Floor Statements

Mr. President, at a time when the world seems to finally be speaking in one voice about the need for dramatic action to stop global warming, an article in the Jakarta Post on February 13 reminds us that many difficult obstacles lie ahead.

It is well known that Indonesia's forests, and particularly its peat swamps, store huge amounts of carbon. When the trees from these areas are cut and burned, which is happening due to illegal logging and to make way for the cultivation of oil palm, they emit even larger amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

These forests are also home to one of the world's four species of endangered great apes, the orangutan, whose survival in the wild is far from certain.

President Yudhoyono has spoken of the importance of protecting the habitat of the orangutan. The U.S. Agency for International Development has been supporting this effort for years, and it is finally beginning to show results. It is focused on improving law enforcement and addressing the economic needs of the people living in areas of Borneo and Sumatra where the orangutans live, so they do not cut down the forests.

While illegal logging remains a problem in Indonesia, it is less of one than it was not long ago thanks to President Yudhoyono's government. What looms as potentially an even greater threat to the orangutan, and to climate change, is the expansion of oil palm plantations.

The Jakarta Post article says Indonesia's Minister of Agriculture plans to permit the cultivation of oil palm in millions of hectares of peat swamps. The article indicates that the Minister appears to believe that this would not contribute to global warming because while cutting the peat forests would result in emissions of greenhouse gases, oil palm trees would absorb carbon.

As convenient as that might sound, it defies both logic and science. Indonesia is already among the largest emitters of carbon in the world and the peat swamps are the primary cause. Any significant expansion of cutting and burning of peat forests would contribute to climate change. It would put Indonesia on the wrong side of an issue of critical, global importance at a time when it should be setting an example for responsible forest management. It would put Indonesia on the wrong side of history.

The United States deserves its share of criticism for consuming, and wasting, vast amounts of fossil fuels and being a major contributor to global warming. Many years have been squandered debating whether human development is a significant cause of climate change, even though the overwhelming view of scientists is that it is.

Fortunately, we are past that point. Today there is almost universal recognition that we must act together, and urgently, to stop the destruction of forests and the wasteful use of energy that contribute to climate change.

President Obama has made clear that he intends to make this issue a priority and invest in alternative energy technologies that do not emit greenhouse gases.

Indonesia, like Brazil and Central Africa, is fortunate to possess among the last significant expanses of tropical forests on Earth. The example set by President Yudhoyono and his government will profoundly affect the lives of people everywhere, as well as future generations. I join those in the environmental and scientific communities in urging the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider his position.

Finally, it is important to note that American companies are among those that import Indonesian palm oil. China and Singapore are other major importers. They should consider the consequences of using a product that is produced in a manner that causes serious harm to the environment. It is time for corporate America to review its manufacturing and marketing practices to ensure they are consistent with our collective responsibility to stop global warming.

I ask unanimous consent to have the Jakarta Post article printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the abuses perpetrated against civilians by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, popularly known as the FARC, are too numerous to list. From kidnappings to bombings, torture and summary executions, the FARC have lost whatever credibility and popular support they may once have had. They are a criminal enterprise, despised by the vast majority of Colombians, funded with proceeds from the production and sale of cocaine, who show no respect for the laws of armed conflict.

The FARC have kidnapped hundreds of people, many of whom remain in their custody, their health and welfare unknown. From what we have learned from the few who have escaped or been released, they suffer severe hardship and deprivation.

The FARC have also targeted Colombia's vulnerable indigenous people, whose traditional lands are often located in conflict zones. They have also been victimized by other armed groups, including the Colombian army.

Two recent incidents illustrate the dangers these people face. According to the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia, on February 11, 2009, the FARC killed 10 members of the Awa tribe in Narino department. This followed the killing of 17 Awa on February 4, also in Narino, and also reportedly carried out by the FARC. There are reports that an unknown number of Awa have been abducted.

The killing of defenseless indigenous civilians can best be described as a crime against humanity. It is utterly without justification, and those who engage in such atrocities should pay for their crimes.

For years I have worked to help improve respect for human rights in Colombia and to strengthen Colombia's judicial system. I have also supported efforts to protect the rights of Colombia's indigenous people. When we get reports of the FARC attacking and summarily executing members of the Awa, including women and children, we are reminded how much remains to be done to protect these vulnerable groups and before real justice and peace can come to Colombia.

In recent years there have been notable improvements in security in some parts of Colombia, particularly Bogota, Medellin, and other cities. There has also been progress in expanding the presence of the state into areas which previously had been ungoverned. We are seeing some promising results from projects that provide coca farmers with titles to land, technical assistance to grow licit crops like coffee and cacao, and access to markets, in return for voluntarily stopping growing coca. These projects deserve our continued support.

But many rural areas remain conflicted or controlled by the FARC or other armed groups, some of whose members are demobilized paramilitaries. After more than $7 billion in U.S. aid and 8 years since the beginning of Plan Colombia, the amount of coca under cultivation is close to what it was before. It is now grown in smaller, more isolated plots, in many more parts of the country. More than 200,000 rural Colombians were displaced from their homes as a result of drug-related violence last year alone.

Another issue that requires the attention of the Colombian Government is reparations for victims of the conflict. There are tens of thousands of people who had members of their families killed or injured by paramilitaries, the FARC, or the army. Many had land or other property stolen by paramilitaries who often had the active or tacit support of the army. The Colombian Government established mechanisms for returning stolen assets, but for the most part it has not yet happened. Very little of the land has been returned to its previous occupants. This process needs to be urgently invigorated if reconciliation is to succeed in Colombia.

Whether a family member was killed or their property stolen by the FARC, paramilitaries, or members of the army, the loss is the same. The judicial process in Colombia is wholly incapable of adjudicating the large number of cases or claims. It is critical that, as was finally done in the United States when Congress appropriated funds to compensate victims of the Japanese internment camps during World War II, the Colombian Government take the necessary steps to provide reparations for the victims so they can rebuild their lives.

The issue of extra judicial killings, or ``false positives'' as they have been called, is another major concern.

Human rights groups warned repeatedly that Colombian soldiers were luring poor young men with the promise of jobs, summarily executing them, and then dressing the bodies to appear as FARC combatants in order to obtain higher pay, time off, promotions, or other benefits. I also expressed concern about this. Instead of investigating, top Colombian officials, including the President, responded by accusing the human rights groups of being FARC sympathizers. After the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights confirmed these crimes and it was revealed that they were the result of official army policy, the government acknowledged the problem, but the verbal attacks against human rights defenders and journalists who wrote articles about the issue have continued.

To his credit, the Minister of Defense has taken some steps to address it, including issuing decrees disavowing the policy of rewarding body counts and dismissing army officers who were implicated in some cases. But few if any have been prosecuted and punished, and there are reportedly hundreds of these cases.

