Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Senator Carnahan on the introduction of S. 1250. I am an original co-sponsor of her legislation that deals with health care shortfalls among members of the National Guard and Reserve. This bill will enable citizen-soldiers to receive health insurance coverage for up to one year following an extended deployment. It is an important part of a larger effort to ensure that all members of the National Guard and Reserve have adequate health insurance. This bill arises out of the changing role of the National Guard and Reserve in defending our Nation. During the Cold War, the military reserves served as an ace-in-the-hole, ready to fight but held back as a force of last resort. As our military posture has shifted, reservists have started supplementing active forces and taken up a greater share of the burden of projecting our national military presence abroad. In many cases, these proud men and women are serving side-by-side with their active duty counterparts in deployments that can last upward of six months. I will not repeat many of the facts and figures that Senator Carnahan so adeptly underscored in her statement, but, suffice to say here, our citizen-soldiers are experiencing all of the same hardships, challenges, dangers that full-time servicemembers go through every time they leave their barracks or launch into the skies. This courage and sacrifice deserves our support, both in symbolic and concrete terms. Unfortunately, many are experiencing difficulties as they transition back-and-forth between their usual, employer-provided health coverage and the military TRICARE Prime coverage they receive when they deploy longer than 60 days. More disturbing are the cases where a reservist might be between jobs in their professions, go on an extended deployment, and return to that unemployed status with no health insurance coverage at all. There are innumerable variations on each one of these stories, but each points towards a larger problem. Cases like those add up, inevitably impacting military readiness and raising troubling moral questions. Military readiness diminishes when soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen arrive for deployment less healthy than possible. Basic questions of fairness come into play when two people can do exactly the same job, but receive different levels of respect and gratitude from the country. Congress has the responsibility to deal with these inequities and tailor a solution to address the problem. Recently, Senators Carnahan, DeWine, Daschle, Cochran, Johnson, and Snowe joined me to introducing S. 1119, the Selected Reserve Health Care Act. This bill commissions an independent, detailed study of the health insurance needs of our citizen-soldiers, but, more importantly, expresses the sense of Congress that every reservist should have full health care coverage. This is a long-term goal that may take some time to achieve. In the meantime, though, we should take steps to move us in the right direction. Senator Carnahan's legislation will ensure a smooth transition back to civilian employment after an extended deployment. It increases the time that a member of the reserve can remain on TRICARE following deployment from one month to a year. Though it merely extends an existing benefit, it will provide a much-needed stopgap for those who are unemployed or facing difficulties with their civilian insurance providers. This legislation is sensible and affordable, finding a balance between our responsibilities to our servicemembers and our responsibilities as caretakers of the national treasury. Senator Carnahan has shown tremendous leadership on this issue, not only co-sponsoring a companion legislation that I introduced almost a month ago, but, more importantly, by coming up with a realistic, concrete step to start addressing this complex problem today. I am happy to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to working with her to enact both of these bills.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2001. This is an important piece of legislation that will help address the lack of affordable housing available in our Nation today. For far too long we have neglected our Nation's stock of affordable housing, allowing too many properties to fall by the wayside. Between 1995 to 1997 the nation lost 370,000 affordable rental units, nearly 5 percent of the housing available to low-income families. These homes were lost to deterioration, demolition, or simply because landlords opted out of Federal programs in order to secure more lucrative rents. Unfortunately these units were not replaced at a pace adequate enough to address the need. Our most vulnerable populations, the low-income, the elderly, and working families, have been left with the difficult task of finding an apartment or a house that they can afford. Roughly five million households in the United States have ``worst case'' housing needs. These families are spending over 50 percent of their incomes on rent alone, leaving precious little to put groceries on the table, gas in their cars, or buy clothes for their kids. In my home State of Vermont, the situation is no different. Production of new housing has stalled, prices for rental units have dramatically increased, and rental vacancy rates are at an all time low. The competition for housing, any housing at all, is so great that many low and middle-income families must stay in hotels, school dorms, and homeless shelters until they can find a permanent place. This results in a huge personal and emotional