Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have before us two pieces of legislation; am I correct?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. May I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed the Leahy-Cornyn Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act'' (the ``OPEN Government Act''), S. 849, before adjourning for the August recess. This important Freedom of Information Act legislation will strengthen and reinvigorate FOIA for all Americans. For more than four decades, FOIA has translated the great American values of openness and accountability into practice by guaranteeing access to government information. The OPEN Government Act will help ensure that these important values remain a cornerstone of our American democracy. I commend the bill's chief Republican cosponsor, Senator John Cornyn, for his commitment and dedication to passing FOIA reform legislation this year. Since he joined the Senate 5 years ago, Senator Cornyn and I have worked closely together on the Judiciary Committee to ensure that FOIA and other open government laws are preserved for future generations. The passage of the OPEN Government Act is a fitting tribute to our bipartisan partnership and to openness, transparency and accountability in our government. I also thank the many cosponsors of this legislation for their dedication to open government and I thank the Majority Leader for his strong support of this legislation. I am also appreciative of the efforts of Senator Kyl and Senator Bennett in helping us to reach a compromise on this legislation, so that the Senate could consider and pass meaningful FOIA reform this legislation before the August recess. But, most importantly, I especially want to thank the many concerned citizens who, knowing the importance of this measure to the American people's right to know, have demanded action on this bill. This bill is endorsed by more than 115 business, public interest, and news organizations from across the political and ideological spectrum, including the American Library Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, OpenTheGovernment.org, Public Citizen, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Sunshine in Government Initiative and the Vermont Press Association. The invaluable support of these and many other organizations is what led the opponents of this bill to come around and support this legislation. As the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade, the OPEN Government Act will help to reverse the troubling trends of excessive delays and lax FOIA compliance in our government and help to restore the public's trust in their government. This bill will also improve transparency in the Federal Government's FOIA process by: Restoring meaningful deadlines for agency action under FOIA; Imposing real consequences on federal agencies for missing FOIA's 20- day statutory deadline; Clarifying that FOIA applies to government records held by outside private contractors; Establishing a FOIA hotline service for all federal agencies; and Creating a FOIA Ombudsman to provide FOIA requestors and federal agencies with a meaningful alternative to costly litigation. Specifically, the OPEN Government Act will protect the public's right to know, by ensuring that anyone who gathers information to inform the public, including freelance journalist and bloggers, may seek a fee waiver when they request information under FOIA. The bill ensures that federal agencies will not automatically exclude Internet blogs and other Web-based forms of media when deciding whether to waive FOIA fees. In addition, the bill also clarifies that the definition of news media, for purposes of FOIA fee waivers, includes free newspapers and individuals performing a media function who do not necessarily have a prior history of publication. The bill also restores meaningful deadlines for agency action, by ensuring that the 20-day statutory clock under FOIA starts when a request is received by the appropriate component of the agency and requiring that agency FOIA offices get FOIA requests to the appropriate agency component within 10 days of the receipt of such requests. The bill allows federal agencies to toll the 20-day clock while they are awaiting a response to a reasonable request for information from a FOIA requester on one occasion, or while the agency is awaiting clarification regarding a FOIA fee assessment. In addition, to encourage agencies to meet the 20-day time limit, the bill prohibits an agency from collecting search fees if it fails to meet the 20-day deadline, except in the case of exceptional circumstances as defined by the FOIA statute. The bill also addresses a relatively new concern that, under current law, federal agencies have an incentive to delay compliance with FOIA requests until just before a court decision that is favorable to a FOIA requestor. The Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), eliminated the ``catalyst theory'' for attorneys' fees recovery under certain federal civil rights laws. When applied to FOIA cases, Buckhannon precludes FOIA requesters from ever being eligible to recover attorneys fees under circumstances where an agency provides the records requested in the litigation just prior to a court decision that would have been favorable to the FOIA requestor. The bill clarifies that Buckhannon does not apply to FOIA cases. Under the bill, a FOIA requester can obtain attorneys' fees when he or she files a lawsuit to obtain records from the government and the government releases those records before the court orders them to do so. But, this provision would not allow the requester to recover attorneys' fees if the requester's claim is wholly insubstantial. To address concerns about the growing costs of FOIA litigation, the bill also creates an Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives and creates an ombudsman to mediate agency-level FOIA disputes. In addition the bill ensures that each federal agency will appoint a Chief FOIA Officer, who will monitor the agency's compliance with FOIA requests, and a FOIA