Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski, Kennedy, Snowe and others in introducing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009. This legislation is long overdue and I am pleased that the majority leader will try again to move this legislation in the opening days of this new Congress. The Supreme Court's divided decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our country. More than 40 years ago, Congress acted to protect women and others against discrimination in the workplace. In the 21st century, equal pay for equal work should be a given in this country. Unfortunately, the reality is still far from this basic principle. American women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a male counterpart. That decreases to 62 cents on the dollar for African-American women and just 53 cents on the dollar for Hispanic-American women.

For nearly 20 years, Ms. Ledbetter was a manager at a Goodyear factory in Gadsden, Alabama. After decades of service, she learned through an anonymous note that her employer had been discriminating against her for years. She was the only woman among 16 employees at her management level, yet Ms. Ledbetter was paid between 15 and 40 percent less than all of her male colleagues, including several who had significantly less seniority. After filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found that Ms. Ledbetter was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, 5 members of the Supreme Court overturned her jury verdict because she had filed her lawsuit more than 180 days after her employer's original discriminatory act.

I was honored to invite Ms. Ledbetter to testify at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in September to examine how the Supreme Court's recent decisions have affected the lives of ordinary Americans. Ms. Ledbetter's case is but one example of how the Supreme Court has dramatically misinterpreted the intent of Congress and offered a liability shield to corporate wrong-doers.

This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to overturn juries who hear the factual evidence and decide cases. A recent study revealed that in employment discrimination cases, Federal courts of appeal are 5 times more likely to overturn an employee's favorable trial verdict against an employer than they are to overturn a verdict in favor of the corporation. That is a startling disparity for those of us who expect employees and employers to be treated fairly by the judges sitting on our appellate courts.

In the 110th Congress, the House passed the bipartisan Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 225-199. In the Senate, despite the support of 57 Senators who urged its consideration, the majority of Republican Senators objected to even proceeding to consideration of this bipartisan measure. One

Republican Senator who supported the filibuster introduced an alternative bill, claiming to offer a solution for victims of pay discrimination. In reality, that partisan alternative proposal would fail to correct the injustice created by the Ledbetter decision. At the Judiciary Committee hearing in September, Ms. Ledbetter confirmed that the alternative bill would not have remedied her case, but instead would have imposed additional burdens and increased the costs of her litigation.

Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin-- however the Supreme Court's cramped interpretation of this important law contradicts Congress's intent to ensure equal pay for equal work.

This Supreme Court decision goes against both the spirit and clear intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and sends the message to employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one-third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed by employers.

Equal pay is not just a women's issue, it is a family issue. With a record 70.2 million women in the workforce, wage discrimination continues to hurt the majority of American families. As a working mother, the discrimination inflicted on Ms. Ledbetter affected her entire family and continues to affect her retirement benefits. As the economy continues to worsen, many Americans are struggling to put food on the table and money in their retirement funds. It is regrettable that recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court and Federal appellate courts have contributed to the financial struggles of so many women and their families. In the next weeks, I hope we can act to overturn the wrongly-decided Ledbetter decision to prevent the devastating consequences of pay discrimination.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski, Kennedy, Snowe and others in introducing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009. This legislation is long overdue and I am pleased that the majority leader will try again to move this legislation in the opening days of this new Congress. The Supreme Court's divided decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our country. More than 40 years ago, Congress acted to protect women and others against discrimination in the workplace. In the 21st century, equal pay for equal work should be a given in this country. Unfortunately, the reality is still far from this basic principle. American women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a male counterpart. That decreases to 62 cents on the dollar for African-American women and just 53 cents on the dollar for Hispanic-American women.

For nearly 20 years, Ms. Ledbetter was a manager at a Goodyear factory in Gadsden, Alabama. After decades of service, she learned through an anonymous note that her employer had been discriminating against her for years. She was the only woman among 16 employees at her management level, yet Ms. Ledbetter was paid between 15 and 40 percent less than all of her male colleagues, including several who had significantly less seniority. After filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found that Ms. Ledbetter was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, 5 members of the Supreme Court overturned her jury verdict because she had filed her lawsuit more than 180 days after her employer's original discriminatory act.

I was honored to invite Ms. Ledbetter to testify at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in September to examine how the Supreme Court's recent decisions have affected the lives of ordinary Americans. Ms. Ledbetter's case is but one example of how the Supreme Court has dramatically misinterpreted the intent of Congress and offered a liability shield to corporate wrong-doers.

This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to overturn juries who hear the factual evidence and decide cases. A recent study revealed that in employment discrimination cases, Federal courts of appeal are 5 times more likely to overturn an employee's favorable trial verdict against an employer than they are to overturn a verdict in favor of the corporation. That is a startling disparity for those of us who expect employees and employers to be treated fairly by the judges sitting on our appellate courts.

In the 110th Congress, the House passed the bipartisan Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 225-199. In the Senate, despite the support of 57 Senators who urged its consideration, the majority of Republican Senators objected to even proceeding to consideration of this bipartisan measure. One

Republican Senator who supported the filibuster introduced an alternative bill, claiming to offer a solution for victims of pay discrimination. In reality, that partisan alternative proposal would fail to correct the injustice created by the Ledbetter decision. At the Judiciary Committee hearing in September, Ms. Ledbetter confirmed that the alternative bill would not have remedied her case, but instead would have imposed additional burdens and increased the costs of her litigation.

Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin-- however the Supreme Court's cramped interpretation of this important law contradicts Congress's intent to ensure equal pay for equal work.

This Supreme Court decision goes against both the spirit and clear intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and sends the message to employers that wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. At a time when one-third of private sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with each other, the Court's decision ignores a reality of the workplace--pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed by employers.

Equal pay is not just a women's issue, it is a family issue. With a record 70.2 million women in the workforce, wage discrimination continues to hurt the majority of American families. As a working mother, the discrimination inflicted on Ms. Ledbetter affected her entire family and continues to affect her retirement benefits. As the economy continues to worsen, many Americans are struggling to put food on the table and money in their retirement funds. It is regrettable that recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court and Federal appellate courts have contributed to the financial struggles of so many women and their families. In the next weeks, I hope we can act to overturn the wrongly-decided Ledbetter decision to prevent the devastating consequences of pay discrimination.

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, January 8, 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 Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 8, 2009 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled ``Oversight Hearing on the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Recent Major Coal Ash Spill.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate on January 8, to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Former Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, of South Dakota, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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, January 8, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Lessons from the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks.''

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 a hearing entitled ``Helping State and Local Law Enforcement During an Economic Downturn'' on Thursday, January 8, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

Madam President, I couldn't help thinking today, as we were sitting in our weekly caucus--that the senior member of our party here in the Senate and the most senior Member of the Senate, and the senior Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished Robert C. Byrd, has now served 50 years which is an all time record as the longest serving Senator in our country.

I have had the privilege of serving beside Senator Byrd for 34 years and am proud to call him a very good friend. When I first came to the Senate as a new Member, it was Robert Byrd who took me aside and talked to me about the rules of the Senate. Senator Byrd took the time to speak about the rules and history of the Senate, but he also talked about the customs, and practices of this body. He spoke of the way you treat each other, and how you treat members of the other party. He also explained the customary order of recognition, the kinds of courtesies you use and the importance of taking into consideration the needs of another Senator.

