Floor Statements

Mr. President, the repeal of the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell law will mean a stronger and more secure America. Discrimination has no place in American society, especially when it undermines our national security by hampering military readiness. While the repeal of this law is long overdue, ending this harmful policy does mark an important moment in the fight for equal rights for all Americans. I applaud all those who worked to overturn this policy, the many Americans who advocated for its repeal, and the patriotic men and women who will now be able to openly serve their country.

Mr. President, as I leave the Senate I want to take a moment to express my profound thanks to those who have served on my Federal staff over the last 18 years. I feel so fortunate to have had the honor of serving in this body, and the honor of working with these dedicated staff members. I am deeply proud of the work my staff has done, and the outstanding commitment they have shown to serving the people of Wisconsin. I ask that their names be printed in the Record.

George R. Aldrich, Ed An, Anneka Anderson, Carol Anthony,

Rebecca F. Austin, Jessica G. Bacalzo, Dean T. Baldukas, Mike

Bare, Cyndi Bartel, Stephanie Batko, Amanda Beaumont, Jihan

Bekiri, Brittany Benowitz, LaMarr Q. Billups, Laura A.

Bishop, Yolanda T. Black, Dave Bolles, Patrick Bomhack, Lois

M. Boos, Jon Bortin.

Mary Bottari, Laura Bowman, Mark Bromley, Catrell Brown,

Jeanne Bruce, Deanna M. Busalacchi, Shawn Campbell, Kevin C.

Canan, Sarah Carlson-Wallrath, Aisha Carr, Dawnita S.

Chandler, Brian Chelcun, Celine Clark, Nick Cornelisse, Katie

Crawley, Kenneth M. Creighton, Jordan Cutler, Bill Dauster,

Serena Davila, Hilary DeBlois.

Robert B. Decheine, Danielle Decker, Margaret Della,

Jennifer K. Dettmering, Greg L. Deuchars, Hope DeVougas,

Cynthia L. Devroy, Steven Driscoll, Jennifer Eberhardt,

Suzanne Endres, Erin Erlenborn, Meredith Fahey, John A.

Fairbanks, Matthew Farrauto, Neil W. Fehrenbach, William M.

Feitlinger, Lara Flint, Thomas E. Ford, Grey Frandsen, Jeri

Gabrielson.

Mirna Galic, Adrian G. Garcia, Jeanette Garza, Michelle

Gavin, Ari Geller, Paul Geller, Max Gleischman, Kathleen

Gohlke, Evan Gottesman, Tim Raducha Grace, Karen Graff,

Ryshawnda E. Grant, Laura Grund, Ian A. Gustafson, Carl

Hampton, Sean K. Hanley, James L. Hansen, Katie Hanson, Moira

F. Harrington, Charlotte Harris-Benn.

Jenny G. Hassemer, Kenneth C. Haugh, Ben Hawkinson, Robb

Hecht, Trisha Helchinger, Alyson Herdeman, Elizabeth Hill,

Russell A. Hinz, Rea Holmes, Heidi A. Holzhauer, Euphia Hsu-

Smith, John B. Hwang, Michael Inners, Mary Irvine, Michael

Jacob, Brad Jaffe, Gail C. Junemann, Christopher Kattenburg,

David Kaufman, Jeannine M. Kenney.

Maya Khan, Farhana Khera, Timothy P. Killian, Lance Kinne,

Leesa Klepper, Katie Klimowicz, Casey Klofstat, Matthew

Knopf, Ted Koehler, Joe Komisar, Rebecca Kratz, John Kraus,

Chris M. Kujack, Andrew H. Kutler, Ruth E. LaRocque, Laura M.

Langer, Peter S.Y. Lau, Savannah Lengsfelder, Robyn

Lieberman.

Cindy Liebman, Shannon Lightner, Christine Lindstrom, Todd

S. Lipke, Sebastian Lombardi, Rebeca Lopez, Zach Lowe,

Jessica Maher, Amy E. Maloney, Sarah Margon, Rheanna

Martinez, Susanne M. Martinez, Jackie Martins, Sharmila

Matugama, Greg C. May, Patti Jo McCann, Tom N. McCormick, Joy

McGlaun, Anne T. McMahon, Molly McNab, Erin Meade.

John M. Medinger, Jeff Miller, Karen R. Miller, Tom M.

Miller, Trevor Miller, Nicci M. Millington, Nancy Mitchell,

LaKindra Mohr, Bryan N. Mowry, Catherine S. Murphy, Michelle

Murray, Jeffrey P. Neterval, John Neureuther, Matt Nikolay,

Mustafa Nusraty, Tanya Oakes, Elizabeth M. O'Callahan, Chris

Oechsli, Odalo J. Ohiku, Brian O'Leary.