Throughout this period, despite report after report that these atrocities were occurring, former Secretary of State Rice continued to certify that the Colombian army was meeting the human rights conditions in U.S. law. That was as shameful as the Colombian Government blaming human rights defenders. The Congress had no responsible alternative to withholding a portion of the military aid for Colombia. Whether or when those funds are released will depend, in part, on how thoroughly the government addresses the problem of false positives, whether the officers involved are held accountable, and whether those who had the courage to report these crimes continue to be the target of government attacks.

I also want to mention the recently appointed Army Chief of Staff, GEN Gonzalez Pena, who replaced General Montoya. General Montoya resigned under pressure due to the false positives scandal and was ``punished,'' as too often occurs in Colombia, by being appointed an ambassador. Not long ago, General Gonzalez Pena commanded the 4th Brigade in Antioquia which has one of the worst rates of reported extra judicial killings. It is difficult to believe that he was unaware of what his troops were reportedly doing, and it raises a concern about his qualifications for such an important position.

This year, the Appropriations Committee will again review our aid programs in Colombia. We want to continue helping Colombia because we share many interests--in addition to stopping the traffic in illegal drugs to the United States which has not succeeded to the extent some had predicted. We need to determine what has worked and deserves continued U.S. support, whether the Colombian Government is meeting the conditions in U.S. law and what costs should be shifted to the Colombian Government as U.S. aid is ratcheted down in the coming years.

Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates the 49th anniversary of ``Bloody Sunday,'' a day which marked a crucial turning point in securing the right to vote for all Americans. On March 7, 1965, in Selma, Alabama, John Lewis and his fellow civil rights activists marched for their right to vote but were brutally attacked by state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. We remember the acts of courageous Americans who fought through the years for equality. We honor their legacy by reaffirming our commitment to protect the right to vote for all Americans.

On the week of this important anniversary, I am pleased to join Sen. Whitehouse in introducing the Caging Prohibition Act of 2009. This legislation contains commonsense reforms to strengthen the Nation's ability to combat organized efforts to suppress the right to vote and better protect the voting rights of countless Americans.

Senator Whitehouse and I introduced a similar bill two years ago in an effort to bring urgent election reform to protect voters during the 2008 presidential election. Although the Rules Committee held a hearing on the measure, the bill was not reported out of Committee before the Senate adjourned last year. I hope the Senate will do its part to prevent shenanigans from disenfranchising voters during the next Federal election, by promptly passing this bill.

During my three decades in the Senate, I have devoted a considerable portion of my work to improving democratic participation and make our government more accessible to all Americans. For the past two years, I have been delighted to have Senator Whitehouse as a partner on this important issue. I thank him for his leadership on preserving and strengthening our voting rights.

In recent years, we have seen a surge in a particularly alarming form of voter suppression known as voter caging. In voter caging, a political organization sends mail to addresses on voter rolls, compiles a list of returned mail, and uses that list as grounds for partisan and unjustified purges or challenges of voters' eligibility. During the last two presidential election cycles, we have seen evidence of voter caging efforts emerge in numerous States, including Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Chief among the problems with voter caging is that it threatens to disenfranchise voters in an unreliable manner. Rather than preventing votes cast by ineligible voters, far too often the practice prevents legitimate voters from casting their ballots. According to a recent report from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, ``[V]oter caging lists are highly likely to include the names of many voters who are in fact eligible to vote.'' Of course, since government databases are often riddled with typos and clerical errors, these findings are hardly surprising.

Even more troubling, voter caging often aims to disenfranchise minority voters. I recall during a Senate race in Louisiana, in 1986, a memorandum from the Republican National Committee concluded that hiring a consultant to distribute 350,000 mailings marked ``do not forward'' to mostly African-American districts would ``eliminate at least 60- 80,000 folks from the rolls . . . [and] could keep the black vote down considerably.'' That is unacceptable. That is wrong. No one's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed, or denied in the United States of America.

The practice of voter caging chips away at core protections in our democracy. The right to vote, and have your vote count, is a foundational right because it secures the effectiveness of all other protections. Indeed, the very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process. That is why voting is the cornerstone of our democracy. Any infringement on this right harms the fabric of America.

All too often, voter caging efforts have partisan goals. For example, the Judiciary Committee's investigation last Congress into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons shed light on how Tim Griffin, a former Bush White House aide, participated in a voter caging scheme aimed at disenfranchising African-American voters in Florida. He was later appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Rooting out partisan voter caging tactics requires us to give Federal officials the tools and resources they need to investigate and prosecute organized efforts to suppress the right to vote. This bill will do exactly that.

This legislation would prohibit challenging a person's eligibility to vote--or register to vote--based on a voter caging list, an unverified match list, or foreclosure status. A challenged voter may feel intimidated or discouraged, and may leave a polling site and not vote. In America, a person should not lose their fundamental right to vote, nor have that vote challenged, on the sole basis of a mistake, error, or because their mail failed to reach them. Similarly, as the current economic crisis reminds us, Americans should not have their fundamental right to vote jeopardized simply because they lose their jobs to layoffs or their homes to foreclosure.

The bill would also require any private party who challenges the right of another citizen to vote--or register to vote--to set forth in writing, under penalty of perjury, the specific grounds for the alleged ineligibility. This provision deters illegitimate challenges to voters by requiring, at a minimum, a showing of good cause. It properly balances legitimate efforts to clean voting rolls with forbidding unreliable voter purges.

I am pleased that this bill has the support of civil rights and voting rights organizations such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Lawyers Community for Civil Rights under Law, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the People for the American Way. They understand that voter caging is a modern-day barrier to the ballot box that has created unique problems for legitimate voters for many years, and that a Federal ban on these undemocratic practices is necessary.

I hope that this year all Senators will support this important legislation and take firm action to stamp out this intolerable voter suppression tactic.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy once again in the introduction of this important legislation. The bill that we introduce today will correct the Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, which misconstrued the intent of Congress and cut off access to our Nation's courts for citizens injured or killed by defective medical devices.

Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings to examine the way in which the Supreme Court's decisions in the areas of retirement benefits, consumer product safety, workplace discrimination, and personal finance have consistently trended against the rights of consumers and in favor of big business. In many cases that have profound effects on the lives of ordinary Americans, the Court has either ignored the intent of Congress, deferred to corporate interests, or sided with a Federal agency's flawed interpretation of a congressional statute's preemptive force to disadvantage consumers. The impact of the decisions that were the focus of those hearings continues to be felt by Americans today, whether they are prohibited from seeking redress in the courts for an injury caused by a defective product, paying exorbitant credit card interest rates and fees with no relief from the laws of their own State, or subjected to the unscrupulous practices of some in the mortgage lending industry.