Senator Byrd and I have sat here through inaugurations of Presidents, and we have traveled together to funerals of colleagues with whom we have served. His late wife, Erma, and my wife, Marcelle, were friends and would often ride together down to the Senate for Senate gatherings. I know I would always enjoy running into Erma and Bob in the grocery store in McLean, VA. After a while, we would tend to forget what it was we had gone to the store for because we would be catching up on the news of the Senate. Throughout it all, Bob Byrd has always had that great sense of what it means to be a Senator.

I said many times on the floor of this Senate that there are only 100 of us who have the privilege at any given time to serve here and the American people. Bob Byrd has always understood that better than most of us ever will. We can be and should be the conscience of the Nation.

We are, above all, a Senate of reasonable men and women who live by very specific rules, and we hurt both the Senate and the country if we ignore those rules. So many times I have heard Senator Byrd, who would see us moving away from the rules which guide us, stand up to address the Chair and remind each one of us what it means to be a Senator, what it means to protect those principals and what it means to serve this country.

Senators come and go. All of us will at some time leave this body. But those Senators who do the most to uphold and keep the functions and history of the Senate alive are the ones who will make it a better place for the next generation of Senators. Senator Byrd has authored histories of this Chamber, but then he has also lived the history of this Chamber.

I salute my good friend from West Virginia. I look forward to serving with him for years to come.

Mr. President, I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to a group of selfless volunteers at St. Michael's College in Colchester, VT, who sacrificed time with their families and friends this past holiday season to ensure that Vermonters in need of emergency services had someone to call upon even on the Christmas holiday.

St. Michael's Fire and Rescue was founded in 1969 and has been staffed and operated by student volunteers ever since. Donald Sutton, affectionately known as ``Pappy'' around the firehouse, helped start the organization as dean and director of campus security following the untimely death of a student athlete on campus. Nearly 40 years later, the organization serves as the primarily ambulance and fire service for a large portion of the State's most populous region, Chittenden County.

The student volunteers who make this organization run find time outside of their rigorous course work to not only be on call but also to complete hundreds of hours of Emergency Medical Technician training and Firefighter training. While their classmates may be battling another school on the ice, on the field, or on the court--St. Michael's Fire and Rescue members are risking their lives in real-life emergency situations, aiding the sick, and putting out fires. Even during the holidays, when schools shut down and students usually go home to visit with family, these students stand watch for their community.

While I was at my family farm in Middlesex this holiday season, I came across a Christmas Day Burlington Free Press article highlighting the sacrifice of these students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2009, a bill designed to help rural communities deal with growing crime problems that threaten to become significantly worse as a result of the devastating economic crisis we face.

Congress and the new administration are beginning this session focused on passing a stimulus bill that will provide hundreds of billions of dollars to restart our economy, create jobs, and reverse the economic downturn inherited from the Bush administration. The Bush administration has already provided hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue the financial industry, and President Bush released billions more for assistance to the auto industry. Despite our legislative efforts to protect jobs and the economy as a whole, little has been done to help the millions of people in rural America, who have been hit as hard as anyone by the devastating effects of this recession.

We must help rural communities stay safe during this economic downturn. Rural areas, which lack the crime prevention and law enforcement resources often available in larger communities, have a particular need for assistance to combat the worsening drug and crime problems that threaten the well-being of our small cities and towns and, most particularly, our young people. The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2009 will provide just this kind of help.

This bill will reauthorize a rural law enforcement assistance program first passed by Congress in the early 1990s. Like so many valuable programs that help local law enforcement and crime prevention, funding for this program was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration, despite its effectiveness in contributing to the record drop in crime in the late 1990s.

The program would authorize $75 million a year over the next 5 years in new Byrne grant funds for State and local law enforcement, specifically for rural States and rural areas within larger States. This support would be used to hire police officers, purchase necessary police equipment, and to promote the use of task forces and collaborative efforts with Federal law enforcement. Just as important, these funds would also be used for prevention and treatment programs in rural communities; programs that are necessary to combat crime and are too often the first programs cut in an economic downturn. This bill also authorizes $2 million a year over 5 years for specialized training for rural law enforcement officers, since training is another area often cut in hard times. This bill will immediately help cash-strapped rural communities with the law enforcement assistance they desperately need.

In December, the Senate Judiciary Committee traveled to St. Albans, Vermont, to hear from the people of that resilient community about the growing problem of drug-related crime in rural America, and about the innovative steps they are taking to combat that scourge. The introduction of this bill is a step forward to apply the lessons learned in that hearing and in previous crime hearings in Vermont and elsewhere.

Crime is not just a big city issue. As we heard in St. Albans last month, and at a hearing in Rutland, Vermont, earlier last year, the drugs and violence so long seen largely in urban areas now plague even our most rural and remote communities, as well. As the world grows smaller with better transportation and faster communication, so do our shared problems. Rural communities also face the added burden of fighting these crime problems without the sophisticated task forces and specialized squads so common in big cities and metropolitan areas. In fact, too many rural communities, whether in Vermont or other rural States, don't have the money for a local police force at all, and rely almost exclusively on the state police or other state-wide agencies for even basic police services. In this environment, we must do more to provide assistance to those rural communities most at risk and hardest hit by the economic crisis.

Unfortunately, for the last 8 years, throughout the country, State and local law enforcement agencies have been stretched thin as they shoulder both traditional crime-fighting duties and new homeland security demands. They have faced continuous cuts in Federal funding during the Bush years, and time and time again, our State and local law enforcement officers have been unable to fill vacancies and get the equipment they need.

This trend is unacceptable, and that is why we must restore funding for rural law enforcement that proved so successful in 1990s, when crime fell to record lows in rural and urban areas alike.

As a former prosecutor, I have always advocated vigorous enforcement and punishment of those who commit serious crimes. But I also know that punishment alone will not solve the problems of drugs and violence in our rural communities. Police chiefs from Vermont and across the country have told me that we cannot arrest our way out of this problem.

Combating drug use and crime requires all the tools at our disposal, including enforcement, prevention, and treatment. The best way to prevent crime is often to provide young people with opportunities and constructive things to do, so they stay away from drugs and crime altogether. If young people do get involved with drugs, treatment in many cases can work to help them to turn their lives around. Good prevention and treatment programs have been shown again and again to reduce crime, but regrettably, the Bush administration has consistently sought to reduce funding for these important programs. It is time to move in a new direction.

I will work with the new administration to advance legislation that will give State and local law enforcement the support it needs, that will help our cities and towns to implement the kinds of innovative and proven community-based solutions needed to reduce crime. The legislation I introduce today is a beginning, addressing the urgent and unmet need to support our rural law enforcement as they struggle to combat drugs and crime.

It is a first step for us to help our small cities and towns weather the worsening conditions of these difficult times and begin to move in a better direction. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 to end the unfair treatment of District of Columbia residents and give them voting representation in the House of Representatives. For over 200 hundred years, the residents of the District of Columbia have been denied a voting Member representing their views in Congress. That is wrong, and I hope the Senate will consider this important issue early this year to remedy the disenfranchisement that residents of our Nation's capital have endured.