Michael P. O'Leary, Erik Opsal, Erika Pagel, Suzanne Brault

Pagel, Mary Palmer, Peter P. Pedraza, Janet L. Piraino, Emily

Plagman, Sarah Preis, Elizabeth Prestley, Shelly M. Principe,

Emily Pritzkow, Lawanda A. Proctor, Peter Quaranto, Deborah

G. Ragland, Caren Ramsey, Kristin L. Rech, Kelly Miller Reed,

Jodi L. Reinke, Mary Frances Repko.

Theresa Reuss, Thomas Reynolds, Mary Ann Richmond, Jay

Robaidek, Francisco Rodriguez, Susan Rohol, Linda S.

Rotblatt, Nick Rotchadl, Maurice A. Rouse, Katie Rowley,

Rebecca Rubel, James M. Rudolf, Jacqueline Sadker, David J.

Sandretti, Bob Schiff, Mike Schmidt, Darin C. Schroeder,

Nicole Schultz, Bob Schweder, Will Sebern.

Jennifer Francis Seeger, Nhora L. Serrano, Geoffrey M.

Seymour, Michael J. Shmagin, Melissa F. Shusterman, Ravae

Sinclair, Sumner Slichter, Asher Smith, Todd G. Smith,

Cecilia Smith-Robertson, Victoria C. Solomon, Greg St.

Arnold, Stacia Stanek, Julie E. Stansfield, Danice K.

Stanton, Scott Stearns, Matt Steiner, Sara Steines, Jennifer

H. Sterling, Chuck Stertz.

Meritene Steward, Kimberly Stietz, Kristin L. Stommel,

Karen R. Surrett, James S. Swiderski, Anthony J. Taylor,

Laura E. Teelin, Jenny Thalheimer, Sara D. Thom, Kitty

Thomas, Stacey R. Thompson, Jeremy Tollefson, Rene Torrado,

Manuel Vasquez, Ken D. Velasco, James Verbick, Caroline

Wadhams, Ala'a Wafa, Peter Waldman.

Tom Walls, Adam Waskowski, Paul Weinberger, Stephanie A.

Weix, Travis West, Heather White, Kirsten White, Margaret

Whiting, Joel Wiginton, Michael Wilder, Jennifer J. Williams,

Nathan Winn, Mike B. Wittenwyler, Cynthia Woolfolk, Bashaun

D. Wray, Tom Wyler, Lisbeth Zeggane, Natale Zimmer, Graham

Zorn.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I pay tribute to the memory of my friend Richard Holbrooke, who passed away earlier this week. Richard was a masterful diplomat who brought his extraordinary skills to bear on some of the thorniest issues in U.S. foreign policy. Every step of the way, from his tremendous accomplishments at the Dayton Accords to his work as U.S. Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, he showed his deep commitment to our country, and to serving the greater good the world over.

I came to know Richard when we travelled to Africa together in 1999, when he was serving as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He had never been to Africa before, and yet on the trip he was able to thoroughly grasp the complex issues facing the continent immediately. His brilliance was apparent, and it enabled him to identify emerging issues quickly and push for critical action. On that trip our purpose was to focus on the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but we also saw the incredible devastation of the HIV/AIDS crisis firsthand. Richard called then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and told him that the Security Council needed to address AIDS directly. When the Secretary-General responded that the Security Council only addressed security issues, Richard replied that this was, indeed, a security issue. He was right, and the Security Council's subsequent discussion was a turning point as the world community began to understand the depth and severity of the crisis on the African continent.

In the years since, Richard always made time to discuss foreign policy issues with me, and he always truly listened and wanted to understand my point of view, even when we disagreed. This was especially true of his work on Afghanistan and Pakistan. We didn't always see eye to eye about U.S. policy in the region, but he always reached out to me and solicited my views, and I was so appreciative of that. Those efforts on his part said volumes about him and his thoughtful approach to the complex issues he worked on with such commitment and such skill.

We had breakfast the morning after one of his last trips. I could see the toll his work was taking on him, but he was terrific to be with as usual. He was completely engaging and interested in my perspective, yet still managed to work the whole room, multitasking as always.

Richard Holbrooke was an extraordinary man of many talents who spent his life building a better, more just

world for us all. His many accomplishments will live on as a testament to his profound commitment to our nation and to a life of public service. But for me, I will simply miss him as a friend.

