senators Specter and Kohl and others on the Judiciary Committee. We have learned the importance of balancing strong law enforcement with effective prevention programs. This reauthorization pushes forward new ways to help children move out of the criminal justice system, return to school, and become responsible, hard-working members of our communities. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I don't know if there are other Members are coming. While the Senator from Alabama is on the floor, let me note that I heard there may be one or two more Members coming over. I hope they will come soon. I am going to be here, as I have a series of meetings until well after 6, but I know a number on both sides have flights to catch.

Once everybody has spoken, I will suggest that we yield back all time and have a vote. I know the Senator from Alabama had specific time set aside and didn't use all of it. I hope he might join me in calling for other Senators who wish to speak to come over. If they are to speak, it would be better to do it sooner rather than later. It would be a great help to a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. I urge Members--if there are others--not to wait until 5. And I ask those on the other side of the aisle, if you wish to speak, please do so as soon as possible, because at some point--and we will do this only with notice to the Republican

side--I am going to ask unanimous consent to yield back all time and go to a vote.

In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, I have heard a lot of debate here today. I remind Senators of one thing: The Kagan nomination is not controversial. Every Solicitor General who served from 1985 has endorsed her nomination. That is every Democratic one, every Republican one, across the political spectrum.

Let me read some of the names who have endorsed this woman Charles Fried, Ken Starr, Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, Seth Waxman, Ted Olson, Paul Clement, Greg Garre. Here is what they wrote in their letter of support:

We who have had the honor of serving as Solicitor General

over the past quarter century in the administrations of

Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William Clinton

and George W. Bush, write to endorse the nomination of Dean

Elena Kagan to be the next Solicitor General of the United

States. We are confident that Dean

Kagan will bring distinction to the office, continue its

highest traditions, and be a forceful advocate for the United

States before the Supreme Court.

One of the conservative professors whom Dean Kagan helped bring to Harvard Law School was Professor Jack Goldsmith. You may remember, he took charge of the Office of Legal Counsel after the disastrous tenures of Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Professor Goldsmith, a conservative, praised Dean Kagan as someone who takes to the Solicitor General's Office a better understanding of the Congress and the executive branch that she will represent before the Court than perhaps any prior Solicitor General.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of these and the dozens of other supporters be printed in the Record.

It is time for our daughters and granddaughters to see a woman serving as the chief legal advocate on behalf of the United States. I urge all Senators, just as the Republican and Democratic former Solicitors have supported her, to support President Obama's nomination.

Vote to confirm Elena Kagan to be Solicitor General of the United States.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Parliamentary inquiry: I thought the vote was going to be at 5 o'clock.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time for both sides be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this week, the Nation celebrates the fifth annual Sunshine Week--a time when open Government advocates raise their voices to renew the call for open and transparent Government. Our democracy works best when citizens know what their Government is doing. There is no more appropriate time to recommit ourselves to defending the public's right to know.

Today, I am pleased to join Senators Grassley and Schumer to reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2009. This bipartisan bill will improve access to Federal court proceedings for members of the public who are unable to travel to the courthouse. In the information age, providing the American people access to Federal courts is possible like never before. Not all Americans are able to invest the time and money in travelling to witness public courtroom proceedings.

I commend Senator Grassley for his leadership over the last decade to expand access to the courts. A bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to report this legislation in the last Congress, but further consideration stalled on the Senate floor. I hope our efforts to pass this legislation will be successful this year.

The Federal courts serve as a bulwark for the protection of individual rights and liberties, and the Supreme Court is often the final arbiter of Constitutional questions that have a profound effect on all Americans. Allowing the public greater access to Federal courts will deepen Americans' understanding of the work that goes on in the courts. As a result, Americans can be better informed about how important judicial decisions are made.

I have continually supported efforts in Congress to make our Government more transparent and accessible. During my more than 3 decades in the Senate, I have worked to make Federal agencies more open and accountable to the public through a reinvigorated Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, and last year, the first major reforms to FOIA were enacted with the passage of the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act. I have also supported efforts to make the work of Congress more open to the American people. Just this week, I introduced the OPEN FOIA Act, which would require Congress to openly and clearly state its intention to provide for statutory exemptions to FOIA in proposed legislation. The freedom of information is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. For more than 4 decades, FOIA has been among the most important Federal laws that protect the public's right to know.

The work of the Federal judiciary is also open to the public. Proceedings in Federal courtrooms around this country are open to the public, and jurists publish extensive opinions explaining the reasons for their judgments and decisions. Nevertheless, more can and must be done to increase access to the Federal courts. All 50 States currently allow some form of audio or video coverage of court proceedings, but the Federal courts lag behind. The legislation we introduce today simply extends this tradition of openness to the Federal level.

Although this bill permits presiding appellate and district court judges to allow cameras in most public Federal court proceedings, it does not require that they do so. An exception is carved out for instances where a camera would violate the due process rights of an involved party. At the same time, the bill protects non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured during their testimony. I believe these protections strike the proper balance between security needs and the protection of personal privacy, while at the same time ensuring the public will always have a right to know what their Government is doing.