These hearings raised awareness in Congress, and among Americans, about the impact the Supreme Court has on our everyday lives. And I am especially proud that following on these hearings,

and through the efforts of a determined and principled congressional majority, we witnessed our constitutional democracy at work when President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I am heartened that Congress reclaimed the intent of its original legislation and overrode the Supreme Court to restore the rights of Americans to be free from discrimination in the workplace.

Just yesterday in the case of Wyeth v. Levine the Supreme Court foreclosed the need for Congress to act in another important area when it validated the views of many by rejecting the Bush administration and the Food and Drug Administration's extravagant views of a regulatory agency's ability to pre-empt State law. I am glad the Court spoke clearly and decisively on this issue. The Court's decision was not only a vindication of Congress's primary authority to pre-empt State law, but a victory for every American who relies upon pharmaceutical drugs and entrusts the manufacturers of those drugs with insuring their safety. The Court's decision also vindicated the laws and courts of the State of Vermont, and I am proud to have expressed my views to the Court as to Congress's intent in this area and on behalf of Diana Levine.

The bill we introduce today is another important step to correct an erroneous reading by the Court of Congress's intent in enacting the medical device amendments of 1976. This legislation will make explicit that the preemption clause in the medical device amendments upon which the Court relied does not, and never was intended to preempt the common law claims of consumers injured by a federally approved medical device.

The extraordinary power to preempt State law and regulation lies with Congress alone. Where the Court reaches to the extent it did in the Riegel decision to find Federal preemption contrary to what Congress intended, Congress is compelled to act, just as it was in the case of Lilly Ledbetter. I hope all Senators will join us in this effort.

Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates the 49th anniversary of ``Bloody Sunday,'' a day which marked a crucial turning point in securing the right to vote for all Americans. On March 7, 1965, in Selma, Alabama, John Lewis and his fellow civil rights activists marched for their right to vote but were brutally attacked by state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. We remember the acts of courageous Americans who fought through the years for equality. We honor their legacy by reaffirming our commitment to protect the right to vote for all Americans.

On the week of this important anniversary, I am pleased to join Sen. Whitehouse in introducing the Caging Prohibition Act of 2009. This legislation contains commonsense reforms to strengthen the Nation's ability to combat organized efforts to suppress the right to vote and better protect the voting rights of countless Americans.

Senator Whitehouse and I introduced a similar bill two years ago in an effort to bring urgent election reform to protect voters during the 2008 presidential election. Although the Rules Committee held a hearing on the measure, the bill was not reported out of Committee before the Senate adjourned last year. I hope the Senate will do its part to prevent shenanigans from disenfranchising voters during the next Federal election, by promptly passing this bill.

During my three decades in the Senate, I have devoted a considerable portion of my work to improving democratic participation and make our government more accessible to all Americans. For the past two years, I have been delighted to have Senator Whitehouse as a partner on this important issue. I thank him for his leadership on preserving and strengthening our voting rights.

In recent years, we have seen a surge in a particularly alarming form of voter suppression known as voter caging. In voter caging, a political organization sends mail to addresses on voter rolls, compiles a list of returned mail, and uses that list as grounds for partisan and unjustified purges or challenges of voters' eligibility. During the last two presidential election cycles, we have seen evidence of voter caging efforts emerge in numerous States, including Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Chief among the problems with voter caging is that it threatens to disenfranchise voters in an unreliable manner. Rather than preventing votes cast by ineligible voters, far too often the practice prevents legitimate voters from casting their ballots. According to a recent report from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, ``[V]oter caging lists are highly likely to include the names of many voters who are in fact eligible to vote.'' Of course, since government databases are often riddled with typos and clerical errors, these findings are hardly surprising.

Even more troubling, voter caging often aims to disenfranchise minority voters. I recall during a Senate race in Louisiana, in 1986, a memorandum from the Republican National Committee concluded that hiring a consultant to distribute 350,000 mailings marked ``do not forward'' to mostly African-American districts would ``eliminate at least 60- 80,000 folks from the rolls . . . [and] could keep the black vote down considerably.'' That is unacceptable. That is wrong. No one's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed, or denied in the United States of America.

The practice of voter caging chips away at core protections in our democracy. The right to vote, and have your vote count, is a foundational right because it secures the effectiveness of all other protections. Indeed, the very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process. That is why voting is the cornerstone of our democracy. Any infringement on this right harms the fabric of America.

All too often, voter caging efforts have partisan goals. For example, the Judiciary Committee's investigation last Congress into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons shed light on how Tim Griffin, a former Bush White House aide, participated in a voter caging scheme aimed at disenfranchising African-American voters in Florida. He was later appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Rooting out partisan voter caging tactics requires us to give Federal officials the tools and resources they need to investigate and prosecute organized efforts to suppress the right to vote. This bill will do exactly that.

This legislation would prohibit challenging a person's eligibility to vote--or register to vote--based on a voter caging list, an unverified match list, or foreclosure status. A challenged voter may feel intimidated or discouraged, and may leave a polling site and not vote. In America, a person should not lose their fundamental right to vote, nor have that vote challenged, on the sole basis of a mistake, error, or because their mail failed to reach them. Similarly, as the current economic crisis reminds us, Americans should not have their fundamental right to vote jeopardized simply because they lose their jobs to layoffs or their homes to foreclosure.

The bill would also require any private party who challenges the right of another citizen to vote--or register to vote--to set forth in writing, under penalty of perjury, the specific grounds for the alleged ineligibility. This provision deters illegitimate challenges to voters by requiring, at a minimum, a showing of good cause. It properly balances legitimate efforts to clean voting rolls with forbidding unreliable voter purges.

I am pleased that this bill has the support of civil rights and voting rights organizations such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Lawyers Community for Civil Rights under Law, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the People for the American Way. They understand that voter caging is a modern-day barrier to the ballot box that has created unique problems for legitimate voters for many years, and that a Federal ban on these undemocratic practices is necessary.

I hope that this year all Senators will support this important legislation and take firm action to stamp out this intolerable voter suppression tactic.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy once again in the introduction of this important legislation. The bill that we introduce today will correct the Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, which misconstrued the intent of Congress and cut off access to our Nation's courts for citizens injured or killed by defective medical devices.

Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings to examine the way in which the Supreme Court's decisions in the areas of retirement benefits, consumer product safety, workplace discrimination, and personal finance have consistently trended against the rights of consumers and in favor of big business. In many cases that have profound effects on the lives of ordinary Americans, the Court has either ignored the intent of Congress, deferred to corporate interests, or sided with a Federal agency's flawed interpretation of a congressional statute's preemptive force to disadvantage consumers. The impact of the decisions that were the focus of those hearings continues to be felt by Americans today, whether they are prohibited from seeking redress in the courts for an injury caused by a defective product, paying exorbitant credit card interest rates and fees with no relief from the laws of their own State, or subjected to the unscrupulous practices of some in the mortgage lending industry.