Mr. President, while this proposal contains a number of provisions I support, including an extension of desperately needed unemployment benefits as well as a 2-year extension of the middle-class tax cuts, it fails in at least one critical respect. Rather than include a combination of responsible spending cuts and revenue increases to offset its projected cost of nearly $900 billion, the proposal instead just adds its cost to our already massive national debt. This measure adds more to our national debt than either the stimulus bill, which I supported, or the Wall Street bailout, which I opposed. There may be good arguments to postpone fully paying for these tax cuts or, alternatively, for offsetting their cost over a number of years to avoid undermining the fragile economic recovery. But, like the Baucus and Schumer proposals I opposed earlier this month, the measure before us fails to make even the most modest effort to pay for these tax cuts. Instead, it heaps $900 billion onto an already mountainous level of debt that we are asking our children and grandchildren to bear. And much of this money will go toward unjustified tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Mr. President, I strongly support the DISCLOSE Act and I believe the Senate should be allowed to consider it. I am pleased to see this bill get such strong support from my colleagues on the Democratic side, and I urge my Republican colleagues to think long and hard before again blocking it even from coming to the floor. I have a long history of bipartisan work on campaign finance issues. I am not interested in campaign finance legislation that has a partisan effect. This bill is fair and evenhanded. It deserves the support of Senators from both parties.

As the name suggests, the central goal of this bill is disclosure. It aims to make sure that when faced with a barrage of election-related advertising funded by corporations, which the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case has made possible, the American people have the information they need to understand who is really behind those ads. That information is essential to being able to thoughtfully exercise the most important right in a democracy--the right to vote.

It is no secret that the Senator Schumer and I, and all of the original cosponsors of the bill, were deeply disappointed by the Citizens United decision. We don't agree with the Court's theory that the first amendment rights of corporations, which can't vote or hold elected office, are equivalent to those of citizens. And we believe that the decision will harm our democracy. I, for one, very much hope that the Supreme Court will one day realize the mistake it made and overturn it.

But the Supreme Court made the decision and we in the Senate, along with the country, have to live with it. The intent of the DISCLOSE Act is not to try to overturn that decision or challenge it. It is to address the consequences of the decision within the confines of the Court's holdings. Congress has a responsibility to survey the wreckage left or threatened by the Supreme Court's ruling and do whatever it can constitutionally to repair that damage or try to prevent it.

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations could not constitutionally be prohibited from engaging in campaign related speech. But, with only one dissenting Justice, the Court also specifically upheld applying disclosure requirements to corporations. The Court stated:

"[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide

shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold

corporations and elected officials accountable for their

positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether

their corporation's political speech advances the

corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can

see whether elected officials are ``in the pocket'' of so-

called moneyed interests.

The Court also explained that disclosure is very much consistent with free speech:

The First Amendment protects political speech; and

disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the

speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This

transparency enables the electorate to make informed

decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and

messages.

The Court also made clear that corporate advertisers can be required to include disclaimers to identify themselves in their ads. It specifically reaffirmed the part of the McConnell v. FEC decision that held that such requirements are constitutional.

The DISCLOSE Act simply builds on disclosure and disclaimer requirements that are already in the law and that the Court has said do not violate the first amendment. For years, opponents of campaign finance reform have argued that all that is needed is disclosure. Well, in a very short time we will find out whether they were serious, because that is what this bill is all about.

If the Senate is allowed to proceed to the bill, there will be time to discuss its provisions in more detail, and perhaps to amend them. One amendment that obviously will need to be made is to the effective date. Any bill that passes at this point is not going to apply to the upcoming election, and we should amend the bill to make it applicable only to elections beginning in 2012. But I do want to comment on one provision that has caused controversy, which was added in the House-- the exception for large, longstanding groups, including the National Rifle Association.

I am not a fan of exceptions to legislation of this kind. I would prefer a bill, like the one we introduced, that does not contain this exception. But the fact is that the kinds of groups that are covered by the exception are not the kinds of groups that this bill is mostly aimed at. Knowing the identity of individual large donors to the NRA when it runs its ads is not providing much useful information to the public. Everyone knows who the NRA is and what it stands for. You may like or dislike this group's message, but you don't need to know who its donors are to evaluate that message.

The same cannot be said about new organizations that are forming as we speak to collect corporate donations and run attack ads against candidates. One example is a new group called American Crossroads. It has apparently pledged to raise $50 million to run ads in the upcoming election. Can any of my colleagues tell me what this group is and what it stands for? Don't the American people have a right to know that, and wouldn't the identity of the funders provide useful information about the group's agenda and what it hopes to accomplish by pumping so much money into elections? Even Citizens United, the group that brought the case that has led us to this point, is not known to most people. Why shouldn't the American people know who has bankrolled that group, if it is going to run ads and try to convince people to vote a certain way?

