Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will respond only because my name was mentioned in this last debate and the implication was made as to what my position was. Let me state my position to be accurate on the Record. I read this to say: If the court finds that the State investigative or law enforcement officer--obviously two entirely different things--has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation used is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, they get the order. That is what the amendment says. You could have a State investigator, not even a sworn police officer, come in and say: Your Honor, I certify that this is relevant; give me the order. It seems to me as though the judge has much choice. We do it to fight terrorism on computers. How is a terrorist defined? We know what terrorism was at the trade towers. Is a terrorist somebody who comes in and says: I want to come in armed and make a statement, carrying a legally registered, licensed weapon and make a statement: I should have an easier time to carry my guns? Some people may feel terrorized. In my State, it would be routine. Is it terrorist activity if somebody blocks a contractor who wants to tear down trees to open up a development and have sent e-mails to their friends about this? Is that terrorist activity? It is easy to define terrorism. It says, however, if you come in from wherever and say you are the private investigator hired by the contractor, you say: Hey, I certify this, give me the order, and you get it. Fine, if that is what we want. I would be a little bit concerned about our own rights as Americans.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does the Senator understand that intelligence agencies today are unable to buy information--just to use that as example--from someone who might be part of a terrorist organization?

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

Mr. LEAHY. I will be happy to discuss it with him. I thought it might be a little easier if I could get some of the questions I have answered.

Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if the proponents of the legislation could tell me, how much--I am not going to say we should not do this, but we have professional liability insurance, as it looks to me, for several thousands of people. Do we have any idea how much that would cost? Are we talking about $50 million, $100 million, $200 million? Can any of the proponents of the legislation tell me that? Let's say it is $200 million. We will just write that down. It is easy enough to say $200 million. We have something that has been put together in the last few minutes. So we have a requirement, notwithstanding any other provision of law. In other words, notwithstanding whatever other limits are in here, we shall reimburse for professional liability insurance for what appears to be several thousands of people. Heck, I would like to add to that maybe we could all get ours paid for at the same time. I know mine costs several hundred dollars a year. This might be a fine thing, but if we ask the CIA and the Justice Department to do that, it has to come out of their budget. They are all strapped for money to spend on fighting terrorism and whatnot. Are they willing to take a $200 or $300 million cut from their budget? I just ask the question. I have not heard an answer.

Mr. LEAHY. I reserve the right to object; actually I will. I say to my distinguished friend from New Hampshire, I would be delighted to discuss that. I am still reading this amendment. We have, for example, the requirement for full reimbursement. It sounds like a good idea for people who are----

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator has the right to make his whole argument, and I don't want to interfere with that. Unfortunately, because this is something that we have had no hearings on, we haven't had the discussions in the appropriate committees--Intelligence, Armed Services, and Judiciary--we are somewhat limited in opposition. I will not cite numerous examples of situations which I think would make clear that we do not have the limitations. I know the concern the Senator from Arizona has. I don't question his concerns. But in open session, I am restrained from going into some of the very specific things where concerns he raised have been responded to in the law by our country. I will not. But that is why I would suggest something like this to the Armed Services Committee which has the ability to go easily into closed session, and often does. It would be able to look at it and make a recommendation to the Senate. Our committee would be able to make a recommendation to the Senate, which can be done relatively quickly, and the Intelligence Committee. I would feel far more comfortable voting on something like this if these various committees not only had a chance to look at it but that President Bush's administration--the Attorney General, the Director of CIA, the Secretary of Defense--would have the opportunity to let us know their views on it. I would feel far more comfortable with that. I worry that we may run into the situation where--all of us have joined together in our horror at these despicable, murderous acts in New York and at the Pentagon--we do not want to change our laws so that it comes back to bite us later on.

Mr. LEAHY. It seems to me the distinguished Senator from Utah misstated--and I assume by accident--what I said. I happen to be in favor of people who are going to be out there for our country getting their insurance paid for if they are in a situation where they do not come under the normal provisions that insulate them from suit. I know millions of dollars were spent by people from all the investigations that the Congress and others had against government employees, investigations that resulted in nothing in the end, except for the millions of dollars these people paid out of their own pocket. Sure, I think they should have insurance for that. I just ask the question: How much? And will this money come out of their other budget? If it is going to be $200 million or $300 million, let's have a line item for that. I will vote for such a line item. In here it says, on wiretapping, pen registers, trap and trace devices, if the court finds that a State investigator or law enforcement officer--it could just be an investigator; I don't know if this means a private investigator, a licensed PI--if they certify to the court that the information is relevant, if they just came in and said: Your Honor, I certify this is going to be relevant; I am a State investigator; I am the deputy sheriff of East Washtub--I apologize to anybody if there is such a town, East Washtub. Let's say I am a deputy sheriff on weekends and a mechanic the rest of the time, and I certify we need this, a State officer. Does that mean a Federal judge is going to stop things and give them the order? I have worked with some very good deputy sheriffs in my time. I am not sure that even with the best--some of them were darned good when I was a prosecutor--any of them are going to go into Federal court and say: I want to certify I need this wiretap or this pen register, trap and trace. I think we ought to at least know what that is, going into people's computers because the local investigator says, ``I want to.'' I am not sure if the authorities, under normal going into court, asking for a court order, having a hearing, can go into my computer; that is one thing. But if somebody goes out there, for example, and sees me having target practice outside my house--I have a pistol range out back of my house--and they say: I wonder how many guns he has; I want to go into his computer to find out just in case he has listed his ammunition purchases. Should they be allowed to? I would think some of those who are concerned about the rights of gun owners might be a little bit concerned