Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Crime- Free Rural States Reauthorization Act, a bill designed to help rural communities deal with a growing drug and crime problems made worse by the devastating recession we now face.

This week the Senate is focused on passing a bill to authorize billions of dollars to bail out the automobile industry. Congress has already passed legislation providing for hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue the financial industry. These are difficult pieces of legislation, but we are trying to protect countless jobs and the economy as a whole. These efforts have done little, though, to help the millions of people in rural America, who have been hit as hard as anyone by the devastating effects of this recession, but will see few benefits from financial and corporate bailouts.

We must help rural communities, and they especially need our help as they try to pull together to combat the worsening drug and crime problems that threaten the safety and well-being of too many in our small cities and towns and, most particularly, our young people. The Crime-Free Rural States Reauthorization Act will provide just this kind of help.

I pushed for the original Crime-Free Rural States grant program. It was first authorized in 2002 and funded in 2003. Like too many valuable programs to help local law enforcement and crime prevention, it was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration. The program provides grants for rural states to come up with a plan to help communities confront drug and crime problems and to offer training and assistance for local prevention programs and law enforcement. This program can help cash-strapped communities with assistance they desperately need.

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

Drug-related crime is not just a big-city issue. As we heard in St. Albans last week and at a hearing in Rutland earlier this year, drugs and related crime are a growing problem in rural communities in Vermont and across the country. Fortunately, resourceful communities like St. Albans and Rutland are coming together to find innovative, community- based solutions to these complex problems.

Of course, law enforcement continues to be an important component in our efforts to combat the scourge of drugs. There continues to be an urgent need for the Federal Government to support

state and local law enforcement. What more and more cities and towns are finding is that the best solutions involve all segments of the community coming together with law enforcement to find meaningful, community-based approaches. Solving these problems as they arise is essential, but preventing them is even better, and less expensive.

Unfortunately, for the last eight 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. I intend to work with the new administration to reverse it. Eric Holder, whom President-Elect Obama has designated to be our next Attorney General, focused on the importance of state and local law enforcement when he was introduced to the nation last Monday. He was a local U.S. Attorney and understands the critical role of state and local law enforcement, our first responders. We need to restore the COPS and Byrne grant programs to help support local law enforcement, and I hope we will do a better job when it comes to rural communities and rural states. That is why I am introducing this bill today to bring back the Crime-Free Rural States grant program.

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 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 attention to 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. And 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 in the next Congress 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 modest beginning, addressing the urgent and unmet need to support our rural communities as they struggle to combat drugs and crime.

By funding planning, training, and technical assistance, Crime-Free Rural States grants provide an anchor for our rural communities as they work to address the devastating problems of crime and drugs. 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 rise today with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders, to introduce a bill that will help States struggling with meeting non-Federal match requirements for federal transportation funding under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, SAFETEA. Representative Peter Welch from Vermont introduced identical legislation in the House today as well.

Our States are struggling with enormous budget deficits due to the current economic crisis. As a result, nearly every one of our States has been forced to make drastic cuts to their transportation budgets. On top of that, state and local governments around the country report they do not have the necessary funding in their budgets to match any new Federal transportation money possibly forthcoming in an economic stimulus package. The inability of our states to improve roads and bridges, support public transit agencies facing record demand, and upgrade rail lines puts a strain on our already sagging economy.

Waiving the non-Federal match requirements for all highway, transit, and rail projects contained in SAFETEA would allow cash-strapped states to implement high priority transportation projects immediately--at no additional cost to the Federal Government. Since State and local transportation officials have ready-to-go projects that simply cannot move forward without untying the strings of the required match, our legislation would waive the non-Federal matching requirements of SAFETEA through September 30, 2009.

I hope my colleagues will take a good look at our bill and support this important legislation that will stimulate needed transportation infrastructure investments all across the country.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Crime- Free Rural States Reauthorization Act, a bill designed to help rural communities deal with a growing drug and crime problems made worse by the devastating recession we now face.

This week the Senate is focused on passing a bill to authorize billions of dollars to bail out the automobile industry. Congress has already passed legislation providing for hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue the financial industry. These are difficult pieces of legislation, but we are trying to protect countless jobs and the economy as a whole. These efforts have done little, though, to help the millions of people in rural America, who have been hit as hard as anyone by the devastating effects of this recession, but will see few benefits from financial and corporate bailouts.