Disclosure is the way we make this crucial information available to the public. But if a group is around for 10 years, has members in all 50 States, and receives only a small portion of its budget from corporations or unions, there is less reason for the kind of detailed information that the DISCLOSE Act requires. So while I would prefer that this exception wasn't in the bill, I understand why the House felt it was necessary, and I don't think it undermines the bill's purpose or makes it fundamentally unfair.

Most of the complaints about the DISCLOSE Act are coming from interests that want to take advantage of one part of the Citizens United decision--the part that allows corporate spending on elections for the first time in over 100 years--and at the same time pretend that the other part of the decision--the part upholding disclosure requirements--doesn't exist. But the law doesn't work that way. As the old saying goes, ``you can't have your cake and eat it too.''

Once again, I very much appreciate the leadership of the Senator from New York and look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the motion for reconsideration and vote for cloture on the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, the Senate should have the opportunity to debate and amend this important bill. While the bill has many provisions I support, it also includes billions of dollars of earmarks and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will dig us deeper into debt without advancing our national security. I have a number of amendments to improve the bill, including one to require that future war funding be paid for, so it doesn't add to the deficit. I look forward to the opportunity to offer those amendments.

Mr. President, today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties with the U.K. and Australia and their implementing legislation. These treaties would exempt these two countries--two of our most important allies--from our arms export licensing regime.

Though I am confident our allies will use these treaties as intended, I am very concerned that these treaties may make it easier for arms dealers to divert weapons to illicit purposes. The Government Accountability Office has reported that diversion of weapons from the United States, including through the U.K. and Australia, is a major source of weapons for countries of concern to the U.S., including Iran. It has also documented how arms smugglers have relied on previous licensing exemption regimes as a cover

for the diversion of arms. Finally, it has reported that U.S. officials charged with enforcing our arms export controls are concerned that licensing exemptions reduce the evidentiary trail they use to detect and prosecute the diversion of weapons.

While this implementing legislation will enhance reporting to Congress, it does nothing to address the problem of not having an evidentiary trail. That is a mistake. I will carefully monitor the implementation of these treaties to ensure that they are not used by arms dealers as cover to divert weapons to illegal end users. If we have trouble prosecuting violations of the treaties, Congress may need to enact additional legislation requiring licenses in certain cases.

In an age of terrorism, it is more important than ever that we control the proliferation of weapons that can be diverted to adversaries of the United States and feed regional conflicts around the world. Our licensing regime is a critical component of our effort to ensure that these weapons do not end up in the hands of our enemies. It should be strengthened, not weakened. Unfortunately, the administration appears to be moving in the opposite direction with a larger effort to decontrol the export of sensitive military equipment.

In addition, I am concerned that these agreements were negotiated as treaties largely as a means to avoid congressional scrutiny. The House Foreign Affairs Committee has carefully investigated our arms export control regime and expressed concern about early attempts to provide a statutory waiver in these cases. In response to these concerns, the Bush administration sought to do an end run around the House of Representatives by negotiating the waivers as treaties. Further, it sought to limit Senate oversight by arguing that no implementation legislation was needed to ensure that these treaties are enforceable. I regret that the Obama administration took the same position.

I was pleased that Senator Lugar took the time to carefully draft implementing legislation that will ensure some bicameral oversight of these treaties. However, while this addresses some of my concerns, it leaves many questions unanswered. This approach should not become the norm. I urge the administration to rely on the regular legislative process to address any future, perceived deficiencies in our arms export regime.

Mr. President, I am pleased to vote for the motion to invoke cloture on Senator Bill Nelson's amendment to ease reporting requirements on small businesses, which are the engine of our economy. Unlike Senator Nelson's commonsense amendment, which was paid for by taking away a tax break from big oil, Senator Johanns's alternative proposal would deny health insurance for roughly 2 million Americans and raise insurance premiums for many more. We can and should help small businesses without making health insurance more expensive and less accessible.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

First, I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and his staff for their efforts to make this confirmation process so thorough and transparent. The committee had the opportunity to review nearly 200,000 pages of internal memos and emails from Ms. Kagan's service as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall and as a White House aide during the Clinton administration--making the examination of her record one of the most thorough and searching in history. I appreciate that President Obama and President Clinton did not raise claims of executive privilege to try to stop the release of documents, which was a refreshing change and a practice that I hope future Presidents will follow in years to come.