about this provision. I am a gun owner. I am concerned. Authority to do wiretaps. It says here that we will redesignate paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 132; 110 Stat. 1274, as paragraph (r); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (p) as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565, the following new paragraph: (q) any criminal violations of sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism). . . . Does anybody want to tell me what that means? I thought we were here to give help to our law enforcement and our antiterrorist authority to go after people. I thought we were here to try to finish up a bill that the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire have worked on very closely--and the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Alaska--that would give money to our law enforcement agencies so we could go ahead and work and try to get the money which the city of New York and the State of New York desperately need after the horrific, murderous terrorist acts in that city. I thought that was what we were here for. I will not reread what I said, but to do something that nobody here on the floor can understand or explain, including the people who introduced the amendment. Now maybe somewhere there is a press release in there. Why don't we all send out a press release, a generic one that says we are against terrorists? No Member of the Senate is for terrorists. Why don't we say we are against murder? Of course we are. But then why don't we say what we are doing here? We are going to amend our wiretap laws so we can look into anybody's computers. If we are going to change all these things, if we are going to direct the Director of the CIA and, in effect, direct the President to change the rules of the CIA, something the President could have them do just like that, if the President really wants to--if we are going to do all that here, with no hearing, what does this do to help the men and women who were injured or killed in the Pentagon--and their families? What does this do to help the men and women in New York and their families and those children who were orphans in an instant, a horrible instant? Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of children became orphans instantaneously. What does that do for them? Somewhere we ought to ask ourselves: Do we totally ignore the normal ways of doing business in the Senate? If we do that, what is going to happen when we get down to the really difficult questions? Maybe the Senate wants to just go ahead and adopt new abilities to wiretap our citizens. Maybe they want to adopt new abilities to go into people's computers. Maybe that will make us feel safer. Maybe. And maybe what the terrorists have done made us a little bit less safe. Maybe they have increased Big Brother in this country. If that is what the Senate wants, we can vote for it. But do we really show respect to the American people by slapping something together, something that nobody on the floor can explain, and say we are changing the duties of the Attorney General, the Director of the CIA, the U.S. attorneys, we are going to change your rights as Americans, your rights to privacy? We are going to do it with no hearings, no debate. We are going to do it with numbers on a page that nobody can understand. And by the way, we are going to tell the people who are working around the clock today to stop that and give us reports within 2 months on all these areas. By the way, we commend you for the work you are doing, but set aside a few dozen people and the President to give us these certifications. Part of it seems to me to ask the Attorney General to report back to us right away. We are asking the President to report back to us right away. Frankly, I think the Attorney General and the President have their hands full right now. I commend them for what they are working on. I have talked with the Attorney General several times over the last few days. He hasn't told me that he needs this investigation. He is pretty busy working on what he is doing. And I say Attorney General Ashcroft is doing a very good job. I have spoken to the Director of the CIA. He has not requested that we suddenly turn the attention of the Senate to this legislation. I haven't heard from the President that he wants to suddenly have them do a number of reports connected with this. Maybe it would make a lot more sense if we gave the chairman, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and the chairman and ranking member of Judiciary a chance to actually have the kind of hearings necessary to know what we are doing so that we do not get into some of the problems we got into in the past. If we are going to change habeas corpus, change our rights as Americans, if we are going to change search and seizure provisions, if we are going to give new rights for State investigators to come into Federal court to seek remedies in the already overcrowded Federal courts, fine, the Senate can do that. But what have we done to stop terrorism and to help the people in New York and the survivors at the Pentagon? I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when Congress enacted the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) in 1999, I well remember, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, that we amended the Copyright Act to authorize satellites to carry local channels into local markets. We knew at that time, however, that satellites would be unable to carry local TV stations on a must carry basis. To address this limitation, we did two things. First, we delayed implementation of a full must-carry obligation until January 1, 2002, so as to give the industry time to upgrade their satellites to handle more channels. I regret that the satellite industry has challenged the must carry requirement on constitutional grounds, but also observe that a federal court recently threw out their lawsuit. Second we directed the FCC to make ``final determinations'' regarding license for alternative technologies that could deliver local channels on must- carry basis to markets that the satellites would not be able to serve. I know my friend from New Hampshire shared my interest in this issue, as we both hail from states with television markets that are considered too small to receive local channels via satellite. Could my friend refresh for the record what last year's appropriations bill for the FCC had to say about this matter?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we will try our best. We are, of course, under the same limitation as everybody else trying to get a lot of work done. I had planned in the next week or so to do a number of judicial hearings. I suppose we can spend the time doing this. It probably would make some sense. We do not define terrorism, but we say we are adding that. I guess some kid who is scaring you with his computer could be a terrorist and you could go through the kid's house, his parents' business or anything else under this language; it is that broad. Again, the Senate can vote for whatever it wants. I certainly hope we would put in, and I will support the money for the liability insurance. The problem, I suspect, is with several hundred million dollars. But if that is what we want, we should do it. Let us make sure we know. I will try to get the time for people to work on this during the next couple of weeks to try to answer the questions. The Senator from Michigan asks a legitimate one. We will set aside virtually everything else in the Judiciary Committee to get an answer. Had I or our staff been asked about this, we probably could have had those answers, but I saw it about 30 minutes ago, about the same time the Senator from Michigan did. I tell my friend from New Hampshire who asked a question earlier, I have no objection to voting any time the Senator from New Hampshire desires to vote.