When the Senate considered this legislation last Congress the Republican minority chose to filibuster the bill. While a majority favored it, we fell short of the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster and pass it. Earlier that year, however, the House of Representatives worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a version of a voting rights bill for the District of Columbia led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. As a young lawyer, she worked for civil rights and voting rights around the country. It is a cruel irony that upon her return to the District of Columbia, and her election to the House of Representatives, she does not yet have the right to vote on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia who elected her. She is a strong voice in Congress, but the citizens living in the Nation's capital deserve a vote, as well.

The bill introduced today would give the District of Columbia delegate a vote in the House. It would give Utah a fourth seat in the House as well. Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on a similar measure and we heard compelling testimony from constitutional experts. They testified that this legislation is constitutional, and highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power to confer statehood on the District certainly contains the lesser one, the power to grant District residents voting rights in the House of Representatives. Congress has repeatedly treated the District of Columbia as a ``State'' for various purposes. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton testified that although ``the District is not a State,'' the ``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 only 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 grants Congress the power to directly tax incomes ``without apportionment among the several States,'' but has been interpreted also to apply to residents of the District. In fact, the District of Columbia pays the second highest Federal taxes per capita without any say in how those dollars are spent.

I believe that this legislation is within Congress's powers as provided in the Constitution. I agree with Congressman John Lewis, Congresswoman Norton and numerous other civil rights leaders and constitutional scholars that we should extend the basic right of voting representation to the hundreds of thousands of Americans residing in the District of Columbia. These Americans pay Federal taxes, defend our country in the military and serve on Federal juries.

This is an historic measure that holds great significance within the civil rights community and for the residents of the District of Columbia. I urge Senators to do what is right and to support this bill when it comes to the floor for full Senate consideration.

Over 50 years ago, the Senate overrode filibusters to pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congressman Lewis, a courageous leader during those transformational struggles decades ago, gave moving testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress in which he reminded us that ``we in Congress must do all we can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the mission of equal justice.'' The Senate should continue to fight for the fundamental rights of all Americans and stand united in serving this noble purpose. No person's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed or denied in the United States of America. Let us move forward together and provide full voting rights for the citizens in our Nation's capital.

Mr. Presdient, as we begin the 111th Congress, we will try, once again, to enact comprehensive immigration reforms that have eluded us in the past several years. With an administration that understands the critical necessity of meaningful reform and that understands the policy failures of the last 8 years, I am hopeful that the new Congress can finally enact legislation consistent with our history as a nation of immigrants.

The majority leader has included immigration reform as among the legislative priorities for the new Congress. I look forward to working with him, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, and others interested in working toward the goal of immigration reform.

In 2006 and 2007, Congress attempted to pass practical and effective reforms to our immigration system. In 2006, the Senate did its part and passed legislation, only to be thwarted by those in the House of Representatives who opposed dealing with the issue in a meaningful way. In 2007, the House passed legislation only to have it blocked in the Senate by Republican Members opposed to effective reform.

If our immigration policies are to be effective and play a role in restoring America's image around the world, we must reject the failed policies of the last 8 years. We cannot continue to deny asylum seekers because they have been forced at the point of a gun to provide assistance to those engaged in terrorist acts. We cannot continue to label as terrorist organizations those who have stood by the United States in armed conflict. We must not tolerate the tragic and needless death of a person in our custody for lack of basic medical care. We must ensure that children are not needlessly separated from their parents and that family unity is respected.

We must move beyond the current policy that is focused on detaining and deporting those undocumented workers who have been abused and exploited by American employers but does nothing to change an environment that remains ripe for these abuses. We must protect the rights and opportunities of American workers and, at the same time, ensure that our Nation's farmers and employers have the help they need. We should improve the opportunities and make more efficient the processes for those who seek to come to America with the goal of becoming new Americans, whether to invest in our communities and create jobs, to be reunited with loved ones, or to seek freedom and opportunity and a better life. We must also live up to the goal of family reunification in our immigration policy and join at least 19 other nations that provide immigration equality to same-sex partners of different nationalities. And I believe we would be wise to reconsider the effectiveness and cost of a wall along our southern border, which has adversely affected the fragile environment and vibrant cross-border culture of an entire region. Such a wall stands as a symbol of fear and intolerance. This is not what America is about and we can do better.

Those who oppose a realistic solution to address the estimated millions of people currently living and working in the United States without proper documentation have offered no alternative solution other than harsh penalties and more enforcement. The policies of the last 8 years, which have served only to appease the most extreme ideologues, must be replaced with sensible solutions. I am confident that our country and our economy will be far more secure when those who are currently living in the shadows of our society are recognized and provided the means to become lawful residents, if not a path to citizenship.

As President-elect Obama's administration considers immigration issues, I look forward to working closely with them and with the Senate's leadership to find the best solutions. President-elect Obama's nominees to lead the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor understand very well the importance of sensible border policies and the importance of workers' rights. The American people look to all of us to forge a consensus for immigration reform that rejects the extreme ideology that has attended this issue and prevented real progress.

Mr. Presdient, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn once again to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2009, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide.

The start of a new Congress presents a unique opportunity to restore the faith of the American people in their government. That is why I sought to offer an early version of this bill as my first amendment two years ago when that new Congress began. Regrettably, a Republican objection to it prevented its adoption at that time.

As we have seen in recent months, public corruption can erode the trust the American people have in those who are given the privilege of public service. Too often, though, loopholes in existing laws have meant that corrupt conduct can go unchecked.

Make no mistake: The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of government. This is a problem that victimizes every American by chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Rooting out the kinds of public corruption that have resulted in convictions of members of both the Senate and the House, and many others, requires us to give prosecutors the tools and resources they need to investigate and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses. This bill will do exactly that.

The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today will provide investigators and prosecutors more time and, even more crucially, more resources to pursue public corruption cases. It also amends several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities.

The bill provides significant and much-needed additional funding for public corruption enforcement. Since September 11, 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of white collar crime to counterterrorism. Director Mueller has said that public corruption is among the FBI's top investigative priorities, but a September 2005 report by the Department of Justice Inspector General found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. More recently, a study by the research group Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that the prosecution of all kinds of white collar crimes is down 27 percent since 2000, and official corruption cases have dropped in the same period by 14 percent. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2007 that the investigation of an elected Federal official stalled for six months because the investigating U.S. Attorney's Office could not afford to replace the prosecutor who had previously handled the case. We must reverse this trend and make sure that law enforcement has the tools and the resources it needs to confront these serious and corrosive crimes.

Efforts to combat terrorism and public corruption are not mutually exclusive. A bribed customs official who allows a terrorist to smuggle contraband into our country, or a corrupt consular officer who illegally supplies U.S. entry visas to would-be terrorists can cause grave harm to our national security.

The bill also extends the statute of limitations from 5 to 6 years for the most serious public corruption offenses. Public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate. Bank fraud, arson and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy. This modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.

This bill goes further by amending several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption and fraud contexts and to eliminate legal ambiguities that can hinder prosecution of serious corruption. The bill includes a fix to the gratuities statute that makes clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of their official position. This important provision contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only corrupt conduct is prosecuted, but it puts teeth behind the ethical reforms the Senate adopted under the leadership of Senator Obama.