We must help rural communities, and they especially need our help as they try to pull together to combat the worsening drug and crime problems that threaten the safety and well-being of too many in our small cities and towns and, most particularly, our young people. The Crime-Free Rural States Reauthorization Act will provide just this kind of help.

I pushed for the original Crime-Free Rural States grant program. It was first authorized in 2002 and funded in 2003. Like too many valuable programs to help local law enforcement and crime prevention, it was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration. The program provides grants for rural states to come up with a plan to help communities confront drug and crime problems and to offer training and assistance for local prevention programs and law enforcement. This program can help cash-strapped communities with assistance they desperately need.

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

Drug-related crime is not just a big-city issue. As we heard in St. Albans last week and at a hearing in Rutland earlier this year, drugs and related crime are a growing problem in rural communities in Vermont and across the country. Fortunately, resourceful communities like St. Albans and Rutland are coming together to find innovative, community- based solutions to these complex problems.

Of course, law enforcement continues to be an important component in our efforts to combat the scourge of drugs. There continues to be an urgent need for the Federal Government to support

state and local law enforcement. What more and more cities and towns are finding is that the best solutions involve all segments of the community coming together with law enforcement to find meaningful, community-based approaches. Solving these problems as they arise is essential, but preventing them is even better, and less expensive.

Unfortunately, for the last eight 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. I intend to work with the new administration to reverse it. Eric Holder, whom President-Elect Obama has designated to be our next Attorney General, focused on the importance of state and local law enforcement when he was introduced to the nation last Monday. He was a local U.S. Attorney and understands the critical role of state and local law enforcement, our first responders. We need to restore the COPS and Byrne grant programs to help support local law enforcement, and I hope we will do a better job when it comes to rural communities and rural states. That is why I am introducing this bill today to bring back the Crime-Free Rural States grant program.

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 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 attention to 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. And 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 in the next Congress 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 modest beginning, addressing the urgent and unmet need to support our rural communities as they struggle to combat drugs and crime.

By funding planning, training, and technical assistance, Crime-Free Rural States grants provide an anchor for our rural communities as they work to address the devastating problems of crime and drugs. 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 rise today with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders, to introduce a bill that will help States struggling with meeting non-Federal match requirements for federal transportation funding under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, SAFETEA. Representative Peter Welch from Vermont introduced identical legislation in the House today as well.

Our States are struggling with enormous budget deficits due to the current economic crisis. As a result, nearly every one of our States has been forced to make drastic cuts to their transportation budgets. On top of that, state and local governments around the country report they do not have the necessary funding in their budgets to match any new Federal transportation money possibly forthcoming in an economic stimulus package. The inability of our states to improve roads and bridges, support public transit agencies facing record demand, and upgrade rail lines puts a strain on our already sagging economy.

Waiving the non-Federal match requirements for all highway, transit, and rail projects contained in SAFETEA would allow cash-strapped states to implement high priority transportation projects immediately--at no additional cost to the Federal Government. Since State and local transportation officials have ready-to-go projects that simply cannot move forward without untying the strings of the required match, our legislation would waive the non-Federal matching requirements of SAFETEA through September 30, 2009.

I hope my colleagues will take a good look at our bill and support this important legislation that will stimulate needed transportation infrastructure investments all across the country.

Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Kennedy and others to submit S. Res. 728, which designates January 2009 as National Mentoring Month. Mentoring a child is a uniquely rewarding experience for both the mentor and the child. Research continues to support that building these positive relationships helps keep children off of drugs, in school and off the streets, and out of trouble.

This month, I brought the Senate Judiciary Committee to St. Albans, VT, for a field hearing about ``Community-Based Solutions to Drug- Related Crime in Rural America.'' Community leaders and law enforcement officials testified about their efforts to address crime. They are on the front lines fighting crime each and every day. I have always said that solving these problems as they arise is essential, but preventing them is even better. One solution that Vermont's businesses, schools, college students, and retired people have continued to recognize is that mentoring connects our community to our children.