Mr. LEAHY. There is----

Mr. LEAHY. Of course. I yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senators from New York for their leadership on this legislation to streamline the Public Safety Officers' Benefits application process so that the family members of fire fighters, emergency medical technicians and rescue workers who perished or suffered great injury in the aftermath of the tragic terrorist events of this week. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S.1422. I applaud Congressman Nadler and Congressman Sensenbrenner for their work on H.R. 2882, which we are passing today. Earlier today, I received a call from Congressman Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who asked me if the Senate would consider and pass H.R. 2882 without delay. I thank our leaders, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, for bringing this legislation before the Senate so quickly, and urge the Senate to support it. We have before us a unique opportunity to provide much-needed relief for the families of the brave men and women who sacrificed their own lives for their fellow Americans. Senator Clinton and a number of other members of the Senate and House have proposed this bill to amend the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act of 1976 for the purpose of speeding the process by which the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice processes applications for death benefits for families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Western Pennsylvania, on September 11. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program provides $150,000 in benefits for each of the families of law enforcement officers, firemen, emergency response squad members, ambulance crew members who are killed in the line of duty. Current regulations, however, require the families of public safety officers who have fallen in the line of duty to go through a cumbersome and time-consuming application process. In the face of this national tragedy, it is important that we begin to process quickly this measure of relief for the families of these brave Americans who selflessly gave their lives so that others might live through the attacks of September 11.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in this time of tragedy, there are a few things Congress can do to provide immediate assistance. Passage of this legislation is one of them. This bill restores the `S' visa, which Congress created as part of the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act. The visa allows foreign nationals with critical information about criminal cases, especially events of terrorism, to remain in the United States legally for the purpose of cooperating with law enforcement. An application for the visa must be made by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or by a court. The provision authorizing the `S' visa expired yesterday, so without this legislation law enforcement will be unable to take advantage of it. The State and Justice Departments have requested that we reinstitute the `S' visa. I urge the Senate to grant this request and to give law enforcement the support it needs in this area. This is a limited program, but it serves an important purpose. The number of `S' visas granted in a year is limited to 200 for those providing information about crimes and an additional 50 specifically devoted to those who can provide information about terrorism. Our law enforcement officials face a terrible responsibility in seeking out the perpetrators of these evil acts. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation, and hope that it helps in this search.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I applaud the Senators from Delaware and North Carolina for leading the debate on this resolution and, of course, our leaders, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, for bringing this resolution before the Senate. Most Senators will speak on the floor about yesterday's tragedy. It perhaps is impossible for the men and women of this body to say all the things that can be said and should be said. The 100 of us, though, are given the duty and the honor to speak for over 260 million Americans. I know in my case my wife Marcelle and I, like all Vermonters, pray for the victims of these heinous acts. We also pray for their loved ones who remain behind. The heart of every American aches for those who died or have been injured. Think how the families and friends feel. I know that in my own State, the head of the Roman Catholic diocese, Bishop Angell, has been leading his congregation in prayer while his heart aches knowing that his brother and his sister-in-law died on one of the hijacked planes. Can you imagine the grief? All day yesterday, last night and this morning, I have heard from my fellow Vermonters by phone and by Internet. I hear from my friends and members of my staff of the losses they have suffered of family and friends. I think of my own children, each one of whom were trying to call Washington yesterday when all the phones were jammed, to find out where their mother and I were. You can replicate that for hundreds of thousands of people around the country. We have tried to answer those calls. We have tried to get the answers for them and so often the answers are terrible ones. I listened to the news a little after 5 this morning. I heard the name of a friend of mine who went into the World Trade building to help with the rescue and the building came down--and he died with hundreds of New York firefighters, police and FMS personnel. I have said for so many years that in a democracy like ours, terrorism should not be our Achilles heel. It is clear that now more than ever we have to concentrate on the terrorist threat. I applaud the Democratic and the Republican leaders of the House and Senate for bringing us back into session today. As our Capitol was evacuated yesterday, as I stood out here on the plaza and saw people coming out of our buildings, I said: Lord, let us get back in there as soon as possible for if we let terrorism shut down our democracy, then terrorism wins. We had to say to the American people that we were here today, including our loyal and brave staff. I was proud to be in my seat representing Vermont when we opened the Senate and this building today. We know that quite possibly this building was the target of the plane that crashed, but we know that this building must be opened because the people's business is done here. No country, and no terrorist, no matter how evil, no matter how twisted, no matter how diabolic can close the symbols of U.S. democracy or what we do. Just as the brave men and women of our Armed Forces will not stop because of this dastardly attack on the Pentagon. And, just as the people in New York City who make up the fiber of ingenuity, innovation, economics, and learning in our country. The rest of the country will pick up the torch. Franklin Roosevelt called December 7, 1941, the day Pearl Harbor was attacked, ``a date which will live in infamy.'' Almost 60 years later, Americans face such another day and challenge to our democracy. Just as the people of this country became united in World War II, we must unite against the cowardice of evil and terrorism. As our leaders said this morning: We stand here not as Republicans or Democrats, we stand together. We will be supportive of our President, our institutions and of each other because a challenge to our freedom is going to be answered by the strength of our democracy. Trial by fire can refine us or it can coarsen us. If we hold to our ideals, then it strengthens us. Our people, our values, our institutions are strong. President Roosevelt spoke of the arsenal of democracy. That arsenal--our ideals, our values, our freedom, our community, our humanity--sustains us and propels us forward. As much as our military weaponry these ideals are the arsenal of democracy. Let nobody outside our shores have any question about this: Americans are united. All the free world, all civilized nations, all caring people will join together at this difficult time. It has meant so much to hear the calls from around the world. Our values, our resolve, our commitment, our sense of community will serve us well. I am confident that, as a nation, we will seek and serve justice. Our Nation, my neighbors and friends in Vermont demand no less, but we must not let the terrorists win. If we abandon our democracy to battle them, they win. If we forget our role as the world's leader to defeat them, they win. And we will win. We will maintain our democracy, and with justice, we will use our strength. We will not lose our commitment to the rule of law, no matter how much the provocation, because that rule of law has protected us throughout the centuries. It has created our democracy. It has made