The bill also appropriately clarifies the definition of what it means for a public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute and closes several other gaps in current law. The bill adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the Federal wiretap and racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally- funded State programs, and expands the venue for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions.

Finally, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for several laws dealing with official misconduct, including theft of Government property and bribery. These increases reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and would harmonize the punishment for these crimes with other similar statutes.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have witnessed over the past several years in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to enforce our laws. Passing ethics and lobbying reform in the last Congress was a step in the right direction. Now we should finish the job by strengthening the criminal law to enable federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I am disappointed that Republican objections prevented the full Senate from passing this critical bill early in the last Congress. I hope that this year all Senators will support this bipartisan bill and take firm action to stamp out intolerable corruption.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2009, a bill designed to help rural communities deal with growing crime problems that threaten to become significantly worse as a result of the devastating economic crisis we face.

Congress and the new administration are beginning this session focused on passing a stimulus bill that will provide hundreds of billions of dollars to restart our economy, create jobs, and reverse the economic downturn inherited from the Bush administration. The Bush administration has already provided hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue the financial industry, and President Bush released billions more for assistance to the auto industry. Despite our legislative efforts to protect jobs and the economy as a whole, little has been done to help the millions of people in rural America, who have been hit as hard as anyone by the devastating effects of this recession.

We must help rural communities stay safe during this economic downturn. Rural areas, which lack the crime prevention and law enforcement resources often available in larger communities, have a particular need for assistance to combat the worsening drug and crime problems that threaten the well-being of our small cities and towns and, most particularly, our young people. The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2009 will provide just this kind of help.

This bill will reauthorize a rural law enforcement assistance program first passed by Congress in the early 1990s. Like so many valuable programs that help local law enforcement and crime prevention, funding for this program was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration, despite its effectiveness in contributing to the record drop in crime in the late 1990s.

The program would authorize $75 million a year over the next 5 years in new Byrne grant funds for State and local law enforcement, specifically for rural States and rural areas within larger States. This support would be used to hire police officers, purchase necessary police equipment, and to promote the use of task forces and collaborative efforts with Federal law enforcement. Just as important, these funds would also be used for prevention and treatment programs in rural communities; programs that are necessary to combat crime and are too often the first programs cut in an economic downturn. This bill also authorizes $2 million a year over 5 years for specialized training for rural law enforcement officers, since training is another area often cut in hard times. This bill will immediately help cash-strapped rural communities with the law enforcement assistance they desperately need.

In December, the Senate Judiciary Committee traveled to St. Albans, Vermont, to hear from the people of that resilient community about the growing problem of drug-related crime in rural America, and about the innovative steps they are taking to combat that scourge. The introduction of this bill is a step forward to apply the lessons learned in that hearing and in previous crime hearings in Vermont and elsewhere.

Crime is not just a big city issue. As we heard in St. Albans last month, and at a hearing in Rutland, Vermont, earlier last year, the drugs and violence so long seen largely in urban areas now plague even our most rural and remote communities, as well. As the world grows smaller with better transportation and faster communication, so do our shared problems. Rural communities also face the added burden of fighting these crime problems without the sophisticated task forces and specialized squads so common in big cities and metropolitan areas. In fact, too many rural communities, whether in Vermont or other rural States, don't have the money for a local police force at all, and rely almost exclusively on the state police or other state-wide agencies for even basic police services. In this environment, we must do more to provide assistance to those rural communities most at risk and hardest hit by the economic crisis.

Unfortunately, for the last 8 years, throughout the country, State and local law enforcement agencies have been stretched thin as they shoulder both traditional crime-fighting duties and new homeland security demands. They have faced continuous cuts in Federal funding during the Bush years, and time and time again, our State and local law enforcement officers have been unable to fill vacancies and get the equipment they need.

This trend is unacceptable, and that is why we must restore funding for rural law enforcement that proved so successful in 1990s, when crime fell to record lows in rural and urban areas alike.

As a former prosecutor, I have always advocated vigorous enforcement and punishment of those who commit serious crimes. But I also know that punishment alone will not solve the problems of drugs and violence in our rural communities. Police chiefs from Vermont and across the country have told me that we cannot arrest our way out of this problem.

Combating drug use and crime requires all the tools at our disposal, including enforcement, prevention, and treatment. The best way to prevent crime is often to provide young people with opportunities and constructive things to do, so they stay away from drugs and crime altogether. If young people do get involved with drugs, treatment in many cases can work to help them to turn their lives around. Good prevention and treatment programs have been shown again and again to reduce crime, but regrettably, the Bush administration has consistently sought to reduce funding for these important programs. It is time to move in a new direction.

I will work with the new administration to advance legislation that will give State and local law enforcement the support it needs, that will help our cities and towns to implement the kinds of innovative and proven community-based solutions needed to reduce crime. The legislation I introduce today is a beginning, addressing the urgent and unmet need to support our rural law enforcement as they struggle to combat drugs and crime.

It is a first step for us to help our small cities and towns weather the worsening conditions of these difficult times and begin to move in a better direction. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 to end the unfair treatment of District of Columbia residents and give them voting representation in the House of Representatives. For over 200 hundred years, the residents of the District of Columbia have been denied a voting Member representing their views in Congress. That is wrong, and I hope the Senate will consider this important issue early this year to remedy the disenfranchisement that residents of our Nation's capital have endured.

When the Senate considered this legislation last Congress the Republican minority chose to filibuster the bill. While a majority favored it, we fell short of the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster and pass it. Earlier that year, however, the House of Representatives worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a version of a voting rights bill for the District of Columbia led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. As a young lawyer, she worked for civil rights and voting rights around the country. It is a cruel irony that upon her return to the District of Columbia, and her election to the House of Representatives, she does not yet have the right to vote on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia who elected her. She is a strong voice in Congress, but the citizens living in the Nation's capital deserve a vote, as well.

The bill introduced today would give the District of Columbia delegate a vote in the House. It would give Utah a fourth seat in the House as well. Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on a similar measure and we heard compelling testimony from constitutional experts. They testified that this legislation is constitutional, and highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power to confer statehood on the District certainly contains the lesser one, the power to grant District residents voting rights in the House of Representatives. Congress has repeatedly treated the District of Columbia as a ``State'' for various purposes. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton testified that although ``the District is not a State,'' the ``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 only 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 grants Congress the power to directly tax incomes ``without apportionment among the several States,'' but has been interpreted also to apply to residents of the District. In fact, the District of Columbia pays the second highest Federal taxes per capita without any say in how those dollars are spent.

I believe that this legislation is within Congress's powers as provided in the Constitution. I agree with Congressman John Lewis, Congresswoman Norton and numerous other civil rights leaders and constitutional scholars that we should extend the basic right of voting representation to the hundreds of thousands of Americans residing in the District of Columbia. These Americans pay Federal taxes, defend our country in the military and serve on Federal juries.

This is an historic measure that holds great significance within the civil rights community and for the residents of the District of Columbia. I urge Senators to do what is right and to support this bill when it comes to the floor for full Senate consideration.