Public Liaison who will be available to FOIA to resolve FOIA related disputes. Finally, the bill does several things to enhance the agency reporting and tracking requirements under FOIA. Tracking numbers are not required for FOIA requests that are anticipated to take ten days or less to process. The bill creates a tracking system for FOIA requests to assist members of the public and the media. The bill also establishes a FOIA hotline service for all federal agencies, either by telephone or on the Internet, to enable requestors to track the status of their FOIA requests. In addition, the bill also clarifies that FOIA applies to agency records that are held by outside private contractors, no matter where these records are located. And to create more transparency about the use of statutory exemptions under FOIA, the bill ensures that FOIA statutory exemptions that are included in legislation enacted after the passage of this bill clearly cite the FOIA statute and clearly state the intent to be exempt from FOIA. The Freedom of Information Act is critical to ensuring that all American citizens can access information about the workings of their government. But, after four decades this open government law needs to be strengthened. I am pleased that the reforms contained in the OPEN Government Act will ensure that FOIA is reinvigorated so that it works more effectively for the American people. I am also pleased that, by passing this important reform legislation today, the Senate has reaffirmed the principle that open government is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. But, rather, it is an American issue and an American value. I commend all of my Senate colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, for unanimously passing this historic FOIA reform measure. I hope that the House of Representatives, which overwhelmingly passed a similar measure earlier this year, will promptly take up and pass this bill and that the President will then promptly sign it into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the first actions I took this year was to reintroduce the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, S. 378, on January 24, 2007. This bipartisan bill has a dozen cosponsors here in the Senate. In February we held a Judiciary Committee hearing at which we heard from Justice Anthony Kennedy. In March the Judiciary Committee considered and then reported the bill by unanimous consent. I thank the majority leader and the assistant majority leader for their interest in these matters. Each has witnessed violence against judges in their home States. With their leadership, in April the Senate was called upon to consider the measure. I was amazed when it took a cloture motion to proceed to consideration of court security. Cloture on the motion to proceed was obtained by a vote of 93 to 3. Thereafter, this important measure was considered and passed by the Senate on April 19 by a unanimous vote of 97 to 0. Not a single Senator voted against it, not even those Senators who objected to proceeding to the bill initially or the three Senators who voted against cloture on the motion to proceed. A companion bill was considered by the House of Representatives and passed on a voice vote. To resolve the remaining difference between the Senate-passed measure and the House-passed measure we sought to substitute the Senate-passed text into the House bill and to request a House-Senate conference. This is hardly a novel procedure. It is a standard way to resolve differences and to complete action on legislation. This routine request has cleared the Democratic side of the aisle here in the Senate. No Democratic Senator has objected to proceeding. But, once again, an anonymous objection on the Republican side is thwarting progress. Just as Republican Senators objected to proceeding to consider legislation to bolster court security in April, now, an anonymous Republican objection is preventing the Senate from acting, requesting a conference and moving forward to resolve the differences and enact this long overdue legislation. Despite the broad bipartisan support for both the Senate bill and for the House bill, we are being blocked from going to conference to resolve the minor differences between them by an anonymous Republican Senator. This obstruction delays the useful provisions in these bills and threatens important safety measures for our Federal judges and their families. For our justice system to function, our judges must be able to dispense justice. They and their families must be free from the fear of retaliation. Witnesses who come forward must be protected, and the courthouses where our laws are enforced must be secure. We are in danger of letting this chance to improve the security of our Federal courts slip through our fingers. I am disappointed and troubled that we will not be improving the security for our Federal judges and courthouses around the Nation before we go into recess. I hope that the Republican Senator who has placed this anonymous objection would remove it, to let us go to conference, and to let us improve the security that our Federal courts need.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization. This is a vitally important program that ensures some of the most vulnerable among us, our children, have access to the health care they deserve. There is no question that we are a country with a health care crisis. In the richest, most powerful country in the world, it is a disgrace that we have 47 million people with no health coverage. Addressing this national priority is long overdue, so I am especially pleased that this new Congress will take action by extending health care coverage to millions of children. Congress created this program 10 years ago to provide coverage to children whose families earned too much to qualify for Medicaid, but lacked health care coverage through their employer or the private market. At that time, there were more than ten million children who were uninsured. In the last decade, we have seen the success of the Children's Health Insurance Program; it