Floor Statements

Mr. President, this week, our Nation celebrates Sunshine Week--a time to recognize and promote openness in our Government. At this important time of year, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the OPEN FOIA Act--a bipartisan bill to promote more openness regarding statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

This bipartisan bill builds upon the work that Senator Cornyn and I began several years ago to reinvigorate and strengthen FOIA. Together, we introduced, and Congress ultimately enacted, the OPEN Government Act--the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work and leadership on this important issue. I also thank President Obama--who was a cosponsor of the OPEN Government Act when he was in the Senate--for his deep commitment to FOIA. President Obama clearly demonstrated his commitment to open Government when he issued a new directive to strengthen FOIA during his first full day in office.

The OPEN FOIA Act simply requires that when Congress provides for a statutory exemption to FOIA in new legislation, Congress must state its intention to do so explicitly and clearly. This commonsense bill mirrors bipartisan legislation that the Judiciary Committee favorably reported, and the Senate unanimously passed, during the 109th Congress, S. 1181. While no one can fairly question the need to keep certain Government information secret to ensure the public good, excessive Government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant democracy.

For more than four decades, FOIA has served as perhaps the most important Federal law to ensure the public's right to know, and to balance the Government's power with the need for Government accountability. The Freedom of Information Act contains a number of exemptions to its disclosure requirements for national security, law enforcement, confidential business information, personal privacy and other circumstances. The FOIA exemption commonly known as the ``(b)(3) exemption,'' requires that Government records that are specifically exempted from FOIA by statute be withheld from the public. In recent years, we have witnessed an alarming number of FOIA (b)(3) exemptions being offered in legislation--often in very ambiguous terms--to the detriment of the American public's right to know.

The bedrock principles of open Government lead me to believe that (b)(3) statutory exemptions should be clear and unambiguous, and vigorously debated before they are enacted into law. Too often, legislative exemptions to FOIA are buried within a few lines of very complex and lengthy bills, and these new exemptions are never debated openly before becoming law. The consequence of this troubling practice is the erosion of the public's right to know, and the shirking of Congress' duty to fully consider these exemptions.

The OPEN FOIA Act will help stop this practice and shine more light on the process of creating legislative exemptions to FOIA. That will be the best antidote to the ``exemption creep'' that we have witnessed in recent years.

When he recently addressed a joint session of the Congress and the American people, President Obama said that ``I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But, I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done.''

Sunshine Week reminds all of us that open Government is not a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue and a virtue that all Americans can embrace. Democratic and Republican Senators alike have rightly supported and voted for this bill in the past. It is in this same bipartisan spirit that I urge all Members to support this bipartisan FOIA reform bill.

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

Mr. President, this week, our Nation celebrates Sunshine Week--a time to recognize and promote openness in our Government. At this important time of year, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the OPEN FOIA Act--a bipartisan bill to promote more openness regarding statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

This bipartisan bill builds upon the work that Senator Cornyn and I began several years ago to reinvigorate and strengthen FOIA. Together, we introduced, and Congress ultimately enacted, the OPEN Government Act--the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work and leadership on this important issue. I also thank President Obama--who was a cosponsor of the OPEN Government Act when he was in the Senate--for his deep commitment to FOIA. President Obama clearly demonstrated his commitment to open Government when he issued a new directive to strengthen FOIA during his first full day in office.

The OPEN FOIA Act simply requires that when Congress provides for a statutory exemption to FOIA in new legislation, Congress must state its intention to do so explicitly and clearly. This commonsense bill mirrors bipartisan legislation that the Judiciary Committee favorably reported, and the Senate unanimously passed, during the 109th Congress, S. 1181. While no one can fairly question the need to keep certain Government information secret to ensure the public good, excessive Government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant democracy.

For more than four decades, FOIA has served as perhaps the most important Federal law to ensure the public's right to know, and to balance the Government's power with the need for Government accountability. The Freedom of Information Act contains a number of exemptions to its disclosure requirements for national security, law enforcement, confidential business information, personal privacy and other circumstances. The FOIA exemption commonly known as the ``(b)(3) exemption,'' requires that Government records that are specifically exempted from FOIA by statute be withheld from the public. In recent years, we have witnessed an alarming number of FOIA (b)(3) exemptions being offered in legislation--often in very ambiguous terms--to the detriment of the American public's right to know.

The bedrock principles of open Government lead me to believe that (b)(3) statutory exemptions should be clear and unambiguous, and vigorously debated before they are enacted into law. Too often, legislative exemptions to FOIA are buried within a few lines of very complex and lengthy bills, and these new exemptions are never debated openly before becoming law. The consequence of this troubling practice is the erosion of the public's right to know, and the shirking of Congress' duty to fully consider these exemptions.

The OPEN FOIA Act will help stop this practice and shine more light on the process of creating legislative exemptions to FOIA. That will be the best antidote to the ``exemption creep'' that we have witnessed in recent years.

When he recently addressed a joint session of the Congress and the American people, President Obama said that ``I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But, I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done.''

Sunshine Week reminds all of us that open Government is not a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue and a virtue that all Americans can embrace. Democratic and Republican Senators alike have rightly supported and voted for this bill in the past. It is in this same bipartisan spirit that I urge all Members to support this bipartisan FOIA reform bill.

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

Madam President, I won't object, but I would ask that 3 minutes be added to the time for the Ogden debate.

Mr. President, I understand my time has been used. We are supposed to vote at 2 p.m. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to use the time until 2 o'clock.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for his support of both David Ogden and Thomas Perrelli, both superbly qualified candidates, both of whom will be confirmed this afternoon. I will speak further about Mr. Perrelli after this vote.

Again, I go back to David Ogden. David Ogden has been strongly supported by Republicans and Democrats, those who served in the Bush administration and other administrations. I thought it was a scurrilous attack on him because he and his firm supported libraries, supported perfectly legal publications, and some Republicans saying they could not vote for him because of that.

I note that these same Republicans all voted for Michael Mukasey, a fine gentleman, to be Attorney General, who listed as one of his primary cases his representation of the TV channel that carries ``Dial- a-Porn.''

Now, certainly when a Republican, nominated by a Republican, represented Dial-a-Porn, that seems to be wrong; when a Democrat, nominated by a Democrat, represents libraries and basically a mainstream men's magazine, that is wrong.

I hope we will avoid in the future such double standards. I see a man who has helped children, who has volunteered his time, who has given great charity to children, and who has been supported by the Boys and Girls Clubs, by the Missing and Exploited Children's groups, by the National District Attorneys Association, and by every major law enforcement organization.

So, Mr. President, I know time has expired, and I would ask for the yeas and nays on confirmation of the nomination.

Mr. President, what is the agreement on the Perrelli nomination?

Mr. President, I am only going to speak for 2 or 3 minutes. I have had a number of Senators, both Republican Senators and Democratic Senators, ask if there is a possibility of this to be a voice vote. A number of them have airplanes to catch. I mention that for Senators on both sides of the aisle.

I am perfectly willing at some appropriate time to yield back all our time and have a voice vote on President Obama's nomination of Thomas J. Perrelli to be the Associate Attorney General, the number three position at the Justice Department. He is a superbly qualified veteran of the Department of Justice who has chosen to leave a lucrative private practice to return to public service. This nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee one week ago by a strong, bipartisan vote of 17-1. I thank Senator Specter, Senator Hatch, Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions, Senator Graham and Senator Cornyn for their support of this important nomination.

Given Tom Perrelli's background and qualifications, this strong support is no surprise. He is the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Jenner & Block. Before that he held important posts at the Justice Department, earning a reputation for independence and integrity, as well as the respect of career lawyers at the Department. Mr. Perrelli joined the Justice Department in 1997 as Counsel to the Attorney General. In that role, Mr. Perrelli assisted the Attorney General in overseeing the civil litigation components of the Department of Justice, and also worked on a wide variety of special projects, including professional responsibility issues for Department attorneys, and law enforcement in Indian Country.

From 1999 to 2001, Mr. Perrelli served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division, supervising the Federal Programs Branch. That branch defends Federal agencies in important constitutional, regulatory, national security, personnel and other litigation. In addition, he played a leading role on significant policy issues ranging from medical records privacy, the use of adjusted figures in the census to Indian gaming, and social security litigation.

A Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Brown University and graduate of Harvard Law School where he served as the Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review, Mr. Perrelli has demonstrated throughout his years in Government that he understands that the role of the Department of Justice is to be the people's lawyer, with first loyalty to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. He clerked for Judge Royce Lamberth, a no nonsense judge. In private practice, first as an associate at Jenner & Block from 1992 to 1997 and then, again, from 2001 to the present where he became a partner and then the managing partner of its well-respected Washington office, he is recognized as an outstanding litigator and manager. He will need all those skills to call on all his experience in the challenging work ahead.

Numerous major law enforcement organizations have endorsed Mr. Perrelli's nomination, including the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations. Paul Clement, who worked for Senator Ashcroft and then Attorney General Ashcroft and was appointed by President Bush to be Solicitor General, wrote that career professionals at the Department who had worked with Mr. Perrelli ``held him in uniformly high regard'' and that Mr. Perrelli's ``prior service in the Department should prepare [him] to be a particularly effective Associate Attorney General.'' He also described Mr. Perrelli as ``an incredibly skilled lawyer'' whose ``skills would serve both Tom and the Department very well if he is confirmed as the Associate Attorney General.''

I urge the Senate to confirm Tom Perrelli to the critical post for which President Obama has nominated him. I look forward to congratulating him, his wife Kristine and their two sons, James and Alexander on his confirmation.

I will withhold the remainder of my time. Before I do that, I know the floor staff on both parties are seeing whether it is possible to shorten the time. If it is--I am stuck here this afternoon, but for those Senators who are trying to grab a flight out of here, it would be good to let them know. I retain the remainder of my time. I see a distinguished former member of our committee, the Senator from Kansas, on the floor. I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

If the Senator would yield on that point. I disagree with him

on this. I do not believe Mr. Perrelli is a right-to-die advocate or that the positions he represented on behalf of clients was extreme. In fact, all seven justices of the Florida Supreme Court, most appointed by Republican governors, agreed with Mr. Perrelli's argument. They struck down unanimously the law that gave Governor Jeb Bush authority over Ms. Schiavo's medical care.

It is wrong to caricature Mr. Perrelli as a ``right to die'' advocate. Mr. Perrelli did not become involved in the Schiavo litigation to further any personal or political agenda and did not become involved in the litigation when the issue was Ms. Schiavo's wishes. In fact, he did not become involved in the case until after the Florida State courts had fully and finally litigated the question of Ms. Schiavo's wishes and her medical condition. Mr. Perrelli's concern was for an unprecedented challenge to the judicial process. He argued that the Florida Legislature passed a law that imposed one set of rules on Ms. Schiavo and a different set of rules on everyone else in Florida. And he was proven right, when the Florida Supreme Court unanimously struck down the law taking the decisions out of the hands of the family and giving them to the Governor.

I ask unanimous consent that the long list of those who have written to the committee in support of Mr. Perrelli's nomination be printed in the Record.

This list includes numerous major law enforcement organizations that have endorsed Mr. Perrelli's nomination, including the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations. It also includes Paul Clement, who worked for Senator Ashcroft and then Attorney General Ashcroft and was appointed by President Bush to be Solicitor General.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time on the Perrelli nomination be yielded back and that the provisions of the previous order governing this nomination remain in effect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time on the Perrelli nomination be yielded back and that the provisions of the previous order governing this nomination remain in effect.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which President Obama signed yesterday, contains $36.6 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of State and Foreign Operations, which is the same amount approved by the Appropriations Committee in July 2008.

This represents a $1.6 billion decrease from former President Bush's budget request of $38.2 billion. I repeat--this legislation is $1.6 billion below what former President Bush recommended in his budget.

It is a $3.8 billion increase from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, not counting supplemental funds, and $968 million above the fiscal year 2008 level including fiscal year 2008 supplemental and fiscal year 2009 bridge funds.

The State and Foreign Operations portion of the omnibus does not contain any congressional earmarks. It does, as is customary and appropriate, specify funding levels for authorized programs, certain countries, and international organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank.

I want to thank Chairman Inouye, President Pro Tempore Byrd, and Ranking Member Cochran for their support throughout this protracted process. And I want to thank Senator Gregg, who as ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee worked with me to produce this bipartisan legislation that was reported by the Appropriations Committee with only one dissenting vote.

It was imperative that we enacted this legislation. The alternative of a year-long continuing resolution would have been devastating for the operations of the State Department and our embassies, consulates and missions around the world, and for programs that support a myriad of United States foreign policy interests and that protect the security of the American people. Many Senators on both sides of the aisle were encouraged that Senator Clinton was nominated for and confirmed to be Secretary of State. If we

want her to succeed we must provide the tools to do so. This legislation supports her highest priority of rebuilding the civilian capabilities of our government.