Over 50 years ago, the Senate overrode filibusters to pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congressman Lewis, a courageous leader during those transformational struggles decades ago, gave moving testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress in which he reminded us that ``we in Congress must do all we can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the mission of equal justice.'' The Senate should continue to fight for the fundamental rights of all Americans and stand united in serving this noble purpose. No person's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed or denied in the United States of America. Let us move forward together and provide full voting rights for the citizens in our Nation's capital.

Mr. Presdient, as we begin the 111th Congress, we will try, once again, to enact comprehensive immigration reforms that have eluded us in the past several years. With an administration that understands the critical necessity of meaningful reform and that understands the policy failures of the last 8 years, I am hopeful that the new Congress can finally enact legislation consistent with our history as a nation of immigrants.

The majority leader has included immigration reform as among the legislative priorities for the new Congress. I look forward to working with him, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, and others interested in working toward the goal of immigration reform.

In 2006 and 2007, Congress attempted to pass practical and effective reforms to our immigration system. In 2006, the Senate did its part and passed legislation, only to be thwarted by those in the House of Representatives who opposed dealing with the issue in a meaningful way. In 2007, the House passed legislation only to have it blocked in the Senate by Republican Members opposed to effective reform.

If our immigration policies are to be effective and play a role in restoring America's image around the world, we must reject the failed policies of the last 8 years. We cannot continue to deny asylum seekers because they have been forced at the point of a gun to provide assistance to those engaged in terrorist acts. We cannot continue to label as terrorist organizations those who have stood by the United States in armed conflict. We must not tolerate the tragic and needless death of a person in our custody for lack of basic medical care. We must ensure that children are not needlessly separated from their parents and that family unity is respected.

We must move beyond the current policy that is focused on detaining and deporting those undocumented workers who have been abused and exploited by American employers but does nothing to change an environment that remains ripe for these abuses. We must protect the rights and opportunities of American workers and, at the same time, ensure that our Nation's farmers and employers have the help they need. We should improve the opportunities and make more efficient the processes for those who seek to come to America with the goal of becoming new Americans, whether to invest in our communities and create jobs, to be reunited with loved ones, or to seek freedom and opportunity and a better life. We must also live up to the goal of family reunification in our immigration policy and join at least 19 other nations that provide immigration equality to same-sex partners of different nationalities. And I believe we would be wise to reconsider the effectiveness and cost of a wall along our southern border, which has adversely affected the fragile environment and vibrant cross-border culture of an entire region. Such a wall stands as a symbol of fear and intolerance. This is not what America is about and we can do better.

Those who oppose a realistic solution to address the estimated millions of people currently living and working in the United States without proper documentation have offered no alternative solution other than harsh penalties and more enforcement. The policies of the last 8 years, which have served only to appease the most extreme ideologues, must be replaced with sensible solutions. I am confident that our country and our economy will be far more secure when those who are currently living in the shadows of our society are recognized and provided the means to become lawful residents, if not a path to citizenship.

As President-elect Obama's administration considers immigration issues, I look forward to working closely with them and with the Senate's leadership to find the best solutions. President-elect Obama's nominees to lead the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor understand very well the importance of sensible border policies and the importance of workers' rights. The American people look to all of us to forge a consensus for immigration reform that rejects the extreme ideology that has attended this issue and prevented real progress.

Mr. Presdient, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn once again to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2009, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide.

The start of a new Congress presents a unique opportunity to restore the faith of the American people in their government. That is why I sought to offer an early version of this bill as my first amendment two years ago when that new Congress began. Regrettably, a Republican objection to it prevented its adoption at that time.

As we have seen in recent months, public corruption can erode the trust the American people have in those who are given the privilege of public service. Too often, though, loopholes in existing laws have meant that corrupt conduct can go unchecked.

Make no mistake: The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of government. This is a problem that victimizes every American by chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Rooting out the kinds of public corruption that have resulted in convictions of members of both the Senate and the House, and many others, requires us to give prosecutors the tools and resources they need to investigate and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses. This bill will do exactly that.

The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today will provide investigators and prosecutors more time and, even more crucially, more resources to pursue public corruption cases. It also amends several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities.

The bill provides significant and much-needed additional funding for public corruption enforcement. Since September 11, 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of white collar crime to counterterrorism. Director Mueller has said that public corruption is among the FBI's top investigative priorities, but a September 2005 report by the Department of Justice Inspector General found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. More recently, a study by the research group Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that the prosecution of all kinds of white collar crimes is down 27 percent since 2000, and official corruption cases have dropped in the same period by 14 percent. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2007 that the investigation of an elected Federal official stalled for six months because the investigating U.S. Attorney's Office could not afford to replace the prosecutor who had previously handled the case. We must reverse this trend and make sure that law enforcement has the tools and the resources it needs to confront these serious and corrosive crimes.

Efforts to combat terrorism and public corruption are not mutually exclusive. A bribed customs official who allows a terrorist to smuggle contraband into our country, or a corrupt consular officer who illegally supplies U.S. entry visas to would-be terrorists can cause grave harm to our national security.

The bill also extends the statute of limitations from 5 to 6 years for the most serious public corruption offenses. Public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate. Bank fraud, arson and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy. This modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.

This bill goes further by amending several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption and fraud contexts and to eliminate legal ambiguities that can hinder prosecution of serious corruption. The bill includes a fix to the gratuities statute that makes clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of their official position. This important provision contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only corrupt conduct is prosecuted, but it puts teeth behind the ethical reforms the Senate adopted under the leadership of Senator Obama.

The bill also appropriately clarifies the definition of what it means for a public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute and closes several other gaps in current law. The bill adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the Federal wiretap and racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally- funded State programs, and expands the venue for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions.

Finally, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for several laws dealing with official misconduct, including theft of Government property and bribery. These increases reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and would harmonize the punishment for these crimes with other similar statutes.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have witnessed over the past several years in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to enforce our laws. Passing ethics and lobbying reform in the last Congress was a step in the right direction. Now we should finish the job by strengthening the criminal law to enable federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I am disappointed that Republican objections prevented the full Senate from passing this critical bill early in the last Congress. I hope that this year all Senators will support this bipartisan bill and take firm action to stamp out intolerable corruption.

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

Mr. President, the election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the President-elect's selection of Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States, provide an historic opportunity for the country to move past the partisanship of the past decades, and work together to solve the Nation's problems, protect against serious threats, and meet some of the greatest challenges of our time. We all know these men. They have long and distinguished records of service and accomplishments. They can make a real difference if we join with them, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans.

The need for new leadership at the Department of Justice is as critical today as it has ever been. The Judiciary Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, spent a good deal of time and effort during this Congress uncovering scandals at the Department. Former Attorney General Gonzales, Karl Rove, Mr. Rove's White House deputies, and virtually the entire leadership at the Department resigned in the wake of congressional investigation. Since then, the Inspector General at the Department has confirmed many of our findings and fears, and there are still more reports to come. An ongoing criminal investigation is being conducted by a specially appointed prosecutor. The crisis at the Department of Justice is not resolved, but ongoing.

I want to continue the work we began last year when I scheduled prompt hearings and the Senate proceeded to confirm Michael Mukasey, Mark Filip and Kevin O'Connor to serve as Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General after the Rove-Gonzales resignations, even though we were on the eve of the election of a new President. We cannot now delay restoring the Justice Department and the confidence the American people have in our justice system. We must promptly consider and confirm Eric H. Holder Jr., and other nominees of the new President.