All but a tiny fraction of these documents were made available online, granting extraordinary access to the public. I said after last year's hearings for Justice Sotomayor that Chairman Leahy had set a new standard for transparency and public access to Supreme Court nomination hearings, and in these proceedings he did it again. I commend him and his staff for their tremendous work over the past few months.

There is no question that Elena Kagan is eminently qualified for a position on the Supreme Court. She has an impressive education, she has worked at the highest levels of government, and she has served as dean of a top law school. During the hearings, she demonstrated a keen mind, thoughtful analysis, and a wide-ranging command of the law. She has developed a reputation as someone who can reach out to those with whom she may not agree and work together, and that skill should prove very valuable on the Court. I believe that because she has not previously been a judge, she will bring a different and important perspective to a Court that is otherwise entirely populated by former appellate judges.

I appreciated Solicitor General Kagan's efforts to improve the confirmation process by being forthcoming in her answers. Fifteen years ago she quite fairly criticized the process in an article, arguing that the American people deserved more substantive discussions of the law. While I can't say that she quite lived up to the high standard that she set for nominees in 1995, I do believe that she tried to answer our questions as openly and comprehensively as she could, given what the confirmation process has become.

I came away from the confirmation process convinced that Elena Kagan understands the appropriate relationship between the courts and Congress. As she explained at the Judiciary Committee hearing, her work with Congress during her time at the White House taught her a healthy respect for the political branches and how difficult it can be for Congress to pass legislation. I hope that she will keep this in mind before she votes to overturn a bill that Congress may have spent years drafting and debating.

But while this deference is important, Solicitor General Kagan also demonstrated that she recognizes the critically important role of our judicial system in serving as a check on the other branches of government--in ``policing constitutional boundaries,'' as she put it. She spoke eloquently about the early experiences of Justice Marshall and his efforts to eradicate Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. She explained that what was so incredible about his struggle for equality was that ``the courts [took] seriously claims that were not taken seriously anyplace else. . . . In other words, it was the courts' role to make sure that even when people have no place else to go that they can come to the courts and the courts will hear their claims fairly.'' She said this was a miraculous thing about courts, and I agree with her. With regard to executive power, she emphasized that ``no person, however grand, however powerful, is above the law.'' She also talked about ``the importance of adhering to the law, no matter the temptations, no matter the pressures that one might be subject to in the course of one's career.'' These insights indicate that she will take seriously the Court's role in safeguarding individual rights and protecting the rule of law.

In addition to informing the committee about the nominee, the hearings also taught us more about the Supreme Court. We have heard a lot in recent years about ``judicial activism.'' But I think the hearings helped underscore that activism is in the eye of the beholder. As Justice Souter explained in a recent speech, the truth is that the Supreme Court has to decide hard cases--cases in which a judge cannot simply read the words of the Constitution and objectively evaluate the facts. That is, a judge cannot simply act as an umpire. Judges often have to choose between positive values in the Constitution that are in tension with each other, he noted.

Justice Souter reminded us that facts may look very different in different historical contexts. The quintessential example of this is the Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson--a case that by current standards would surely qualify as judicial activism but that is one of the most revered in our nation's history. What this shows us is that judging is not a ``robotic enterprise,'' as Solicitor General Kagan told the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar. Judging is hard and it does, in fact, require judgment. But, Justice Souter explained, ``we can still address the constitutional

uncertainties the way [the Framers] must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.'' I believe Elena Kagan will fulfill that vision admirably.

So I will vote to confirm Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I look forward to her confirmation as only the fourth woman in history to serve on our Nation's highest Court, and I expect she will serve with distinction--and with good humor, which she demonstrated throughout this arduous process--for many years to come.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate just passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. This legislation makes historic investments in the health and nutrition of our Nation's children. In addition to increasing funding for a number of programs, without adding a penny to the deficit, it requires a long overdue update of the nutrition standards for the food in our schools. I commend the chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lincoln, and its ranking member, Senator Chambliss, and their staffs for their hard work on this important legislation. I also thank our leadership for working to ensure this bill passed.

I am particularly glad the bill includes provisions based on legislation, the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act, Senator Kohl and I introduced last year to improve school breakfast programs. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act will help schools invest in their breakfast programs. Many of my colleagues know that school breakfast programs face hurdles that reduce participation. This bill will help schools start new breakfast programs, as well as expand or improve existing programs.

As I mentioned, this legislation also includes a provision to update school nutrition standards based on legislation introduced for the past several Congresses by Senator Harkin that I

have cosponsored. I am pleased that these standards will be updated and expanded to foods sold outside of the cafeteria.