loss to the families and drives up the needs for additional State and Federal social services dollars to help these people in their time of crisis. For those fortunate enough to find an apartment available for rent, few are able to afford the rent that the market demands. It is estimated that the average person would have to earn over $11 dollars per hour to afford a two bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent. While Vermont has a dedicated community of State officials, no profit organizations, advocates and affordable housing developers working to ensure the housing needs of our State's population are met, the resources are simply not available to construct the number of units necessary to alleviate the problem. As a result the number of homeless families in the state are rising. In Chittenden County, Vermont's most populous region, the number of families seeking services from homeless shelters has risen 400 percent in three years, over half of these families are working families, unable to afford a place to live even while holding down a job. This is a trend we see spreading throughout the state. We cannot allow this to continue. The creation of a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will go a long way to help address this situation. By harnessing revenues generated by other Federal housing programs, States, communities and non-profit organizations, will be able to leverage local funds for new housing construction in the most needy areas. I cannot think of a time in recent history when it has been more important to reaffirm the federal government's commitment to the housing needs of this country, and I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of this bill. There is a long road ahead of us in our endeavor to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the final product is fair and equitable to all regions of the country, including rural and small states. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2001. This is an important piece of legislation that will help address the lack of affordable housing available in our Nation today. For far too long we have neglected our Nation's stock of affordable housing, allowing too many properties to fall by the wayside. Between 1995 to 1997 the nation lost 370,000 affordable rental units, nearly 5 percent of the housing available to low-income families. These homes were lost to deterioration, demolition, or simply because landlords opted out of Federal programs in order to secure more lucrative rents. Unfortunately these units were not replaced at a pace adequate enough to address the need. Our most vulnerable populations, the low-income, the elderly, and working families, have been left with the difficult task of finding an apartment or a house that they can afford. Roughly five million households in the United States have ``worst case'' housing needs. These families are spending over 50 percent of their incomes on rent alone, leaving precious little to put groceries on the table, gas in their cars, or buy clothes for their kids. In my home State of Vermont, the situation is no different. Production of new housing has stalled, prices for rental units have dramatically increased, and rental vacancy rates are at an all time low. The competition for housing, any housing at all, is so great that many low and middle-income families must stay in hotels, school dorms, and homeless shelters until they can find a permanent place. This results in a huge personal and emotional loss to the families and drives up the needs for additional State and Federal social services dollars to help these people in their time of crisis. For those fortunate enough to find an apartment available for rent, few are able to afford the rent that the market demands. It is estimated that the average person would have to earn over $11 dollars per hour to afford a two bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent. While Vermont has a dedicated community of State officials, no profit organizations, advocates and affordable housing developers working to ensure the housing needs of our State's population are met, the resources are simply not available to construct the number of units necessary to alleviate the problem. As a result the number of homeless families in the state are rising. In Chittenden County, Vermont's most populous region, the number of families seeking services from homeless shelters has risen 400 percent in three years, over half of these families are working families, unable to afford a place to live even while holding down a job. This is a trend we see spreading throughout the state. We cannot allow this to continue. The creation of a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will go a long way to help address this situation. By harnessing revenues generated by other Federal housing programs, States, communities and non-profit organizations, will be able to leverage local funds for new housing construction in the most needy areas. I cannot think of a time in recent history when it has been more important to reaffirm the federal government's commitment to the housing needs of this country, and I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of this bill. There is a long road ahead of us in our endeavor to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the final product is fair and equitable to all regions of the country, including rural and small states. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Kohl, and others, on introducing the Product Packaging Protection Act of 2001. Over the last few years, consumer complaints had been made about offensive material being inserted in various consumer products. These offensive materials range from neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic hate messages to pornographic images and disturbing anti-abortion images. Unfortunately, these materials have been found in consumer products often used by children, such as cereal boxes. Moreover, such activities pose risks to the safety of consumer products, which consumers reasonably expect to obtain from the store in pristine condition and without those products having been opened by unauthorized individuals. To address this problem, this legislation would add a new prohibition to the Federal Anti-Tampering Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1365, to prohibit a person from intentionally tampering with a consumer product, without the consent of the manufacturer, retailer, or authorized distributor by inserting a writing in the consumer product or its container prior to its sale to a consumer. A person convicted of violating this new provision would be subject to a fine or up to two years' imprisonment. The term ``tamper'' is defined to mean meddling for the purpose of altering, damaging or misusing a product. See Webster's Dictionary. The bill describes in precise terms the tampering activity that would fall within the new criminal prohibition, and is intended to extend further protection to consumer products.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I associate myself with the words of our distinguished leader. I came over to the Senate for the express purpose of this moment. Like the distinguished leader, I recall this tragedy. I had just arrived in Vermont on that day, and I recall when the police officers in the airport said: Senator, have you heard what happened? Any of us who has served in law enforcement has a sense of what goes through everybody's mind. I thought of Officer Chestnut who just a few days before as I was going through the door stopped me and said my wife had just gone through. We were at some event up here. I do not even remember now what the event was. He said: I sent your wife on up. He said as a joke: You must be late because you are behind her. That is a family thing. Detective Gibson traveled with different groups I had been with when we had hearings outside Washington and had gone with Senators on different events. A lot of times we were around when there would be dignitaries up here, and he would recognize the different Senators. It was always the same thing: He would see us or a family member: Here, come on through; and he would take care of us. It can sometimes be very easy to take for granted the law enforcement around the Capitol. There is a significant law enforcement presence. It is, as the distinguished leader said, like family. We see them and are with them, and yet when something such as this happens, you realize they are the line of defense between us and that tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of people in this country who would do injury, not to us individually but to really the symbols of our Government. I thank the distinguished leader for his words. I know they are words that will be joined by Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the distinguished leader yield?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Kohl, and others, on introducing the Product Packaging Protection Act of 2001. Over the last few years, consumer complaints had been made about offensive material being inserted in various consumer products. These offensive materials range from neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic hate messages to pornographic images and disturbing anti-abortion images. Unfortunately, these materials have been found in consumer products often used by children, such as cereal boxes. Moreover, such activities pose risks to the safety of consumer products, which consumers reasonably expect to obtain from the store in pristine condition and without those products having been opened by unauthorized individuals. To address this problem, this legislation would add a new prohibition to the Federal Anti-Tampering Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1365, to prohibit a person from intentionally tampering with a consumer product, without the consent of the manufacturer, retailer, or authorized distributor by inserting a writing in the consumer product or its container prior to its sale to a consumer. A person convicted of violating this new provision would be subject to a fine or up to two years' imprisonment. The term ``tamper'' is defined to mean meddling for the purpose of altering, damaging or misusing a product. See Webster's Dictionary. The bill describes in precise terms the tampering activity that would fall within the new criminal prohibition, and is intended to extend further protection to consumer products.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have moved very rapidly to consider matters before the Judiciary Committee having noticed these hearings within minutes of the time the Senate reorganized, meeting within days. We have five nominations through this morning.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield my time.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand the next two votes are 10- minute votes.