Vermont's mentoring programs stretch the length of our great State, from the Northeast Kingdom to Bennington. Whether it is the Boys and Girls Clubs offering healthy alternatives for young people, or organizations such as DREAM, which connects college students and children living in subsidized housing developments, or any of the several mentoring programs in the State, these organizations and the dedicated people who operate and participate in them deserve our special thanks. I applaud all the work mentoring programs are doing to help our Nation's children become productive, law-abiding teenagers and contributing adults. Recognizing those efforts during National Mentoring Month is just one way we give our thanks.

Madam President, I am glad the Senate today passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a bill that will strengthen our efforts to stop the abhorrent practice of human trafficking in the United States and around the world. I congratulate Senators Biden and Brownback, Congressman Berman, and the many others who worked hard on this important legislation. I commend Senate and House leaders on this bill for putting aside significant differences to reach consensus on this important issue. I was pleased to support this bill as it moved through the Judiciary Committee this summer, and I am heartened that it will soon become law.

This bill enhances protections to the victims of these terrible crimes and provides new laws against the immoral practice of recruiting children to be soldiers. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are forced, defrauded or coerced into sexual or labor exploitation. These practices continue to victimize hundreds of thousands around the world, mostly women and children, and we must continue to make the laws banning human trafficking more effective and meaningful.

The coerced and often violent subjugation and exploitation of women, girls, and children continues to plague many regions of the world. As news reports continue to reveal, women and girls from many nations are sold as slaves and forced to engage in the sex industry. Children are recruited, and sometimes even drugged, to become soldiers in war-torn regions of the world, and poor destitute immigrant workers are often duped or coerced to work in intolerable conditions that amount to forced labor. Even in the United States, we are not immune to the scourge of human trafficking, as evidenced by recent reports of Haitian children being brought to the United States as servants, who are then beaten and abused into servitude. Progress has been made to address these horrific problems, but we must continue to do more. This bill does.

I want to thank Senator Biden for introducing this bill in the Senate. I commend him for working with all the Federal agencies and constituent interests to address new issues that continue to come up in the fight against human trafficking. This bill will provide more protection to victims, particularly child victims of human trafficking, and will give prosecutors new tools to gain cooperation from witnesses and informants who can provide vital testimony in human trafficking prosecutions. This bill also contains tools to combat the equally abhorrent practice of recruiting or using child soldiers. I particularly appreciate Senator Biden's work to remove language that would have resulted in unintended mandatory minimum penalties in the bill.

We must rededicate our efforts to the prevention of human trafficking, the protection of its victims, and prosecution of those who would commit these heinous offenses. Nowhere on earth should it be acceptable to deceive, abuse, and force a person into a life of enslavement. To deny a person their right to freedom is an affront to the ideals of this Nation. Passage of this legislation is a first step toward correcting this terrible problem.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to congratulate and thank Major Benjamin Venning of the U.S. Marine Corps. This week, Major Venning finishes up a highly successful assignment as Deputy Director of the Marine Corps Liaison Office to the U.S. Senate, which is responsible for providing information about the Corps to this institution. He has served the Senate and the Marine Corps superbly, and he is a credit to the entire Corps.

Major Venning learned about the Senate during a fellowship in 2006 with Senator Durbin of Illinois. He worked on timely reserve pay and budget issues, getting to know the ins-and-outs of the often arcane appropriations process. Senator Durbin, as I am, is a member of the Senate's Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which handles the Senate's work in writing the annual budget bill for the Department of Defense. That was an ideal perch for Major Venning to grasp the complicated but essential financing of our extensive national security operations.

In his next assignment, joining the Corps' liaison office, he brought the same sense of intelligence and integrity that he showed in that year with the senior Senator from Illinois. Major Venning was always prompt in answering questions about the Marine Corps, whether about plans for growth of the force or the minutia of a particular program. He and the entire team in the liaison office provided excellent support for Senate delegations traveling to foreign nations to meet with international leaders and to review foreign assistance programs. He ensured that extensive itineraries unfolded smoothly and productively.

Major Venning is a marine through and through, displaying great dedication to and knowledge about the force. Staffing a recent mission overseas, for example, hewing to longstanding tradition, he made sure that the Corps'

birthday was observed in a rousing rendition of ``Happy Birthday.''

It should be little surprise to anyone who has known Major Venning over the years--in his years growing up in South Carolina and Virginia or at college at the Virginia Military Institute--that he would become such an asset to the Corps. I have no doubt that he will bring the same sterling qualities in his next assignment with Company A, 4th Amphibious Assault Vehicle Battalion at Norfolk, VA.