I have long advocated programs and policies that ensure schools have access to fresh, local food. I worked with other Senators to ensure the 2008 farm bill removed barriers to local procurement and preference for our country's schools. Along those lines, I am glad that the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act provides funding for farm-to-school programs which help connect farmers to schools and provide children with a new perspective on nutrition and food. Many Americans are now generations removed from the farm, and these programs can provide valuable knowledge of where food comes from and how it is grown. They can also provide farmers with a new marketing opportunity and allow them to collaborate directly with local schools.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act also reauthorizes a number of important programs outside of schools, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, afterschool feeding programs and Summer Meals. These programs are all critical to ensuring that our children do not go hungry outside of the school environment as well.

I am also glad that the bill includes provisions to streamline our nutrition programs, such as direct certification, categorical eligibility, and community eligibility. It also includes funding for pilot programs to improve methods of providing healthy food to our children, which will allow local schools to try programs that work for them and will likely generate creative new ideas to national problems.

I commend Senators Lincoln and Chambliss for ensuring the full cost of this legislation is offset. Though I might have preferred different offsets, I am pleased that we are able to improve our child nutrition programs without passing the cost onto the very children these programs will help.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will tighten restrictions on individuals who move between the public and private sector--the so-called revolving door. The legislation that I am introducing today aims to better protect the United States from conflicts of interest posed by this practice, particularly where it comes to senior government officials and employees going on to represent foreign entities--sometimes even the governments of the very foreign countries in which they had just finished representing the United States.

There was a time when public service was held in high esteem, but the ever expanding revolving door between public and private employment has generated cynicism and frustration. By placing meaningful restrictions on how quickly former officials can access this door and where it will take them, we can reverse the trend of government employees going off to lobby for foreign entities by making clear they are not ``for sale.'' This legislation is an important reminder that public service should be treated as an honor and a privilege, and will help to ensure that government officials make decisions based on the best interests of the American people, and not on their future career prospects.

Foreign governments and businesses have come to rely on U.S. lobbyists to advocate for their interests and interact with key policy makers. According to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel earlier this year, data analyzed by watchdog groups found that ``[m]ore than 340 foreign entities--from governments to separatist groups to for-profit companies--spent at least $87 million on lobbying efforts in the United States between July 2007 and December 2008.'' Former senior government officials are in demand to represent or advise foreign entities after leaving office. Even from the limited data available, it appears at least four recent U.S. Ambassadors--the President's chief representatives abroad--have done this kind of work in recent years. It is not just ambassadors who go on to represent foreign entities, but also deputy secretaries, under secretaries, other categories of executive branch officials, and, of course, former members of Congress.

The bill I am introducing today will strengthen the post-employment restrictions on foreign entity representation that are already in place by both length and scope. It will cover those officials, including in the legislative branch, that are already subject to revolving door restrictions, but expand the current 1-year restriction on representing, aiding or advising a foreign entity with intent to influence to 5 years. It will also expand the definition of prohibited entities to include foreign businesses as well as foreign governments and political parties.

Revolving door restrictions are supposed to protect the U.S. Government and the people it serves from conflicts of interest and from Government officials appearing to cash in on their public service. They help ensure that people representing the United States at the most senior levels are not being influenced by the possibility of securing lucrative jobs from outside entities while still in Government and they help prevent inside knowledge and personal connections to colleagues still in Government from being used on behalf of private parties. These are clearly important and legitimate goals and the current 1-year prohibition on foreign entity representation is insufficient to secure them.

Critics of tightening these restrictions may argue that former Government officials lobbying on behalf of foreign governments can sometimes pursue very laudable aims for those governments, such as securing resources for public health needs. This is surely true. But for every such positive example envisioned, another can come to mind that is notably less constructive, such as lobbying on behalf of governments with reprehensible human rights records. Moreover, I question how healthy it is when a culture of lobbying becomes so prevalent that foreign governments seeking to advance their objectives in the United States may feel obliged to hire their own advocates in this country.

We need to restore faith in government, and we can help to do that by ensuring those who serve at the highest levels do not turn around and use their influence and expertise gained during public service for personal profit and foreign interests. My legislation will help buttress the framework of restrictions that we as members of the Government impose on ourselves to ensure this broader good. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will tighten restrictions on individuals who move between the public and private sector--the so-called revolving door. The legislation that I am introducing today aims to better protect the United States from conflicts of interest posed by this practice, particularly where it comes to senior government officials and employees going on to represent foreign entities--sometimes even the governments of the very foreign countries in which they had just finished representing the United States.