has covered over 6 million low- income children, providing consistent quality health care. With the success of this program, it is appropriate that we renew it for 5 more years, but also extend it so that millions of additional low-income, uninsured children will now have health coverage. This expansion is critically important because through CHIP children have far better access to preventive and primary care services than they would if they were uninsured. With more routine health care, we know that kids have better health outcomes and perform better in schools. Studies have also shown that approximately 6 million children are eligible for public coverage but are not enrolled in CHIP. I am pleased that the Finance Committee has been able to craft a bill that would cover 3.2 million children, but I do hope that we can go even further and expand this coverage to additional children. Because uninsured children are nine times less likely to receive needed health care on time and are more likely to go without a visit to a doctor's office, we need to cover as many of them as possible. My State of Vermont has been a leader when it comes to covering kids. We are referred to an early expansion State because prior to the creation of this program, Vermont extended Medicaid coverage to low- income children through a program known as Dr. Dynasaur. The bill before the Senate would allow Vermont to maintain coverage for the kids currently covered, but also reach out to the remaining children that are eligible but not enrolled in the program. The Finance Committee proposal would also have a positive impact on health care by increasing the tobacco tax. This action will have a significant affect on our country's health, reducing the rate of cancer, strokes and heart attacks. Further, an increase in the tobacco tax will also reduce the prevalence of smoking, especially among adolescents. We know that when cigarettes become more expensive, both kids and adults will change how much they smoke. This is a positive outcome and one that I support. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into crafting this bipartisan legislation. I believe it puts the country on the right track towards ensuring all children have health insurance and I strongly support it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide. This is the time to restore the faith of the American people in their Government. Congress took an important step in that direction today in passing long-awaited ethics and lobbying reforms that will tighten restrictions on those of us who hold public office, and those who seek to lobby us on behalf of private industry. But rooting out the kinds of rampant public corruption we have seen in recent years requires us to go further and to give prosecutors the tools they need to effectively investigate and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses. The most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on getting around the rules and banking that they will not get caught. These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove. Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must be found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat it. This b1ll will do exactly that. The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today, like a bill that I introduced in the Senate in January, will provide investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to pursue public corruption cases. But it goes a step further by amending several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities. The bill will help improve the prosecution of public corruption offenses in three fundamental ways. First, the bill would give investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to uncover, charge, and prove three of the most serious and corrosive public corruption offenses. Specifically, it would extend the statute of limitations from 5 years to 6 years for prosecutions involving bribery, deprivation of honest services by a public official, and extortion by a public official. Public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often require the use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement. Bank fraud, arson and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy, and a more modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. The bill would also provide significant additional funding for public corruption enforcement. Since 9/11, FBI resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of public corruption cases to counterterrorism. FBI Director Mueller has recently indicated that public corruption is now a top criminal investigative priority; but a September 2005 report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. This must be reversed; our bill will give Offices of Inspector General, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice additional resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. These offices will finally be able to have the manpower they need to track down and prosecute these difficult but crucially important cases. Second, the bill contains a series of legislative fixes designed to improve the clarity and enhance the effectiveness of existing Federal corruption statutes, such as the law criminalizing the acceptance of bribes and gratuities, and the law that govern mail and wire fraud. The bribery-gratuities fix resolves ambiguity in the law by making clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing regulations, that is given to them because of their official position. Similarly, the bill appropriately expands the definition of what it means for a public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute to include any actions that fall within the duties of that official's public office. The bill also adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the Federal wiretap and the racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally- funded state programs, and expands venue for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions. Third, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for theft of Government property and Federal bribery to reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and to harmonize these statutory maximums with others for which Congress has already raised penalties. Increasing penalties in appropriate cases sends a message to would-be criminals and to the public that there will be severe consequences for breaching the public trust. If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to enforce our laws. Passing the ethics and lobbying reform bill is a step in the right direction. But we must finish the job by strengthening the criminal law to enable Federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I strongly urge Congress to do more to restore the public's faith in their Government. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide. This is the time to restore the faith of the American people in their Government. Congress took an important step in that direction today in passing long-awaited ethics and lobbying reforms that will tighten restrictions on those of us who hold public office, and those who seek to lobby us on behalf of private industry. But rooting out the kinds of rampant public corruption we have seen in recent years requires us to go further and to give prosecutors the tools they need to effectively investigate and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses. The most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on getting around the rules and banking that they will not get caught. These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove. Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must be found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat it. This b1ll will do exactly that. The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today, like a bill that I introduced in the Senate in January, will provide investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to pursue public corruption cases. But it goes a step further by amending several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities. The bill will help improve the prosecution of public corruption offenses in three fundamental ways. First, the bill would give investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to uncover, charge, and prove three of the most serious and corrosive public corruption offenses. Specifically, it would extend the statute of limitations from 5 years to 6 years for prosecutions involving bribery, deprivation of honest services by a public official, and extortion by a public official. Public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often require the use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement. Bank fraud, arson and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy, and a more modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. The bill would also provide significant additional funding for public corruption enforcement. Since 9/11, FBI resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of public corruption cases to counterterrorism. FBI Director Mueller has recently indicated that public corruption is now a top criminal investigative priority; but a September 2005 report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. This must be reversed; our bill will give Offices of Inspector General, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice additional resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. These offices will finally be able to have the manpower they need to track down and prosecute these difficult but crucially important cases. Second, the bill contains a series of legislative fixes designed to improve the clarity and enhance the effectiveness of existing Federal corruption statutes, such as the law criminalizing the acceptance of bribes and gratuities, and the law that govern mail and wire fraud. The bribery-gratuities fix resolves ambiguity in the law by making clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing regulations, that is given to them because of their official position. Similarly, the bill appropriately expands the definition of what it means for a public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute to include any actions that fall within the duties of that official's public office. The bill also adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the Federal wiretap and the racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally- funded state programs, and expands venue for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions. Third, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for theft of Government property and Federal bribery to reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and to harmonize these statutory maximums with others for which Congress has already raised penalties. Increasing penalties in appropriate cases sends a message to would-be criminals and to the public that there will be severe consequences for breaching the public trust. If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to enforce our laws. Passing the ethics and lobbying reform bill is a step in the right direction. But we must finish the job by strengthening the criminal law to enable Federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I strongly urge Congress to do more to restore the public's faith in their Government. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Republican leader yield for a moment?