I was encouraged by the initial reaction in mid-November when Mr. Holder's name was reported as the likely nominee, and when he was designated by the President-elect on December 1. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledged his qualifications and praised the choice. I appreciate the willingness of Larry Thompson, who was confirmed early in 2001 as President Bush's first Deputy Attorney General; Louis Freeh, the former Director of the FBI; and Fran Townsend, President Bush's former Homeland Security advisor, to speak out in support of Mr. Holder's designation.

As early as November 19, the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee said that he would not hold up the matter, but ``would be prepared to move ahead very promptly with hearings.'' I appreciated and shared his desire to proceed ``as fast as we can move'' and his commitment that he ``wouldn't hold it up.'' He said that he hoped Mr. Holder would ``re-professionalize'' the Justice Department. I hope so, too.

I agree with Senator Specter that we need to strengthen the Justice Department. He and I coauthored an article in the Politico before the election. In a sentence Senator Specter quoted recently on the Senate floor, we wrote: ``The Attorney General must be someone who deeply appreciates and respects the work and commitment of the thousands of men and women who work in the branches and divisions of the Justice Department, day in and day out, without regard to politics or ideology, doing their best to enforce the law and promote justice.'' I have every confidence that Eric Holder is such a person, and I said so in this chamber on November 20. Indeed, in his brief remarks on the morning he was designated, Mr. Holder expressed just such appreciation.

I know that the professionals at the Department of Justice reacted with delight when he was named because they know him well. They know him from his 12 years at the Public Integrity Section, from his time as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, from his tenure on the bench, and from his years as the Deputy Attorney General, the second- highest ranking official of the Department. His prompt confirmation will do a great deal to restore morale throughout the Justice Department.

I have called Mr. Holder a prosecutor's prosecutor. He participated in a number of prosecutions and appeals involving such defendants as the State Treasurer of Florida, a former Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, a local judge in Philadelphia, an Assistant United States Attorney in New York City, an FBI agent, a ``capo'' in

an organized crime family, and a powerful Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

After he served for a dozen years as a prosecutor, President Reagan nominated Mr. Holder to be a judge, and he served with distinction on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. He left the bench to become the first African American U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, heading the largest U.S. Attorney's office in the country.

Four years later, Mr. Holder was nominated to the important post of Deputy Attorney General. I worked with Senator Hatch, who was then Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to report his nomination favorably to the Senate. I was disturbed that an anonymous Republican hold delayed consideration of his nomination for three weeks, but when the Senate finally voted, the vote was unanimous. All 100 Senators voted to confirm Eric H. Holder Jr. to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. He became the first African-American in the history of the Department to achieve that high position.

Eric Holder has prosecuted high-level public officials and organized crime, developed comprehensive programs to combat domestic violence, child abuse, and violent crime, and revitalized programs to assist crime victims. He helped guide the Department's efforts on the criminal prosecution of corporations, health care fraud, computer crimes, software piracy, and helped develop the community prosecution model. He has served at nearly every level of the Department of Justice he would lead.

He is a public servant who will have broad support within the law enforcement community. He has already received the support of the 7,000 member National District Attorneys Association, NDAA. It was when I was the vice president of that association and Arlen Specter was the District Attorney in Philadelphia that the ranking member and I first met. The NDAA indicates that it feels a special relationship with Mr. Holder because he was a street crime prosecutor.

Having a prompt confirmation hearing for the new Attorney General is in keeping with how we have treated all the men and women nominated to be Attorney General in the 34 years I have served in the Senate, in particular at the beginning of a newly-elected President's term. That is how the Senate acted on President Carter's appointment of Attorney General Griffin Bell. That is how we acted on President Reagan's appointment of Attorney General William French Smith. When I chaired the Judiciary Committee as President Bush was preparing to take office, I began the hearing on his selection for Attorney General just 25 days after his designation. Likewise, last year I rejected the efforts by some on my side of the aisle to delay hearings on Michael Mukasey and proceeded on that nomination in 30 days. I did not curb the rights of Committee members to pose questions to then-nominee Mukasey during his confirmation process; I do not intend to do so with Eric Holder.

I want to be as fair to President-elect Obama and to Mr. Holder as we have been to others. I have noticed the hearing for the next Attorney General to begin 39 days after he was officially designated and 52 days after we all began reviewing his record following press reports on November 18.

In my statement to the Senate on November 20, I commended Senators Hatch, Sessions, Coburn, and Grassley for their nonpartisanship when they praised his selection. Senator Hatch spoke of his support for Mr. Holder, his experience and reputation. Senator Sessions, a former prosecutor, U.S. Attorney, and State Attorney General who is well aware of the problems at the Justice Department, said he was disposed to support him. Senator Coburn called it ``a good choice.'' In addition, Senator Grassley has acknowledged Mr. Holder's impeccable credentials while reserving judgment.

But of course since then, Karl Rove has appeared on the Today Show and signaled that Republicans ought to go after Mr. Holder. Right-wing talk radio took up the drum beat.

I think the responsibilities of the Attorney General of the United States are too important to have that appointment delayed by partisan bickering, by some tit-for-tat drawn out process. This is a public servant we have known and worked with for more than 20 years, and the Senate has previously confirmed him three times to important positions. His record of public service, his integrity, his experience and the commitment to the rule of law that he will bring to the office of the Attorney General of the United States deserve better. He should not be made a pawn in some partisan political game.

I began the week meeting with Mr. Holder. He did not defend the Rich pardon. That is hardly a new matter. It was the subject of House hearings and a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing chaired by Senator Specter in 2001, almost 8 years ago. That is not a reason to delay his confirmation hearing. In fact, the confirmation hearing will give those who have doubts and need reassurance the chance to ask Mr. Holder about that matter and hear about it directly from him.

I thought the President-elect had it right when he said recently that Mr. Holder has acknowledged that the Rich pardon was a mistake. President-elect Obama agrees. I agree. President-elect Obama said: ``But when you look at the totality of his experience, there is no doubt that he is going to be an outstanding Attorney General.'' That is the essential point.

Like the President-elect, I want the American people to have confidence that laws are being evenly applied to everyone and that we are working with local and state as well as Federal officials constantly to improve our criminal justice system. Public confidence and faith in that system has been shaken during the last several years, and Mr. Holder can help restore it.

We need the new Attorney General to be a person of integrity and experience, who can inspire the thousands of hardworking prosecutors, agents and employees who do their best every day to enforce the law and promote justice without regard to partisan politics. We need an Attorney General, as Attorney General Robert H. Jackson said 68 years ago about the Federal prosecutor, ``who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.''

That is the kind of man Eric Holder is, the kind of prosecutor Eric Holder always was and the kind of Attorney General he would be. The next Attorney General will understand our moral and legal obligation to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans and to respect the human rights of all people. Eric Holder will ensure that the Department of Justice is working to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, not working to circumvent them.