These hearings raised awareness in Congress, and among Americans, about the impact the Supreme Court has on our everyday lives. And I am especially proud that following on these hearings,

and through the efforts of a determined and principled congressional majority, we witnessed our constitutional democracy at work when President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I am heartened that Congress reclaimed the intent of its original legislation and overrode the Supreme Court to restore the rights of Americans to be free from discrimination in the workplace.

Just yesterday in the case of Wyeth v. Levine the Supreme Court foreclosed the need for Congress to act in another important area when it validated the views of many by rejecting the Bush administration and the Food and Drug Administration's extravagant views of a regulatory agency's ability to pre-empt State law. I am glad the Court spoke clearly and decisively on this issue. The Court's decision was not only a vindication of Congress's primary authority to pre-empt State law, but a victory for every American who relies upon pharmaceutical drugs and entrusts the manufacturers of those drugs with insuring their safety. The Court's decision also vindicated the laws and courts of the State of Vermont, and I am proud to have expressed my views to the Court as to Congress's intent in this area and on behalf of Diana Levine.

The bill we introduce today is another important step to correct an erroneous reading by the Court of Congress's intent in enacting the medical device amendments of 1976. This legislation will make explicit that the preemption clause in the medical device amendments upon which the Court relied does not, and never was intended to preempt the common law claims of consumers injured by a federally approved medical device.

The extraordinary power to preempt State law and regulation lies with Congress alone. Where the Court reaches to the extent it did in the Riegel decision to find Federal preemption contrary to what Congress intended, Congress is compelled to act, just as it was in the case of Lilly Ledbetter. I hope all Senators will join us in this effort.

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 5, 2009 at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``American International Group: Examining What Went Wrong, Government Intervention, and Implications for Future Regulation.''

Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Follow the Money: Transparency and Accountability for Recovery and Reinvestment Spending.''

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 5, 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 5, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 5, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Lessons Learned: How the New Administration Can Achieve an Accurate and Cost-Effective 2010 Census.''

Mr. President, how much time is available in opposition to this amendment?

Mr. President, I recall the young man who killed his parents and threw himself at the mercy of the court saying: You have to give me mercy, I am now an orphan. I have heard that line used before on this floor and I use it again in this instance because I hope we can tell the truth about what happened on the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act.

I worked very hard over the last two years with Senator Dodd and Congressman Lewis to pass the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act to provide resources for the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate and prosecute decades-old unsolved civil rights cold case crimes. It could have been law earlier had not Republican opposition obstructed its enactment. We tried to get this bill through the Senate. It was being held up. Now, after the efforts to stop it from becoming law in the first place, we are told: Oh, my gosh, my Emmett Till bill, which I love so much, you are not funding it right. That is not right. This should have been a noncontroversial bill and it should not have taken several Congresses to pass.

Indeed, passage ended years of opposition by Senator Coburn and others across the aisle. In June 2007, we unsuccessfully attempted to get Senate consideration and passage of the bill by unanimous consent. Senator Coburn placed a hold on the Till bill. The Senator from Oklahoma also announced that he opposed the Till bill because the FBI is already investigating and prosecuting old civil rights cases and because crimes committed before 1970 cannot be prosecuted under most Federal civil rights statutes.

Majority Leader Reid included the Emmett Till bill in the Advancing America's Priorities Act, S. 3297, last summer. It was still opposed by the Senator from Oklahoma who objected to its consideration.

I worked for months to have it considered and passed as a separate stand alone measure. I have to thank Senator Dodd and Representative John Lewis for their leadership and hard work in persevering and getting it through the full Senate over the objection and the roadblocks of the Senator from Oklahoma. I was happy when he finally ended his opposition, after much public criticism, and I told him so at the time. After he lifted his hold, the full Senate passed the Till bill unanimously by voice vote. Senator Coburn announced that he ``can't convince'' his colleagues that ``there are plenty of funds'' at Justice to probe these old crimes, so he decided to lift his hold.

I am glad that Senator Coburn finally ended his opposition to the Emmett Till bill. I know that he now likes to emphasize that he belatedly became a supporter of the bill, but that was after years of having stalled its passage. Regrettably, the current Coburn amendment appears to be as mischievous as was his unsuccessful amendment to the District of Columbia House voting rights bill last week. It should suffer the same fate. It should not delay or deter passage of the Omnibus appropriations bill that needs to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President this week.

This special ``earmark'' that the Senator from Oklahoma is proposing is just not needed. Its functional impact if accepted would be to prevent enactment of the Omnibus appropriations bill this week and force it to be reconsidered by the House of Representatives. At a time when confidence and funding of our Nation's institutions is critical, we should not be playing games with funding. We need to get it done. We need to work together to solve the Nation's problems.

In fact, this Omnibus appropriations bill increases funding for the Justice Department, specifically for the Civil Rights Division, and already increases funding available to Emmett Till-type investigations and grants. I doubt that anyone in the Senate is a stronger supporter of Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement than I. Providing that support will take place when the Omnibus appropriations bill is enacted and we can provide the increased funding at last year's appropriated levels and the funding in the continuing resolution. I believe the best way to move forward, if we support the Emmett Till bill and care to solve unsolved civil rights era crimes, is to pass the Omnibus appropriations bill without adding this additional, unnecessary ``earmark.''

The able chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee, a long-time supporter of the Emmett Till bill, has set forth, not only does the Civil Rights Division get more funding under the bill, not only does the inspector general receive more funding under the bill, but $30 million is available under the bill for competitive funds for States and local jurisdictions, including for investigating and prosecuting civil rights violations. In addition, the increased funding for U.S. attorneys' offices, something for which some of us have been fighting for years, is significant; the funding for grants to State forensic labs is significant; and there is more than $150 million to reduce the backlog of offender profiles and untested DNA, something we have fought for in the Debbie Smith Act for years.

Does anybody doubt Attorney General Holder is sensitive to these matters? Of course he is. Our first African-American Attorney General does not need to be lectured or mandated on investigating heinous crimes committed against African Americans during the civil rights era. He has spoken about his dedication to restoring the Civil Rights Division. He will demonstrate his commitment. Indeed, in his recent letter to Chairwoman Mikulski he reiterates the Justice Department's ``wholehearted'' support for the goals of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, notes some of the actions the Department has already taken, and states his ``personal commitment'' to pursue these matters. Ironically, Senator Coburn voted against the nomination of Eric Holder, as well.

I join Chairman Inouye, the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee; Chairwoman Mikulski, the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee; Senator Dodd, the author of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act; and the majority leader in opposing this amendment at this time on this legislation.