Finally, the bill authorizes the Judicial conference of the U.S. to issue advisory guidelines for use by presiding judges in determining the management and administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or televising the proceedings.

In 1994, the Judicial conference concluded that it was not the right time to permit cameras in the Federal courts, and rejected a recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee to authorize the use of cameras in Federal civil trial and appellate courts. A majority of the Conference was concerned about the intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses and jurors.

I understand that the Judicial conference remains opposed to cameras in the Federal courts, and I am sensitive to the conference's concerns. But this legislation grants the presiding judge the authority to evaluate the effect of a camera on particular proceedings and witnesses, and decide accordingly on whether to permit the camera into the courtroom. A blanket prohibition on cameras is an unnecessary limitation on the discretion of the presiding judge.

This legislation is an important step towards making the work of the Federal judiciary more widely available for public scrutiny. I hope all Senators will join us in bringing more transparency to the Federal courts.

Mr. President, this week, the Nation celebrates the fifth annual Sunshine Week--a time when open Government advocates raise their voices to renew the call for open and transparent Government. Our democracy works best when citizens know what their Government is doing. There is no more appropriate time to recommit ourselves to defending the public's right to know.

Today, I am pleased to join Senators Grassley and Schumer to reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2009. This bipartisan bill will improve access to Federal court proceedings for members of the public who are unable to travel to the courthouse. In the information age, providing the American people access to Federal courts is possible like never before. Not all Americans are able to invest the time and money in travelling to witness public courtroom proceedings.

I commend Senator Grassley for his leadership over the last decade to expand access to the courts. A bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to report this legislation in the last Congress, but further consideration stalled on the Senate floor. I hope our efforts to pass this legislation will be successful this year.

The Federal courts serve as a bulwark for the protection of individual rights and liberties, and the Supreme Court is often the final arbiter of Constitutional questions that have a profound effect on all Americans. Allowing the public greater access to Federal courts will deepen Americans' understanding of the work that goes on in the courts. As a result, Americans can be better informed about how important judicial decisions are made.

I have continually supported efforts in Congress to make our Government more transparent and accessible. During my more than 3 decades in the Senate, I have worked to make Federal agencies more open and accountable to the public through a reinvigorated Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, and last year, the first major reforms to FOIA were enacted with the passage of the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act. I have also supported efforts to make the work of Congress more open to the American people. Just this week, I introduced the OPEN FOIA Act, which would require Congress to openly and clearly state its intention to provide for statutory exemptions to FOIA in proposed legislation. The freedom of information is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. For more than 4 decades, FOIA has been among the most important Federal laws that protect the public's right to know.

The work of the Federal judiciary is also open to the public. Proceedings in Federal courtrooms around this country are open to the public, and jurists publish extensive opinions explaining the reasons for their judgments and decisions. Nevertheless, more can and must be done to increase access to the Federal courts. All 50 States currently allow some form of audio or video coverage of court proceedings, but the Federal courts lag behind. The legislation we introduce today simply extends this tradition of openness to the Federal level.

Although this bill permits presiding appellate and district court judges to allow cameras in most public Federal court proceedings, it does not require that they do so. An exception is carved out for instances where a camera would violate the due process rights of an involved party. At the same time, the bill protects non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured during their testimony. I believe these protections strike the proper balance between security needs and the protection of personal privacy, while at the same time ensuring the public will always have a right to know what their Government is doing.

Finally, the bill authorizes the Judicial conference of the U.S. to issue advisory guidelines for use by presiding judges in determining the management and administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or televising the proceedings.

In 1994, the Judicial conference concluded that it was not the right time to permit cameras in the Federal courts, and rejected a recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee to authorize the use of cameras in Federal civil trial and appellate courts. A majority of the Conference was concerned about the intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses and jurors.

I understand that the Judicial conference remains opposed to cameras in the Federal courts, and I am sensitive to the conference's concerns. But this legislation grants the presiding judge the authority to evaluate the effect of a camera on particular proceedings and witnesses, and decide accordingly on whether to permit the camera into the courtroom. A blanket prohibition on cameras is an unnecessary limitation on the discretion of the presiding judge.

This legislation is an important step towards making the work of the Federal judiciary more widely available for public scrutiny. I hope all Senators will join us in bringing more transparency to the Federal courts.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. Presdient, today, we introduce the Statutory Time- Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009. I thank Senator Specter, the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee and Senators Whitehouse and Sessions, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Administrative Oversight and Courts Subcommittee for cosponsoring.

This legislation incorporates recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States to alter deadlines in certain statutes affecting court proceedings to account for recent amendments to the Federal time-computation rules. This bipartisan bill would provide judges and practitioners with commonsense deadlines that are less confusing and less complex than current deadlines, and also ensure that existing time periods are not shortened.