The omnibus provides $7.8 billion for Department of State operations, a decrease of $274 million below former President's Bush's request and $1.2 billion above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, not including supplemental funds. Counting emergency funds provided in fiscal year 2008 for personnel, operations and security costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the omnibus provides a 5.6-percent increase.

These increases are attributed to a major investment in personnel, primarily to replace worldwide positions that were redirected to Iraq and invest particularly in countries of growing importance in South Asia. The omnibus supports the request of 500 additional positions, much of which will help posts left depleted, some by 25 percent, due to positions shifting to Iraq during the last 5 years. In addition, the omnibus recommends $75 million for a new initiative to train and deploy personnel in postconflict stabilization. These critical investments would have been lost under a year-long continuing resolution.

The omnibus provides $1.7 billion for construction of new secure embassies and to provide security upgrades to existing facilities, which is $178 million below former President Bush's request. He had proposed a 41-percent increase which we did not have the funds to support. But an increase of $99.5 million, or 13 percent, above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level is provided considering the significant threats our embassies faced last year alone, from Yemen to Belgrade. Even this lesser increase for embassy construction and security upgrades would be lost under a year-long continuing resolution.

Specifically, the omnibus provides $4.24 billion for diplomatic and consular programs, which funds State Department personnel. This is an increase of $464 million, or 12 percent, above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $42 million above the President's request. This funds a major investment in personnel to increase language training and expand the number of personnel in regions of growing importance. Senators on both sides of the aisle have strongly endorsed this investment, but it would not be funded under a continuing resolution.

In fact, under a year-long continuing resolution the State Department would not have the resources to fund the staff currently serving at 267 posts overseas, due to exchange rate losses and the increased cost of security overseas. That means the United States would have even less representation than we do now, which none of us here would find acceptable.

The omnibus provides $1.1 billion for worldwide security protection for noncapital security upgrades, an increase of $355 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $46 million below the request. This account funds all the Diplomatic Security agents at every post worldwide, armored vehicles, and training--all investments which, again, have bipartisan support. The increases would fund additional personnel for protection at high-threat embassies and oversight of security contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel-West Bank. This would not be possible under a continuing resolution.

Senators of both parties have expressed strong support for expanding international exchange programs, particularly in predominantly Muslim countries. The omnibus provides $538 million for education and cultural exchanges, which is $15.5 million above the President's request and an increase of $36.6 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Those additional funds would be lost under a continuing resolution at the moment when the U.S. has the greatest opportunity to reintroduce our country, our people, and our values to the rest of the world.

The same is true of public diplomacy. The omnibus provides $394.8 million for the State Department's public diplomacy activities, including outreach, media and programs in embassies to develop relationships with people in host countries. This is $33.9 million above the fiscal year 2008 level, which would not be available under a continuing resolution.

The omnibus provides $1.7 billion for construction of new secure embassies and maintenance of existing facilities, a $280 million increase above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $83 million below the President's request. Of this amount, $801 million is for embassy maintenance, $40 million less than the request and $46 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

The omnibus provides $770 million for planning, design and construction of new embassies and office buildings worldwide, $178 million below the request and $99 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Any Senator who has traveled abroad has seen the need to replace insecure and old embassies. There is already a long waiting list, and it would be even longer under a continuing resolution.

Former President Bush's budget underfunded the U.S. assessed contribution to U.N. Peacekeeping in fiscal year 2009 by assuming a reduction in every mission except Sudan. That was pie in the sky. The cost of most of these missions is increasing, not decreasing. The omnibus provides $1.5 billion for U.N. Peacekeeping, an increase of $295 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $20 million above the President's request. However, compared to the total amount enacted in fiscal year 2008, the bill is $173 million below the operating level in fiscal year 2008 including supplemental funds. These are costs we are obligated to pay by treaty. They support the troops of other nations in Darfur, the Congo, Lebanon, Haiti, and a dozen other countries.

The omnibus provides $1.5 billion for contributions to international organizations, the same as the President's request and $186 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The account funds the U.S. assessed dues to 47 international organizations, including NATO, IAEA, OECD, the U.N. and others for which, as a member of the organization, the U.S. is obligated by treaty to contribute. We either pay now or we pay later.

The omnibus provides $709.5 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an increase of $39.5 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $10 million above the former President Bush's budget request. This includes funding for languages which the former administration proposed to eliminate in fiscal year 2009, such as Russian, Georgian, Kazak, Uzbek, Tibetan and the Balkans, where freedom of speech remains restricted and broadcasting programs are still necessary to provide unbiased news.

For USAID, the omnibus provides $808.6 million for operating expenses, $41.4 million above former President Bush's request and $179 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This continues efforts begun last year to address the serious staff shortage at USAID, but under a continuing resolution USAID's staff problems would continue to worsen. It would not be able to hire additional staff for Afghanistan and Pakistan, or for other posts where there is not sufficient oversight of contracting and procurement. It is a crisis situation that I and Senator Gregg are determined to fix.

For bilateral economic assistance, the omnibus provides a total of $17.1 billion, $1.3 billion below former President Bush's request and $623.3 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. We received requests from most Senators--Democrats and Republicans--for funding from within this account, totaling far more than we could afford. A continuing resolution would have made it impossible to fund many, if not most, of those requests.

A good example is global health. The omnibus provides $7.1 billion for global health and child survival, an increase of $757 million above the request and $737 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. A continuing resolution would be devastating for these life-saving programs.

A total of $495 million is provided for child survival and maternal health, an increase of $125 million above former President Bush's request and $49 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. These funds are for programs that directly decrease child and maternal mortality from preventable diseases, like malaria, polio and pneumonia. Under a continuing resolution USAID would not be able to expand its malaria control programs to other countries in Africa with a high incidence of malaria, which kills a million people, mostly African children, every year.

The omnibus provides $300 million for safe water programs, including increasing access to safe drinking water and sanitation, which is a key factor in improving public health.

Former President Bush proposed a steep cut in funding for family planning and reproductive health programs, even though they are the most effective means of reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The omnibus, instead, provides a total of $545 million from all accounts for family planning and reproductive health including $50 million for the U.N. Population Fund, which is $82 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. A continuing resolution would eliminate those additional funds, and the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions would increase.

The omnibus provides a total of $5.5 billion for programs to combat HIV/AIDS, $388 million above former President Bush's request and $459 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. Of this amount, $600 million is provided for the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, which is $400 million above the request. Additionally within the total, $350 million is provided for USAID programs to combat HIV/AIDS, which is $8 million above the request.

These additional funds, which pay for life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs, prevention and care programs, would be lost under a continuing resolution, to the detriment of 1 million people who would receive life-saving treatment this year. With this funding 2 million additional HIV infections would be prevented this year. Instead of 10 million lives we are saving today, we have the opportunity to save 12 million people. We have the opportunity with this bill to save 1 million more orphans or vulnerable children who are either infected with HIV or have been orphaned because a parent died from HIV/AIDS. Why would we not make this investment this year?

The development assistance account funds energy and environment programs, microcredit programs, private enterprise, rule of law, trade capacity, and many other activities that Senators on both sides of the aisle support. The omnibus provides $1.8 billion for development assistance which is $161 million above former President Bush's request and $176 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

The omnibus provides $350 million for international disaster assistance, $52 million above the request and $30 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, excluding supplemental funds. These funds enable the United States to put its best face forward when disaster strikes, as it did with the tsunami, the earthquake in Pakistan, floods in Central America, and famine in Africa.

The omnibus provides $875 million for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. This is $1.3 billion below the request and $669 million below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This reflects the view of the House and Senate that the Congress supports the MCC but wants to see a slowdown in new compacts, while $7 billion in previously appropriated funds are disbursed, and while the new administration decides how it wants to fund the MCC in the future. The agreement provides sufficient funds to continue current operations and to commence two new compacts of $350 million each.

For the Peace Corps, the omnibus provides $340 million, which is $9 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. Those additional funds would have been lost under a continuing resolution.

The omnibus provides $875 million for international narcotics control and law enforcement, which is $327 million below the request and $321 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Those additional funds for programs in Latin America, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many other countries would be lost under a continuing resolution.

There is a total of $405 million for continued support of the Merida Initiative, including $300 million for Mexico and $105 million for the countries of Central America. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental included $400 million and $65 million, respectively. We are all increasingly alarmed by the spread of drug-related violence and criminal gangs in Mexico, but under a continuing resolution there would be nothing for the Merida Initiative.

Migration and refugee assistance is funded at $931 million, which is $167 million above former President Bush's request and $108 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. That $108 million would be lost under a continuing resolution. This amount is already $557 million below what was provided in fiscal year 2008 including supplemental and fiscal year 2009 bridge funds. These funds are used for basic care and protection of refugees and internally displaced persons, whose numbers are not expected to decrease this year.

The omnibus provides $4.9 billion for military assistance and peacekeeping operations, $173 million below former President Bush's request but $212.6 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The omnibus assumes $170 million provided in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental as fiscal year 2009 bridge funds for military assistance to Israel, making the total amount for Israel equal to the President's request, $2.55 billion. The additional $212.6 million for other important bilateral relationships would be lost under a continuing resolution.

For contributions to the multilateral development institutions, which we owe by treaty, the bill provides $1.8 billion. That is $503 million below the former President's request and $251 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. A continuing resolution would have put us another $251 million in arrears, in addition to the arrears we already owe.

The omnibus provides the amounts requested by the former President for the Export-Import Bank, an increase of $26.5 million above fiscal year 2008. By not passing this legislation, these additional resources would not have been available to make U.S. businesses competitive in the global marketplace. At this time of economic downturn at home we should be doing everything we can to support U.S. trade.

These are the highlights of the fiscal year 2009 State and Foreign Operations portion of the omnibus that passed by a vote of 62-38. It contains funding to meet critical operational costs and programmatic needs which support U.S. interests and protect U.S. security around the world.

A handful of our friends in the minority spent days criticizing the omnibus because it contains earmarks. Apparently they would have preferred that unnamed, unelected bureaucrats make all the decisions about the use of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the total amount of the $410 billion omnibus that Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans--have earmarked for schools, fire and police departments, roads, bridges, hospitals, scientific research, universities and other organizations and programs in their states and districts which would not otherwise receive funding, is less than 1 percent. That is what the aggrieved speeches were about. A whopping 1 percent.

Some Senators complained that the omnibus--all but a small fraction of which would fund the budget requests of former President Bush--is more than we can afford. Those are the same Senators who, year after year, rubberstamped billions and billions of borrowed dollars to fund an unnecessary war and reconstruction programs in Iraq that were fraught with waste and abuse.

Some say that the intervention of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act is why they opposed the omnibus. Regarding the Department of State and Foreign Operations, 99.6 percent of the omnibus has no correlation whatsoever to what was funded by the Recovery Act. This portion of the omnibus funds all of the United States' activities overseas. All of the key new investments I have described would not have been possible under a year-long continuing resolution.

The funding for State and Foreign Operations in the omnibus amounts to about 1 percent of the total budget of this country. However one views the Economic Recovery Act, the damage that a year-long continuing resolution would have caused to the functions of our embassies, consulates and missions, and to the foreign service officers who serve the American people around the world, would have been devastating. The damage to programs would be measured in lives.

We have seen the image of our country battered beyond recognition. The values our country was founded on were ignored, ridiculed, and diminished. Democrats and Republicans

alike recognize that the United States needs to reinvigorate its engagement in the world, particularly through rebuilding alliances and using diplomacy more effectively. The omnibus puts our money where our mouths are. The alternative would have been to retract, and to invite others to fill the vacuum. That might save money in the short term, but it would have cost us dearly in the future.

Mr. President, I am glad Republican Senators abandoned their efforts to filibuster the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General. It was only after the majority leader filed for cloture that the Republican caucus came to the conclusion that such a maneuver was futile. I thank the majority leader for scheduling the debate and votes for the President's nominees to serve as Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General. They have now been confirmed by the Senate.

The Republican minority, nonetheless, insisted on 7 hours of debate on the Deputy Attorney General nomination this week before allowing the vote. That was longer than the debate they demanded on the nomination of the Attorney General of the United States. I spoke yesterday to open the debate, as did the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, who also supported the nomination. We both spoke, again, today to close the debate.

I followed the debate, and have responded by way of additional statements to correct the record on the Deputy Attorney General nominee.