us what we are in history. We are a just and good nation. We will remain a just and good nation, but we are a nation capable of a terrible fury, and our enemies must know that. Madam President, our enemies will know that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on March 26, 2001, my friend Senator Kennedy and I introduced S. 783, the Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001. This legislation represents the next step in our continuing efforts to afford dignity and recognition to victims of crime. Among other things, it would enhance the rights and protections afforded to victims of Federal crime, establish innovative new programs to help promote compliance with State victim's rights laws, and vastly improve the manner in which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved. Senator Kennedy and I first introduced the Crime Victims Assistance Act in the 105th Congress, and we reintroduced it in the 106th Congress. Like many other deserving initiatives, however, this much- needed legislation took a back seat to the debate over a proposed victims' rights constitutional amendment. I have on several occasions noted my concern that we not dissipate the progress we could be making by focusing exclusively on efforts to amend the Constitution. Regretfully, I must note again that the pace of victims legislation has slowed noticeably and many opportunities for progress have been squandered. This year, we have a golden opportunity to make significant progress toward providing the greater voice and rights that crime victims deserve. The Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001 enjoys broad support from victims groups across the country, including the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, and the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards. Regardless of their views on the proposed constitutional amendment, these organizations recognize that our legislation can make a difference in the lives of crime victims right now. When I spoke about the Crime Victims Assistance Act earlier in the year, I expressed the hope that Democrats and Republicans, supporters and opponents of a constitutional amendment, would join me in advancing this bill through Congress. This should be a bipartisan effort, and in this closely divided Senate, it must be a bipartisan effort. I want to thank our eight Democratic cosponsors: Senators Corzine, Daschle, Feingold, Harkin, Johnson, Kerry, Murray, and Schumer. And I want once again to urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to step up to the plate and support this important victims' legislation. When it comes to recognizing the rights of victims of crime, there is no majority, no minority, and no middle ground. As Americans, we share the common desire to help victims and provide them the greater voice and rights that they deserve. The Crime Victims Assistance Act proposes some basic, common-sense reforms to our federal crime victims laws, and would help provide the resources necessary to assist the states in giving force to their own locally-tailored statutes and constitutional provisions. What a shame if this legislation stalls again this year, because we could not work together on an issue on which we share so much common ground.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the Craig amendment to the International Criminal Court (ICC). While I have great respect for the Senator from Idaho, I believe it is unnecessary, damaging to the cause of international justice, and would further erode our standing with our European allies. Even the Bush administration, which has no intention of sending the Rome treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent, opposes the Craig amendment. Since the Rome treaty was approved over two years ago, it has been signed by more than 120 nations including all of the European Union members, all of our NATO allies except Turkey, as well as Israel, and Russia. Joining our friends and allies, President Clinton signed the Rome treaty late last year, a decision which I wholeheartedly supported, as the ICC represents a significant step forward in bringing to justice those responsible for committing the most heinous crimes. Throughout the negotiations on the ICC, the United States got almost everything it wanted and was able to obtain important safeguards to prevent American soldiers from being subjected to politically-motivated actions by the Court. There is room for improving the treaty, and that is precisely why I oppose the Craig amendment. The Craig amendment would prevent our diplomats from being at the table during the ongoing Preparatory Commissions on the ICC. While this may make some feel good, the practical effect would be self-defeating. It would put us in a far worse position to advance U.S. interests within the ICC and obtain additional protections, ensure that the safeguards we already obtained operate effectively, and make sure that the Court serves its intended purpose of prosecuting crimes against humanity. I do support the International Criminal Court. But, again, this vote is not about whether you support it or not. We already have a prohibition against the expenditure of U.S. funds for the ``use by or support of'' the ICC, unless the U.S. ratifies the treaty, which it is not going to do any time soon. The issue is whether we will participate in discussions on the procedures of the court, or whether we are going to tie the hands of the administration by preventing the United States from even sitting at the table. And, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have stated that they would not submit the Treaty to the Senate for consideration. While some may want to ``block'' the treaty, this is very unlikely to be possible. The EU is already engaged in a campaign to obtain the ratifications that are needed to reach the required number of 60. Blocking the International Criminal Court from coming into existence is likely to require a head-to-head confrontation with our European allies and over 80 countries outside of Europe that have signed the Treaty but not yet ratified. Because the reality is that the Court will come into existence and have jurisdiction over non-parties, our best strategy is to remain engaged with the ICC to shape a Court that best represents our interests and values. Irrespective of one's views on the ICC, it makes no sense to bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best. That is precisely what the Craig amendment will do and one of the major reasons why I strongly oppose it. The other reason that I oppose the Craig amendment is the long-term harm that it could have on U.S. efforts to prosecute war criminals. Year after year, Senator McConnell and myself, alternating as chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, have struggled to find enough money to help support the efforts of the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone. Moreover, we may now be asked to contribute millions of dollars to support a tribunal to prosecute crimes of genocide by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, if the tribunal there meets international standards of justice. The negotiations on these tribunals often takes years and involves endless wrangling over costs, over the laws and rules that will be applied to the proceedings, and over whether to even establish an ad hoc tribunal in the first place. One of the primary goals of the ICC is to have a permanent forum to prosecute these heinous crimes wherever they may occur, and our allies have embraced the ICC for precisely this reason. Once the ICC comes into existence, and our allies and the Security Council will no longer support establishing new ad hoc tribunals--which at that point could be unnecessary and duplicative--what will the United States do? No longer help with the prosecution of war criminals, because we do not support the ICC? That would be ridiculous for a country whose Bill of Rights is a beacon of hope for victims of human rights abuses around the world. Clearly, we all want to protect U.S. interests within the ICC. This amendment does not do that. In fact, it makes things worse by not even allowing our negotiators to be in the room while important issues are being discussed and could ultimately hinder our efforts to prosecute war criminals.