I was struck by the contrast between what President Bush and Alberto Gonzales said at that announcement and how President-elect Obama and Mr. Holder spoke at his. This is part of the change we need, the change the American people voted for and hunger for. President-elect Obama said: ``Let me be clear. The Attorney General serves the American people. And I have every expectation that Eric will protect our people, uphold the public trust, and adhere to our Constitution.'' The next President understands the role of the Attorney General of the United States and that it is not as counselor to the President. I have no doubt that Mr. Holder understands the independence required of the Attorney General and that his experience and lessons he has learned will serve him and the American people well.

No one should have to remind us how decimated the Department of Justice was during recent years, or how important it is that it be restored. I think it was Senator Specter who called it dysfunctional and said that morale was in disarray. We understand that it is all too important that the Department have its senior leadership in place without delay. We must act on this nomination; the Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the country and a key member of the national security team.

When President Bush nominated Michael Mukasey last year, Senator Kyl said: ``Since the Carter administration, attorney general nominees have been confirmed, on average, in approximately three weeks, with some being confirmed even more quickly. The Senate should immediately move to consider Judge Mukasey's nomination and ensure he is confirmed before Congress

recesses for Columbus Day.'' I held that hearing within 30 days. We should not change the standards now that a Democrat is making the selection.

During my time in the Senate, serving during 8 presidential terms, there has been an average of 29 days between announcement of an Attorney General designation and the start of hearings, and 37 days on average from the announcement of the nominee to the Committee vote. The Holder hearing was set for 39 days after announcement, with the hope that he can be considered by the Committee within 50 days. That does not seem unreasonable. I do appreciate that we and our staffs will be working over the holidays, but we have been called upon many times to do so during the last several tumultuous years.

This is not the occasion to convert our consideration of an executive branch nomination into the kind of searching scrutiny we rightly provide for lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, which is apparently what the Republican side is intent upon doing.

This is no ordinary time. Over the last 8 years, political manipulation and influence from partisan political operatives in the White FIouse have undercut the Department of Justice in its mission, severely undermined the morale of its career professionals, and shaken public confidence in our Federal justice system. During those 8 years, we experienced the attacks of September 11 and have retooled the Justice Department and the FBI to work closely with the intelligence community in our efforts to prevent terrorism. Never has it been more important to have an experienced hand as Attorney General.

I hope our Republican Members will resist the temptation toward partisanship and join with us to consider this appointment fairly and promptly.

Mr. President, the Burlington Free Press recently published a profile of Alan Newman, a habitual entrepreneur who has be the genius and force behind a number of companies established in and around Burlington, VT. Anyone who has met Alan is immediately embraced by his creative exuberance. That creativity combined with his unique vision and style create a special brew that has resulted in an incredible run of establishing successful companies.

I wish to recognize Alan for his accomplishments and I ask that a copy of the entire Burlington Free Press article be printed in the Record.

[Burlington Free Press, Dec. 8, 2008]

Alan Newman Opens Up

(By Dan McLean)

South Burlington.--Alan Newman, co-founder and president

of Magic Hat Brewing Co., has helped create about a half-

dozen Vermont-based companies. During his decades of building

businesses, he has learned where he excels--and when he has

reached his limit.

``My skill appears to be starting and growing businesses,''

including building a brand and a culture for the company,

Newman said. When businesses hit about $7.5 million in annual

revenue and reach about 50 employees, Newman says he has

arrived at his ``level of incompetence.''

Newman said he reached that modified Peter Principle with

Magic Hat about six years ago. Newman said if he remains at

the helm after a company has hit that threshold, ``the

organization starts to fall apart.''

``We started having trouble shipping things that people had

ordered. Communication within staff starts to falter.

Planning doesn't happen properly,'' he said. ``As you hit a

certain size, you need a little more discipline. You need a

little more management. That's where I start not performing

well.''

``I'm really an opportunity junkie,'' Newman said. ``I'm

very good at seeing opportunities and going for them . . .

but at some point you need to stop chasing every possibility

and focus on a plan.''

That's where Martin Kelly comes in. Kelly served as CEO of

Magic Hat and is now CEO of Magic Hat's parent company,

Independent Brewers United Inc., which was formed when Magic

Hat bought Seattle-based Pyramid Breweries Inc. last spring

for $35 million.

Newman said Kelly has been a crucial part of the operation

during the past few years. ``I create chaos and he tries to

control it,'' he said.

Newman is president of Magic Hat, but prefers his informal

title, ``conductor of cosmic symphonies.'' ``

That's really my title,'' he said.

Newman, who had a hand in the creation of Gardeners Supply

Co., Seventh Generation and Magic Hat, says he has no secret

to starting successful ventures.

``I really don't. It really started by accident,'' Newman

said in an interview in his office located in a modestly

appointed trailer, named Sweet Lillian, next to the South

Burlington brewery.

``I was sick and tired of getting fired,'' he said,

recalling his time in Vermont in the mid-1970s. ``I just

figured I better figure out how to support myself if I wanted

to stay in Vermont. I just kind of followed my nose.

``I irritate people. I'm really not a good employee. I'm

highly insubordinate,'' he said, explaining that starting a

business was a better option than working for someone else.

``It's been a constant theme in my life and career.'' Newman

insists he is in an unlikely executive.

``Honestly,'' he said, wearing bright-yellow glasses and a

tie-dye shirt. ``There is nothing in my background. I never

had any interest in business. I never had any interest in

starting businesses.

``I've never taken a business course in my life,'' he said,

downplaying the importance of an MBA. ``I'm not an education-

driven guy. I believe in experience.''

Newman, 62, was born in Brooklyn and grew up on Long

Island. He attended Long Island University with a major in

psychology and minors in sociology and English. ``I have

always been interested in culture. I grew up in the '60s.''

Newman said his strengths are creating culture, branding

and a vision for the companies.

``The business, to me, is secondary. I'm more interested in

painting pictures,'' he said. A crucial part of forming a

company's ``painting'' is culture and philosophy. ``It's

never been about making money.''

``It's about trying to create a picture, trying to create a

culture and trying to marry them. This is kind of what I do

know,'' he said.

For Magic Hat that philosophy is: ``to be a good neighbor

in our community,'' he said.

Magic Hat, he said, assists a series of nonprofits

including Vermont Cares, Committee on Temporary Shelter and

The Women's Rape Crisis Center. ``That's the part I get

addicted to,'' he said.

``I make things more complicated'' by connecting events

with charities, he said. The Women's Rape Crisis Center, for

example, gets about $20,000 from the annual Mardi Gras

parade, which Magic Hat created in the mid-1990s.

Not all of Newman's ventures have been a success.

But he said he learns lessons--the best lessons--from the

failures.

He and a friend created a yacht time-sharing company,

Highland International in Hanksville, in the late 1970s.

Highland International never generated any revenue. Newman

and his partner burned through $300,000 of seed money in

about 18 months. Reflecting on the business misfire, Newman

said he should have purchased one boat with the funds,

instead of trying to leverage it into millions. Lesson

learned: proceed slowly.

Another one of Newman's business mistakes was Magic Hat's

Ale of the Living Dead, a garlic beer.

One of the bottles sits on Newman's desk. The beer, he

said, was often returned as ``undrinkable.'' The lesson with

the garlic beer: ``Don't let me drive recipe creation.''

The acquisition of Pyramid gives Magic Hat the potential to

place its bottles of brew on shelves in many more states.

Magic Hat is sold in 18 states now, mostly on the East Coast.