There was a time when public service was held in high esteem, but the ever expanding revolving door between public and private employment has generated cynicism and frustration. By placing meaningful restrictions on how quickly former officials can access this door and where it will take them, we can reverse the trend of government employees going off to lobby for foreign entities by making clear they are not ``for sale.'' This legislation is an important reminder that public service should be treated as an honor and a privilege, and will help to ensure that government officials make decisions based on the best interests of the American people, and not on their future career prospects.

Foreign governments and businesses have come to rely on U.S. lobbyists to advocate for their interests and interact with key policy makers. According to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel earlier this year, data analyzed by watchdog groups found that ``[m]ore than 340 foreign entities--from governments to separatist groups to for-profit companies--spent at least $87 million on lobbying efforts in the United States between July 2007 and December 2008.'' Former senior government officials are in demand to represent or advise foreign entities after leaving office. Even from the limited data available, it appears at least four recent U.S. Ambassadors--the President's chief representatives abroad--have done this kind of work in recent years. It is not just ambassadors who go on to represent foreign entities, but also deputy secretaries, under secretaries, other categories of executive branch officials, and, of course, former members of Congress.

The bill I am introducing today will strengthen the post-employment restrictions on foreign entity representation that are already in place by both length and scope. It will cover those officials, including in the legislative branch, that are already subject to revolving door restrictions, but expand the current 1-year restriction on representing, aiding or advising a foreign entity with intent to influence to 5 years. It will also expand the definition of prohibited entities to include foreign businesses as well as foreign governments and political parties.

Revolving door restrictions are supposed to protect the U.S. Government and the people it serves from conflicts of interest and from Government officials appearing to cash in on their public service. They help ensure that people representing the United States at the most senior levels are not being influenced by the possibility of securing lucrative jobs from outside entities while still in Government and they help prevent inside knowledge and personal connections to colleagues still in Government from being used on behalf of private parties. These are clearly important and legitimate goals and the current 1-year prohibition on foreign entity representation is insufficient to secure them.

Critics of tightening these restrictions may argue that former Government officials lobbying on behalf of foreign governments can sometimes pursue very laudable aims for those governments, such as securing resources for public health needs. This is surely true. But for every such positive example envisioned, another can come to mind that is notably less constructive, such as lobbying on behalf of governments with reprehensible human rights records. Moreover, I question how healthy it is when a culture of lobbying becomes so prevalent that foreign governments seeking to advance their objectives in the United States may feel obliged to hire their own advocates in this country.

We need to restore faith in government, and we can help to do that by ensuring those who serve at the highest levels do not turn around and use their influence and expertise gained during public service for personal profit and foreign interests. My legislation will help buttress the framework of restrictions that we as members of the Government impose on ourselves to ensure this broader good. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I voted in support of the confirmation of General Clapper to be Director of National Intelligence. He is clearly qualified for the position and his extensive experience at various intelligence agencies and at the Pentagon should give him a clear sense of the challenges ahead.

Over the course of the confirmation process, General Clapper provided encouraging responses on a number of issues. He expressed clear support for the declassification of the top-line intelligence budget, which would allow for the establishment of a separate intelligence budget. This reform, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission and passed by the Senate, would improve transparency, accountability and oversight. He also agreed with the principle that the public should be made aware of secret interpretations of law. Finally, in a welcome shift from the previous DNI, General Clapper expressed openness to recommendations provided by an independent commission related to the integration of the intelligence community and those in the U.S. Government who collect information openly. Legislation to create this commission has also passed the Senate.

On other issues, General Clapper's responses were less encouraging. He indicated that he would be a ``zealous advocate'' for full notification of the committee, and I have no reason to doubt that. But, when asked about statutory reporting requirements under the National Security Act, he cited an incorrect interpretation of the law, specifically the assertion that the ``Gang of Eight'' provision that appears only in the covert action section could apply to other intelligence activities. As DNI, General Clapper will be responsible for adhering to the law, regardless of the views of counsel.

I am also concerned about his responses to questions on the PATRIOT Act, in which he described proposed safeguards on National Security Letter authorities as ``crippling.'' As he becomes familiar with these and other surveillance authorities, and the abuses associated with them, I hope that he will become more open to efforts to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans.

General Clapper has testified that the DNI already has sufficient authorities, and I agree that the ODNI should not be expanded for its own sake. But there are specific, identifiable problems with how the intelligence community spends taxpayer dollars which are

addressed in provisions of the intelligence authorization bill and my Control Spending Now legislation. While I will continue to fight for those provisions, I have asked General Clapper to tackle these issues with or without new statutory authorities. I will also continue to seek greater access by the GAO to the intelligence community, an issue on which General Clapper has expressed some flexibility.