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. I see my good friend from Utah is here, as well as the Senators from Montana and Virginia. Mr. President, it took the Senate the entire month of June to pass S. Res. 120, a very simple resolution in which we organized our committees. As one Senator, I am sorry we lost the month of June to the process of reorganizing the Senate, but I am proud of the very quick start of the Judiciary Committee on holding hearings and reporting nominees. I sent out official notice of the committee's first hearing on judicial nominations within 10 minutes after the majority leader announced an agreement had been reached on reorganization. The hearing on judicial nominations was held the very first day after committee membership assignments were completed earlier this month. We expedited committee consideration of the nominees by urging all Senators to propound such followup written questions as they thought necessary as soon as possible after the hearing. I included them on the committee agenda for our business meeting this week. At that meeting yesterday, the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report each of the judicial nominations. Each vote was 19-0, and the other nominations on the calendar were voice voted. These are the first judicial nominations heard before the committee, the first judicial nominations considered by the committee, and they will now be the first judicial nominations considered by the Senate this year. I have only served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee since June 5, the Senate did not adopt its reorganizing resolution until June 29, and committee assignments were not made until July 10. So we have been moving pretty rapidly since the Senate allowed us to go forward. There were no hearings on judicial nominations and no judges confirmed by the Senate during the months in which I was privileged to serve as the ranking Democrat. I chaired the first hearing on July 11. That was the first hearing on judicial nominations all year. The first judge we confirm today will be the first judge confirmed in the 107th Congress. I heard the rumors that those on our side of the aisle would not hold hearings and would not consider any of President Bush's judicial nominations. We even heard some words that the Democrats might block all judges. Of course, we demonstrated very clearly that is not the case. We set a pace, one of the fastest paces I have seen in my 25 years on the committee under both Democratic and Republican Chairs. We held a hearing noticed minutes after the Senate's reorganization. We proceeded with nominees of both the court of appeals and district court the day after committee assignments were made. We proceeded with expedited committee consideration yesterday. We are proceeding today with Senate consideration of what I hope will be the confirmation of the first of President Bush's nominations. First is the nomination of Judge Roger Gregory. I know Judge Gregory, his family, and indeed all the people who live in the area covered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, have been waiting a long time for this day. Judge Gregory was first nominated for this position in June 2000-- more than a year ago. He has the strong bipartisan support of both his home State Senators, John Warner and Chuck Robb, but no hearing was ever scheduled on President Clinton's nomination of Roger Gregory. President Clinton's attempts to fill a number of vacancies on the Fourth Circuit met with resistance, delaying the inevitable integration of the court. Judge Beaty, a U.S. district court judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, was nominated by President Clinton 6 years ago, in December of 1995, but he never received a hearing. Judge Beaty was renominated in 1997. Again, the committee scheduled no hearing for him. Judge Beaty waited a period of 34 months without a hearing. President Clinton tried again in 1999, nominating another African- American, James Wynn. Judge Wynn, a North Carolina Court of Appeals judge, was also denied a hearing before the committee, but President Clinton sent him back to the Senate one more time to give the Senate one more opportunity to hear him at the start of the 107th Congress in January of this year. After pending for a total of 16 months without a hearing, Judge Wynn's nomination was among those withdrawn by President Bush in March of this year. Roger Gregory was initially nominated, as I noted, over a year ago. Like the others, his nomination languished without a hearing. Because there was no action taken by the Senate on Mr. Gregory's nomination, President Clinton used his powers of recess appointment to make Roger Gregory the first African-American judge to sit on the Fourth Circuit and sent his nomination for a permanent position on that court back to the Senate at the beginning of this year. President Bush initially withdrew Judge Gregory's nomination in March, but after careful reconsideration, President Bush--and I applaud him for this--sent Judge Gregory's name back to us in May. Again, he had the strong support of both Senators from Virginia. During this time, Virginia was represented by three different Senators, two of whom I am privileged to serve with today--one Democrat, two Republicans. All three strongly supported Judge Gregory. To their credit, all three resisted political importuning from either side. This makes Judge Gregory actually one of the few nominees ever to be nominated for the same position by Presidents of different parties. He is in the unique position of serving by means of an appointment whose term expires at the end of this session of the Senate unless his nomination to a full lifetime appointment is acted upon before we adjourn this year. Judge Gregory received his