Pyramid's beers are sold in 28 states.

Newman said they had no choice but to expand Magic Hat

because the company ``had already passed through the overhead

level where small could work.''

Newman said the idea for Magic Hat emerged in 1993 with co-

founder Bob Johnson. The next year the pair were making beer

on Flynn Avenue in Burlington. After three years, Magic Hat

moved to a larger operation in South Burlington. When Magic

Hat left Flynn Avenue, 6,000 barrels were being brewed a

year. This year, Magic Hat will brew about 130,000 barrels at

the South Burlington location, Newman said. A barrel is 31

gallons.

Not including brew pubs, there are 300 to 400

microbreweries in the U.S. fighting for a 5 percent share of

the beer market, Newman said.

``In order to be a survivor, we think you have to get

bigger. You can't stay small,'' he said.

Perhaps, recalling the lessons learned from his failed

yacht time-share company decades ago, when he learned to

``start small and grow,'' Newman said Magic Hat's expansion

``will be slow and methodical.''

Madam President, I would like to pay tribute today to the service of Senator Gordon Smith, who has served the people of Oregon and his country with honor. I have had the pleasure of serving with Senator Smith during his two terms here in the Senate, and during that time he, and his wife Sharon, have been become dear friends. Marcelle and I have often enjoyed traveling with Senator Smith and his wife Sharon, including a couple of trips to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum.

Senator Smith began his political career in 1992 when he was first elected to the Oregon State Senate. There he served as Minority Leader, and the President of the Senate during his first term in office. Since his election to the United States Senate, Senator Smith has always been willing to reach across the aisle to bring our colleagues together and his leadership has produced a list of impressive legislative accomplishments.

During his two terms here in the Senate, Senator Smith has committed himself to efforts on behalf of the people of Oregon, supporting both criminal justice reform and expansion of youth services. Following the tragic death of his son Garrett, Senator Smith worked tirelessly as an advocate for the early intervention and prevention of youth suicide, establishing a grant program for youth mental health programs through the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act which was signed into law by President Bush in 2004. I also appreciate the partnership that we forged in advancing the Innocence Protection Act, a package of modest procedural reforms relating to the death penalty, which I introduced in 2000, and much of which was enacted several years later.

Marcelle and I have valued his friendship and wish Gordon and Sharon all of the best.

John Warner

Madam President, for most of my time in the Senate it has been my privilege to serve alongside one of its most respected members, the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. As he prepares to retire from his Senate service, I would like to pay tribute to him as a leader, a legislator, and as one of my closest friends in this body.

John Warner is a living emblem of the finest the Senate has to offer. He is a skilled policymaker who actively contributes to the civility that helps the Senate function as the Founders intended.

Senator Warner has represented the Commonwealth of Virginia with vision, persistence and wisdom. He has helped lead the Senate through debates on some of the most nettlesome national security issues of our time. Always a gentleman, he has carried himself with the utmost integrity and honesty. He is a Senator of his word. We have worked together on many issues, and I am going to miss his counsel and his friendship.

John Warner came to the Senate in 1979, after early service in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corp's, which led to his successful tenure as the Secretary of the Navy. He quickly made his mark on one of Congress's most important committees for steering our national security apparatus, the Senate Armed Services Committee. He rose quickly in seniority and has served as the committee's chairman, ranking member, and chairman emeritus.

He formed a now legendary partnership with Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, and together they worked to fundamentally restructure the Nation's war-fighting organization in the mid-1980s. He has worked closely with the committee's current chair, Senator Levin, and with ranking member Senator John McCain, to support our troops through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have seen how the two key defense committees have come together to make that extensive and crucial department work better. John Warner has been an important part of this superb working arrangement, and it was fitting that the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill was named in his honor.

Senator Warner is an accomplished advocate for Virginia--the home to a wide variety of military installations, as well as to rural and urban communities of varied needs. He has tackled the difficult transportation challenges of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, making a real difference in the lives of millions. As a part time resident of Virginia I have always called him my Senator away from home.

Marcelle and I have enjoyed the friendship and company of John and his wife Jeanne, including on the Senate's delegation to the recent 60th Anniversary of D-Day. Foreign leaders know Senator Warner extremely well;

they see him, as we do here in the Senate, as a man of great stature and wisdom.

I thank John for his service and for his friendship, and Marcelle and I join all Members of the Senate in wishing John and Jeanne all the best in their future endeavors.

Chuck Hagel

Madam President, I rise to acknowledge the work and commitment of a colleague whom I have had the pleasure of serving with for the last 12 years here in the U.S. Senate. Senator Chuck Hagel joined the Senate in 1997 after an already successful career in business and public service, both in his home State of Nebraska and here in Washington, DC.

While in the Senate, Chuck has been a strong independent voice for all Nebraskans and citizens of this country. He is not afraid to share what is on his mind and he is certainly not afraid to reach across the aisle to work with all Senators. In one of his first acts of bipartisanship, Senator Hagel joined me as a cosponsor of the Landmine Elimination Act of 1997. I worked with Chuck, who was himself injured by landmines while in Vietnam, to ban new deployments of antipersonnel landmines.

Senator Hagel has demonstrated an incredible alacrity on defense and foreign policy issues. While it was not popular within his own party, he made the difficult decision to support a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This is just one example of many stances he has taken in Washington that demonstrates how Chuck Hagel was an independent voice that Nebraska is proud to call their own.

I am also pleased to know Chuck and Lilibet as wonderful travel partners. The last trip we took together, in May 2007, was to the Middle East to assess regional conflicts in Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and the West Bank. Trips like these provide the opportunity to get to know Senators and their spouses beyond the day-to-day encounters in Washington and I cherish the time we had to together.

I am pleased to call Chuck a friend and voice of reason in the U.S. Senate. I will miss him as both a friend and colleague. Marcelle and I and wish him and Lilibet well in whatever way he will next serve Nebraska and our Nation.

Pete Domenici

Madam President, I would like to pay tribute to the senior Senator from New Mexico, a dedicated public servant, a respected lawmaker and a man I am proud to call my colleague, Pete Domenici.

From his first days in the Senate in the 93rd Congress, to now 35 years later, Senator Domenici has earned a reputation as a powerful champion for New Mexico. While he and I have not agreed on some issues, I have never questioned his commitment to do what he believed was right for this country and the State of New Mexico. However, I might question which of our Italian grandmothers made a better meatball, but then again I wouldn't want a fight to break out here on the Senate floor.

Senator Domenici has too many accomplishments to list here today. Senator Domenici has had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Senate. However what stands out most to me is his unending drive to enact Mental Health Parity legislation which he worked on so closely with our late colleague Paul Wellstone. I believe it was a fitting tribute to enact this legislation in the closing days of the 110th Congress.

I know it can sound repetitive when people hear Senators make remarks such as these about our colleagues as they are leaving the Senate. But I think it is important for the public to know that despite all the squabbling that goes on in Washington, there is the deep respect, affection, and caring that goes on among the Members of this body. After an incredible 35 years of service New Mexico and the whole United States are grateful, and I consider myself fortunate to have served 33 years with Pete Domenici in the U.S. Senate. Marcelle and I wish Pete and Nancy the best.

Gordon Smith