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to express my support for S. 149, the Export Administration Act of 2001. I want to commend Senators Sarbanes, Gramm, Johnson, and Enzi for crafting a balanced, bipartisan bill that brings long-overdue clarity to the regulation of dual-use exports. This bill removes several unnecessary restrictions on exports that only hinder international trade, puts in place a system to track and license those technologies that have the potential to impact national security, and establishes realistic penalties and sanctions for violations of these regulations. I am pleased that the managers of the bill have accepted the amendment that Senator Biden and I proposed that will place controls on the export of items that are used to perpetrate acts of torture. The ``torture trade'' is a critical problem that has received too little attention from policymakers, the public, and the press. Too often, companies have exported items, apparently designed for security or crime control purposes, that are actually used to torture people by some of the most inhumane methods imaginable. Amnesty International reports that, over the past decade, more than 80 U.S. companies have been involved in the manufacture, marketing, and export of these types of items, like thumbscrews and electro-shock stun belts, which have been used to commit human rights abuses around the world. The Leahy-Biden amendment is a modest step to improve the transparency, oversight, and accountability associated with the trade in these items. It builds on existing regulations and requires a license, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and the concurrence of the Secretary of State, before such items can be exported. It also contains an annual reporting requirement to disclose the aggregate number of licenses to export these items that were granted during the previous year. This amendment is designed to make sure that certain goods and technologies are not used to commit acts of torture and other human rights abuses. While our amendment moves us in the right direction, I recognize that more can and should be done. Representatives Hyde and Lantos have included an amendment in their version of the bill which contains additional protections that could be very helpful in curtailing the torture trade. I strongly urge the conferees to take a serious look at the Hyde-Lantos amendment when determining the final outcome of the Export Administration Act. Finally, I believe that the Administration should work with other nations to develop strict standards of export controls for these items. I understand that the European Union is in the process of doing this, and our government should encourage and support that effort.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this legislation accomplishes a goal supported by President Bush and a bipartisan coalition of Senators-- making it easier for people who are eligible to become legal permanent residents to apply for their green cards without leaving the United States. There could not be a more opportune time to pass this bill than during the visit of President Vicente Fox to our nation, and I applaud the Majority Leader for making passage today possible. I hope that the approval of this bill serves as a signal of the Congress' willingness to work with the Mexican Government to achieve our common goals, and to maintain fair immigration policies. I was pleased to schedule this bill for a markup as soon as I became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Although I would have preferred that the Committee report the bill as it was introduced, I am glad that a compromise was reached that allowed the bill to receive the Committee's support and make it to the floor of the Senate. This bill extends section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expired on April 30, 2001. Section 245(i) allows foreign- born people who are present in the United States and eligible for legal permanent residency to apply for that status from within the country instead of having to return to their nation of origin to apply. We reauthorized section 245(i) last year, but only for a four-month period. Many eligible immigrants were unable to find attorneys and submit applications during that brief period. There are at least three good reasons to extend 245(i). First, it allows families to stay together in the United States instead of forcing family members to return to their native countries to apply for their green cards. Second, because immigrants can also qualify to become legal permanent residents based on an employment relationship, extending 245(i) will allow businesses to retain vital employees. Third, because immigrants have to pay a $1000 fee to apply under 245(i), this program raises millions of dollars for the Federal treasury. Senators Kennedy and Hagel deserve great credit for their sponsorship of and support for this bill. I am pleased that the Senate has approved this bipartisan bill to keep families together, and I urge the House to follow the Senate's lead.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for 6 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to discuss the most recent situation in Northern Ireland. All too often, I usually speak on the floor of the Senate about this issue after a bombing or bloody conflict between Republicans and Unionists. This time, however, I wish to address a situation that really has the potential to scar Northern Ireland more than any single bullet. We have seen in our own country schoolchildren returning to classes this week. In Northern Ireland, schoolchildren are returning also. But, unfortunately, the week has been horrific for students at the Holy Cross Girls Primary School in Belfast. The students and their parents have faced a gauntlet of protesters on their way to school, many of whom pelted the girls with stones and spit at them. Earlier today, a bomb went off addressed toward the schoolchildren. When I turn on the television and see pictures of these little girls, 6 and 7, 8 years old, crying in terror, being shielded by their mothers-- what is their crime and sin? They are going to school. If there is ever anything that can help that troubled part of the world, it would be to improve the education of the young people and then allow them to go on to get jobs. According to the press reports, the girls who attend this Catholic school have walked peacefully to and from their classes through a predominantly Protestant neighborhood for 30 years. Tragically, these children have been targeted to escalate already high tensions between Unionists and Republicans. After more than three decades of violence in Northern Ireland committed by parties on both sides of the issue--and both sides are certainly responsible for violence--we sometimes become a bit callous about events in this conflict. But this latest situation of targeting children is truly reprehensible because it threatens to scar these children permanently. The tragic situation at Holy Cross School has the potential to undermine any peace agreement that may be reached in the future. Negotiations will continue this month on resuming the Northern Ireland assembly and further implementation of the Good Friday peace agreement. These efforts will be for naught if the children of Belfast, whether they are Catholic or Protestant, grow up in an environment where they think hatred and division are a way of life. Let me take a moment to say, as I have in the past, that I have called upon Republicans and Unionists to abide by the Good Friday agreement. For those of us who have been involved in Northern Ireland over the years, we know that the hatred runs deep and the solutions are going to be complex. That is why I proudly support the U.S. commitment to the International Fund for Ireland. The Fund has promoted economic development in Northern Ireland across factional lines. I have supported it because the projects sponsored by IFI have been projects where Protestants and Catholics work side by side. The situation at Holy Cross School is dangerous because it threatens to remove the most important characteristic that the Irish are blessed with, and that is hope. I condemn efforts by people who are trying to take that hope away from these children and instill them with fear and hatred. That will simply perpetuate this conflict for years to come. I recall going to Northern Ireland on President Clinton's last visit there. I had a police officer assigned to me in Belfast. He said to me: ``Your President is a great man.'' I asked him why he said that. He said that before President Clinton came to Northern Ireland, the officer could not speak to somebody of the other faith. He told me which faith he belonged to but that is irrelevant since this was a statement that could have been made by either a Protestant or a Catholic. He said: ``Prior to that visit, I could not speak to someone of the other faith, but now I can work with them, I can be friends with them.'' He added: ``The greatness of what your President has done and what the involvement of your country has been is that I no longer have to teach my children to hate.'' Think of that. He was saying that prior to these efforts at a peace agreement, prior to the involvement of the United States and people such as Senator Mitchell and others, he felt that it was his duty to teach his children to hate. Unfortunately, this could have been heard on either side, but now he said he no longer had to do that. I want to think that is the feeling of most people in Northern Ireland, Protestant or Catholic. But I despair when I see the pictures of these little children going to school. These girls are 6, 7, and 8 years old. Look at the terror in their faces. They are wondering what is going on. Frankly, it brings back chilling memories of when I was in my teens and seeing the pictures in parts of our country where terrified African-American schoolchildren were being escorted to school by marshals. Here are Irish children being escorted to school by the security forces. There will not be peace in Northern Ireland, there will not be a promise for Northern Ireland until this sort of thing stops. I commend the authorities who are protecting these children and pursing the persons who threw the bomb. We can use law enforcement to stop the violence in the short term. In the long term people must look into their own souls and practice the religious principles that they espouse. They must practice these principles not only for themselves but for those who may not carry the same religion. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate completes the confirmation process for Robert D. McCallum, Jr. to be the Assistant Attorney General to head the Civil Division at the Department of Justice. I congratulate Mr. McCallum and his family. The Judiciary Committee has worked very hard since returning in July to act on presidential nominations to fill vital positions at the Department of Justice. In addition to the confirmations of the Deputy Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, the Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, and the Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy, during the last month we have held four hearings on Department of Justice nominees and today we confirm a sixth nominee to a leadership role at the Department of Justice in the last month. With the confirmation of Mr. McCallum, we have confirmed seven of the Attorney General's Assistant Attorneys General. We have also completed action on Asa Hutchinson to head the Drug Enforcement Administration, Jim Ziglar to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Bob Mueller to serve as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I commend the Members of the Committee on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation in this regard.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, with Senators Hatch, Schumer, Specter, Clinton, and McCain, a bipartisan bill to name the Department of Justice building in honor of the late Robert F. Kennedy. I am also pleased to join the bipartisan efforts of Congressmen Roemer and Scarborough, who are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. Robert F. Kennedy was a man of great courage and conviction. Of his many accomplishments during his life, the one we honor today is his tenure as Attorney General of the United States. Appointed by his brother, President John F. Kennedy, on January 21, 1961, he served his country admirably in the office of Attorney General until September 3, 1964. During his tenure as Attorney General, Robert Kennedy led the fight against injustice and championed civil rights for all Americans. He ordered United States Marshals to protect the Freedom Riders in Montgomery, Alabama. He sent Federal troops to open the doors for James Meredith to walk with dignity as the first African- American to attend the University of Mississippi. He pushed Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to guarantee basic freedoms for all our citizens, regardless of race, religion or creed. Robert F. Kennedy's commitment to justice for all echoed in his fond saying: ``Some men see things as they are and ask why; I dream of things that never were and ask why not.'' Attorney General Kennedy also was a determined prosecutor. His investigated organized crime throughout America and became the first attorney general to establish coordinated federal law programs for the prosecution of organized crime. From 1960 to 1963, Department of Justice convictions against organized crime rose 800 percent because of his efforts and dedication to bring organized crime figures to justice. As Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy represented President Kennedy in foreign affairs and closely advised the President in times of trouble. Attorney General Kennedy's wise counsel during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962, as well as secret negotiations with the Soviet Embassy, helped bring a peaceable end to the crisis. The memory of Robert F. Kennedy lives on in the work of others who care as much for justice as he did. As Attorney General, Robert Kennedy wrote these words: ``What happens to the country, to the world, depends on what we do with what others have left us.'' It is in that spirit that we honor him today. I am proud to led this bipartisan effort to name the Department of Justice Building after Robert F. Kennedy with the greatest respect, admiration and appreciation for his service to his country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, with Senators Hatch, Schumer, Specter, Clinton, and McCain, a bipartisan bill to name the Department of Justice building in honor of the late Robert F. Kennedy. I am also pleased to join the bipartisan efforts of Congressmen Roemer and Scarborough, who are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. Robert F. Kennedy was a man of great courage and conviction. Of his many accomplishments during his life, the one we honor today is his tenure as Attorney General of the United States. Appointed by his brother, President John F. Kennedy, on January 21, 1961, he served his country admirably in the office of Attorney General until September 3, 1964. During his tenure as Attorney General, Robert Kennedy led the fight against injustice and championed civil rights for all Americans. He ordered United States Marshals to protect the Freedom Riders in Montgomery, Alabama. He sent Federal troops to open the doors for James Meredith to walk with dignity as the first African- American to attend the University of Mississippi. He pushed Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to guarantee basic freedoms for all our citizens, regardless of race, religion or creed. Robert F. Kennedy's commitment to justice for all echoed in his fond saying: ``Some men see things as they are and ask why; I dream of things that never were and ask why not.'' Attorney General Kennedy also was a determined prosecutor. His investigated organized crime throughout America and became the first attorney general to establish coordinated federal law programs for the prosecution of organized crime. From 1960 to 1963, Department of Justice convictions against organized crime rose 800 percent because of his efforts and dedication to bring organized crime figures to justice. As Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy represented President Kennedy in foreign affairs and closely advised the President in times of trouble. Attorney General Kennedy's wise counsel during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962, as well as secret negotiations with the Soviet Embassy, helped bring a peaceable end to the crisis. The memory of Robert F. Kennedy lives on in the work of others who care as much for justice as he did. As Attorney General, Robert Kennedy wrote these words: ``What happens to the country, to the world, depends on what we do with what others have left us.'' It is in that spirit that we honor him today. I am proud to led this bipartisan effort to name the Department of Justice Building after Robert F. Kennedy with the greatest respect, admiration and appreciation for his service to his country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the senior Senator from New York for his statement. I note that the two Senators from New York have been in the conferences we held. They fought hard for the interests of the Northeast and the Atlantic States. It is partly because of that fight that I have to stand here today to strongly oppose another of the misguided, unbalanced, and actually archaic plans for emergency agricultural assistance. To put it bluntly, not only for Vermont farmers but farmers throughout the Northeast and Mid Atlantic States, they receive little or no relief from this package. This package is unbalanced and unfair to my region, even when it passed the House of Representatives, and it remains unbalanced and unfair as it passes the Senate today. Chairman Harkin's bill that passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee recognizes the emergency assistance needs for all farmers in all States. Chairman