Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEAHY. So I understand, the first vote would be on the Olson nomination immediately?

Mr. LEAHY. No objection.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the next votes begin, which will be momentarily, they be 10-minute rollcalls.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I stated at the beginning of this debate, of course I respect the will of the Senate and the vote of every Senator. I hope now that Mr. Olson has been confirmed as Solicitor General, he will listen very carefully to the debate and handle that position with the nonpartisanship and candor the office requires. I congratulate him on his confirmation and wish him and his family well. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am prepared to vote in favor of Professor Dinh's nomination to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Justice. I do so, however, with reservations. Like other members of the committee, I admire Professor Dinh and his family for the courage they displayed during their extraordinary journey to this country from Vietnam. I also do not question Professor's Dinh's obvious intelligence or his academic achievements. If we were evaluating a nominee for a teaching position, I would vote for him without hesitation. However, I am concerned by Professor Dinh's relative lack of experience for the position in the Department of Justice for which he has been nominated. One of the major responsibilities of the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Justice, which Professor Dinh has been nominated to head, is the evaluation of the qualifications and fitness of candidates for the Federal judiciary. Yet Professor Dinh, as he concedes, has never appeared as an attorney in a court of law. Aside from being a law clerk and an academic, Professor Dinh's principal real-world experience since graduating from law school in 1993 has been as associate counsel to the Republicans in the Senate Whitewater investigation of President Clinton. While that was no doubt an excellent introduction to the world of partisan politics, it hardly provides a model of the apolitical and unbiased pursuit of justice that ought to characterize the operations of the United States Department of Justice. I am also concerned by Professor Dinh's testimony about his involvement with the Federalist Society. In answer to questions by Senator Durbin, Professor Dinh testified that he did not know whether the Federalist Society had a stated philosophy and that he viewed it simply as ``a forum for discussion of law and public policy from both sides.'' (Tr. 71, 73). Yet the Federalist Society itself states quite prominently on its internet website that it is ``a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order'' and concerned with the alleged domination of the legal profession ``by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society.'' I do not, of course, suggest that membership in the Federalist Society should disqualify someone from public office, any more than should membership in other organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union that seek to promote a particular political philosophy or agenda. Nevertheless, it is simply not accurate to portray the Federalist Society as a non-partisan debating society. In his writings, Professor Dinh, like other members of the Federalist Society, has condemned what is sometimes called ``judicial activism.'' However, when I asked Professor Dinh in my written questions to cite some specific cases where courts that had occurred, the only example he provided was a California decision from 1854 that dealt with the disqualification of persons of Chinese ancestry from testifying in court. While obviously no one would disagree with Professor Dinh's condemnation of that odious decision, his answer is not particularly enlightening as to what he views as the proper limits on the role of the judiciary in the 21st century. Many legal scholars regard the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore as a recent and obvious example of a court's overstepping its role and improperly injecting itself into the political arena. Yet, when I asked Professor Dinh specifically about that case in my written questions, he stated that, in his opinion, the Supreme Court Justices had ``exercised their judgment in a thoughtful and prudent manner given the nature of the case, the rulings below and the constraints of time.'' Despite my misgivings, I have decided to vote in favor of Professor Dinh's nomination. I believe that he has answered the Committee's questions. I am giving him the benefit of all doubts and giving deference to the President's decision with respect to this appointed policy position. Moreover, regardless of Professor Dinh's political views and associations, I credit his assurances that he will exercise his judgment based upon the merits of legal positions and judicial candidates he is called upon to evaluate rather than on political ideology.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of Mr. Chertoff's nomination to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. I have been concerned that Mr. Chertoff, like several of the President's other nominees for top positions in the Department of Justice, has a history of partisan political activities. Mr. Chertoff was special counsel to the Republicans in the Senate Whitewater investigation of President Clinton, which hardly provided a model for the apolitical and unbiased search for justice that ought to characterize the operations of the United States Department of Justice. Fortunately, however, Mr. Chertoff also has an established track record as a Federal prosecutor apart from his involvement with the Whitewater Committee. More importantly, he has answered the committee's questions about his political activities and has given appropriate assurances that he will not allow partisanship to influence the exercise of his judgment on the legal merits of questions he will address as the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. I credit his assurances, and for that reason I am voting for his nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Caroline Lopez of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the rest of today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I recognize National Missing Children's Day and the great work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC. The NCMEC has made an unmatched contribution in the area of missing children recovery. At their annual Congressional Breakfast this morning, the NCMEC honored law enforcement officers from around the country for their exemplary performance in recovering missing children and in apprehending child sex offenders. Last year, we honored a Vermonter at this event for his extraordinary work in tracking down a child exploitation offender. In 1999, I helped pass legislation that authorized funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and I am pleased to see its continued success. Since 1984, when the Center was established, it has handled more than 1.4 million calls through its national Hotline 1-800-THE-LOST; trained more than 161,728 police and other professionals; and published more than 20 million publications that are distributed free of charge. The Center has worked with law enforcement on more than 75,283 missing child cases, resulting in the recovery of 50,605 children. In 1998 the Center launched the CyberTipline which allows Internet users to report suspicious or illegal activity, including child pornography and online enticement of children for sexual exploitation. Since its launch in 1998, the CyberTipline has received close to 37,000 leads with many of those leading to arrests. I applaud the ongoing work of the Center, its President, Ernie Allen, and all those dedicated employees and volunteers who make this good work possible. I wish them continued success in the area of missing children recovery.