Now I would like us to take a step back and see what has occurred. Yesterday, the Republican minority insisted on 5 hours of debate on the Ogden nomination. In fact, the Republican opposition devoted less than 1 hour to comment about the Ogden nomination. The rest of their time they consumed with criticism of the President's budget and policy initiatives to help the country recover from the economic crisis. I am not saying that the budget discussion is unimportant. I may not agree with their criticism, but the budget is certainly a topic about which Senators may wish to make statements. My point is that after delaying debate on the President's nomination for the No. 2 official at the Justice Department for 2 weeks, and demanding extended debate, they failed to use the time to discuss the nomination. Instead, they talked about unrelated issues.

In fact, they were so uninterested in debating the nomination that by the time Senator Inhofe came to the floor, all Republican time had been used on other discussions. As a courtesy, we made available time from the Democratic side that should have been used by supporters of the nomination. We accommodated the Senator from Oklahoma so that he could speak against the nomination.

Today, an additional 2 hours was demanded by the Republican majority to debate the Ogden nomination further before they would allow a vote. Of course, those Republicans who opposed the nomination used not 1 minute of time to debate it today--not 1 minute.

Indeed, of the time that the Republican minority insisted was necessary before the Senate could vote on the Ogden nomination, more than an hour was wasted in quorum calls with no speakers at all yesterday and approximately 1 hour was spent by opposition speakers-- not 7 hours, not 3 hours, barely 1 hour. The Ogden debate could easily have been handled with the opposition taking an hour or an hour and one-half to speak.

I wish instead of this campaign to delay and obstruct the President, the minority would work with us on the consideration of matters of critical importance to the American people. I will note just one current example. This morning, the New York Times had a front-page story about financial frauds. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported an antifraud matter to the Senate. The Leahy-Grassley Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, S.386, needs to be considered without delay. It is an important initiative to confront the fraud that has contributed to the economic and financial crisis we face, and to protect against the diversion of the Federal efforts to recover from this downturn.

As the New York Times story demonstrates, improving our efforts to hold those accountable for the mortgage and financial frauds that have contributed to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is most timely. We need to do better, and our bipartisan bill, which has the support of the U.S. Department of Justice, can make a difference. In addition to Senator Grassley, I thank Senator Kaufman, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Schumer, and Senator Shelby for working with us and for their interest in this important measure.

Our legislation is designed to reinvigorate our capacity to investigate and prosecute the kinds of frauds that have undermined our economy and hurt so many hard-working Americans. It provides the resources and tools needed for law enforcement to aggressively enforce and prosecute fraud in connection with bailout and recovery efforts. It authorizes $245 million a year over the next couple of years for fraud prosecutors and investigators. With this funding, the FBI can double the number of mortgage fraud taskforces nationwide, and target the hardest hit areas. It includes resources for our U.S. Attorneys' Offices, as well as the Secret Service, the HUD Inspector General's Office and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. It includes important improvements to our fraud and money laundering statutes to strengthen prosecutors' ability to confront fraud in mortgage lending practices, to protect TARP funds, and to uncover fraudulent schemes involving commodities futures, options and derivatives as well as making sure the Government can recover the ill-gotten proceeds from crime.

Our bipartisan measure was favorably reported on a voice vote by the Judiciary Committee on March 5. I have been trying to get a time agreement to consider the measure ever since. The Senate should consider and pass it without delay. We can help make a difference for all Americans. Instead of wasting our time in quorum calls when no one is speaking, or demanding multiple hours of debates on nominations that can be discussed in much less time before being confirmed, let us work on matters that will help get us out of the economic ditch that we have inherited from the policies of the last administration, and let us begin to work together on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, this Sunday the people of El Salvador will go to the polls to elect a new President. As one Senator who has followed developments in that country and observed with concern the steady rise in violent crime, including organized crime and drug trafficking, I hope that whoever wins the election makes reforming the police and justice system a priority.

United States assistance to El Salvador is a small fraction of what it was during the 1980s, but in 2006 El Salvador signed a 5-year compact with the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The compact totals $461 million, and focuses on road construction, economic and social development in the area of the country bordering Honduras that bore the brunt of the worst consequences of the civil war.

I had hoped that a portion of the MCC compact would be used to strengthen El Salvador's dysfunctional judicial system, both to help reduce violent crime and attract foreign investment, but unfortunately that was not the decision of the Salvadoran Government or the Bush administration at the time. Nevertheless, the MCC compact does seek to improve the lives of some of El Salvador's poorest communities and I support it.

Recently, I have been concerned with reports that some Salvadorans involved in the election campaign may have asserted that if the opposition party candidate wins the election the United States will stop funding the MCC compact. Such an assertion, presumably to intimidate voters, would be completely false.

We take no position on the Salvadoran election. It is entirely for the people of El Salvador to decide who their next President will be. The MCC compact will continue regardless of who wins on Sunday, as long as the policies of the new Government, of whichever party, are consistent with

the MCC's eligibility criteria, including controlling corruption and investing in health and education.

I look forward to the results of Sunday's election and the opportunity for our two countries to work together for a brighter future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2009 at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Session on Thursday, March 12, 2009, in room S-216.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2009. The Committee will meet in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I am opening this debate in my capacity not only as a Senator from Vermont but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

We are here today to consider President Obama's nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General, the number two position at the Department of Justice. This is a picture, incidentally, of David Ogden. I had hoped we could vote on this nomination soon--although apparently, because of objections on the other side, we will not be able to vote until tomorrow. This is unfortunate. Every day we delay the appointment of the Deputy Attorney General is a day we are not enhancing the security of the United States.

In this case, we have a nominee who I had hoped to have confirmed weeks ago. Mr. Ogden is a highly qualified nominee who has chosen to leave a very successful career in private practice--one I might say parenthetically pays considerably more than the Department of Justice does--to return to the Department, where he served with great distinction. His path in many ways reflects that of the Attorney General, Eric Holder, who, of course, also was a highly successful and respected partner in one of the major law firms in Washington. And he left to become Attorney General of the United States at the request of President Obama to serve his Nation. Mr. Ogden is doing the same thing.

Interestingly enough, once Mr. Ogden's nomination was announced, the letters of support started to come

in from leading law enforcement organizations across the country. Let me put a few of these up on this chart. As you can see, Mr. Ogden's nomination received support from leading law enforcement organizations; children's advocates; civil rights organizations; and former Government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Indeed, Larry Thompson, the former Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, a highly respected former public official, has endorsed David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of America, an organization I have spent a lot of time with and one I highly respect. This organization provides alternative programs and a great mentoring system for children in many cities to keep them out of trouble. And this fine organization has endorsed David Ogden.

A dozen retired military officers who serve as Judge Advocates General have endorsed Mr. Ogden's nomination.

The Fraternal Order of Police and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, two major law enforcement organizations, have endorsed him.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association have endorsed him.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, another organization I have worked a great deal with, and one that has done such wonderful things to help in the case of missing and exploited children, has also endorsed him.

The National Association of Police Organizations has endorsed David Ogden.

The National District Attorneys Association has endorsed him, which I was particularly pleased to see. I once served as vice president of the National District Attorneys Association. As an aside, I should note that I gave up the honor and glory of becoming president of the National District Attorneys Association for the anonymity of the Senate.

The National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition has endorsed David Ogden.

The National Sheriffs' Association has endorsed David Ogden.

The Police Executive Research Forum has endorsed David Ogden.

The National Center for Victims of Crime has endorsed David Ogden.

Why have they endorsed him? Because he is an immensely qualified nominee, and he has the obvious priorities that we want in a Deputy Attorney General. His priorities will be the safety and security of the American people and to reinvigorate the traditional work of the Justice Department in protecting the rights of all Americans. That is why he will be a critical asset to the Attorney General. He will help us remember it is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and it is the Department of Justice for all Americans.

With all of these endorsements, including all of the major law enforcement groups endorsing him, and all the endorsements from both Republicans and Democrats, what is astonishing for all these law enforcement organizations wanting him there is that Republicans threatened to filibuster this nomination. They refused to agree to this debate and a vote on the nomination, and they required the majority leader to file a cloture motion, which he did on Monday. For more than a week we were told that Republicans would not agree to a debate and vote and would insist on filibustering this nomination.

It is amazing. I don't know if Republicans are aware of what is going on in this country--the rising crime rates which began rising in the last year or so and the critical nature working families are facing. And yet they want to filibuster a nominee, one of the best I have seen for this position in my 35 years in the Senate.

I noted that development and the threat of a filibuster at a Judiciary Committee business meeting last Thursday, after a week of fruitless efforts to try to move this nomination forward by agreement and obviate the need for a filibuster. I noted my disappointment that, despite the bipartisan majority vote in favor of the nomination by Republicans and Democrats on the committee, despite the support from law enforcement groups, despite the support from children's advocates, and despite the support from former Government officials for Republican and Democratic administrations, we have been stalled in our ability to move forward to consider this nomination. And, of course, the Justice Department, which is there to represent all Americans--Republicans and Democrats, Independents, and everybody--is left without a deputy for another week.

Quite frankly, I found the news of an imminent Republican filibuster incomprehensible. I could not think of any precedent for this during my 35 years in the Senate. A bipartisan majority--14 to 5--voted to report this nomination from the Judiciary Committee to the Senate. The ranking Republican member of the committee, Senator Specter, voted to support this nomination. The assistant Senate Republican leader, Senator Kyl, and the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, voted in favor of Mr. Ogden. And yet, in spite of this bipartisan support, someone or a group of Senators on the Republican side of the aisle were intent on filibustering this nominee to stop us from having a Deputy Attorney General who might actually be there to help fight crime in America.

Why there was this attempt of filibustering President Obama's nomination for Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and depriving law enforcement in this country of his support, I cannot not understand.

Two weeks ago, we debated and voted on the nomination in the Judiciary Committee. Those who opposed the nomination had the opportunity to explain their negative vote. I urge all Senators to reject these false and scurrilous attacks that have been made against Mr. Ogden. I also held out hope that they would reject applying an obvious double standard when it comes to President Obama's nominees. Remember, these are the same people who voted unanimously for one of the worst attorneys general in this Nation's history, former Attorney General Gonzales.

I am glad some semblance of common sense has finally prevailed on the Republican side of the aisle. I guess somebody looked at the facts and said: ``This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and there is no way of justifying this to Americans, other than to the most partisan of Americans,'' and they reversed their position. They now say they will not filibuster this nomination.

It was disturbing to see the President's nomination of Mr. Ogden to this critical national security post being held up this long by Senate Republicans apparently on some kind of a partisan whim.

I voted for all four of the nominees that the Senate confirmed and President Bush nominated to serve as the Deputy Attorney General during the course of his Presidency. In fact, each of the four was confirmed by voice vote. Not a single Democratic Senator voted against them and some may not have been the people we would have chosen had it been a Democratic President. But we respected the fact the American people elected a Republican President and he deserved a certain amount of leeway in picking his nominees.

Of course, we heard the same preaching from the Republican side. Suddenly their position has now changed since the American people, by a landslide, elected a Democratic President. What Republicans are essentially saying is President Obama does not get the same kind of credit that President Bush did. That amounts to a double standard, especially after every Republican Senator supported each of President Bush's nominees, as they did the nomination of Alberto Gonzales.

Today, however, there will be no more secret and anonymous Republican holds. Any effort to oppose the President's nominees--executive or judicial--will have to withstand public scrutiny. There can be no more anonymous holds. We can turn at last to consideration of President Obama's nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General, the No. 2 position at the Department.

Let me tell you a little bit about David Ogden. As a former high- ranking official at both the Defense Department and the Justice Department, he is the kind of serious lawyer and experienced Government servant who understands the special role the Department of Justice must fulfill in our democracy. It is no surprise that his

nomination has received strong support from leading law enforcement organizations, children's advocates, civil rights organizations, and former Government officials from Republican and Democratic administrations.

The confirmation of Mr. Ogden to this critical national security post should not be further delayed. The Deputy Attorney General is too important a position to be made into a partisan talking point for special interest politics.

Now, I understand some people want to do fundraising as they talk about their ability to block nominations of President Obama. I wonder if they know how critical the situation is in this country. This is not the time for partisan political games. This is a time where all of us have a stake in the country getting back on track and we ought to be working to do that. Stop the partisan games. The Deputy Attorney General is needed to manage the Justice Department with its many divisions, sections, and offices and tens of thousands of employees. As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ogden would be responsible for the day-to- day management of the Justice Department, including the Department's critical role of keeping our Nation safe from the threat of terrorism.

I want to thank Mark Filip, the most recent Deputy Attorney General and a Republican. Judge Filip came from Chicago last year motivated by public service. He had a lifetime appointment as a Federal judge where he served with distinction as a conservative Republican. He gave up his lifetime appointment after the scandals of the Gonzalez Justice Department, where not only did the Attorney General resign but virtually everybody at the top echelon of the Department of Justice resigned because of the outrageous scandals at that time. I urged his fast and complete confirmation and he was confirmed just over one year ago, unanimously, by voice vote.