Our interest is actually in going after these unsolved crimes, not in trying to add a poison pill amendment to the bill on the Senate floor. That is what we did, we fought for years over the objection of the Senator from Oklahoma to get the Emmett Till bill passed. Let's not now kill it with an amendment on the floor.

Mr. President, I was going back over the notes of what I said. I don't find anything where I ascribe any motives to the Senator from Oklahoma. I am shocked that he thought I had. If there is any implication in the record that I was ascribing motive to my friend and valued member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it certainly was not intended. I did, however, relate the fact that he held up the bill for some considerable period of time. That is a fact. That is in the Record. That is known. I will let him explain why he held it up. I ascribe no motives. In fact, in my 36 years in the Senate, I have not ascribed motives to any colleague of mine, even if he or she placed a hold on a bill. I am not about to start now. The fact is, the Senator from Oklahoma did place a hold on the important Emmett Till bill. The fact is, the full Senate did pass it over his objection. The fact is, we do have a letter from Eric Holder, the Attorney General, promising that his Justice Department has already, and will continue, to commit its resources towards prosecuting civil rights era cold cases. The fact is, the money we want to have is already in the bill we consider today. And the fact is, we have to pass this bill with the appropriations in here, including for the Department of Justice, so we can move forward as a nation. We must ensure that the Emmett Till bill is more than simply a statute. It must also be an answer to the hopes of all Americans that justice might finally occur in

so many of the unsolved civil rights cases.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Eric Holder.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, there is very little time left to the Senator from Vermont. I serve on both the Appropriations Committee and also as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee that has oversight over the Department of Justice. The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma to fund the Emmett Till bill is unnecessary and would kill the overall appropriations. I will oppose it.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 623, as Modified

Mr. President, ingenuity and innovation have been a cornerstone of the American economy from the time Thomas Jefferson issued the first patent to today.

The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of promoting innovation, and the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to ``promote the progress and science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their respective . . . discoveries.'' The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by our companies, and protected and promoted by our patent laws have made our system the envy of the world.

The legislation I introduce today with Senator Hatch, and many others and from across the political spectrum, will keep America in its longstanding position at the pinnacle of innovation. This bill will establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, while making sure no party's access to court is denied.

Innovation and economic development are not uniquely Democratic or Republican objectives. I have been working on the Patent Reform Act on a bipartisan basis with Senator Hatch and others for several years--and Senator Hatch and I worked on various patent issues for many years before that.

Last Congress, I introduced, along with Senator Hatch, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which is the precursor to the legislation we introduce today. That bill was the subject of consideration and amendments over four weeks of mark-up sessions in the Senate Judiciary Committee. After the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the bill in July 2007, we continued to hold numerous meetings, briefings, and stakeholder roundtables--again, on a bipartisan basis.

The legislation we introduce today picks up where we left off in those discussions. We have made some changes from the Committee- approved bill in response to concerns we heard from groups ranging from labor unions to small inventors to manufacturers. We have removed the requirement that all patent applications be published 18 months after they are filed and we have removed the requirement for Applicant Quality Submissions. We have also adopted the House approach to improving the current inter partes reexamination process, rather than creating a new second window post-grant review.

Perhaps the most hotly debated topic in the patent reform debate last Congress was the damages provision. The reasonable royalty language in the bill we introduce today is identical to the language approved by the Judiciary Committee last Congress. While I strongly support this language, I am prepared to continue the conversation and debate from the last Congress in order to find the best language we can.

There have been several positive developments since the Committee voted to report the legislation in July 2007. Senator Specter has made constructive suggestions about a ``gate keeping'' role for the court in damage calculations. The Supreme Court's Quanta decision may offer a useful way of describing the truly inventive feature of a patent. There is much work to do on this provision and I am optimistic that by continuing to work together, we will find the right language.

During consideration of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 in Committee last Congress, I offered an amendment, which was adopted, to codify the inequitable conduct doctrine. Senator Hatch has asked that the provision be removed on introduction this year. I understand that the issue of inequitable conduct is very important to Senator Hatch, and I will work with him to address any statutory changes.

It has been more than 50 years since Congress significantly updated the patent system. In the decades since, our economy has changed dramatically. No longer is the economy defined only by assembly lines and brick-and-mortar production. We are living in the Information Age, and the products and processes that are being patented are changing as quickly as the times themselves.

A patent system developed for a 1952 economy, needs to be reconsidered in light of 21st century realities, while staying true to our constitutional imperative. The patent laws that were sufficiently robust for promoting innovation and economic development are now actually impeding growth, harming innovators and raising prices on consumers.

The array of voices heard in this debate--representing virtually all sectors of the economy and all interests in the patent system--have certainly not been uniform, but three major areas of concern with the current patent system can be distilled from their discussions.

First, there is significant concern that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, is issuing low quality patents. Patent examiners are facing a difficult task given the explosion in the number of applications and the increasing complexity of those applications. When Congress last overhauled the patent system in 1952, the PTO received approximately 60,000 patent applications; in 2006, it received 440,000. Clearly, this puts a strain on the system and understandably affects the quality of patents issued.

Second, the costs and uncertainty associated with patent litigation have escalated in recent years, and are creating an unbearable drag on innovation. Damage awards are inconsistent and too often fail to focus on the value of the invention to the infringing product. This disconnect and uncertainty is a problem that also leads to unreasonable posturing during licensing negotiations.

Third, as business and competition become more global, patent applicants are increasingly filing patent applications in other countries for protection of their inventions. The filing system in the United States, known as ``first-to-invent,'' differs from that in other patent-issuing jurisdictions, which have ``first-to-file'' systems. This causes confusion and inefficiencies for American companies and innovators.

The Patent Reform Act of 2009 promotes innovation, and will improve our economy, by addressing these impediments to growth. As the administration endeavors to guide the economy out of the recession, as payrolls shrink and the jobless rate rises, Congress cannot afford to sit idly by while innovation--the engine of our economy--is impeded by outdated laws.

Our legislation ensures that, in the Information Age, we have the legal landscape necessary for our innovators to flourish. It will improve the quality of patents and remove the ambiguity from the process of litigating patent claims, which will promote innovation stifled by the current system. As innovation is encouraged, and excessive litigation costs are removed, competition will increase and the consumer cost of products will fall. In this way, the bill directly benefits both creators and consumers of inventive products.

Patent reform is ultimately about economic development. It is about jobs, it is about innovation, and it is about consumers. All benefit under a patent system that reduces unnecessary costs, removes inefficiencies, and holds true to the vision of our Founders that Congress should establish a national policy that promotes the progress of science and the useful arts.

When Thomas Jefferson issued that first patent in 1790--a patent that went to a Vermonter--no one could have predicted how the American economy would develop and what changes would be needed for the law to keep pace, but the purpose then remains the purpose today--promoting progress.