Major Venning will go far in his future endeavors with the Corps and beyond. I know that all Senators join in wishing him all the best and in expressing our heartfelt thanks for a job well done.

Mr. President, I want to speak about some of the things we have seen recently in the press about the President-elect nominating Eric H. Holder, Jr. to be Attorney General.

Eric Holder would make an outstanding and historic nominee if President-elect Obama were to choose to nominate him. Mr. Holder would be the first African American to be nominated and confirmed to serve as Attorney General, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country. But far more important than that, he would be as qualified a person as could be found in either party in this country.

Over the last 8 years, political manipulation and influence from partisan political operatives in the White House have undercut the Department of Justice and its mission, severely undermined the morale of its career professionals, and shaken public confidence in our Federal justice system. We need the new Attorney General to be a person not only of integrity and experience, but also somebody who can inspire the thousands of hard-working 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 in the mode of Robert H. Jackson, and Eric Holder fits that mold.

Investigations by the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House and by the Department of Justice's own inspector general have substantiated some of our worst fears. As you go around the courts in this country, we now see a corrosive situation in which defendants routinely question whether Federal prosecutions are politically motivated; not whether the law was broken but whether political considerations determined whether the prosecution would be brought. Great damage has been done to the credibility and effectiveness of the Justice Department.

I have known Eric Holder for years. If he is President-elect Obama's selection to be the next Attorney General, he will bring the kind of leadership, temperament, experience, and judgment we need to restore the rule of law and rebuild the reputation of the Department of Justice so it is worthy of its name.

In October, before the results of the current election were known, I wrote with Senator Specter about the kind of person who should be appointed the next Attorney General of the United States. Eric H. Holder, Jr., surely fits the bill. The next Attorney General has to understand our moral and legal obligations to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans. The Attorney General must ensure that the Department of Justice is working to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, not working to circumvent them in order to promote the President's political agenda.

We need an Attorney General who realizes that no one is above the law. The Attorney General is not above the law and no Member of this body, but especially the President of the United States, is above the law.

I know Mr. Holder appreciates and respects the work and commitment of the thousands of men and women who work at the Justice Department in their dedication to enforcing the law and promoting justice. They know him from his days at the Public Integrity Section, from his time as a U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, from his years as the Deputy Attorney General, the second highest ranking official in the Department. I think this choice would be welcomed by career professionals and prosecutors at the Department of Justice. He can do a great deal to restore morale as well as the rule of law.

His career has been one of ``firsts''. It would be fitting for him to become the first African American nominated and confirmed to serve as the Attorney General of the United States.

Shortly after his graduation from Colombia Law School, he joined the Department of Justice as part of the Attorney General's honors program. He was assigned to the newly formed Public Integrity Section in 1976. He worked there for 12 years investigating and prosecuting corruption. While at the Public Integrity Section, Mr. Holder 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, and assistant U.S. attorney in New York City, an FBI agent, and a capo in an organized crime family.

After a dozen years as a prosecutor, one of the best there was, President Ronald Reagan nominated him to be an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. When Ronald Reagan nominated him to be a judge, he was easily confirmed, and he served in that position for 5 years. He left the bench--becoming, incidentally again, the first African American U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. That is the largest U.S. Attorney's Office in the country. While in that post, he oversaw prosecution of a powerful Democratic Congressman.

Four years later he was nominated to the important post of Deputy Attorney General. I worked with the then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch to report his nomination favorably to the Senate. I was disturbed that an anonymous Republican hold delayed consideration of his nomination for 3 weeks. But when that hold was lifted and we had a vote--open, in the daylight--all 100 Senators voted to confirm Eric Holder 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 and later served briefly as the Acting Attorney General.

But, notwithstanding my friendship with Mr. Holder, notwithstanding my friendship with the President-elect, should he be nominated, Mr. Holder should be voted for or against on his merits. His race will be a historic footnote, but that is not what should make the difference.

Whoever is nominated to the position of the chief law enforcement officer of this country should be considered on his or her merits. And what wonderful merits he has. He has prosecuted high-level public officials and organized crime; developed comprehensive programs to combat domestic violence, child abuse, violent crime; revitalized programs to assist crime victims. He has helped guide the Department's efforts in the criminal prosecution of corporations, health care fraud, computer crimes, software piracy, helped develop a community prosecution model. He has served in nearly every level of the Department of Justice he would lead. That is what makes him qualified.