Harkin's bill has comprehensive assistance for specialty crops, including desperately needed assistance for our Nation's apple growers. It also adds needed funding for voluntary agricultural conservation programs on private lands, programs that the President chose not to fund this year despite overwhelming needs, and in spite of critical backlogs in all 50 States. Conservation assistance funds are critical for cash-poor farmers-- especially in my region of the country--helping farm families comply with the highest water and soil quality standards to keep their farmland healthy not only for this year but for next year. None of those comprehensive specialty crop funds, nor conservation funds, are found in the bill we just passed. Senator Harkin's bill also added disaster assistance for the devastation caused by armyworms in New England and throughout the country. None of this assistance is in the bill we just passed. Despite what one may hear, the bill we passed is not agricultural assistance for all farmers--not by a long shot. It is sodden with regional disparity. Those of us from the regions that have been slighted strongly believe that this has to be the last agricultural bill with such bias. It is not even fiscally responsible. The bill sends billions of taxpayer dollars--dollars that come from farm families across the Nation--to a handful of States in the Midwest. In fact, almost $3 billion of the $5.5 billion in emergency agricultural assistance--about 50 percent of this agricultural assistance--will go to only 10 States. I have to ask, Why? Why does my State of Vermont--a State where family farmers are in serious trouble, where low prices and poor weather conditions are forcing farmers to sell their family land-- receive less than four one-hundredths of a percent of this year's emergency agricultural assistance? Vermont farmers pay taxes, too. In fact, if assistance in this so- called agricultural emergency bill were based on the true value of Vermont's contributions to the Nation's agriculture, Vermont would receive over six times what I see in this bill. Farmers throughout the Northeast and Mid Atlantic States pay their taxes. While those farmers produce almost 7 percent of the Nation's agricultural products, those farmers receive 1 percent of the $5.5 billion flying out these doors to the Midwest. Look at Texas. Texas farmers are going to receive about 8 percent of the $5.5 billion--almost $400 million alone. When all is said and done, five select States in this country will each receive over $300 million for this bill. Ten States are going to get over $150 million. The rest get practically nothing. Some may say we passed this bill to expedite funds to our Nation's farmers. I think they are speaking of only a small number of farmers in only a very small, select number of States. They should be saying a small number of farmers in a small number of select States will get one heck of a lot of money, but to make it fair every other State will be allowed to pay the bill. That is really what they are saying. All of us will pay the bill so a small number of States can get the benefit. What bothers me is this goes on year after year after year. We have had disaster relief bills. We in the Northeast paid with our taxes a substantial part of the bill to try to help the country. But when we have had disasters I have never seen the return. We ``expedite funds to our Nation's farmers,'' as they say. They are not talking about Vermont farmers; they are not talking New Jersey farmers, or farmers throughout the Northeast and Mid Atlantic States, or the farmers in States with specialty crops not covered in the skewed State grant formulation we took from the House bill. We had a chance to even out the bias--at least to help all farmers in all States. As I said, we have taken an easy in irresponsible route to simply pass an unbalanced and unfair House bill. We have dismissed the true needs of specialty crop States, and we have dismissed the essential conservation programs that truly help my region's farmers. Sadly, once again, we are being left out in the cold. In fact, for that matter, even on the basis of this we get a bum deal. We get even worse because the dairy compact was left out of it. If you are a proponent of States rights, regional dairy compacts are the answer. They are State-initiated, they are State-ratified, and they are State-supported programs that assure a safe supply of milk for consumers. I received a letter signed by 22 Governors, Republicans and Democrats--I believe there is even an Independent in there--who are endorsing the dairy compact bill Because it would ratify the compacts that their States have negotiated among themselves. If you support interstate trade, regional compacts are the answer. The Northeast Dairy Compact has prompted an increase in sales of milk into the compact region from neighboring States. If you support a balanced budget, then regional compacts are the answer. Why? Because the Northeast Compact does not cost the taxpayers a single cent, which is a lot different from some of the farm programs that are being boosted up by billions of dollars in this bill. If you support farmland protection programs, regional compacts are the answer. In fact, that is why major environmental groups have endorsed the Northeast Dairy Compact; they know it helps preserve farmland and prevents urban sprawl. I recently received a letter from 33 environmental, conservation, and public interest membership organizations supporting the dairy compact amendment. Lastly, of course, if we are worried about consumers, then we ought to like regional dairy compacts. Retail milk prices within the compact region are lower on average than in the rest of the Nation where they do not have a compact. The dairy compact has done what it is supposed to do: It has stabilized widely fluctuating dairy prices; it has ensured a fair price for dairy farmers; it has made it possible for farm families to stay in business; and it has protected consumers' supplies of fresh milk. Unfortunately, though, this is a policy debate that pits dairy farmers who go to work every single day trying to make a living against some of the Nation's most powerful corporations. It pits consumers and communities that treasure the open space and quality of life that local dairy farming offers, against those who can spend millions of dollars on ads and lobbyists here in Washington. We should not stay in the way of these State initiatives that protect farmers and consumers without costing taxpayers a cent. Dairy compacts are one of those issues where Members have very strong views even though we all share the same core beliefs. We all want to support our dairy farmers and we all believe that they should be able to earn a decent living for their families. We all want ample supplies of fresh milk, at reasonable prices, for our States' consumers. Unlike agricultural commodities such as wheat, corn, and soybeans, milk is highly perishable. When a dairy farmer brings the milk to market, that milk has to be sold right away, or it quickly loses its value. It can't be set aside in a silo. For big processors, that's just fine. They can buy milk at distressed prices and store it away to make cheese or powdered milk or ice cream. But that setup hurts farmers, who work incredibly hard just to make a living, and consumers, who want farmers around to supply fresh milk for the store shelves. As a nation we have tried several remedies to cut through this knot, and the record is proving that regional compacts are the most sensible and workable answer yet. And unlike other legislative remedies that come with price tags, and often hefty ones, compacts cost Federal taxpayers nothing. Milk is one of those unusual foods where the spread between what farmers get paid for their labor, and what consumers pay for the product, is huge and increasing throughout the Nation. In New England, what farmers get paid has been fairly stable since the dairy compact began working in 1997, and that is one of its great successes. But what processors and stores charge for milk has greatly increased since 1997--not just in New England, but in the rest of the Nation. Consumer prices are lower in new England than in much of the rest of the country and that the $10,000 to $20,000 in added annual income has helped keep New England farmers in business who otherwise would have had to leave farming. There is a hidden risk right now to consumers and farmers in New England--and the rest of the Nation. This is the growing concentration of processors in the milk industry. In New England, Suiza Foods is rapidly trying to cinch a stranglehold on milk supplies. In some parts of New England they already control 70 to 80 percent of the fluid milk supply. They have swept in, bought processing plants in New England, and then