As I said when I introduced the Patent Reform Act last Congress: If we are to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy, if we are to continue to lead the world in innovation and production, if we are to continue to benefit from the ideas of the most creative citizens, then we must have a patent system that produces high quality patents, that limits counterproductive litigation over those patents, and that makes the entire system more streamlined and efficient.

Now is the time to bolster our role as the world leader in innovation. Now is the time to create jobs at home. Now is the time for Congress to act on patent reform.

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

Mr. President, ingenuity and innovation have been a cornerstone of the American economy from the time Thomas Jefferson issued the first patent to today.

The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of promoting innovation, and the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to ``promote the progress and science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their respective . . . discoveries.'' The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by our companies, and protected and promoted by our patent laws have made our system the envy of the world.

The legislation I introduce today with Senator Hatch, and many others and from across the political spectrum, will keep America in its longstanding position at the pinnacle of innovation. This bill will establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, while making sure no party's access to court is denied.

Innovation and economic development are not uniquely Democratic or Republican objectives. I have been working on the Patent Reform Act on a bipartisan basis with Senator Hatch and others for several years--and Senator Hatch and I worked on various patent issues for many years before that.

Last Congress, I introduced, along with Senator Hatch, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which is the precursor to the legislation we introduce today. That bill was the subject of consideration and amendments over four weeks of mark-up sessions in the Senate Judiciary Committee. After the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the bill in July 2007, we continued to hold numerous meetings, briefings, and stakeholder roundtables--again, on a bipartisan basis.

The legislation we introduce today picks up where we left off in those discussions. We have made some changes from the Committee- approved bill in response to concerns we heard from groups ranging from labor unions to small inventors to manufacturers. We have removed the requirement that all patent applications be published 18 months after they are filed and we have removed the requirement for Applicant Quality Submissions. We have also adopted the House approach to improving the current inter partes reexamination process, rather than creating a new second window post-grant review.

Perhaps the most hotly debated topic in the patent reform debate last Congress was the damages provision. The reasonable royalty language in the bill we introduce today is identical to the language approved by the Judiciary Committee last Congress. While I strongly support this language, I am prepared to continue the conversation and debate from the last Congress in order to find the best language we can.

There have been several positive developments since the Committee voted to report the legislation in July 2007. Senator Specter has made constructive suggestions about a ``gate keeping'' role for the court in damage calculations. The Supreme Court's Quanta decision may offer a useful way of describing the truly inventive feature of a patent. There is much work to do on this provision and I am optimistic that by continuing to work together, we will find the right language.

During consideration of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 in Committee last Congress, I offered an amendment, which was adopted, to codify the inequitable conduct doctrine. Senator Hatch has asked that the provision be removed on introduction this year. I understand that the issue of inequitable conduct is very important to Senator Hatch, and I will work with him to address any statutory changes.

It has been more than 50 years since Congress significantly updated the patent system. In the decades since, our economy has changed dramatically. No longer is the economy defined only by assembly lines and brick-and-mortar production. We are living in the Information Age, and the products and processes that are being patented are changing as quickly as the times themselves.

A patent system developed for a 1952 economy, needs to be reconsidered in light of 21st century realities, while staying true to our constitutional imperative. The patent laws that were sufficiently robust for promoting innovation and economic development are now actually impeding growth, harming innovators and raising prices on consumers.

The array of voices heard in this debate--representing virtually all sectors of the economy and all interests in the patent system--have certainly not been uniform, but three major areas of concern with the current patent system can be distilled from their discussions.

First, there is significant concern that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, is issuing low quality patents. Patent examiners are facing a difficult task given the explosion in the number of applications and the increasing complexity of those applications. When Congress last overhauled the patent system in 1952, the PTO received approximately 60,000 patent applications; in 2006, it received 440,000. Clearly, this puts a strain on the system and understandably affects the quality of patents issued.

Second, the costs and uncertainty associated with patent litigation have escalated in recent years, and are creating an unbearable drag on innovation. Damage awards are inconsistent and too often fail to focus on the value of the invention to the infringing product. This disconnect and uncertainty is a problem that also leads to unreasonable posturing during licensing negotiations.

Third, as business and competition become more global, patent applicants are increasingly filing patent applications in other countries for protection of their inventions. The filing system in the United States, known as ``first-to-invent,'' differs from that in other patent-issuing jurisdictions, which have ``first-to-file'' systems. This causes confusion and inefficiencies for American companies and innovators.

The Patent Reform Act of 2009 promotes innovation, and will improve our economy, by addressing these impediments to growth. As the administration endeavors to guide the economy out of the recession, as payrolls shrink and the jobless rate rises, Congress cannot afford to sit idly by while innovation--the engine of our economy--is impeded by outdated laws.

Our legislation ensures that, in the Information Age, we have the legal landscape necessary for our innovators to flourish. It will improve the quality of patents and remove the ambiguity from the process of litigating patent claims, which will promote innovation stifled by the current system. As innovation is encouraged, and excessive litigation costs are removed, competition will increase and the consumer cost of products will fall. In this way, the bill directly benefits both creators and consumers of inventive products.

Patent reform is ultimately about economic development. It is about jobs, it is about innovation, and it is about consumers. All benefit under a patent system that reduces unnecessary costs, removes inefficiencies, and holds true to the vision of our Founders that Congress should establish a national policy that promotes the progress of science and the useful arts.

When Thomas Jefferson issued that first patent in 1790--a patent that went to a Vermonter--no one could have predicted how the American economy would develop and what changes would be needed for the law to keep pace, but the purpose then remains the purpose today--promoting progress.

As I said when I introduced the Patent Reform Act last Congress: If we are to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy, if we are to continue to lead the world in innovation and production, if we are to continue to benefit from the ideas of the most creative citizens, then we must have a patent system that produces high quality patents, that limits counterproductive litigation over those patents, and that makes the entire system more streamlined and efficient.

Now is the time to bolster our role as the world leader in innovation. Now is the time to create jobs at home. Now is the time for Congress to act on patent reform.

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

Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 111th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules for the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I so yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate now considers a bill to provide voting rights to citizens of the Nation's Capital city. I am proud to cosponsor the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009. This important legislation would end over 200 years of unfair treatment to nearly 600,000 Americans living in the District of Columbia, a population roughly equal to the size of Vermont, and give them a vote in the House of Representatives. Earlier this week, the Senate finally broke through the Republican filibuster of this legislation that stalled its consideration in the last Congress. That filibuster prevented its passage, despite the bipartisan support of 57 Senators, a majority of the Senate. The vote earlier this week to overcome that filibuster is an encouraging step toward guaranteeing all citizens representation in our Government.

Last Congress, President Bush threatened to veto this bill. This time, when the Congress passes this bill, I am confident President Obama, who cosponsored and voted for the bill when serving in this body as a Senator from Illinois, will sign it into law.