Finally, General Clapper is in a unique position to address one of the great failings of intelligence reform thus far--the extent to which intelligence and intelligence-related activities are conducted by the military, away from the oversight of the congressional intelligence committees. In some cases, such as cybersecurity operations, I remain concerned about the division of authorities but have been kept reasonably informed. In other cases, specifically the Department of Defense's use of ``Section 1208'' authorities to assist foreign forces and irregular groups supporting counterterrorism operations around the world, I have generally been stonewalled. General Clapper has stated that, as DNI, these activities will not be his responsibility. But the DNI, particularly one with General Clapper's background, should be assertive in ensuring that the intelligence community and the military are operating in a coordinated fashion under coherent and consistent policies, and that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully informed of all relevant programs and operations.

Mr. President, I am voting to end a filibuster that is blocking critical funding for Wisconsin. Passage of this bill, as amended, would help prevent major cuts to education and health care funding as my State, and other States, continue to struggle to make up budget shortfalls due to the biggest recession since the Great Depression. While I do not agree with all of the offsets in the bill, I am pleased that it is fully offset. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce the budget deficit by $1.4 billion over the next decade. Supporting this fiscally responsible funding is the right thing to do for our children and for the many Wisconsinites who depend on BadgerCare.

Mr. President, I want to discuss the important relationship that our country has with the East African nation of Uganda. Last month, Uganda was targeted by horrific bombings that killed 76 people and wounded scores more. We all continue to mourn for the victims of this cowardly attack and sympathize with the people and government of Uganda. The

Somali terrorist group, al Shebaab, whose leaders have links to al- Qaida, has claimed responsibility and likely targeted Uganda because of its role in AMISOM, the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia. Uganda has contributed a large part of the troops for this difficult but important mission, and its commitment has not yielded in the aftermath of this attack.

The United States has long had a strong friendship and partnership with Uganda that has deepened in recent years, especially as Uganda has become more of a regional leader. We have worked closely with Uganda to address the crisis in Somalia, through bolstering AMISOM and supporting the fragile transitional government in Mogadishu. We have also supported the Ugandan army's operations across central Africa to dismantle the Lord's Resistance Army and end their horrific atrocities. Meanwhile, as a nonpermanent member of the U.N. Security Council since 2009, Uganda has worked with us on many important initiatives. And finally, we have long provided support for the Ugandan government's efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, improve access to education, and more.

This has been a fruitful relationship for both countries and it is in both of our interests to continue to collaborate in order to address pressing regional and domestic challenges. That is why I believe we must encourage and work with Uganda's leaders to ensure that their elections next February are peaceful, fair and free. Uganda's past elections have been marred by reports of fraud, intimidation, and politically motivated prosecutions of opposition candidates, causing international outcry. If these upcoming elections follow that same pattern or worse, it will put the United States and our relationship with Kampala in a very difficult position. We might have to consider restrictions to our assistance and limiting our engagement with Uganda's security forces.

Unfortunately, initial signs are worrying. In his annual testimony to Congress in February, the then-Director of National Intelligence said that the Ugandan government ``is not undertaking democratic reforms in advance of the elections scheduled for 2011.'' Also, the State Department reported to Congress in April that the Ugandan government had taken no actions to further the independence of the Electoral Commission or to establish an accurate and verifiable voter registry. In that same report, State noted that the government continues to restrict opposition parties' freedom of movement and assembly and to impose restrictions on local media. Credible experts and human rights organizations have documented the government's efforts to stifle free and independent political journalism, especially in rural areas.

These developments are disturbing not only in terms of Uganda's political space and democratic institutions, but also when we consider the country's stability. Riots in Buganda last September showed that regional and ethnic divisions remain strong in many parts of the country and that violence can erupt suddenly. Since Uganda gained independence in 1962, political leaders have pitted groups against one another and used force to access and control power. This legacy endures, even though Uganda transitioned to a multiparty democracy 5 years ago. Until there is a genuine effort to address these divisions, achieve national reconciliation and consolidate democracy, Uganda continues to be at risk of instability--a risk that will be heightened during the electoral period.

In the aftermath of the July 11 bombings, the Ugandan government will understandably need to address security issues, and we should offer our assistance in this regard. But at the same time, it is equally important that the government reinvigorate its efforts to promote national unity and reconciliation. Divisions and upheaval surrounding this February's elections could undermine the country's unity and potentially its stability. It could also weaken the government's international reputation and partnerships. Therefore, it is critical that the government take steps now to build public trust in the election process and the country's democratic institutions. As a true friend to the Ugandan government and people, we should press them to take these steps and provide support as appropriate. The stakes are too high to ignore these issues.