Patrick Leahy

Here in this subcommittee we have supported USAID's procurement reform.

Well, I hope it doesn't come to pass. As a bumper sticker slogan, talking about these kind of cuts sounds great.

I have long voiced my concerns with the way a few large U.S. contractors and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) obtain the vast majority of USAID funding.

One important goal of the law is to end the impunity for members of foreign security forces who violate human rights.

It is against the law to provide any form of assistance--training, equipment, or anything else--to any person who either belongs to a unit credibly alleged to be involved in gross violations of human rights.

The Leahy amendment, which prohibits aid to units of foreign security forces that violate human rights, has some strong supporters in the State Department.

How is that sustainable?

I appreciate the fact that the filibuster has been dropped on this very good man. This nomination has taken months to get here. I would urge everybody to vote for it.

The interstate is a double-edged sword, isn't it?

The thing that surprised most people...was the fact that these vests do wear out.

I would be telling them to do exactly that.

I hope we can proceed to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program and other important law enforcement measures, and Congress will join together with one voice to send a strong, clear message to our Nation's law…

I am holding the hearing today because the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act expires in September, and I want you to know I will introduce legislation in the coming weeks to reauthorize this program.

Since we enacted the original Leahy-Campbell law, the vest program has contributed to the purchase of nearly 1 million ballistic vests to help protect our law enforcement officers.

When I worked to introduce and pass the original bulletproof vest program in 1998, I joined with then-Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

Senator Cornyn and I worked hard to ensure that our amendment addresses the issue of undisclosed self-dealing in a narrow and precise manner. To make sure there are no ambiguities in the updated honest services statute our amendment…

No, the local official has not committed a Federal offense in the hypothetical you describe. Criminal liability under Federal law only exists if the official knowingly fails to disclose the interest and further intentionally acts to…

A trivial, attenuated financial benefit could not lead to this violation because the public official must still act knowingly and with fraudulent intent to receive the benefit, and they must do so in violation of existing law. For example…

No, it does not. Criminal liability only attaches when the public official acts with fraudulent intent and does so in knowing violation of existing rules and regulations.

This is an area where there is a particular Federal interest because if the corrupt official is in State or local law enforcement, there may be no other way to ferret out the corruption. In fact, in Skilling v. United States, the Supreme…

Without this codification, there is no Federal law prohibiting certain public officials from acting in their own financial interest, at the expense of the public, and in violation of existing State and local law.

This phrase is in the current bribery and gratuities statute and has been part of the law for decades. Our amendment does not change its definition or the scope of its use. It appears in section 205 because of the way that the amendment is…

The former public official must accept the bribe or gratuity ``for or because of'' the official act. If the public official does not know that a matter is pending, the public official cannot accept a bribe ``for or because'' of it.

You cannot bribe a former public official, at least not under the terms of this amendment. Section 205 does ensure that when a public official accepts a bribe in return for taking an official act, the official cannot escape liability by…

I have worked, as so many others on this Committee have, to ensure that Americans' privacy rights are respected.