I commend Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Senator Hatch for having worked out a voting rights bill for the District of Columbia that can and should pass with bipartisan support. The bill we consider today would give the District of Columbia delegate a vote in the House of Representatives. To remove partisan political opposition, it accords Utah an additional vote in the House, as well.

As a young lawyer, Congresswoman Norton worked for civil rights and voting rights around the country. It is a cruel irony that as the District of Columbia's longtime representative in Congress, she still does not yet have the right to vote. She is a strong voice in Congress, but the citizens living in the Nation's Capital deserve her vote on their behalf to count.

I believe this legislation is within congressional power as provided in the Constitution. This is not a partisan conclusion. Lawyers from across the political spectrum, from Judge Patricia Wald to Kenneth Starr and former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, agree that this action is constitutional. After careful study, we have all concluded that Congress has the constitutional authority to grant voting rights in the House of Representatives to the representative of the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this issue, and heard compelling testimony from constitutional experts that such a bill is constitutional. They highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power to confer statehood on the District certainly encompasses the lesser action to

grant District residents voting rights in the House of Representatives.

Moreover, Congress has often treated the District of Columbia as a ``State'' for a variety of purposes. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton reminded us that ``Congress has not had the slightest difficulty in treating the District as a State, with its laws, its treaties, and for constitutional purposes.''

Examples of these actions include a revision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that broadened Article III diversity jurisdiction to include citizens of the District, even though the Constitution expressly provides that Federal courts may hear cases ``between citizens of different States.'' Congress has also treated the District as a ``State'' for purposes of congressional power to regulate commerce ``among the several States.''

The sixteenth amendment, the Federal income tax amendment, grants Congress the power directly to tax incomes ``without apportionment among the several States'' and that taxing power has been interpreted to apply to residents of the District. The District of Columbia car license plates or tags remind us every day that District residents suffer from ``Taxation Without Representation,'' a battle cry during the founding days of this Republic.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans residing in the District of Columbia are required to pay Federal taxes. In fact, the District of Columbia residents pay the second highest Federal taxes per capita in the Nation, yet residents have no say in how those dollars are spent. We must also remember that many who serve bravely in our armed services come from the District of Columbia. The brave men and women who defend our values and freedoms abroad must also enjoy those same rights here at home.

Opponents of this bill claim that the citizens of the District of Columbia do indeed have representation, that they fall under the jurisdiction of all 100 Senators and 435 Representatives and are sufficiently provided for by Congress. To that argument I say that there is no substitute for direct representation in Congress. How many of us in either party would be willing to go back to our State and say ``You do not need your representatives because other States are going to represent you?'' I do not believe that would go over well in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Chairman Lieberman knows that would not go over well in his State of Connecticut. I guarantee you that would not go over well in the State of Vermont. Similarly, the citizens of the District of Columbia also deserve the chance to elect a representative who has not only a voice in Congress, but a vote as well.

Over 50 years ago, after overcoming filibusters and obstruction, the Senate rightfully passed the Civil Rights Act in 1957 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Let us build on that tradition and extend the reach and resolve of America's representative democracy. I am pleased that we took the first step in overcoming the filibuster of this legislation, and I urge all Senators to support the final passage of this bill without further delay.

When historians look back at the last 8 years, they are going to evaluate one of the most secretive administrations in the history of the United States. Now, the citizens of this country have said we should have change, and we should. But we also know that the past can be prologue unless we set things right.

In the last administration, there was a justification for torture. It presided over the abuse at Abu Ghraib, destroyed tapes of harsh interrogations, and conducted extraordinary renditions that sent people to countries that permit torture during interrogation.

They used the Justice Department, our premiere law enforcement agency, to subvert the intent of congressional statutes, even to subvert nonpartisan prosecutions, and instead to use them in partisan ways to try to affect the outcome of elections. They wrote secret law to give themselves legal cover for these misguided policies, policies that could not withstand scrutiny if brought to light.

Nothing has done more to damage America's standing and moral authority than the revelation that during the last 8 years we abandoned our historic commitment to human rights by repeatedly stretching the law and the bounds of Executive power to authorize torture and cruel treatment.

As President Obama said to Congress and the American people last night, ``if we're honest with ourselves, we'll

admit that for too long we have not always met'' our responsibilities.

Now, the President said that about the economy, but the same holds true here. It is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we can move forward. How can we restore our moral leadership and ensure transparent government if we ignore what has happened?

There has been discussion, and in some cases disagreement, on how best to do this. There are some who resist any effort to investigate the misdeeds of the recent past. Indeed, some have tried to extract a devil's bargain from Attorney General Holder, a commitment that he would not prosecute for anything that happened on President Bush's watch. That is a pledge no prosecutor should give, and, to his credit, Eric Holder did not.

There are others who say that regardless of the cost in time, resources, and unity, we have to prosecute these administration officials to lay down a marker. The courts are already considering congressional subpoenas that have been issued and claims of privilege and legal immunities, and they will for some time.

Over my objections, Congress has already passed laws granting immunity to those who facilitated warrantless wiretapping and conducted cruel interrogations. The Department of Justice issued legal opinions justifying these executive branch excesses which, while legally faulty, would undermine attempts to prosecute. A failed attempt to prosecute for this conduct might be the worst result of all if it is seen as justifying abhorrent actions. Given the steps Congress and the executive have already taken to shield this conduct from accountability, that is a possible outcome.

The alternative to these approaches is a middle ground, a middle ground I spoke of at Georgetown University a little over 2 weeks ago. That middle ground would involve the formation of a commission of inquiry dedicated to finding out what happened. Such a commission's objective would be to find the truth. People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for the purpose of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts, to know what happened and to make sure mistakes are not repeated.

I have seen what happened before in prosecutions. We don't find the full truth. We prosecute those at the bottom of the chair of command, but we don't find out what those above did.

While many are focused on whether crimes were committed, it is just as important to learn if significant mistakes were made, regardless of whether they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury to be criminal conduct. We compound the serious mistakes already made if we limit our inquiry to criminal investigations and trials. Moreover, it is easier for prosecutors to net those far down the ladder than those at the top who set the tone and the policies. We do not yet know the full extent of our government's actions in these areas, and we must be sure that an independent review goes beyond the question of whether crimes were committed, to the equally important assessment of whether mistakes were made so we may endeavor not to repeat them. As I have said, we must read the page before we turn it.

Vice President Dick Cheney continues to assert unilaterally that the Bush administration's tactics, including torture, were appropriate and effective. But interested parties' characterizations and self-serving conclusions are not facts and are not the unadulterated truth. We cannot let those be the only voices heard, nor allow their declarations to serve as historical conclusions on such important questions. An independent commission can undertake this broader and fundamental task.