We need an Attorney General, as Robert H. Jackson said 68 years ago about the Federal prosecutor, ``who serves the law, not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.'' That is the kind of prosecutor Eric Holder always was, and that is the kind of Attorney General he would be.

This is very personal to me. I consider the 8 years I spent as a prosecutor in Vermont after returning from law school one of the best opportunities I ever had to serve the public.

I came close to serving in that area in the Federal Government. The then-Attorney General had invited me in to talk and to encourage me to come to the Department of Justice. He had reviewed my grades, he had reviewed where I was in the Georgetown Law Center, and he talked to me about coming in to the Department. I said to

him, ``Mr. Attorney General, tell me again how the Department of Justice works. Are you free of political influence from the White House?'' I remember him saying, and I can see his eyes today as he looked me straight in the eye and said, ``I have told the President that neither he nor anyone from the White House can interfere with prosecutions. We will make those determinations here in the Department of Justice based on the facts and the law.'' I remember even at that time I thought if I was ever a prosecutor, that is the kind of prosecutor I would want to be. And this Attorney General whom I talked with did exactly that. When a person who was key to the election of the President of the United States had committed a crime, this Attorney General prosecuted that person. This was particularly significant because that Attorney General was Robert F. Kennedy. The President of the United States was his brother, John F. Kennedy. But he said: We will protect the integrity of the Department of Justice.

I want to see that again. I had that in my mind when I was a prosecutor. I believe strongly that we need to enforce the law with neither fear nor favor when. There is no question in my mind that Eric Holder would do that.

I think of the thousands of men and women who work for the Department of Justice, some of the finest people you will ever see anywhere, many I have known for decades. For most of them, I have no idea what their political allegiances are, whether they are Republicans or Democrats or Independents. But I know one thing about every single one of them: they are the best of the best. They deserve, as an Attorney General, the best of the best.

I commend President-elect Obama for considering Eric Holder for this position. He is a public servant who has broad support within the law enforcement community and on both sides of the aisle. I was pleased to see that the initial reactions of Senator Hatch, Senator Sessions, and Senator Coburn--all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee--and many others, were to acknowledge his public service, his integrity, and good qualities. Mr. Holder should have the support of Senators from both sides of the aisle if the President-elect chooses to nominate him. I can assure you if he is nominated that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold prompt and fair nomination hearings.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Presdient, last week, I joined Senator Cardin and Senators Specter, and others in sending a letter to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, in an effort to preserve the viability of the Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account program, IOLTA. We have asked the FDIC to ensure that the Transaction Account Guarantee Program, TGLP, through which the FDIC guarantees funds in bank accounts, will also cover lawyer trust accounts. The IOLTA program, which distributes interest on client funds held in lawyer trust accounts to legal aid programs, has been an enormous success in securing legal representation for lower-income Americans. All 50 States have IOLTA programs, and many States mandate participation by practicing attorneys. This program provides funding to important legal aid programs and helps ensure that no person goes without legal representation because of a lack of resources.

Our concern stems from the fact that the TGLP Interim Rule concerning account insurance issued on October 23 would not extend unlimited FDIC insurance to interest bearing lawyer trust accounts, ultimately hurting the public benefit generated by these accounts. According to the FDIC's proposed rules for the TGLP, noninterest-bearing accounts would be insured to protect an unlimited amount of funds. But the insurance for interest-bearing accounts would be limited to $250,000. The lack of an exception for lawyer trust accounts threatens the IOLTA program because it poses a potential conflict for attorneys. Many lawyer trust accounts contain pooled client funds, often in excess of $250,000. As a result of the FDIC's proposed rules, there is legitimate concern that attorneys would move client funds in excess of $250,000 to noninterest- bearing accounts in order to gain the insurance protection, and in an effort to manage client funds as responsibly as possible. This potential ethical dilemma could be prevented by a modification of the proposed rules.

Senator Cardin, Senator Specter, and I have suggested to the FDIC that it modify its proposed rules to make an exception for lawyer trust accounts and provide unlimited insurance on interest bearing accounts containing client funds. This would be an important step towards preserving the success of the IOLTA program, and would remove any potential ethical dilemma for attorneys. Such a modification would ensure that the interest generated by IOLTA accounts continues to be distributed through local nonprofit organizations in each State to fund invaluable legal aid services for low-income families.