Now, are Judge Filip and I different politically? Yes, of course we are. We differ in many areas. Yet, I saw a man dedicated to public service. He gave up his dream of a lifetime position on the Federal bench. He saw the scandals of the former Attorney General and all the people who had to be replaced by President Bush because of the scandalous conduct, and he came in for the good of the country to help right it. I admire him for that. I was chairman of the committee that unanimously endorsed his nomination. As chairman of the committee, I came to the floor of the Senate and urged his support.

On February 4, after 11 months of dedicated and commendable service to us all he left the Justice Department. It is time, over a month later, that his replacement be confirmed by the Senate.

The Senate's quick consideration of Mr. Filip's nomination was reflective of how Senate Democrats approached the confirmations of nominees for this critical position. President Bush's first nominee to serve as Deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, received similar treatment. At the beginning of a new President's term, it is common practice to expedite consideration of Cabinet and high level nominees. I remember that nomination very well. I was the ranking Democrat on the committee at that time. His hearing was just 2 weeks after his nomination. He was reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously. Every Democratic Senator voted in favor of reporting his nomination. And he was confirmed that same day by voice vote by the Senate. No shenanigans. No partisanship. No posturing for special interests.

His replacement was James Comey. He, like Mr. Ogden, was a veteran of the Department of Justice. The Democratic Senators in the Senate minority did not filibuster, obstruct or delay that nomination. We knew how important it was. We cooperated in a hearing less than 2 weeks after he was nominated. He was reported from the committee unanimously in a 19-0 vote, and he was confirmed by the Senate in voice vote.

Even when President Bush nominated a more contentious choice, a nominee with a partisan political background, Senate Democrats did not filibuster. Paul McNulty was confirmed to serve as the Deputy Attorney General in 2006 in a voice vote by the Senate. While there were concerns, there was no filibuster. As it turned out, Mr. McNulty resigned in the wake of the U.S. attorney firing scandal, along with Attorney General Gonzales and so many others in leadership positions at the Department of Justice.

I voted for all four of the nominees that the Senate confirmed and President Bush appointed to serve as the Deputy Attorney General during the course of his presidency. In fact, each of the four was confirmed by voice vote. Not a single Democratic Senator voted against them. And, of course, every Republican Senator supported each of those nominees as they did the nomination of Alberto Gonzales and the other nominations of President Bush to high ranking positions at the Justice Department.

I bring up this history to say let us stop playing partisan games. Mr. Ogden's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General, a major law enforcement position, is supported by Republicans and Democrats, at a time when we need the best in our law enforcement in this country.

The Justice Department is without a confirmed deputy at a time when we face great threats and challenges. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission was that after Presidential transitions, nominees for national security appointments, such as Mr. Ogden, be accelerated. In particular, the 9/11 Commission recommended:

A president-elect should submit the nominations of the

entire new national security team, through the level of

undersecretary of cabinet departments, not later than January

20.

The commission also recommended that the Senate:

should adopt special rules requiring hearings and votes to

confirm or reject national security nominees within 30 days

of their submission.

President Obama did his part when he designated Mr. Ogden to be the Deputy Attorney General on January 5, more than 2 months ago. We now are at March 11. It is time for the Senate to act. Stop the partisan games, stop the holding up, stop the holds and the threats of filibusters and all the rest. The problems and threats confronting the country are too serious to continue to delay and to play partisan games, no matter which fundraising letter somebody wants to send out. Forget the fundraising letters for a moment; let us deal with the needs of our Nation.

Scurrilous attacks against Mr. Ogden have been launched by some on the extreme right. David Ogden is a good lawyer and a good man. He is a husband and a father. The chants that David Ogden is somehow a pedophile and a pornographer are not only false, they are so wrong. Senators know better than that. Forget the fundraising letters, let us talk about a decent family man, an exceptional lawyer. Let us talk about somebody who answered every question at his confirmation hearing, not only about those he represented legally but about his personal views.

I questioned Mr. Ogden at his hearing and he gave his commitment to vigorously enforce Federal law, regardless of the positions he may have taken on behalf of his clients in private practice. I asked him if he had the right experience to be Deputy Attorney General and he pointed out his extensive experience managing criminal matters at the Department and in private practice. I asked him to thoroughly review the practice of prosecutors investigating and filing law suits on the eve of elections, and he said he would. I asked him to work with me on a mortgage and financial fraud law, and he was agreeable. I asked about his experience in the type of national security matters that have become more than ever before central to the mission of the Justice Department, and he highlighted his extensive national security experience and lessons he learned as General Counsel for the Department of Defense. On all these matters he was candid and reassuring.

That is why Mr. Ogden's nomination has received dozens of letters of support, including strong endorsements from Republican and Democratic former public officials and high-ranking veterans of the Justice Department, from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and from nearly every major law enforcement organization.

As one who began his public career in law enforcement, I would not stand

here and endorse somebody for such a major law enforcement position if I did not feel it was a person who should do this. Larry Thompson, a former Deputy Attorney General himself, and somebody I worked with on law enforcement matters when he was here as a Republican nominee, described Mr. Ogden as

A brilliant and thoughtful lawyer who has the complete

confidence and respect of career attorneys at Main Justice.

David will be a superb Deputy Attorney General.

Chuck Canterbury, who is the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, wrote that Mr. Ogden

. . . possesses the leadership and experience the Justice

Department will need to meet the challenges which lay before

us.

A dozen retired military officers who served as judge advocates general have endorsed Mr. Odgen's nomination, calling him

. . . a person of wisdom, fairness, and integrity, a public

servant vigilant to protect the national security of the

United States, and a civilian official who values the

perspective of uniformed lawyers in matters within their

particular expertise.

I know something about law enforcement, not only from my past career but the 35 years I have served in this body, most of that time on the Senate Judiciary Committee dealing with law enforcement matters. I know that David Ogden is an immensely qualified nominee whose priorities would be the safety and security of the American people, but also to reinvigorate the traditional work of the Justice Department in protecting the rights of Americans--all Americans. We do not want to go back to the scandalous time of a former Attorney General, where the rights of only certain Americans were protected, and political and partisan decisions were made about whose rights would be protected. This is the Department of Justice. It is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. It is not the Deputy Attorney General of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but the Deputy Attorney General for all of us. That is why he is going to be a critical asset to the Attorney General.

I urge all Senators to support him. Give the same kind of support to Mr. Ogden as Democrats did to Judge Filip when he came in to try to clean up the mess created by a former Attorney General.

One of the joys of being chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee are the people I get to serve with. Over the years, I have served with numerous Senators, including the father of one of our current Senators. For a lawyer, it is an intellectually exhilarating committee to serve on, but again because of some of the great people who serve here.

The Senator from Delaware is the newest member of the committee because the former Senator from Delaware--whom I served with for well over 30 years on that committee. Part of the time he was chairman and part of the time he was ranking member; part of the time I was chairman and part of the time he was ranking member--has left the Senate to be involved in the Senate now only as the presiding officer, because he went on to become Vice President of the United States. His replacement, Senator Kaufman of Delaware, moved into that seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee as though he had served there for all those decades. In a way, he did, as a key person working for former Senator Biden.

I have often joked that Senators are merely constitutional impediments or constitutional necessities to the staff, who do all the work. Now we have somebody who has both the expertise of having been one of the finest staff people I have ever served with and now one of the best Senators I have served with, and a great addition to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So as not to embarrass him further, I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, even after abandoning their the ill- conceived filibuster of President Obama's nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General, we still hear Republican Senators making scurrilous attacks against Mr. Ogden, launched by some on the extreme right.

As I said on the Senate Floor earlier, David Ogden is a good lawyer and a good man. He is a husband and a father. Yet, regrettably and unbelievably, we still hear chants that he is a pedophile and a pornographer. Those charges are false and they are wrong. Senators know better than that.

Special interests on the far right have distorted Mr. Ogden's record by focusing only on a narrow sliver of his diverse practice as a litigator spanning over three decades. Dating back to the 1980s, Mr. Ogden's practice has included, for example, major antitrust litigation, counseling, representation and authorship of a book on the law of trade and professional associations, international litigation and dispute resolution, False Claims Act and Export Controls Act investigations, and a significant practice in administrative law. In other words, he has been a lawyer, representing clients. For the last 8 years, since leaving Government service, Mr. Ogden has represented corporate clients in a range of industries, including transportation clients like Amtrak and Lufthansa, insurance and financial institutions like Citibank and Fireman's Fund, petrochemical companies like Shell and BP and pharmaceutical concerns like PhRMA and Merck.

Here are the facts that underlie the overheated rhetoric: As a young lawyer in a small firm with a constitutional practice, along with other lawyers in that respected DC law firm, Mr. Ogden represented a range of media clients. He represented the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association, and Playboy Enterprises.

In the early 1990s, while at the respected firm of Jenner & Block, Mr. Ogden represented a Los Angeles County firefighter. The firefighter was being prohibited from possessing or reading Playboy magazine at the firehouse, even when on down time between responding to fires. The Federal Court reviewing the matter held that the first amendment protected the firefighter's right to possess and read the magazine. That representation does not make Mr. Ogden a pornographer, a pedophile or justify any of the other epithets that have been thrown his way.

He also challenged a prosecution strategy that threatened simultaneous indictments in multiple jurisdictions with the goal of negotiating plea agreements that put companies out of business without ever having to prove that the materials they were distributing were obscene. That sounds like the kind of overreaching prosecution strategy that Senator Specter and other Republican Senators would condemn, just as they have the excesses of the ``Thompson memo'' pressuring investigative targets to waive their attorney-client privilege.

Those who have argued that Mr. Ogden has consistently taken positions against laws to protect children ignore Mr. Ogden's record and his testimony. What these critics leave out of their caricature is the fact that Mr. Ogden also aggressively defended the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act and the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 while previously serving at the Justice Department. This work has led to support and praise from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. He has the support of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. In private practice he wrote a brief for the American Psychological Association in Maryland v. Craig in which he argued for protection of child victims of sexual abuse. In his personal life, he has volunteered time serving the Chesapeake Institute, a clinic for sexually abused children.

Nominees from both Republican and Democratic administrations and Senators from both sides of the aisle have cautioned against opposing nominees based on their legal representations on behalf of clients. When asked about this point in connection with his own nomination, Chief Justice Roberts testified, ``it has not been my general view that I sit in judgment on clients when they come'' and, ``it was my view that lawyers don't stand in the shoes of their clients, and that good lawyers can give advice and argue any side of a case.'' Part of the double standard being applied is that the rule Republican Senators urge for Republican nominees--that their clients not be held against them-- is turned on its head under a Democratic President.

As recently as just over 1 year ago, every Senate Republican voted to confirm Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States. That showed no concern that one of his clients, and one of his most significant cases in private practice as identified in the bipartisan committee questionnaire he filed, was his representation of Carlin Communications, a company that specialized in what are sometimes called ``dial-a-porn'' services. It is more evidence of a double standard.

Senators should reject the partisan tactics and double standards from the extreme right and support David Ogden's nomination. The last Deputy Attorney nominee to be delayed by such a double standard was Eric Holder, whose nomination to be Deputy Attorney General in 1997 was delayed for three weeks by an anonymous Republican hold after being reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee before being confirmed unanimously. Like now Attorney General Holder, Mr. Ogden is an immensely qualified nominee whose priorities will be the safety and security of the American people and reinvigorating the traditional work of the Justice Department in protecting the rights of Americans.

Madam President, my good friend from Alabama knows that the bill contains an extension of the E-Verify Program through September 30 of this year. I share his frustration about short-term extensions. Similarly, I have been trying to work in good faith to extend the EB-5 Regional Center Program, which is as important to Alabama as it is to Vermont.

Much to the detriment of the economic benefits created by the EB-5 program, such as capital investments and new jobs in American communities, the Senator from Alabama and others have refused to pass an EB-5 extension without simultaneously extending the E-Verify Program. I believe they should both be extended.

While I have no objection to reauthorizing the E-Verify Program for a longer term, so long as it remains voluntary and free of mandates, I cannot vote for one that leaves the EB-5 program behind.

Besides, in the context of this bill which has to be passed and enacted to keep the Federal Government running, this amendment is inappropriate. It is the wrong action at this time and would jeopardize the swift passage of this legislation.

I support the efforts of Chairman Inouye, Senator Byrd, and others to oppose it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I don't want to hold up the votes, but I do want to thank my dear friend, the majority leader, and my good friend, the Republican leader, for their kind remarks and, of course, my friend, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. As he said, we first knew each other when we were much younger and prosecutors.