I am talking about this process with others in Congress, with outside groups and experts, and I have begun to discuss this with the White House as well. I am not interested in a commission of inquiry comprised of partisans, intent on advancing partisan conclusions. Rather, we need an independent inquiry that is beyond reproach and outside of partisan politics to pursue and find the truth. Such a commission would focus primarily on the subjects of national security and executive power in the government's counterterrorism effort. We have had successful oversight in some areas, but on these issues, including harsh interrogation tactics, extraordinary rendition and executive override of the laws, the last administration successfully kept many of us in the dark about what happened and why.

President Obama issued significant executive orders in his first days in office, looking to close Guantanamo and secret prisons, banning the use of harsh interrogation techniques and forming task forces to review our detainee and interrogation policies. I support his decisions, and I am greatly encouraged by his determination to do the hard work to determine how we can reform policies in these areas to be lawful, effective and consistent with American values. My proposal for a commission of inquiry would address the rest of the picture, which is to understand how these types of policies were formed and exercised in the last administration, to ensure that mistakes are not repeated. I am open to good ideas from all sides as to the best way to set up such a commission and to define its scope and goals.

A recent Gallup poll showed that 62 percent of Americans favor an investigation of these very issues. Respected groups including Human Rights First, the Constitution Project and thoughtful Senators, including Senator Whitehouse and Senator Feingold, have also embraced this idea. The determination to look beyond the veil that has so carefully concealed the decision making in these areas is growing. Next Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to explore these ideas and to continue the conversation about what we can do moving forward.

Two years ago I described the scandals at the Bush-Cheney-Gonzales Justice Department as the worst since Watergate. They were. We are still digging out from the debris they left behind while those in the last administration continue to defend their policies, knowing full well that we do not even know the full extent of what those polices were or how they were made. We cannot be afraid to understand what we have done if we are to remain a nation equally vigilant in defending both our national security and our Constitution. I hope all Members of Congress will give serious consideration to these difficult questions.

I argue it will be the quintessential American thing to do.

Mr. President, during the past year, I and other Senators have urged the Government of Kenya to effectively address reports of egregious misconduct by its police and military forces, including torture and summary executions. The Mount Elgon killings, culminating in the slaughter of some 200 people by the police and army soldiers in 2008, were particularly appalling, yet the government has yet to conduct a credible, transparent, thorough investigation.

We now have the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, which confirms, again, the conclusions of multiple human rights organizations. I would hope that the Government of Kenya recognizes that it is in its interest, and that it has a responsibility, to promptly implement the Special Rapporteur's recommendations.

Kenya is an ally and friend of the United States. In fact, we are training some of Kenya's security forces. It is imperative that these violations be addressed urgently and decisively, and that the individuals involved in these atrocities, including those who gave the orders, are brought to justice.

I ask unanimous consent that a press release on the Special Rapporteur's report be printed in the Record.

Mr. Presdient, this week, one of the indomitable artists of our age will take the stage of the Kennedy Center Concert Hall, as the great pianist Leon Fleisher teams up with the London Philharmonic Orchestra. His range, commanding technique and total sense of the music's natural shape and scope will surely captivate the audience. This is a fitting occasion to take note of a great artist, teacher and humanitarian who, through his playing, has touched the souls of so many.

In the early years of his career, Leon Fleisher astounded audiences with a golden sound. His career then seemed tragically cut short when he began suffering from a rare neurological condition that rendered his right hand unable to play. Instead of withdrawing from the musical world, Leon Fleisher remained in close contact with music through conducting, teaching and playing scores specially written for pianists who lost use of their right hands. He persisted in the effort to play the full concert repertoire, and some novel medical treatments eventually helped him regain full use of both hands.

It is a classic American journey, tracing a path out of despair to triumph. In Leon Fleisher's sense of determination, dedication, vision and skill, there is much for all of us to both admire and emulate. My wife Marcelle and I were delighted to sit next to him at a reception that honored his lifetime of achievement. We thoroughly enjoyed

getting to know this stately and cordial artist, a man of great intelligence, modesty and warmth.

Leon Fleisher has been playing across the country with full use of his hands for several years now. We are fortunate to be able to hear again how he plumbs the depths of every musical score, revealing something about ourselves through his music making. I know the Senate joins me in congratulating and recognizing Leon Fleisher's incredible contributions to the vibrant cultural fabric of our country.

Mr. President, today, the Congress considers critical legislation to renew America's promise of prosperity and security for all of its citizens. I am pleased that the greatly needed relief provided in the American Recovery And Reinvestment Act includes an investment in health information technology that takes meaningful steps to protect the privacy of all Americans.

I have long held the view that American innovation can--and should-- play a vital role in revitalizing our economy and in improving our Nation's health care system. That is why I have worked so hard with the lead sponsors of this bill to makes sure that privacy was addressed at the outset, as our Nation moves towards a national health information technology system.

I commend the lead sponsors of this legislation in the House and Senate, Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker

Pelosi for making sure that the economic recovery package includes meaningful privacy safeguards for electronic health records. I also commend the many stakeholders, including, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the Vermont Information Technology Leaders, Inc., Consumers Union, the American Civil Liberties Union and Microsoft, that have advocated tirelessly for meaningful health IT privacy protections in this legislation.

The privacy protections in this legislation are essential to a successful national health IT system. Without adequate safeguards to protect health privacy, many Americans would simply not seek the medical treatment that they need for fear that their sensitive health information will be disclosed without their consent. Likewise, health care providers who perceive the privacy risks associated with health IT systems as inconsistent with their professional obligations would avoid participating in a national health IT system.

The economic recovery package includes several of my recommendations to better protect Americans' health information privacy. First, the provisions give each and every American the right to access his or her own electronic health records, and the right to timely notice of data breaches involving their health information. The recovery package also imposes critical restrictions on the sale of sensitive health data and on the use of Americans' health data for marketing purposes. Lastly, the legislation makes sure that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services receives input from individuals with specific expertise in health information privacy and security, as the Secretary develops a national health information technology system.

These and many other privacy safeguards in the bill will help tackle the difficult, but essential task of ensuring meaningful health information privacy for all Americans. But, we can--and should--do more. There is much more to be done to ensure that Americans have greater control over their own electronic health records. Another critical issue is the use of new technologies to better secure sensitive health records, so that data breaches involving health and other sensitive personal data do not occur in the first place.

Yesterday, we celebrated the bicentennial of the birth of our Nation's 16th President--Abraham Lincoln--who once remarked that ``you cannot escape the responsibility for tomorrow by evading it today.'' We all have a responsibility to ensure quality health care that is both efficient and respectful of all Americans' privacy rights. I am pleased that the Congress acted to address the issue of health information privacy at the outset of the ambitious effort to fully digitize America's health records during the next 5 years. During the months and years ahead, Congress must build upon this early privacy success with more work on health information privacy on behalf of all Americans.