Mr. LEAHY. I said, will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is the Senator aware of the fact that, formerly, when Judge Southwick was on the calendar as a nominee to be a district judge--Republicans were in charge--that when he was up for a vote, agreed to by the Democrats, he did not get a vote because of a Republican objection to a slate of judges? Is he aware of that?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. First, Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his usual courtesy and giving me some time to speak. I have had the privilege of serving almost 33 years--a third of a century--with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Of course, I know my 33 years pale in comparison with the time he has served. While the distinguished Republican leader is on the floor, he and I have worked closely together on many things. I will not make comments about crocodile tears and all that, but it is interesting that he spoke of Judge Southwick being passed out unanimously last year. He forgot the fact that when he was being cleared for a vote by the Republican- controlled Senate, a Republican objected. The Republican leader has forgotten that the Senate has confirmed 25 nominations for lifetime appointments this year--more than were confirmed, for example in all of 2005 with a Republican chairman and a Republican majority. The leadership over there has forgotten that we Democrats--we Democrats--have confirmed more of President Bush's nominees for any given period of time while we have been in charge than the Republicans did. We have had three different leaderships in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate itself during the time President Bush has been in office. During the time that the Democrats have been in charge, we have actually confirmed more of President Bush's nominees than the Republicans did. The weeping and gnashing of teeth going on makes me think that congressional Republicans love to shut down the Government and seem intent on manufacturing excuses to do so. In 1995 Newt Gingrich was so upset by the door he had to use on Air Force One--most people would be thrilled to fly on Air Force One--that he shut down the Government. When they were in the Senate majority a few years ago, Senate Republicans insisted on a 40-hour debate on their own President's court-packing scheme. And then we found out that during that time they were stealing our computer files. The then Republican leader had to fire one of his own aides for stealing computer files from the Democrats. So the weeping and gnashing of teeth that is going on leaves a little bit to be thought about. The Senate has confirmed 20 circuit court nominations and 125 Federal judicial nominees during the 2 years I have been Judiciary Committee chairman. Compare that to the numbers of the Republicans. During the Bush presidency, more circuit judges, more district judges and more total judges have been confirmed, in less time, while I served as Judiciary Chairman than during the longer tenures of either of the two Republican Chairmen working with Republican Senate majorities. Yet you would think that somehow we are holding up everybody. I would point out that it was the Republicans who pocket-filibustered over 60 of President Clinton's nominees. I think we have stopped two or three of President Bush's. Sixty-one. The distinguished Republican leader said he hoped all this would stop. Well, we are not going to do what they did. Incidentally, 17 of those were circuit nominees. Let me mention their names for those that have short memories: Barry Goode, Helene White, Alston Johnson, James Duffy, Elena Kagan, James Wynn, Kathleen McCree Lewis, Enrique Moreno, Allen Snyder, Kent Markus, Robert Cindrich, Bonnie Campbell, Stephen Orlofsky, Roger Gregory, Christine Arguello, Andre Davis, and Elizabeth Gibson. These are just some of the ones they pocket-filibustered. Now, on Judge Southwick, I had him on the agenda. I took him off the agenda at the request of the Republicans. We actually had him on one time, and we did not get enough Republicans to show up to make a quorum to vote on him. I took Judge Southwick's nomination off the agenda at the request of Republican Senators. Neither the junior Senator from Mississippi nor the senior Senator from Mississippi nor the distinguished Republican leader has asked me to put him back on the agenda. I am growing somewhat tired of the statements being made publicly about delay, many of which I do not attribute, of course, to my colleagues, so I put Judge Southwick's nomination back on the agenda for tomorrow. I must say--and I will close with this--this makes me think about the first time I was chairman of this committee in the first Bush administration, knowing that we come from a time when the Republicans had pocket-filibustered 61 of President Clinton's nominees and one they had voted out almost unanimously from the committee whom they then ambushed on the floor, the distinguished James Graves, an African American who then became chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, the distinguished African American whom they humiliated by voting him out of committee, with no real objections, and then, in lockstep, with no notice, voted him down on the floor of the Senate. One of the most distinguished African-American jurists in the country, the Republican leadership decided to vote him down. But notwithstanding that, I tried to change that. I remember when the Republicans asked me to have a hearing on a controversial nominee of theirs. They were very concerned about it. I actually came back from Vermont, which is not an easy thing to do in August, to leave that beautiful State--it is like leaving the beautiful State of West Virginia during the month of August, one of our prettiest times--but I left Vermont, came back, and held a hearing on that nominee so we could arrange in the first week of September to get him passed. Do you know what happened, Mr. President? Do you know what the reaction of the Republicans was? They trotted out a member of their leadership to tell the press how terrible it was that I held a hearing during August, even though that was the only way they were going to get their nominee through. That was hypocrisy. Mr. President, with that, I will just point out again that there is no question of the numbers. The Democrats have moved more of President Bush's nominees more quickly than his own Republicans have when they have been in charge. If we are able to confirm just the five nominations for lifetime appointments to the federal bench currently on the Senate's executive calender, I will have presided over the most productive 2-year period for judicial confirmations in the last 20 years, with 130 confirmations. Let us stop the crocodile tears. Let us stop the hypocrisy. Let us stop the grandstanding and worry about what is best for the courts. This administration has played politics with the judiciary more than any of the six administrations I have served with--not for but with--and I think one example of their knowing what is best for law enforcement, what is best for the judiciary, is this administration's strong support of the current Attorney General. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield on that point, when the Republicans were in charge of the responsibility of bringing forth his record, they never brought forth either the sexual or the racial issues that have been raised when he was up for district court judge. But we will discuss this tomorrow. I hope the Senator will be able to join us at the markup tomorrow. We have had a couple of occasions when the President's nominees for judges have been on our agenda and Republicans did not show up to make a quorum. I don't know if this helps to keep their numbers--I remind the Senator, however, that with the Democrats in charge, the time the Democrats have been in charge, President Bush's judges have been confirmed at a far more rapid pace and in greater numbers--in greater numbers--than they have been under a Republican-controlled committee or Senate.

Mr. LEAHY. Was he aware of the fact that he was taken off the agenda earlier at the request of the Republicans?

Mr. LEAHY. To answer that question, he was voted out for a district court judgeship, an entirely different type of judgeship than a court of appeals judgeship. It was in a package to be confirmed, I guess by unanimous consent, with the Republicans in leadership, and a Republican Senator from Kansas objected to one of the nominees, and, of course, it brought down the package. If I understood the Senator correctly, he was worried about political actions. Was he aware--I know he was not able to make a couple recent markups of the Senate Judiciary Committee, although he is a member. Is he aware of the fact that Mr. Southwick is on the agenda for tomorrow's markup?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader wishes to be on the Senate floor, and I ask the Senator from Kentucky if he will yield for a brief quorum call so that the distinguished majority leader can be on the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. `` . . . to support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' and ``to bear truth fair and allegiance'' to our founding principles and law, not to a particular political party or to a President. I pointed out to Ms. Taylor that the oath I have been privileged to take as a U.S. Senator is likewise to the Constitution. I proudly represent the people of Vermont. I know it is a privilege to serve as a temporary steward of the Constitution and the values and protections for the rights and liberties of the American people that it embodies. My oath is not to a political party and not even to the great institution of the U.S. Senate but to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a former prosecutor, I feel strongly that independent law enforcement is an essential component of our democratic government, and that no one is above the law. Despite the constitutional duty of all members of the executive branch to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'' the message from this White House is that the President, Vice President, and their loyal aides are above the law. No check. No balance. No accountability. The law says otherwise. The criminal contempt statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194, provides that if a House of Congress certifies a contempt citation, the U.S. attorney to whom it is sent has a ``duty'' and ``shall'' ``bring it before the grand jury for its action.'' For this White House to threaten to intervene in an effort to preempt further investigation, cover up the truth and avoid accountability is an insult to the rule of law. This law was duly passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by a duly elected President of the United States. It is derived from law that has been on the books since 1857, for 150 years. The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances. Not since the darkest days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability. Given the stonewalling by this White House, the American people are left to wonder: What is it that the White House is so desperate to hide? As more and more stories leak out about the involvement of Karl Rove and his political team in political briefings of what should be nonpartisan government offices, I think we have a better sense of what they are trying to hide. We have learned of political briefings at over 20 government agencies, including briefings attended by Justice Department officials. This week, the news was that Mr. Rove briefed diplomats on vulnerable Democratic districts before mid-term elections. Why, Senator Whitehouse properly asked at our hearing yesterday, were members of our foreign service being briefed on domestic political contests? Mr. Gonzales had no answer. Similarly, why were political operatives giving such briefings to the Government Services Administration, which rents government property and buys supplies? In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the former political director at the White House ultimately had to concede that her briefings included specific political races and particular candidates being targeted. In this context, is anyone surprised that the evidence in our investigation of the firings of U.S. attorneys for political purposes points to Mr. Rove and his political operations in the White House? Despite the initial White House denials, Mr. Rove's involvement in these firings is indicated by the Department of Justice documents we have obtained and from the testimony of high-ranking Department officials. This evidence shows that he was involved from the beginning in plans to remove U.S. attorneys. E-mails show that Mr. Rove initiated inquiries at least by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed regarding the dismissal and replacement of U.S. attorneys. The evidence also shows that he raised political concerns, including those of New Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal. He was fired a few weeks after Mr. Rove complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported ``voter fraud'' enforcement cases in his jurisdiction. We have learned that Mr. Rove raised similar concerns with the Attorney General about prosecutors not aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases in several districts and that prior to the 2006 mid-term election he sent the Attorney General's chief of staff a packet of information containing a 30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin in 2004. This evidence points to his role and the role of those in his office in removing or trying to remove prosecutors not considered sufficiently loyal to Republican electoral prospects. Such manipulation shows corruption of Federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes. Documents and testimony also show that Mr. Rove had a role in the shaping the administration's response to congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to the public. This response included an attempt to cover up the role that he and other White House officials played in the firings. Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we have learned that Todd Graves, U.S. attorney in the Western District of Missouri, was fired after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. When the Attorney General replaced Mr. Graves with Bradley Schlozman, the person pushing the lawsuit, that case was filed and ultimately thrown out of court. Once in place in Missouri though, Mr. Schlozman also brought indictments on the eve of a closely contested election, despite the Justice Department policy not to do so. This is what happens when a responsible prosecutor is replaced by a ``loyal Bushie'' for partisan, political purposes. Mr. Schlozman also bragged about hiring ideological soulmates. Monica Goodling likewise admitted ``crossing the line'' when she used a political litmus test for career prosecutors and immigration judges. Rather than keep Federal law enforcement above politics, this administration is more intent on placing its actions above the law. The Senator from Washington has been very good to let me have this time. With our service of these subpoenas, I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. attorneys. I hope that the White House steps back from this constitutional crisis of its own making so that we can begin to repair the damage done by its untoward interference with federal law enforcement. That interference has threatened our elections and seriously undercut the American people's confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement. Mr. Rove and the White House must not be allowed to continue manipulating our justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. Apparently, this White House would rather precipitate an unnecessary constitutional confrontation than do what every other administration has done and find an accommodation with the Congress. If there are any cooler or wiser heads at the White House, I urge them to reconsider the course they have chosen. There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm. I hope they will reconsider their course and end their cover up so that we can move forward together to repair the damage done to the Department of Justice and the American people's trust and confidence in Federal law enforcement. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the constitutional authority in this body, knows that every President since George Washington has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY. I will. The witness testified that she had taken an oath to the President. I reminded her the oath is to the Constitution, not to any particular President.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the REAL ID Act was legislation forced through Congress as an add-on to the emergency supplemental bill passed in May 2005, without any Senate hearings or debate, but the implications of the Act are enormous. In addition to numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns, REAL ID is an unfunded mandate that could cost the States in excess of $23 billion. As hearings in the Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee have shown, REAL ID is far from being ready for primetime. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has not even released final regulations directing the States on REAL ID implementation. With 260 million drivers in this country, I do not see how we could have the massive national databases required by REAL ID up and running in the next 5 years--much less in fiscal year 2008. On top of that, even though they are not even in production yet, REAL ID cards are rapidly becoming a de facto national ID card since they will be needed to enter courthouses, airports, Federal buildings, and now workplaces all across the country. In my opinion, REAL ID raises multiple constitutional issues whose legal challenges could delay final implementation for years, and we should not support the Alexander- Collins amendment. In May, the Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee expressed concern over several items in the REAL ID proposed regulations and said that they pose serious risks to individual privacy by: failing to establish a standard for protecting the storage of personally identifiable information; failing to provide methods for Americans to inquire or complain about the collection, storage, and use of personal information and remedy errors; failing to require notifying consumers of information collection and use by the State; failing to require that individuals have a choice over secondary use of that information; and failing to assure that the information collected for a specific purpose is used only for that purpose. Congress should not fund the REAL ID program until the Department of Homeland Security makes fundamental reforms to the program