I will just take a moment. When Marcelle and I first came here in January 1975 with three young children--Kevin, Alicia, and Mark--we never thought we would be here this long. I have enjoyed every moment of it. But especially, I have served with hundreds and hundreds of Senators, both Republican and Democratic Senators. I have enjoyed my relationship with every single one of the men and women with whom I have had the privilege to serve.

We have often said we are the conscience of the Nation--the Senate. Only 100 of us have the privilege to serve here at any given time to represent a great and wonderful Nation of 300 million people. It is a privilege, and it is an honor.

I thank my colleagues for this tribute. This is something I will long remember.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, my friend from Arizona's amendment No. 630 would require the Secretary of State to report on whether additional foreign military financing assistance provided for Egypt could be used to improve Egypt's efforts to counter illegal smuggling and intercept weapons into Gaza.

We all want Egypt to intercept those weapons. So on the face of it, it appears this amendment is very appealing. But I note for my friend from Arizona that the omnibus bill already explicitly authorizes the use of FMF assistance provided to Egypt ``for border security programs and activities in the Sinai.''

That was language put in by the distinguished ranking Republican member on the Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, precisely for the purpose of the Kyl amendment--to enable those funds to be used to help police the border and reduce the smuggling into Gaza.

Now, I understand there is a concern about adding amendments to this bill and sending it back to the other body. All this does, if passed, is send the bill back to the other body because what the Senator from Arizona is asking for is already in the bill. Egypt is already cooperating with Israel and the United States to reduce smuggling of weapons into Gaza. We need Egypt's continued help. The Egyptian Government will--in fact, they already do--regard this amendment requiring a report by the Secretary of State as a public slap in the face. The distinguished Secretary

of State has just come back from the region. The State Department says the bill gives them the authority and the money they want to do precisely what the Kyl amendment asks for. Why pass something that is a public humiliation of an ally in the area?

Egypt could undoubtedly do more. Everybody could. But publicly shaming them as they are trying to negotiate a lasting cease-fire between Hamas and Israel is in no one's interest. It is not in our interest or Egypt's interest, and it is certainly not in Israel's interest. Maybe some think this makes a good talking point.

I am more interested not in what makes great talking points, but in stopping the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. That is why Senator Gregg put the language into the foreign aid bill in the first place.

There is no question that the money can be used. We don't need a report from the State Department telling us what we already know. We wrote the law. We know what it says. We don't need the State Department to tell us what it says.

The key point is this: You can vote against the Kyl amendment and still be on record voting for everything in the Kyl amendment simply by voting for final passage of the omnibus bill.

Also, the Senator from Arizona has offered amendment No. 629, which would prohibit the use of any funds in the omnibus to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States. We are going to vote on that tomorrow.

Frankly, it is unnecessary and for the United States, a Nation of immigrants, it goes against everything we stand for.

We don't resettle anybody from Gaza, nor do we resettle anybody from Gaza who is living in the U.N. refugee camps in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. The amendment is a solution looking for a problem. If a Palestinian from Gaza gets to a place like Italy, or somewhere in Europe, the amendment would prevent the State Department from even considering that person for resettlement to the United States. We would have to tell them sorry, you can't come in, because you are from a place that has terrorists.

I think back to my family who came to Vermont about 150 years ago. On my father's side, they were Irish. If we had a law like this in place then, it is questionable whether they could have entered this country. If the Irish were fighting to keep their land, if they were fighting to keep their rights, if they were fighting for the ability to vote, and they lived in what is now the Republic of Ireland, they were considered terrorists. We have gone back through the record and found when they left Ireland, even though they had been offered free room and board for the rest of their lives. They were very small rooms, with bars on the windows, and they didn't know that the rest of their lives would come very soon. But they left for Canada, the United States, or Australia.

I was thinking about the birthday party for Senator Kennedy the other night at the Kennedy Center. There were a number of Irish-Americans there who could speak about their roots, when their families came here, and why they had to leave Ireland to come here. They were hunted because they fought to practice their own religion. They were hunted because they spoke Irish. They were hunted because they wanted to keep their land. They were hunted because they would not renounce their religion. Thank goodness the United States had open arms for them.

We have very strict rules about who can come into this country. This, again, is an unnecessary amendment, saying that we in the Congress are going to pick and choose which groups of people can resettle here.

When my maternal grandparents came from Italy, a country that had numerous wars at that time, thank goodness they weren't blocked from coming here. My grandmother lived long enough to see her grandson run for the U.S. Senate. They came to this country not speaking English, not reading or writing it, learning English and raising six children. We could all tell stories like that.

I hope we don't start doing things that label whole groups of people as terrorists, no matter who they are as individuals.

The Senator from Arizona has also offered amendment No. 631 which prohibits funds for reconstruction efforts in Gaza until the Secretary of State certifies that none of the funds will be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. Again, it is an appealing amendment. We all want to be sure no funds are diverted to Hamas. But, of course, that is already in the bill. I don't know how many times we have to vote on it. We voted on that; all Republicans and Democrats voted on that in committee. It is already in the bill.

There is also permanent law in this country that prohibits any funds going to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. So the amendment is unnecessary--unless the intent of the amendment is simply to send the bill back to the other body and further delay its passage.

Anybody can read the bill. Section 7040(f) of the bill, on page 861, bans funding to Hamas and any entity effectively controlled by Hamas or a power sharing government.

Section 7039 of the bill, on page 856, requires that the Secretary of State take all appropriate steps to ensure that assistance doesn't go to any individual or entity in the West Bank or Gaza that advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in terrorist activity. It cannot be any clearer than that.

Maybe every one of us should introduce our own amendment to say the same thing over and over again and have 100 of us saying we don't want any money to go to Hamas. The easy way to do that is to vote for the bill the way it was when the Senator from New Hampshire and I presented it to the committee, which adopted it with only one dissenting vote. It prohibits that.

The Palestinian Antiterrorist Act of 2006 prohibits money going to a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. That is section 620(k) of the Foreign Assistance Act.

So we prohibited assistance to Hamas at least three times already. And there are undoubtedly other laws on the books that prohibit funding going to terrorist organizations, which Hamas is. Do we get extra political points for doing this? Why don't we all stand and say: I am against any assistance for Hamas? I have not heard a single Senator-- Republican, Democrat, or Independent--say they do want to support Hamas. That is probably why we have all voted overwhelmingly in favor of laws to prohibit it.

It appears to me some of these amendments are intended simply to try to make a point, or to send the bill back to the other body.

Yes, without losing my right to the floor.

Madam President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire is correct on every one of the points he has made. He and I worked closely together on this so all of these issues we have been discussing came out of our subcommittee with strong bipartisan support.

Both of us were sensitive to a number of things: One, we did not want money going to Hamas; two, we wanted to help Egypt because Egypt has, with some peril to itself, been cooperating with us. Obviously, we are committed to the security of Israel. We put all that in here. So it becomes, in some ways, worse than redundancy.

The Senator from New Hampshire put his finger on it. It appears to be an officious way of telling Egypt: We don't trust you. I would rather continue as the Secretary of State has, as her predecessors in the past administration did, working cooperatively with Egypt to try to address this problem.

The last point about saying nobody should be allowed into the U.S. from Gaza, there are tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza who are victims of Hamas every day. Are we going to say that a Palestinian child cannot be considered for resettlement, because of his or her place or origin? Are we going to say to a child's parents, if they were being persecuted by Hamas, they are ineligible for resettlement? Are we going to say, as the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire suggested, to a scientist who has great skills, we cannot accept you because there are terrorists in Gaza? That is not what made this Nation great. We have that wonderful Statue of Liberty with the upraised torch in the New York Harbor--or the New Jersey Harbor, depending on where you live--saying we are a welcoming country. I trust our State Department and our intelligence agencies and others, that if somebody with an interest that is hostile toward the United States tries to come here, they will be barred. But let's not make a blanket rule against a whole group of people based solely on their ethnicity or place of origin.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire for coming down here and pointing these things out. He and I worked hard to get a bipartisan bill that reflects the best interests of the United States no matter who the administration might be.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I will have to object. I object.

Madam President, this amendment is unnecessary. As the senior Senator from New Hampshire and I both said on the floor this afternoon, the omnibus bill already explicitly authorizes the use of foreign military financing assistance to Egypt for border security programs and activities in the Sinai. Senator Gregg and I put that language in to help them police the border and reduce the smuggling into Gaza. Egypt is cooperating with Israel and the United States to do this. If we were to pass this it would be seen in Egypt as though we do not acknowledge their cooperation, it would be seen as publicly shaming Egypt.

Senators can vote against the Kyl amendment and still be on record supporting additional funds to stop smuggling into Gaza. That is already in the omnibus bill. This is an unnecessary roiling of the waters. Both Senator Gregg and I said this afternoon that it should be opposed.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am in complete agreement with the Senator from Arizona that no money should be diverted to Hamas. That is why the omnibus bill already does that. When Senator Gregg and I wrote this bill we included specific provisions. Section 7040(f) of the bill prohibits funding to Hamas, to any entity effectively controlled by Hamas, or to any power-sharing government.

When it comes to what the State Department might do, the State Department lawyers have said they would not do anything differently if the Kyl amendment were adopted, because laws that protect against the diversion of funds to Hamas are already in the bill. You can vote against the Kyl amendment and still be on record as voting for blocking funds to Hamas. Nobody in this body, Republican or Democrat, wants any funds to go to Hamas. This is an unnecessary amendment. I oppose it.

Mr. President, I want to give recognition to an event taking

place in Hampton, VA, beginning tonight, March 6. This weekend, Vermont's own musical group, Phish, will celebrate a reunion not far from our Nation's Capitol, following their retirement in August of 2004. Phish's fans, and all Vermonters, wish a warm welcome back to Trey Anastasio, Jon Fishman, Mike Gordon, and Page McConnell, and the very best on their renewed musical journey.

In the summer of 2004, the band said farewell to thousands of fans who had persevered through torrential rain and knee-deep mud--some having walked many miles to see the band's final concerts in a farm field in Coventry, VT. For so many of the band's followers, it was a bittersweet moment, historic and mournful at once and the end of a singular era in American rock and roll. True to the band's roots, and despite the rain, it was fitting that the farewell took place in the middle of the glorious Vermont countryside.

Much to the joy of many Vermonters and people across the United States, the band could not resist the desire to perform once again, and this weekend marks their return to the stage in what Phish's fans hope will be the beginning of a sustainable period of happiness and creativity for the band.

What began at the University of Vermont in Burlington, and was nurtured at Goddard College in Plainfield, flourished into an enormous creative musical force that delighted fans from across the world for many years. They spread their music throughout Europe and Japan, from coast to coast in the United States, and rang in the millennium in front of 85,000 people on the Big Cypress Indian Reservation in Florida, playing that concert's final notes as the sun rose over the horizon at the dawn of a new century.

Theirs has been a remarkable journey of musical exploration, improvisation and risk-taking much akin to the early era of the Grateful Dead. From outdoor summer festivals to Halloween celebrations that found the band donning musical ``costumes'' by playing an album of another musical group from beginning to end, Phish carved a niche in the musical world that was left conspicuously empty with their retirement.

As Americans stand at a crossroads and contemplate the way forward during a difficult time, artistic expression will play an important role in reminding us all that despite the difficulties we face, we should not forget those things in life that bring us happiness and that connect us to one another. Whether we find solace in a good film, a great novel, making art through photography, writing, or painting, or experiencing a musical performance, I want to acknowledge the ability of Americans to keep the creative spirit alive even when we face our most daunting challenges. And I find reason for optimism in the fact that the announcement of Phish's reunion was met with such overwhelming enthusiasm from their fans.

So as thousands of people welcome Phish back to the stage at the Hampton Coliseum this weekend, I am proud to say as a Vermonter: Phish, it is good to have you back. I know you have been missed.

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

What is the parliamentary situation?

Are we still in morning business?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I understand that we are on the Wicker amendment. I have listened to the statements made about it. It is hard to understand what the real purpose of the amendment is, although the junior Senator from Mississippi says the purpose is as follows: To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

I do not know anybody who would disagree with that. But apparently he believes that his amendment is necessary to prevent funds from being used for coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Let me state what is in the bill, because it is the same as current law. It already prohibits funds for abortions of any kind, whether coercive or otherwise. No funds in this bill can be used for abortion. So the amendment is unnecessary for that purpose.

His amendment prohibits funds for involuntary sterilization. Well, none of us is going to permit the use of Federal funds for involuntary sterilization. I urge him to read the bill. We already prohibit that. So the amendment is unnecessary for that purpose.