After much study and significant public comment, the Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Rules arrived at proposed new rules intended to provide predictability and uniformity to the current process of calculating court deadlines. The proposed rules respond, in part, to findings from the Judicial Conference that the current time-computation process is confusing and can lead to missed deadlines and litigants' loss of important rights. Under the current time-calculation rules, weekends and holidays are not counted when calculating court deadlines of less than 30 days, but are counted for calculating court deadlines longer than 30 days. The proposed new rules simplify this process by counting holidays and weekends regardless of a court deadline's time period. According to the Judicial Conference, these proposed changes would respond to practitioners' complaints and criticism from judges.

This legislation would amend a number of Federal civil and criminal statutes affecting court proceedings and harmonize them with the proposed rules. First, this remedial bill would alter certain statutory court deadlines to counterbalance any shortening of the time period resulting from the ``days are days'' approach. For example, the bill changes 5 days to 7 days, and 10 days to 14 days, to prevent time periods from becoming shorter when a practitioner counts all days, including weekends. This change would, in effect, maintain the same time periods in the statutes. In addition, if a time period ends on a holiday or a weekend the time period would be extended to the next business day. The bill would also change some statutory deadlines that would otherwise be inconsistent with the amended rules deadlines and lead to confusion.

This bipartisan legislation is time-sensitive. Both the Department of Justice and Judicial Conference urge swift consideration of this proposal, to allow it to take effect on December 1, 2009, the same date as the amendments to the rules.

According to a letter the Department of Justice sent to the Judicial Conference last year: ``Failure to adopt statutory changes that move in concert with the proposed rule changes will result in exactly the opposite effect of what is intended--changes to the rules alone will introduce greater confusion rather than desirable simplification.'' Although the Obama administration has not formally weighed

in on this legislation, I anticipate that the Justice Department will again support this proposal. In addition, this bill mirrors the proposal from the Judicial Conference which enjoyed broad support from numerous legal and bar organizations, including of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the Council of Appellate Lawyers, and the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation and Criminal Justice Section.

I hope we will consider this measure expeditiously and improve the effectiveness of our judicial system. Passing this bill will create a consistent and standard method for lawyers and judges to calculate court deadlines.

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

Mr. Presdient, today, we introduce the Statutory Time- Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009. I thank Senator Specter, the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee and Senators Whitehouse and Sessions, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Administrative Oversight and Courts Subcommittee for cosponsoring.

This legislation incorporates recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States to alter deadlines in certain statutes affecting court proceedings to account for recent amendments to the Federal time-computation rules. This bipartisan bill would provide judges and practitioners with commonsense deadlines that are less confusing and less complex than current deadlines, and also ensure that existing time periods are not shortened.

After much study and significant public comment, the Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Rules arrived at proposed new rules intended to provide predictability and uniformity to the current process of calculating court deadlines. The proposed rules respond, in part, to findings from the Judicial Conference that the current time-computation process is confusing and can lead to missed deadlines and litigants' loss of important rights. Under the current time-calculation rules, weekends and holidays are not counted when calculating court deadlines of less than 30 days, but are counted for calculating court deadlines longer than 30 days. The proposed new rules simplify this process by counting holidays and weekends regardless of a court deadline's time period. According to the Judicial Conference, these proposed changes would respond to practitioners' complaints and criticism from judges.

This legislation would amend a number of Federal civil and criminal statutes affecting court proceedings and harmonize them with the proposed rules. First, this remedial bill would alter certain statutory court deadlines to counterbalance any shortening of the time period resulting from the ``days are days'' approach. For example, the bill changes 5 days to 7 days, and 10 days to 14 days, to prevent time periods from becoming shorter when a practitioner counts all days, including weekends. This change would, in effect, maintain the same time periods in the statutes. In addition, if a time period ends on a holiday or a weekend the time period would be extended to the next business day. The bill would also change some statutory deadlines that would otherwise be inconsistent with the amended rules deadlines and lead to confusion.

This bipartisan legislation is time-sensitive. Both the Department of Justice and Judicial Conference urge swift consideration of this proposal, to allow it to take effect on December 1, 2009, the same date as the amendments to the rules.

According to a letter the Department of Justice sent to the Judicial Conference last year: ``Failure to adopt statutory changes that move in concert with the proposed rule changes will result in exactly the opposite effect of what is intended--changes to the rules alone will introduce greater confusion rather than desirable simplification.'' Although the Obama administration has not formally weighed

in on this legislation, I anticipate that the Justice Department will again support this proposal. In addition, this bill mirrors the proposal from the Judicial Conference which enjoyed broad support from numerous legal and bar organizations, including of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the Council of Appellate Lawyers, and the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation and Criminal Justice Section.

I hope we will consider this measure expeditiously and improve the effectiveness of our judicial system. Passing this bill will create a consistent and standard method for lawyers and judges to calculate court deadlines.

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