B.A. in 1975 from Virginia State University and his juris doctorate from the University of Michigan in 1978. Prior to his appointment to the Fourth Circuit, he was active in private practice in Virginia. His law practice was a mix of civil and criminal in both State and Federal courts, including criminal defense, personal injury, domestic cases, real estate, work as general counsel for an urban school district, and defense cases for large insurance companies and large corporations such as General Motors and K Mart. He was an active litigator. He also taught as adjunct professor of constitutional law at Virginia State University. He was a member of the faculty of the Virginia State Bar Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee for all recent admittees to the State bar. Judge Gregory was very active in community and bar activities before he took the bench, including service on the board of directors of the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, the Richmond Bar Association, and the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys. His life and career have been exemplary and his qualifications for this position are stellar. His service on the bench since his appointment has been uniformly praised. He conducted himself with distinction at his confirmation hearing this month. Based on all these considerations, it seems appropriate that Judge Gregory's nomination be the first considered by the committee and the Senate this year. As I said before, I commend my good friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, as well as the distinguished Senator, Mr. Allen, and Representative Bobby Scott when they appeared before the committee earlier this month to urge Judge Gregory's confirmation, giving him their bipartisan stamp of approval. At our hearing, Senator Warner, who is truly the gentleman of the Senate, as we all know, was characteristically generous in praising Senator Robb and Governor Wilder for their efforts on behalf of Roger Gregory as well. I add my praise of both Presidents, one a Democrat and one a Republican. I praise President Bush for doing the right thing in this case. President Bush deserves great credit for renominating Judge Gregory and allowing the Senate a third chance to consider and confirm this outstanding nominee. Senator Allen served with distinction both as Governor of the State of Virginia and now as U.S. Senator from Virginia and knows well the qualifications. Then we have two nominees to the district court in Montana. They are both well qualified and well respected. My two friends from Montana, the two Senators from Montana, came to me and asked if we could move these judges forward. I thought they had done what is a model. They worked together with the White House to get two well-qualified judges. Senator Baucus and Senator Burns both told me the same thing on different occasions: They had a desperate need for judges. They had one judge handling far more than they should have to, sort of home alone. They said, please send somebody to help. Recommended to the President, and the President to us, Richard Cebull is currently a United States Magistrate for the District Court of Montana. He spent his career in private practice before his appointment as a magistrate. Judge Cebull received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, where the ABA has been helpful to us, to Senators Baucus and Burns, as well as the White House. Judge Cebull is a native of Billings, Montana. He received his B.S. from Montana State University in 1966, and his J.D. from the University of Montana Law School in 1969. Before his appointment as a magistrate, Judge Cebull spent his career in private practice in Billings, litigating civil cases with an emphasis on insurance defense and medical malpractice defense. He was active in trial lawyer associations and a speaker at CLE programs on practical litigation issues. He also served as a member of the Montana Pattern Jury Instruction Commission, which wrote civil jury instructions for Montana courts, and was Chairman of the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Group, which wrote the District of Montana Local Rules. For a short time in the 1970's, he served as a Trial Judge in the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court, presiding over criminal trials of tribal members charged with violating tribal ordinances. He has also served as a settlement master in a variety of civil cases. Judge Cebull received a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating from the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Sam Ellis Haddon is an attorney in private practice in Missoula, Montana. Mr. Haddon is a 1959 graduate of Rice University and received his J.D. in 1965 from the University of Montana School of Law. He was an immigration patrol inspector for the U.S. Border Patrol, and a criminal investigator for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. His legal career has been spent in private practice, focusing primarily on civil litigation in a variety of areas of law. He has been very active in bar activities and Montana Supreme Court commissions over the years. His many memberships include the ABA, the American College of Trial Lawyers, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the American Judicature Society, the American Law Institute, and he is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation. As a young attorney he was active in the Montana State Bar, and later on served on an advisory commission making recommendations to the State's Supreme