I am hopeful that the FDIC will recognize the national importance and success of this program, and will create the exception we have proposed. I would like to particularly thank the Vermont Bar Association for its advocacy in this regard, as well as the American Bar Association for its attention to this issue. Legal representation for everyone is an imperative for a fair and effective judicial system. The IOLTA program has been successful in helping to ensure legal representation for more Americans, and where these goals can be accomplished without the use of tax dollars, such a program should be preserved.

Mr. President, I regret to have to inform the Senate of the passing of a truly great American: John W. Ripley, a retired Marine Corps colonel and hero of the Vietnam war.

Colonel Ripley will be best known for his achievements and self- sacrifice during the Vietnam war--particularly on April 2, 1972, when he singlehandedly blew up the Dong Ha bridge. That bridge over the Cua Viet River was a major thoroughfare for an invasion force from North Vietnam. Colonel Ripley, serving with a marine unit from South Vietnam, moved around the bridge like it was a trapeze and hung charges that would blow it up and prevent the enemy's advance.

That story is the subject of innumerable books and articles. It is an absolutely incredible feat, showing us how an act of individual bravery can have a large strategic impact that affects an entire force. Indeed, the removal of that bridge created a bottleneck that allowed allied forces to apply overwhelming air power and blunt that invasion.

After Vietnam, Colonel Ripley had a distinguished career that included going through some of the most challenging training programs among the world's militaries, including U.S. Army Ranger School. In his willingness to undergo the ardors of combat and training, he emerged a marine's marine, a steely and strong individual always ready to put his country and his fellow marines before himself.

John Ripley is a symbol for the vibrancy of the Marine Corps, one of the most storied military forces in the globe's history, and a testament to how--amid the enormity and vast confusion of war--a single person can make a difference.

I will miss seeing him at various events, including those of the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. We will continue to honor his service through support of the Marine Corps and of all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

I ask unanimous consent that an obituary on Colonel Ripley, which appeared in the November 4 edition of the New York Times, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have long been a champion of the intellectual property rights enshrined in the Constitution, and have sponsored much of the significant legislation in that realm over the decades I have served in the Senate. On October 24, 2008, Judge Richard Linn of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court entrusted exclusively with Federal appeals involving patent issues, gave the keynote address before the American Intellectual Property Law Association's annual meeting. In that address, Judge Linn discusses the challenges facing the intellectual property system in the coming years, offers advice on moving forward as a nation to meet those challenges, and provides food for thought for anyone interested in this important part of our national economy.

I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Judge Richard Linn from October 24, 2008, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I would like to share with my friends in the Senate a great story of personal triumph and success as told by Vermont Supreme Court Associate Justice Marilyn Skoglund, the keynote speaker for Vermont's 12th Annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference.

Marilyn forged her own remarkable path to success. She received her bachelor's degree in fine arts from Southern Illinois University, and after moving to Vermont, passed the bar exam on her first try all while raising her 7-year-old daughter. Marilyn continued to rise through the ranks of the Vermont Office of the Attorney General where she served as both chief of the civil law division and chief of the public protection division before her appointment in 1994 to the district court, and subsequently the Vermont Supreme Court in 1997. In addition to her accomplishments, Marcelle and I admired Marilyn's candidness as she walked us through her journey. She offered more than 300 Vermont women a very honest and inspirational perspective on the realities of balancing both a career and a family.

Marcelle and I have hosted the Vermont Women's Economic Opportunity Conference for 12 years, and we look forward to attending each year because we consider it one of the most important events in which we take part. Though our economy may be facing difficult challenges, this year's conference, and Marilyn's story, showed that adversity can be overcome and met with great success--especially by motivated and talented women of all ages.

Vermont's economic future depends on the countless talented women who drive it. According to the Vermont Center for Women's Business Studies, women-owned firms generate an impressive $1.5 billion annually and currently employ more than 35,000 Vermonters. In 2006, approximately 39 percent of all Vermont businesses were owned, or partially owned, by women. Even though the number of Vermont women-owned businesses is on the rise, we must continue working to encourage greater growth.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Justice Skoglund's speech, written for Vermont's 12th annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference, detailing her journey to success, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight an emerging rural economic model that some say serves as the perfect example of how rural America can survive and thrive in today's global markets.