Actually, if he is on the floor, I would urge him to declare victory and withdraw his amendment. Long before he was in the Senate, we were already prohibiting the things he wants to prohibit.

His amendment also prohibits funds for the U.N. Population Fund for a program in China. Well, again, our bill already does that. We already prohibit explicitly any funds being used in China by the U.N. Population Fund.

His amendment says we should put funds for the U.N. Population Fund in a separate account and not commingle them with other sums. We already do that. Again, there is no need for it.

His amendment prohibits funds to the U.N. Population Fund unless it does not fund abortion. Well, the bill already says that. For the Record, the U.N. Population Fund has always had a policy of not supporting abortion. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that it ever did. It supports the same voluntary family planning and health programs the United States Agency for International Development does, but it does it in about 97 more countries than the United States Agency for International Development does.

The amendment by the Senator from Mississippi would deduct, dollar for dollar, from the U.N. Population Fund for a program it spends in China. The bill already does that. So for all practical purposes, the amendment of the junior Senator from Mississippi does nothing that the bill already does not do, with one exception.

His amendment would also strike the six limited purposes that are specified in the bill for which funds are made available to the U.N. Population Fund. For example, he would strike the funds that are provided ``to promote the abandonment of female genital mutilation and child marriage.'' Why would we want to cut programs to help encourage an end to child marriage? Is there anybody in the Senate in favor of child marriage? Is there anyone in the Senate in favor of female genital mutilation? I find it amazing I have to even come to the floor to talk about this. Yet his amendment would remove the funds we provide to try to stop child marriage and female genital mutilation. Why should we vote for something like that?

Why should we prohibit funding to reduce the incidence of child marriage in countries where girls as young as 9 years old are forced to marry men they have never met, sometimes five times their age, who then abuse them?

The bill also provides funds to prevent and treat obstetric fistula. For those who are not familiar with this, it is a terrible, debilitating condition that can destroy the life of any woman who suffers from it. But it can be treated with surgery.

I ask unanimous consent that a February 24 article in the New York Times on obstetric fistula be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Why we would want to prohibit funds to save the lives of women who otherwise could die or be painfully debilitated for the rest of their lives, I cannot understand. None of us would hesitate for a moment to provide funds to help someone in our family who might be in this condition. I see the Senator from Mississippi on the floor. His amendment prohibits funds to the U.N. Population Fund for that.

The bill provides funds to reestablish maternal health care in areas where medical facilities and services have been destroyed or limited by natural disasters, armed conflict or other factors, such as in Pakistan after the earthquake that destroyed whole villages. Why would we not want to support maternal health care? Any one of us, be it our sisters and daughters, our wives, we would want them to access to these medical services. Or in Congo, where armed conflict has destroyed what limited health services existed and where thousands of women and girls have been raped, some barely old enough to walk. This bill provides funds for programs to help them. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi would prohibit funding for the U.N. Population Fund for that.

Funds are provided to promote access to clean water, sanitation, food and health care for poor women and girls. His amendment would prohibit that. I have traveled to different parts of the world. I have seen the differences in the lives of women and young girls that are made with these programs. The Senator prohibits that.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has these types of programs in 53 countries, but the U.N. Population Fund works in about 150 countries. If you live in the Republic of the Congo or the Central African Republic, two of the poorest countries in Africa, and you are a 16-year-old girl with obstetric fistula, you are out of luck because USAID does not have programs there. That is why we fund the U.N. program. If you have a 7-year-old daughter who has been raped there, we don't have a program to help her. But we give funds to the U.N. to help her. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi would stop that.

If you live in Niger or Mauritania, where genital mutilation is common, or in Sri Lanka where child marriage is common, we don't have funds there, but we give funds to the U.N. to help.

The Senator's amendment creates a problem where there is none. It denies funding to address the basic needs of poor women and girls who are subjected to practices that would be crimes in this country.

Our law already prohibits funds for abortion of any kind, whether coercive or voluntary. We already prohibit funds for involuntary sterilization. We prohibit funds for the U.N. Population Fund's program in China. We have already done all these things. But we do provide funds to help girls who are being forced into marriages at the age of 9. We do support care for women who suffer from these debilitating conditions. We do have funds for maternal care, clean water, and voluntary family planning. But if the amendment of the junior Senator from Mississippi is agreed to, we would prohibit those funds in many parts of the world.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, Feb. 24, 2009]

After a Devastating Birth Injury, Hope

(By Denise Grady)

Dodoma, Tanzania.--Lying side by side on a narrow bed,

talking and giggling and poking each other with skinny

elbows, they looked like any pair of teenage girls trading

jokes and secrets.

But the bed was in a crowded hospital ward, and between the

moments of laughter, Sarah Jonas, 18, and Mwanaidi Swalehe,

17, had an inescapable air of sadness. Pregnant at 16, both

had given birth in 2007 after labor that lasted for days.

Their babies had died, and the prolonged labor had inflicted

a dreadful injury on the mothers: an internal wound called a

fistula, which left them incontinent and soaked in urine.

Last month at the regional hospital in Dodoma, they awaited

expert surgeons who

would try to repair the damage. For each, two previous,

painful operations by other doctors had failed.

``It will be great if the doctors succeed,'' Ms. Jonas said

softly in Swahili, through an interpreter.

Along with about 20 other girls and women ranging in age

from teens to 50s, Ms. Jonas and Ms. Swalehe had taken long

bus rides from their villages to this hot, dusty city for

operations paid for by a charitable group, Amref, the African

Medical and Research Foundation.

The foundation had brought in two surgeons who would

operate and teach doctors and nurses from different parts of

Tanzania how to repair fistulas and care for patients

afterward.

``This is a vulnerable population,'' said one of the

experts, Dr. Gileard Masenga, from the Kilimanjaro Christian

Medical Center in Moshi, Tanzania. ``These women are

suffering.''

The mission--to do 20 operations in four days--illustrates

the challenges of providing medical care in one of the

world's poorest countries, with a shortage of doctors and

nurses, sweltering heat, limited equipment, unreliable

electricity, a scant blood supply and two patients at a time

in one operating room--patients with an array of injuries,

from easily fixable to dauntingly complex.

The women filled most of Ward 2, a long, one-story building

with a cement floor and two rows of closely spaced beds

against opposite walls. All had suffered from obstructed

labor, meaning that their babies were too big or in the wrong

position to pass through the birth canal. If prolonged,

obstructed labor often kills the baby, which may then soften

enough to fit through the pelvis, so that the mother delivers

a corpse.

Obstructed labor can kill the mother, too, or crush her

bladder, uterus and vagina between her pelvic bones and the

baby's skull. The injured tissue dies, leaving a fistula: a

hole that lets urine stream out constantly through the

vagina. In some cases, the rectum is damaged and stool leaks

out. Some women also have nerve damage in the legs.

One of the most striking things about the women in Ward 2

was how small they were. Many stood barely five feet tall,

with slight frames and narrow hips, which may have

contributed to their problems. Girls not fully grown, or

women stunted by malnutrition, often have small pelvises that

make them prone to obstructed labor.

The women wore kangas, bolts of cloth wrapped into skirts,

in bright prints that stood out against the ward's drab,

chipping paint. Under the skirts, some had kangas bunched

between their legs to absorb urine.

Not even a curtain separated the beds. An occasional hot

breeze blew in through the screened windows. Flies buzzed,

and a cat with one kitten loitered in the doorway. Outside,

kangas that had been washed by patients or their families

were draped over bushes and clotheslines and patches of

grass, drying in the sun.

Speaking to doctors and nurses in a classroom at the

hospital, Dr. Jeffrey P. Wilkinson, an expert on fistula

repair from Duke University, noted that women with fistulas

frequently became outcasts because of the odor. Since July,

Dr. Wilkinson has been working at the Kilimanjaro Christian

Medical Center, which is collaborating with Duke on a women's

health project.

``I've met countless fistula patients who have been thrown

off the bus,'' he said. ``Or their family tells them to

leave, or builds a separate hut.''

For the women in Ward 2, the visiting doctors held out the

best hope of regaining a normal life.

Fistulas are a scourge of the poor, affecting two million

women and girls, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia--those

who cannot get a Caesarean section or other medical help in

time. Long neglected, fistulas have gained increasing

attention in recent years, and nonprofit groups, hospitals

and governments have created programs, like the one in

Dodoma, to provide the surgery.

Cure rates of 90 percent or more are widely cited, but, Dr.

Wilkinson said, ``That's not a realistic number.''

It may be true that the holes are closed in 90 percent of

patients, but even so, women with extensive damage and

scarring do not always regain the nerve and muscle control

needed to stay dry, Dr. Wilkinson said.

Ideally, fistulas should be prevented, but prevention--

which requires education, more hospitals, doctors and

midwives, and better transportation--lags far behind

treatment. Worldwide, there are still 100,000 new cases a

year, and most experts think it will take decades to

eliminate fistulas in Africa, even though they were wiped out

in developed countries a century ago. Their continuing

presence is a sign that medical care for pregnant women is

desperately inadequate.

``Fistula is the thing to follow,'' Dr. Wilkinson said.

``If you find patients with fistula, you'll also find that

mothers and babies are dying right and left.''

The day before her surgery, Ms. Jonas sat on her bed,

anxiously eyeing the other women as they were wheeled back

from the operating room. Some vomited from the anesthesia,

and she found it a distressing sight.

Ms. Jonas said that when she was 16, she became intimate

with a 19-year-old boyfriend, without realizing that sex

could make her pregnant. It quickly did. Her labor went on

for three days. By the time a Caesarean was performed, it was

too late. Her son survived for only an hour, and she

developed a fistula, as well as nerve damage in one leg that

left her with an awkward gait.

Her boyfriend denied paternity and married someone else,

and some friends abandoned her because she was wet and

smelled. She was living in a rural village in a two-room mud

hut with her parents, two sisters and a brother. She had one

year of education and could not read or write, but said that

she hoped to go to school again someday.

The operating room in Dodoma had just enough room for two

operating tables, separated by a green cloth screen. Two at a

time, the patients, wearing bedsheets they had draped as

gracefully as their kangas, walked in. Some were so short

that they needed a set of portable steps to climb up onto the

table.

The women had an anesthetic injected into their spines to

numb them below the waist, and then their legs were lifted

into stirrups. Awake, they lay in silence while the doctors

worked, Dr. Masenga at one table and Dr. Wilkinson at the

other, each surrounded by other doctors who had come to

learn.

An air-conditioner put out more noise than air. Flies

circled, sometimes lighting on the patients. A mouse scurried

alongside the wall. There were none of the beeping monitors

that dominate operating rooms in the United States.

Periodically, a nurse would take a blood pressure reading.

Midway through the first operation the power failed, and

the lights went out. Dr. Wilkinson put on a battery-powered

headlamp and kept working, but Dr. Masenga had to depend on

daylight. Their scrubs and gowns grew dark with sweat.

Most fistula surgery is performed through the vagina, and

can take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours. It

involves more than simply sewing a hole shut: delicate

dissection is needed to loosen nearby tissue so that there

will not be too much tension on the stitches, and sometimes

flaps of tissue must be cut and sculpted to patch or replace

a missing or damaged area. It can take several weeks to tell

how well the operation worked.

At the end of the week in Dodoma, the surgeons said that of

the 20 operations, some were straightforward and easy, and a

few seemed likely to fail. Three patients needed such

complicated repairs that they were referred to the

Kilimanjaro medical center.

At first, it seemed as if Ms. Jonas's operation had worked,

while Ms. Swalehe's outlook was uncertain. Shortly after

their surgeries, the two young women were violently ill. Ms.

Swalehe wept from pain when the surgeons came in to check on

her. But both women were smiling the next day, hoping for the

best. (Ultimately, Ms. Jonas's surgery failed, and Ms.

Swalehe's succeeded.)

One day after the last operation, the fistula surgeons

moved on, already thinking about the countless new cases that

awaited them.

Madam President, responding on the time of the Senator from Mississippi, I believe there may be some, and we are trying to ascertain that right now. I know I am going to speak some more.

Madam President, how much time is left on both sides?

Madam President, it is hard to respond to all the things that have been misstated about the amendment before us.

For one thing, the bill before us does not change the Kemp-Kasten amendment. You can find it on page 763 of the bill. It is in the bill. In fact, let me read what it says:

Provided further, That none of the funds made available in

this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior

appropriations Acts may be made available to any organization

or program which, as determined by the

President of the United States, supports or participates in

the management of a program of coercive abortion or

involuntary sterilization.

So there is no need to pass the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi to put that language in--I suppose we could just print it twice--it is already in there.

Madam President, I will yield on the time of the Senator from Mississippi.