and stops forcing such onerous provisions on the States. In addition, with this amendment offset by an across-the-board cut from all DHS programs, I don't think we should be robbing from other critical Homeland Security accounts--where we have seen real gains in securing our country--to pay for just 1 percent of the floundering REAL ID program. REAL ID is not popular in our States, and opposition spans the political spectrum, from the right to the left. A large number of States have expressed concerns with the mandates of the REAL ID Act by enacting bills and resolutions in opposition. Seventeen States have enacted statutes or resolutions against REAL ID, including Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, New Hampshire, Maine, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina. Washington, Georgia, Oklahoma, Montana, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Maine have gone so far as to indicate that they intend to refuse to comply with REAL ID. Ten States have had statutes or resolutions pass one chamber of their legislature, including Oregon, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Minnesota, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Another 10 States have had statutes or resolutions introduced in their legislatures, including Alaska, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland. The reaction to the numerous privacy concerns and unfunded mandates of the REAL ID Act is a good example of what happens when the Federal Government imposes itself rather than working with the States to build cooperation and partnership. Since so many States have risen up in opposition to REAL ID, we should not fund this failed program, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the people of Colombia have endured decades of civil conflict characterized by widespread killings and disappearances of civilians perpetrated by rebel groups and paramilitary death squads, sometimes with the active participation of government security forces. In recent years, both rebels and paramilitaries have financed their illegal activities through the sale of cocaine, which has also corrupted government institutions. Each year since the inception of Plan Colombia, the United States has provided Colombia with more than half a billion dollars in mostly military and counter-drug assistance, totaling more than $5 billion. The primary goal of Plan Colombia, at least as sold to the Congress, was to decrease by half the amount of coca produced, resulting in commensurate reductions in the income derived from cocaine to the rebels and paramilitaries and the amount of cocaine entering the United States. While there is no reliable evidence that Plan Colombia has affected either the price or availability of cocaine in the United States, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that profits from illegal drugs to the FARC rebels declined by about one-third between 2003 and 2005. This is welcome news. But whether this trend has continued since then or has ebbed and flowed like most other statistics relating to drug cultivation and trafficking in Colombia, is unknown. Unfortunately, it is also not yet apparent that this reported reduction in profits has affected the FARC's ability to operate. While the majority of killings of civilians during the 7 years of Plan Colombia are attributed to paramilitaries, sometimes with the active or tacit support of government forces, the FARC has engaged in many atrocities, including attacks against civilian targets and kidnapping. But perhaps the most insidious of their crimes is the widespread use of landmines. According to a report released yesterday by Human Rights Watch, casualties from landmines used by the FARC, as well as by another rebel group known as the ELN, have risen steadily in recent years. As is so often the case with landmines which are triggered indiscriminately by the victim, most of the casualties in Colombia have been civilians. While the number of casualties did not exceed 148 a year in the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reports that last year the number was 1,107. This increase contrasts sharply with the worldwide decline in the use of these insidious weapons. In fact, Colombia is among the more than 150 nations that have signed or ratified the international treaty banning antipersonnel mines. According to press reports, the FARC defends its use of mines by claiming that they are used only against government security forces, not civilians. That, however, is a specious claim, since mines are inherently indiscriminate. They will kill or maim whoever comes into contact with them, often months or years after they are laid. I have seen photographs of the horrific injuries suffered by both government soldiers and innocent civilians from rebel mines. While the FARC, like others who continue to use landmines, would undoubtedly claim that their military utility justifies their continued use, I reject that argument. The harm to civilians and the contamination of the countryside caused by mines cannot be justified. While there are programs to assist Colombia's mine victims with rehabilitation and vocational training, they are far from adequate. I have supported efforts to increase U.S. assistance. We are looking at ways to use the Leahy War Victims Fund to assist Colombian civilians who have been injured by mines, and we are supporting United for Colombia's efforts to obtain surgery in the U.S. for Colombian soldiers who have suffered grievous mine injuries. I have been a consistent critic of human rights violations in Colombia where impunity remains a persistent problem. There have been thousands of killings of civilians, including of human rights defenders, union members, journalists, and others who have been targeted by one armed group or another. Hardly any of these crimes have resulted in convictions and punishment. But none of that excuses the continued use of landmines by the FARC and ELN. As I have said many times before, the use of landmines should be a war crime. It is barbaric; it is inhumane; it is indefensible.