My good friend Marian Burros recently wrote an article in the New York Times highlighting the sustainable agricultural economy of Hardwick, VT, and Hardwick's surrounding communities. These Northeast Kingdom communities have begun attracting the attention of local, regional and national media after the area began attracting some unique characters with great ideas. From a community-owned restaurant to renowned cheese makers, Hardwick and its surrounding towns are at the center of an experiment in social agricultural entrepreneurship.

I ask unanuimous consent that the text of Marian Burros October 8, 2008, New York Times article entitled ``Uniting Around Food to Save an Ailing Town'' be printed in the Record to allow my colleagues an opportunity to hear about the future of Vermont.

Mr. President, I yield to no one in my support of the freedoms set out in the first amendment to the Constitution, and I have devoted considerable time and energy to their protection and preservation. On October 21, 2008, I enjoyed a very special evening honoring Peter Chernin, the CEO of Fox News, and a man who shares my belief in the need to vigorously defend the first amendment. That night, I congratulated Peter on receiving the Media Institute's First Amendment Award, an award that he richly deserved for his stand against rigid and unyielding application of so-called indecency rules at the Federal Communications Commission. I believe that his words in defense of the first amendment should be heard and heeded by all Americans, not just by those who were fortunate enough to attend that event.

I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Peter Chernin from October 21, 2008, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, at the very beginning of the 110th Congress, I joined with Senators Reid, Specter, Feinstein, and Cornyn to pass legislation to authorize a cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for the salaries of U.S. Justices and judges for fiscal year 2007. Now as we wrap up this session, we are again compelled to take remedial action, because a COLA for our Federal judiciary was not included in the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2009.

Earlier today, we attempted to pass a bipartisan bill to repeal the section of the U.S. Code that is a barrier to Federal judges receiving an automatic cost-of-living adjustment. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts notes that when adjusted for inflation the pay rate for Federal judges has declined by 25 percent since 1969. In 1975, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, intended to give judges, Members of Congress, and other high-ranking executive branch officials automatic COLAs as accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. However, in 1981, Congress enacted section 140 of Public Law 97-92, mandating specific congressional action to give COLAs to judges. This action has resulted in judges failing to receive a cost-of-living adjustment when other Federal employees have received one. Unfortunately, there was an objection on the other side of the aisle that prevented passage of the measure to repeal this antiquated section and to ensure that the wages of our Federal judges can keep up with inflation.

The bipartisan legislation we are now trying to move provides a COLA for Federal judges consistent with the law and with fairness. I hope that this measure, providing judges with a COLA for fiscal year 2009, can pass by both sides of the aisle by unanimous consent. I had sincerely hoped that we could have passed a more comprehensive judicial pay bill this Congress given all the work we dedicated to the issue in the Judiciary Committees of both the Senate and the House of Representatives but at a minimum we should not allow judicial salaries to slip even further behind.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to call attention to the recent action of the Government of Indonesia to preserve the endangered rain forests an ecosystems of Sumatra.

On October 10, 2008, the Indonesian Government, in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund, WWF, announced an agreement between the 10 provincial governors of Sumatra to protect biodiversity on the world's sixth largest island. Although long overdue, this is an important first step towards conservation of a unique habitat at a critical time.

Sumatra is the only place on Earth where tigers, elephants, rhinos, and orangutans co-exist. It has also gained a reputation for having lost almost half of its natural forest cover since 1985. The rapid expansion of palm oil and pulpwood plantations, as well as rampant illegal logging, have been largely to blame. These activities have contributed to the precipitous decline in numbers of these endangered species, whose habitat has become a patchwork of disconnected small parcels of forest.

This action to protect the forests is important not only for Indonesia but for the rest of the world. Thirteen percent of Indonesia's remaining forests grow on peat soil, which emits large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when trees are felled. Further destruction of these forests will contribute to global warming at a time when we should be doing everything possible to reduce greenhouse gases.

This agreement represents a significant change of attitude and policy, for which President Yudhoyono and his government deserve credit. Implementing the agreement will be difficult, requiring additional resources for alternative economic opportunities for people living in these areas, and for enforcement, and I urge the U.S. Agency for International Development and other donors to support it.