Madam President, I have heard it said several times that we should not spend U.S. taxpayer dollars on coercive abortion. I agree with the Senator from Mississippi. We should not. I have taken that position. I have been chairman or ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee several times. I have always taken that position. We should not, we don't, we never have. It is prohibited in the bill--Republicans and Democrats have always agreed about that. I don't know how many times we have to say it.

I am reminded of Senator Mark Hatfield, a revered member of the Republican Party and a former chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I know of no stronger pro-life opponent of abortion, but there is also no stronger pro-life proponent of family planning. He knows that if there are voluntary family planning services, you are most apt to avoid unwanted pregnancies and thus avoid abortion.

Now, we have heard Senators say: Well, we don't want to use taxpayer money for coerced abortions. You can't. There is no money in here with which it can be done. We specifically prohibit that.

But let me repeat for my colleagues what this amendment does do. The Wicker amendment removes funds we have in here for UNFPA to promote the abandonment of female genital mutilation and child marriage. The funds can be used in countries where we don't have USAID programs, to help prevent child marriage. The Senator from Mississippi would remove those funds. I have listened to some of the harrowing stories: 7, 8 or 9 year-old girls forced into marriage. We ought to all unite to try to stop that, but the Senator from Mississippi takes out the funds that can be used to try to stop that.

Obstetric fistula--anybody who is familiar with that knows how terrible it is, a debilitating condition that can destroy the life of any woman who suffers from it, but it can be cured by surgery. If any member of our family was faced with that, of course they would have the surgery to fix it. The funds are not there, not available in many countries. But there are funds in the bill so UNFPA can help women with that terrible condition. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi takes that money out. I can't support something like that.

We have funds in the bill to reestablish maternal health care in areas where medical facilities and services have been destroyed or limited by natural disasters. We put in funds to rebuild those health services, but the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi takes that money out.

We are talking about countries where the average person doesn't earn even $100 a year. We ought to think about it, as the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth, where there is a certain God-given moral duty to help people less privileged, but the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi takes that money out.

Are we concerned with coercion and forced abortion in China, as the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Kansas said? Of course. I have no doubt that they find that morally repugnant. I totally agree with the Senator from Mississippi. I totally agree with him that forced abortions are wrong. I totally agree with the Senator from Kansas about that. That is why, when Senator Gregg and I brought this bill to the Appropriations Committee, we prohibited any funds going to China. We prohibit any funds for abortion. We prohibit those things. It is not correct to suggest otherwise.

I don't know what kind of political points are made by bringing up this kind of an amendment, but explain those political points to the mother of a 5-year-old who has been raped in the Congo. Explain those political points to a mother, herself a child, who is giving birth and now has the problem of obstetric fistula, and we can't do anything to help her. Explain it to those families in war-ravaged countries where the U.S. does not have programs. Explain to them when they ask: Why can't you help us--a wealthy nation like America--why can't you help us? And the answer is because we are making a political point.

I don't accept that. I oppose this amendment with every fiber of my body.

How much time is remaining?

How much time on the other side?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I will speak briefly about one of the amendments pending, but first I wish to express my support for the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. With all the debate here, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that this is a product of months of bipartisan negotiation and hard work. I serve on the Appropriations Committee and I watch the various subcommittees come together and meet. We had both the Republican leader and the Democratic leader of the committees join together and pass most of the bills that make up the omnibus. It is bipartisan. They passed almost unanimously.

Now, we find we are getting into debate on amendments and it is somewhat troubling.

We completed a budget process begun more than a year ago to fund the Federal Government and also to fund hundreds of critical programs in the Federal Government.

It is unfortunate we are now halfway through the fiscal year. I wish it could have been completed through regular order. But enacting this legislation means funding increases for programs that serve as a lifeline to many Americans.

I appreciate what Chairman Inouye has done, what President pro tempore Byrd has done, and what ranking member Thad Cochran has done. These are people with whom I have served for decades on the Appropriations Committee. They put together a piece of legislation that is going to take our country forward by investing in health care, law enforcement, the environment, and public schools.

Some have argued that because we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that this legislation is not needed. That is not correct. The economic recovery plan was crafted specifically to create and save millions of jobs through investments, infrastructure, education funding, and so forth. But the recovery plan was not intended to replace the regular order of

the Federal budget. This is a comprehensive bill, not a targeted piece of legislation.

I have listened to the debate on this legislation throughout the week and heard the arguments that this bill is too expensive, it is unnecessary and we would save money by level funding the government for the rest of the year. Those making these arguments seem to ignore the fact that flat funding the government would mean no additional assistance through child nutrition programs for hungry children whose families struggle to put food on their tables. It would mean less funding is available to help rebuild our crumbling bridges and roads, fewer funds for ensuring Americans have clean and safe water to drink and reductions in critical health prevention programs. In short, not passing this bill would mean turning a blind eye to the millions of Americans who need their Government to extend a helping hand to pull them up off the ground.

Some members of this body have argued that because we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act this legislation is not needed. That could not be further from the truth. The economic recovery plan was crafted specifically to create or save millions of jobs through significant investments in infrastructure, education funding, and public safety net programs. I voted for this plan and have confidence that it is a necessary step to protect and strengthen our economy and invest in America's future. But the recovery plan was not intended to replace the regular order for the Federal Budget.

While the recovery plan includes numerous important priorities, it was structured to be timely and targeted, not a comprehensive bill to fund the entire Government. Using the rationale of some on the other side of the aisle and passing a yearlong continuing resolution would mean we are less able to ensure our security both at home and abroad. Not passing this legislation means the FBI will not be able to hire new agents, intelligence analysts, and others who protect us from crime and terrorism. It would mean the FDA will not be able to protect us from unsafe food and medicine. Finally, it would mean fewer funds for critical activities such as nuclear nonproliferation, military assistance and peacekeeping operations and security operations for our embassies abroad.

Again, I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard work in crafting this bill. It is not an easy job to weigh the thousands of competing priorities of our country and produce a comprehensive bill that addresses these needs. I applaud Chairman Inouye for his work and offer my strong support for this legislation.

Madam President, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill contains $36.6 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of State and Foreign Operations, which is the same amount approved by the Appropriations Committee in July 2008.

This represents a $1.6 billion decrease from former President Bush's budget request of $38.2 billion. I repeat--this bill is $1.6 billion below what former President Bush recommended in his budget.

It is a $3.8 billion increase from the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level, not counting supplemental funds, and $968 million above the Fiscal Year 2008 level including Fiscal Year 2008 supplemental and Fiscal Year 2009 bridge funds.

The State and Foreign Operations portion of this omnibus bill does not contain any congressional earmarks. It does, as is customary and appropriate, specify funding levels for authorized programs, certain countries, and international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank.

I thank Chairman Inouye, President pro tempore Byrd, and Ranking Member Cochran for their support throughout this protracted process. And I thank Senator Gregg, who, as ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, worked with me to produce this bipartisan legislation that was reported by the Appropriations Committee with only one dissenting vote.

It is imperative that we enact this bill. The alternative of a full year continuing resolution would be devastating to the operations of the State Department and our embassies, consulates, and missions around the world, and to programs that support a myriad of United States foreign policy interests and that protect the security of the American people. Many Senators on both sides of the aisle were encouraged that Senator Clinton was nominated for and confirmed to be Secretary of State. If we want her to succeed we must provide the tools to do so. This bill supports her highest priority of rebuilding the civilian capabilities of our Government.

The bill provides $7.8 billion for Department of State operations, a decrease of $274 million below former President's Bush's request and $1.2 billion above the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level, not including supplemental funds. Counting emergency funds provided in Fiscal Year 2008 for personnel, operations and security costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bill provides a 5.6 percent increase.

These increases are attributed to a major investment in personnel, primarily to replace worldwide positions that were redirected to Iraq and invest particularly in countries of growing importance in South Asia. The bill supports the request of 500 additional positions, much of which will help posts left depleted, some by 25 percent, due to positions shifting to Iraq during the last 5 years. In addition, the bill recommends $75 million for a new initiative to train and deploy personnel in post-conflict stabilization. These critical investments would be lost if we do not pass this bill.

The bill provides $1.7 billion for construction of new secure embassies and to provide security upgrades to existing facilities, which is $178 million below former President Bush's request. He had proposed a 41-percent increase which we did not have the funds to support. But an increase of $99.5 million, or 13 percent, above the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level is provided considering the significant threats our embassies faced last year alone, from Yemen to Belgrade. Even this lesser increase for embassy construction and security upgrades would be lost under a year-long continuing resolution.

Specifically, the bill provides $4.24 billion for Diplomatic and Consular Programs, which funds State Department personnel. This is an increase of $464 million, or 12 percent, above the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level and $42 million above the President's request. This funds a major investment in personnel to increase language training and expand the number of personnel in regions of growing importance. Senators on both sides of the aisle have strongly endorsed this investment, but it would not be funded under a continuing resolution.

In fact, under a continuing resolution, the State Department would not have the resources to fund the staff currently serving at 267 posts overseas, due to exchange rate losses and the increased cost of security overseas. That means the United States would have even less representation than we do now, which none of us here would find acceptable.

The bill provides $1.1 billion for Worldwide Security Protection for noncapital security upgrades, an increase of $355 million above the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level and $46 million below the request. This account funds all the Diplomatic Security agents at every post worldwide, armored vehicles, and training--all investments which, again, have bipartisan support. The increases would fund additional personnel for protection at high-threat embassies and oversight of security contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel-West Bank. This would not be possible under a continuing resolution.

Senators of both parties have expressed strong support for expanding international exchange programs, particularly in predominantly Muslim countries. The bill provides $538 million for education and cultural exchanges, which is $15.5 million above the President's request and an increase of $36.6 million above the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level. Those additional funds would be lost under a continuing resolution at the moment when the United States has the greatest opportunity to reintroduce our country, our people, and our values to the rest of the world.

The same is true of public diplomacy. The bill provides $394.8 million for the State Department's public diplomacy activities, including outreach, media, and programs in embassies to develop

relationships with people in host countries. This is $33.9 million above the fiscal year 2008 level, which would not be available under a continuing resolution.

The bill provides $1.7 billion for construction of new secure embassies and maintenance of existing facilities, a $280 million increase above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $83 million below the President's request. Of this amount, $801 million is for embassy maintenance, $40 million less than the request and $46 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

The bill provides $770 million for planning, design, and construction of new embassies and office buildings worldwide, $178 million below the request and $99 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Any Senator who has traveled abroad has seen the need to replace insecure and old embassies. There is already a long waiting list, and it would be even longer under a continuing resolution.

Former President Bush's budget underfunded the U.S. assessed contribution to UN peacekeeping in fiscal year 2009 by assuming a reduction in every mission except Sudan. That was pie in the sky. The cost of most of these missions is increasing, not decreasing. The bill provides $1.5 billion for UN peacekeeping, an increase of $295 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $20 million above the President's request. However, compared to the total amount enacted in fiscal year 2008, the bill is $173 million below the operating level in fiscal year 2008 including supplemental funds. These are costs we are obligated to pay by treaty. They support the troops of other nations in Darfur, the Congo, Lebanon, Haiti, and a dozen other countries.

The bill provides $1.5 billion for contributions to international organizations, the same as the President's request and $186 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The account funds the U.S. assessed dues to 47 international organizations, including NATO, IAEA, OECD, the UN, and others for which, as a member of the organization, the United States is obligated by treaty to contribute. We either pay now or we pay later.

The bill provides $709.5 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an increase of $39.5 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $10 million above former President Bush's budget request. This includes funding for languages which the former administration proposed to eliminate in fiscal year 2009, such as Russian, Georgian, Kazak, Uzbek, Tibetan and the Balkans, where freedom of speech remains restricted and broadcasting programs are still necessary to provide unbiased news.

For USAID, the bill provides $808.6 million for operating expenses, $41.4 million above former President Bush's request and $179 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This continues efforts begun last year to address the serious staff shortage at USAID, but under a continuing resolution USAID's staff problems would continue to worsen. It would not be able to hire additional staff for Afghanistan and Pakistan, or for other posts where there is not sufficient oversight of contracting and procurement. It is a crisis situation that I and Senator Gregg are determined to fix.

For bilateral economic assistance, the bill provides a total of $17.1 billion, $1.3 billion below former President Bush's request and $623.3 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. We received requests from most Senators--Democrats and Republicans--for funding from within this account, totaling far more than we could afford. A continuing resolution would make it impossible to fund many, if not most, of those requests.

A good example is global health. The bill provides $7.1 billion for global health and child survival, an increase of $757 million above the request and $737 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. A continuing resolution would be devastating for these lifesaving programs.