Court about the standards for admission to practice in Montana. He was also chair of a commission to study and suggest revisions to the State's laws of evidence, and since 1986 has served on the Montana Supreme Court's Commission on Practice, screening and hearing ethics complaints against attorneys admitted in the State. For the last five years he has served as the chair of this Commission. Mr. Haddon has been an adjunct instructor at the University of Montana Law School for nearly 30 years, teaching contracts, professional responsibility and trial practice. Like Judge Cebull, Mr. Haddon also received a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating from the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Judge Cebull and Sam Haddon are both strongly supported by their home-state Senators, Max Baucus and Conrad Burns, who each testified enthusiastically on behalf of these nominees at their July 11 hearing. The Senators from Montana also echoed the plea we had heard from Chief Judge Molloy, who is the only active Judge for the District of Montana, to quickly confirm these nominees. I hope the Senate will respond to their plea and approve these nominations today. Confirmation of these nominations for Montana will demonstrate that the Senate can act promptly on consensus nominees with broad bipartisan support. When the White House works closely with home- state Senators of both parties, with both Democrats and Republicans, Senate consideration is made much easier. I commend Senators Baucus and Burns for their constructive approach to filling the vacancies that were plaguing their District Court. I am happy to support these two nominees for the District Court in Montana as well as Roger Gregory for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and hope to be able to support many more of the President's judicial nominees.

Mr. LEAHY. This Senator will ask for regular order as soon as the 10 minutes is up.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield back whatever time I may have, but first I ask unanimous consent it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on the three judicial nominations and ask for the yeas and nays on all three of them en bloc now.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand we are, by voice vote, going to do two other nominees: Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division, and Eileen O'Connor to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division. It took the Senate the entire month of June to pass S. Res. 120, a simple resolution reorganizing the Committees. I am sorry that we lost the month of June to the process of re-organizing the Senate, but I am proud of the very quick start that the Committee has gotten on holding hearings and reporting nominees. I sent out official notice of the Committee's first hearing on judicial nominations within 10 minutes after Majority Leader Daschle announced that an agreement had been reached on reorganization. The hearing was held the day after Committee membership assignments were completed earlier this month. We expedited Committee consideration of the nominees by urging all Senators to propound such follow-up written questions as they thought necessary as soon as possible after the hearing. I included them on the Committee agenda for our business meeting this week. At that meeting yesterday, the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report each of the nominations. Each vote was 19 to 0. These are the first nominations heard before the Committee, the first nominations considered by the Committee and will now be the first judicial nominations considered by the Senate this year. I have only served as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee since June 5, the Senate did not adopt its reorganizing resolution until June 29 and Committee assignments were not made until July 10. There were no hearings on judicial nominations and no judges confirmed by the Senate during the months in which I was privileged to serve as the Ranking Democrat. I chaired the first hearing on July 11. That was the first hearing on judicial nominations all year and one more than the Republican Majority had held. The first judge we confirmed today is one more than all the judges confirmed by the Republican Majority in the first six months of this year. I had heard the rumors that Democrats would not hold hearings and would not consider any of President Bush's judicial nominations and would not allow the confirmation of any judges. The word was that Democrats in the Senate would block all the judges. Well, here we are, having held a hearing noticed minutes after the delay in the Senate's reorganization finally ended, having proceeded with nominees to both the Court of Appeals and the District Court the day after Committee assignments were made, having proceeded with expedited Committee consideration yesterday and proceeding today to Senate consideration and what I hope will be confirmation of the first of President Bush's judicial nominations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee has reported another group of executive branch nominees and that the Senate will be acting on the President's nominations to head the Civil Rights Division and the Tax Division of the Department of Justice so promptly. Just as the committee proceeded promptly with the consideration of the President's nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General, when I temporarily chaired the committee in January, we are continuing to move promptly on other nominations this month. In