closed them--elimiating competition. The ascent of Suiza is nothing less than stunning. In a few short years, Suiza has gained its dominant position in the milk processing business. I showed you three charts a couple days ago showing the incredible increase in the dominance of Suiza in just a few years. Even worse, if its purchase of Dean Foods is approved, a strong case can be made that Suiza is on the verge of becoming a monopoly in the milk processing business. I have asked the Department of Justice and its Antitrust Division to closely monitor Suiza's surging market dominance, and I again call to their attention the urgency of doing that. But equally remarkable is the fact that Suiza is also now in the process of consolidating a dominant position as the chief purchaser of milk from farmers. Simply put, in many parts of the country, Suiza Foods is the dominant customer--if it is not the only customer--for farmers' raw milk to be used for fluid processing. Suiza Foods is now dominating both the purchase and the sale of fluid milk in this country. Suiza is becoming--all at once--both a monopolist and a monopsonist in the fluid dairy marketplace. Suiza Foods is a new type of market force. I have searched our antitrust case law for a name for this type of combined market power. There is no adequate name on the books for what Suiza has become, as I called them in a recent Judiciary hearing, and on the Senate floor, they are ``suizopolies.'' How can suppliers and consumers defend themselves from a giant firm-- this Suizopoly--that controls both the purchase of a product--from thousands of suppliers with little bargaining power--and its sale to millions of consumers? The best way is the dairy compact; it gives the public some control over access to milk, it assures fresh, local supplies of milk, and it gives farmers some ability to earn a living income. I also want to respond to seven myths about the compact that the big processors have spent millions of dollars to promote, through years of lobbying and advertising and campaign contributions. They were trumpeting many of these myths before the compact was enacted, and they have not changed their songsheets, even though the compact has done just what it was supposed to do, proving their arguments dead wrong. This first myth is that dairy compacts are milk taxes that hurt consumers. As you have just heard, concentration, is the major cause of consumer price increase in the milk sector. And, a recent independent study funded by USDA determined that industry profit taking--including profit taking by Suiza--and cost increases not related to the compact, are responsible for more than 90 percent of the increase in retail prices in New England since the compact was implemented. This leaves less than three cents of a gallon of milk attributable to the compact. A recent GAO report requested by Senator Feingold and myself says to all: It compares the prices of a gallon of 2 percent milk in Boston and Milwaukee for last year. The wholesale price of milk in Boston was $2.03. The wholesale price in Milwaukee was $2.08--five cents more than in Boston. So you would expect retail prices to be about the same for Boston, or slightly less, than for Milwaukee. However, Suiza controls around 70 percent of the milk supply in Massachusetts and a greater amount in Boston. The average retail price listed by GAO is $2.74 in Boston for a gallon of milk but only $2.26 in Milwaukee. Obviously, the compact does not cause the difference--the wholesale prices for Boston are lower than in Milwaukee, as the GAO makes clear. The GAO report also shows that for most of the cities they examined, the consumer prices in the compact region were lower. There is a myth that the dairy compact has harmed nutritional programs such as WIC, school lunch, school breakfast, and food stamps. Wrong again. The fact is that the Compact Commission requires compensation to State WIC and school lunch programs for any potential impacts. In fact, if anything it has overcompensated the WIC program, as noted in the 1998 OMB study. A letter from the Massachusetts WIC Director says this: The Commission has taken strong steps to protect the WIC Program and the School Lunch program from any impacts due to the compact. . . . Because of this, our WIC Program was able to serve approximately 5,875 more participants with fresh wholesome milk without added costs. . . . The New England Compact Commission has exempted school breakfast and lunch programs from any pricing impacts due to milk price regulation. Commissioner Kassler of Massachusetts tells me in writing that ``without the compact, this [regional New England] milk shed will dwindle and milk would be brought in from greater distances and at greater costs.'' Those greater costs have been estimated in the range of from 20 to 67 cents per gallon. There is also a myth that dairy compacts are unconstitutional price- fixing cartels. This is my favorite example of twisted logic. I believe my opponents' argument goes something like this: Interstate compacts would be unconstitutional if the Constitution didn't explicitly contain a clause allowing the creation of interstate compacts with the consent of Congress. By operation of the compact clause, States explicitly have the opportunity to solve regional problems in this constitutionally permitted way. United States Federal courts have recognized the Northeast Dairy Compact as a constitutional exercise of congressional authority under the commerce and compact clauses of the U.S. Constitution. There is a myth that dairy compacts are barriers to interstate trade. Dairy compacts encourage greater competition in the marketplace by preserving more family farms and increasing trade. An OMB study concluded that trade into the compact region actually increased after implementation. And I would also point out that farmers in non-compact States, like New York, or even Wisconsin, are perfectly free to sell their milk in the compact region at compact rates. New York dairy producers are benefiting today by doing just that. Indeed, if Wisconsin were to trade places with New York, Wisconsin farmers would gain the benefit of the compact. There is also a myth that dairy compacts encourage farmers to overproduce milk and will lead to a flood of milk in the market. The fact is that the dairy compact regulatory process includes a supply management program that helps to prevent overproduction. In 2000, the Northeast Dairy Compact States produced 4.7 billion pounds of milk, a 0.6 percent decline from 1999. In the nearly 4 years that the compact has been in effect, milk production in the compact region has risen by just 2.2 percent. Nationally during this same period, milk production rose 7.4 percent. In Wisconsin milk production rose over 4 percent. There is a myth that dairy compact only help bigger farms at the expense of smaller ones. Just like most commodity programs, the compact benefits all participants. Also, 75 percent of the farms in New England have fewer than 100 cows. The worst myth is that the dairy compact has not been successful. The success of the Northeast Dairy Compact is undeniable. Let me just close with this. Mr. President, when I was a young man--actually even before my teens--I thought how much I would love being in the Senate. Why? Because every State has two Senators. A State with a large population, a powerful State such as the Presiding Officer's State, or a small, rural State such as mine each get two. The one place where every State is equal, supposedly, is in the Senate; two Senators. I thought what a joy it would be to represent my native State of Vermont in the Senate; and it has been. I love the Senate. I have so much respect for Members on both sides of the aisle. I think of the Senate as a place where the country can come together, where regional interests can be represented, and, of course, where States can maintain their identity, certainly, and where we have an obligation to help each other. And we have. Whether it be earthquakes in California or floods in the Midwest or defense programs in the Southeast, and on and on, the Senators from my part of the country have supported providing assistance to those parts of the country. I could give a million different examples. But there seems to be one area where that effort to help each other always falls apart: The Northeast Mid-Atlantic States, when it comes to agriculture disaster programs. We are always there. We are like the fire brigade that answers the call in the middle of the night. We show up all the time, show up all the time to protect those other ``houses.'' It would kind of be nice if, just once, when it is our ``house'' on fire, some of those we have helped throughout the years could come and maybe help us put out the fire. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.