A total of $495 million is provided for child survival and maternal health, an increase of $125 million above former President Bush's request and $49 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. These funds are for programs that directly decrease child and maternal mortality from preventable diseases, such as malaria, polio and pneumonia. Under a continuing resolution, USAID would not be able to expand its malaria control programs to other countries in Africa with a high incidence of malaria, which kills a million people, mostly African children, every year.

The bill provides $300 million for safe water programs, including increasing access to safe drinking water and sanitation, which is a key factor in improving public health.

Former President Bush proposed a steep cut in funding for family planning and reproductive health programs, even though they are the most effective means of reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The bill, instead, provides a total of $545 million from all accounts for family planning and reproductive health including $50 million for the UN Population Fund, which is $82 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. A continuing resolution would eliminate those additional funds, and the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions would increase.

The bill provides a total of $5.5 billion for programs to combat HIV/ AIDS, $388 million above former President Bush's request and $459 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. Of this amount, $600 million is provided for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, which is $400 million above the request. Additionally within the total, $350 million is provided for USAID programs to combat HIV/AIDS, which is $8 million above the request.

These additional funds, which pay for life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs, prevention and care programs, would be lost under a continuing resolution, to the detriment of 1 million people who would receive lifesaving treatment this year. With this funding 2 million additional HIV infections would be prevented this year. Instead of 10 million lives we are saving today, we have the opportunity to save 12 million people. We have the opportunity with this bill to save 1 million more orphans or vulnerable children who are either infected with HIV or have been orphaned because a parent died from HIV/AIDS. Why would we not make this investment this year?

The development assistance account funds energy and environment programs, microcredit programs, private enterprise, rule of law, trade capacity, and many other activities that Senators on both sides of the aisle support. The bill provides $1.8 billion for development assistance which is $161 million above former President Bush's request and $176 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

The bill provides $350 million for international disaster assistance, $52 million above the request and $30 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, excluding supplemental funds. These funds enable the United States to put its best face forward when disaster strikes, as it did with the tsunami, the earthquake in Pakistan, floods in Central America, and famine in Africa.

The bill provides $875 million for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. This is $1.3 billion below the request and $669 million below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This reflects the view of the House and Senate that the Congress supports the MCC but wants to see a slowdown in new compacts, while $7 billion in previously appropriated funds are disbursed, and while the new administration decides how it wants to fund the MCC in the future. The agreement provides sufficient funds to continue current operations and to commence two new compacts of $350 million each.

For the Peace Corps, the bill provides $340 million, which is $9 million above the fiscal year 2008 level. Those additional funds would be lost under a continuing resolution.

The bill provides $875 million for international narcotics control and law enforcement, which is $327 million below the request and $321 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Those additional funds for programs in Latin America, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many other countries would be lost under a continuing resolution.

There is a total of $405 million for continued support of the Merida Initiative, including $300 million for Mexico and $105 million for the countries of Central America. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental included $400 million and $65 million, respectively. We are all increasingly alarmed by the spread of

drug-related violence and criminal gangs in Mexico, but under a continuing resolution there would be nothing for the Merida Initiative.

Migration and refugee assistance is funded at $931 million, which is $167 million above former President Bush's request and $108 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. That $108 million would be lost under a continuing resolution. This amount is already $557 million below what was provided in fiscal year 2008 including supplemental and fiscal year 2009 bridge funds. These funds are used for basic care and protection of refugees and internally displaced persons, whose numbers are not expected to decrease this year.

The bill provides $4.9 billion for military assistance and peacekeeping operations, $173 million below former President Bush's request but $212.6 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The bill assumes $170 million provided in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental as fiscal year 2009 bridge funds for military assistance to Israel, making the total amount for Israel equal to the President's request, $2.55 billion. The additional $212.6 million for other important bilateral relationships would be lost under a continuing resolution.

For contributions to the multilateral development institutions, which we owe by treaty, the bill provides $1.8 billion. That is $503 million below the former President's request and $251 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. A continuing resolution would put us another $251 million in arrears, in addition to the arrears we already owe.

The bill provides the amounts requested by the former president for the Export-Import Bank, an increase of $26.5 million above fiscal year 2008. By not passing this bill, these additional resources would not be available to make U.S. businesses competitive in the global marketplace. At this time of economic downturn at home we should be doing everything we can to support U.S. trade.

These are the highlights of the fiscal year 2009 State and Foreign Operations portion of the omnibus bill before us. It contains funding to meet critical operational costs and programmatic needs which support U.S. interests and protect U.S. security around the world.

A handful of our friends in the minority have criticized this omnibus because it contains earmarks. Apparently they would prefer that unnamed, unelected bureaucrats make all the decisions about the use of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the total amount of this bill that Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans--have earmarked for schools, fire and police departments, roads, bridges, hospitals, scientific research, universities and other organizations and programs in their states and districts which would not otherwise receive funding is less than 1 percent. That is what the aggrieved speeches are about. A whopping 1 percent.

Some here complain that this omnibus--all but a small fraction of which would fund the budget requests of former President Bush--is more than we can afford. Those are the same Senators who, year after year, rubberstamped billions and billions of borrowed dollars to fund an unnecessary war and reconstruction programs in Iraq that were fraught with waste and abuse.

Some say that the intervention of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the reason they oppose this omnibus bill. Regarding the Department of State and foreign operations, 99.6 percent of the omnibus has no correlation whatsoever to what was funded by the Recovery Act. This portion of the omnibus funds all of the United States' activities overseas. All of the key new investments I have described will not occur if this bill is not passed.

The funding for State and foreign operations in this omnibus bill amounts to about 1 percent of the total budget of this country. However one views the Economic Recovery Act, it would be the height of irresponsibility to oppose this bill. The damage that a continuing resolution would cause to the functions of our embassies, consulates and missions, and to the foreign service officers who serve the American people around the world, would be devastating. The damage to programs would be measured in lives.

We have seen the image of our country battered beyond recognition. The values our country was founded on were ignored, ridiculed, and diminished. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that the United States needs to reinvigorate its engagement in the world, particularly through rebuilding alliances and using diplomacy more effectively. This bill puts our money where our mouths are. The alternative is to retract and to invite others to fill the vacuum. That might save money in the short term, but it will cost us dearly in the future.

Amendment No. 613

Madam President, I will speak briefly in opposition to an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe. Before I do, I might note that I have served here for 35 years. Seeing the distinguished Presiding Officer, when I first came to the Senate, there were two Senators from Minnesota-- Senator Hubert Humphrey, Senator Walter Mondale. Senator Humphrey had been Vice President of the United States; Senator Mondale was to become Vice President of the United States. I was helped immeasurably by the mentoring and the friendship of those two Senators.

The distinguished Presiding Officer and I had the opportunity to be present when the distinguished former Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Mondale, or Ambassador Mondale or Vice President Mondale--he had all those titles--was given one of the highest awards that the Japanese Government could give.

I mention this only because I still serve with the whole delegation from Minnesota, which is now presiding over the Senate.

Madam President, to go back to the subject at hand, I do wish to speak briefly in opposition to an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe. It is amendment No. 613. According to the unanimous consent agreement entered into by my dear friend, the senior Senator from Mississippi, we are going to vote on that amendment later today.

His amendment prohibits any United States funding to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes a tax on any United States person. It's like: My gosh, how did we ever overlook this situation? But this amendment is a textbook case of legislating when there is absolutely no rhyme or reason and shooting ourselves in the foot at the same time.

It is not a response to anything that has happened in the entire history of the United Nations. It is something that apparently the author of the amendment imagines maybe, some time, somehow, somewhere this could happen.

The United Nations has never levied a tax on anyone. It is not a taxing organization. This provision was originally put in many years ago when anti-United Nations sentiment was high. It was a feel-good, chest-thumping response to a totally imagined, non-existent problem.

I call it the Godzilla amendment. Let's pass a law that says if Godzilla comes tromping down the National Mall, he is prohibited from coming within 100 yards of the Nation's Capitol Building.

The fact is, of course, there is no Godzilla and there never will be. The U.N. has no taxing authority. It does not impose taxes. There has never been a U.N. tax on Americans. There is no realistic possibility that there ever will be.

This would be like saying if the United Nations ever passes a law to rename the United States of America, we will cut off funding. It is not going to happen.

Every year each appropriations subcommittee receives requests from Senators for what they want included in the bill. Both the ranking Republican member and the Democratic chairman look at all these requests. No Senator requested the language proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma. The Bush administration never requested this language. Both I and Senator Gregg saw absolutely no reason to continue to include it. It has no practical effect.

The Senator from Oklahoma has had since last July, over half a year, to ask for its inclusion if he wanted. He never did. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice--none of them saw any reason for it.

This sort of falls into the ``we need to prohibit black helicopters from coming in the middle of the night from the

United Nations.'' It is fantasy. But if we did adopt it, what an embarrassment for this country, the only country in the world to adopt such an amendment.

At a time when we are trying to reestablish the reputation and leadership of the United States, why would we put Congress on record threatening the United Nations not to do something that it is never going to do? We are not some two-bit country that wants to stand up and wave a flag and show how tough it is. We are not the mouse that roared. We are the United States of America. And doing something like this, the rest of the world is going to look at us and say: Why are you doing such silly things?

The Senator's amendment would cut off funding for U.N. peacekeeping, for the operations of the U.N. Security Council, for UNICEF, for all the things we are asking the United Nations to do in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, the Middle East, and around the world. That is what the amendment says. It is an anachronism. It has no basis in fact.

Does anyone think that even if they wanted to the other members of the U.N. Security Council could do that over a United States veto? It's impossible.

We already pay our assessed dues to the United Nations. Is that a tax? We have to pay it. It comes out of the Federal budget, and the Federal budget is taxpayer money. Should we stop paying that?

Let's stop treating the United Nations as the enemy. Let's start showing maturity and leadership. The amendment was an unnecessary piece of legislation years ago when it was first offered by Senator Jesse Helms, and it is no less so today.

No President, even if the U.N. had the ability to, which it does not--even if it tried, whoever was President would simply instruct our Representative to the United Nations: Veto it.

It is a solution looking for a problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is an unnecessary amendment. The Senator from Oklahoma asked an obvious question: Why is this language not in there? Nobody wanted it. No Republican asked for it. No Democrat asked for it. The Bush administration didn't ask for it. We constantly remove outdated, unnecessary language from these bills to clean them up.

The United Nations has no power to tax the United States or any person in the United States. It would be like saying we want to pass a law that says that if the U.N. were to launch several divisions of soldiers against us, we will cut off their funding. They can't do that any more than they can impose a tax against us. They are not a taxing organization.

So we deleted provisions like this that serve no purpose, and which no senator requested. It has no practical effect. The Bush administration didn't want it. No Republican asked for it. No Democrat asked for it. Let's focus on the real problems such as Darfur, the Middle East, and Afghanistan where we are asking United Nations peacekeepers and aid workers to risk their lives to support our goals.

I oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, as a longtime advocate of greater transparency in our government, I am pleased that the Omnibus appropriations bill includes several key provisions to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act--FOIA--and to protect Americans' privacy and civil liberties.

The Omnibus appropriations bill provides $1 million in funding to establish the new Office of Government Information Services--OGIS--in the National Archives and Records Administration. When Congress enacted the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act of 2007, which made the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade, a key component of that bill was the creation of the OGIS to mediate FOIA disputes, review agency compliance with FOIA, and house a newly created FOIA ombudsman. Establishing this new FOIA office within the National Archives is essential to reversing the troubling trend of lax FOIA compliance and excessive government secrecy during the past 8 years. The OGIS will also play a critical role in meeting the goals of President Obama's new directive on FOIA. I thank Senators Cornyn, Inouye and Cochran for their support of funding for this critical new office. I also thank the many FOIA and open government groups, including OpenTheGovernment.org, the Sunshine in Government Initiative and the National Security Archive, who have advocated tirelessly for a fully operational OGIS.

The bill also includes much-needed funding to reconstitute the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. When Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in 2004, it implemented a 9/11 Commission recommendation to establish an independent board to help protect Americans' privacy and civil liberties. Since then, I have worked hard to make sure that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has the resources and personnel to fulfill this important mission.

During the last Congress, I worked with Senators Lieberman and Durbin to further strengthen this Board in the 9/11 reform bill. Unfortunately, the last administration left the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board with no members or staff. The Board is too important for us to let it fall by the wayside. The funding in the omnibus bill will help to reconstitute the Board so it can get back to work. Now that this initial funding is in place, I hope the President will promptly name qualified nominees so that the Board can carry out its important work.

Both of these provisions will help to make our government more open and accountable to the American people. That is something that Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike can--and should-- celebrate. Again, I commend the bill's lead sponsors and the President for their demonstrated commitment to open and transparent government.