January, the Senate did not receive the nomination of John Ashcroft until January 19 and reported it to the Senate the very next day. In deference to the President, the committee had moved ahead with hearings on the nomination the week of January 16 in advance of receiving the nomination by the President. The Senate has confirmed the President's nominations of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and a controversial nomination to serve as Solicitor General. The President has yet to nominate anyone to be Associate Attorney General, the third highest ranking position at the Department of Justice. We have confirmed nominees to serve as Deputy Attorneys General to head the Criminal Division, the Antitrust Division, the Office of Legislative Affairs, and the Office of Legal Policy. In late May, Chairman Hatch conducted a hearing on the nomination of Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division. I had included Mr. Boyd's nomination on the agenda for a business meeting of the Judiciary Committee last week, our first week in session after the adoption of a Senate organizing resolution and the assignment of committee membership. But less than half of the Republican members of the committee showed up for the business meeting on July 12. We were unable to reach a quorum last week to report out the President's nominations to the Justice Department. Yesterday, at our next business meeting of the Judiciary Committee, we reported that nomination to the Senate. It took the Senate the entire month of June to pass S. Res. 120, a simple resolution reorganizing the committees. It was only last Tuesday that assignments to committees were completed. Last Wednesday, the first day after the committee membership was set, we proceeded to hold a confirmation hearing including additional an executive branch nominee, Eileen O'Connor to be Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice. Today the Senate has that nomination before it because we were able to expedite its consideration by the committee at our business meeting yesterday. I expect the Senate will confirm Ms. O'Connor, another of the President's nominations to a key post at the Department of Justice. I am glad to be able to accommodate the request of the Attorney General to expedite her consideration. This week the Judiciary Committee proceeded with back-to-back days of hearing on the important nominations of Asa Hutchinson to head the Drug Enforcement Administration and James Ziglar to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I have noticed another hearing for next Tuesday for judicial and executive branch nominees, including the President's nominees to be Assistant Attorney General to head the Office of Justice Programs and to be the Director of the National Institute of Justice. The Senate received the President's nomination of a new FBI Director on Wednesday of this week and I proceeded that same day to notice hearings on that important nomination to begin a week from Monday. It is my hope that with the cooperation of all Members and the administration we should be able to make progress and work toward Senate consideration of the nomination of Robert Mueller to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation before the August recess, if possible. I have asked for the cooperation of all members of the committee, on both sides of the aisle. I noticed the hearings on Robert Mueller's nomination to begin on July 30. We will see if it is possible for the committee act on that nomination before the August recess, which would be my preference. I regret that Senators and their staffs will have not have more time to prepare for so important a hearing as that on the nominee to be the next Director of the FBI. It is my hope that the series of oversight hearings regarding the FBI in which we have been engaged, including our hearing this week, have helped and that Senators will be able to adhere to an expedited schedule for the hearing, a very brief turnaround time for written follow up questions and immediate Committee consideration. We have set an ambitious schedule of five confirmation hearings this month on the President's nominees. We have completed three of those confirmation hearings and have another scheduled for each of the next two weeks. We have also reported a number of nominees, including the three Judicial Branch and two Executive Branch nominees before the Senate for consideration today. The nomination of Ralph Boyd, Jr., to head the Civil Rights Division was reported unanimously and without objection by the Judiciary Committee. Senator Kennedy, in particular, has been a strong and consistent advocate for this nomination and I thank him for his efforts. This will be one of the least contentious paths for a nominee to head the Civil Rights Division in some time. Indeed, the Judiciary Committee refused for the last three years of the Clinton administration even to report to the Senate President Clinton's nomination to head the Civil Rights Division. The handling of this nomination and the treatment of the nominee by Members not from the President's party stand in sharp contrast to the treatment of Bill Lann Lee. I join with Senator Kennedy in urging the Senate to act favorably on the nomination of Ralph Boyd, Jr.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12 for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:15 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 12, 2001.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on behalf of the majority leader, I send a cloture motion to the desk.