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased the managers' amendment includes language identical to S. 694, the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, I introduced with Senator Bennett earlier this year. I would like to thank Senator Bennett for his leadership on this issue and also would like to thank Senators Bingaman, Cochran, Daschle, Dodd, Domenici, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, and Warner for cosponsoring this bill. This bipartisan legislation will enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and preserve them in our public institutions, while erasing an inequity in our Tax Code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. Our bill would allow artists, writers and composers who donate works to museums and libraries to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the work. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. There is an inequality in the current tax law where artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper, ink. This is unfair to artists and it hurts museums and libraries, large and small, that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has gazed at a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country. I thank the Chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for including this legislation in the managers package. I hope that the provision will be retained by the Conference Committee.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the tax reconciliation bill being considered by the Senate today. I believe Vermonters and all Americans deserve tax relief, but we need to have a fiscally responsible tax package that benefits everyone. We do not need one that is so large, so likely to result once again in budget deficits, so full of budgetary gimmicks, and so skewed toward the wealthy. If we are serious about passing a tax cut bill to provide needed relief to all Americans we should be lowering the tax rate for low- and medium-income people, making the child tax credit fully refundable, eliminating the marriage penalty tax immediately, creating an R&D tax credit, increasing IRA and pension contributions, and allowing for greater college tuition credits. Unfortunately, we are delaying all of these important tax relief components in order to shoehorn a massive rate reduction for the wealthiest Americans into this bill. It also pays for this massive tax plan at the expense of needed investments in Social Security, Medicare, education, the environment, and paying off the national debt. I am one of five Senators still in the Senate who voted against the Reagan tax plan in 1981. We saw what happened there: We had a huge tax cut, defense spending boomed, and the national debt quadrupled. The tax plan was popular but it was wrong. America should not move backward in that direction. This tax plan is too large. I voted for a responsible tax cut plan targeted to help the low- and medium-income people of this country who need tax relief the most. The $900 billion alternative I supported offered immediate tax refund checks to help boost the economy and help Americans pay for higher gasoline and energy prices, rate reductions for all income taxpayers, marriage penalty relief to start immediately, a partially refundable child tax credit, tuition tax deductibility to make college more affordable for middle class families and a major effort to modernize our public schools, a comprehensive package of retirement savings incentives to increase IRA and pension contributions and encourage small business to set up pension funds for their employees, a permanent extension of the $10,000 adoption tax credit, health insurance deduction for the self-employed, responsible estate tax relief, a permanent R&D tax credit, and elimination of the alternative minimum tax, AMT, for people with income up to $80,000. Unfortunately, the majority refused to seriously consider this offer to provide reasonable tax relief to working men and women and their families. This tax plan is not fiscally responsible. We should keep in mind the inherent risks of forecasting budget surpluses ten years into the future. The President has argued that the surplus will be around $1.6 trillion and that all of that should go toward tax cuts. And most of the tax cuts in this bill come in the second 5 years of the 10-year plan. Setting aside the argument of how to spend that much money, is it really available? The predictions used to calculate $1.6 trillion were based on the U.S. economy expanding at an annual rate of 4 percent from 2000-2010. I think we know from the current economic slowdown that our economy is growing nowhere near 4 percent, if at all, right now. That is a big yellow flag that these assumptions are wrong. Focusing on budget predictions 10 years in the future is exceptionally risky and does not allow businesses and individuals to properly plan long-term. This tax plan does not address our enormous Federal debt. Whatever surplus our Nation now enjoys should be used to pay down the $5.7 trillion gross Federal debt burden our country still carries. The Federal Government has to pay almost $900 million in interest every working day on this national debt. Paying off our debt will help sustain our sound economy by keeping interest rates low. I want to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren of a debt-free Nation. This tax plan is slanted toward the wealthiest among us. The original tax plan proposed by the President provides nearly half of that $1.6 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest in our country. We are sacrificing real tax relief to working families in this country for rate reductions to the wealthy. We should focus on enacting a responsible plan that will benefit the broadest number of people by reducing taxes to low- and medium-income people. By focusing only on income tax rate reductions, this tax cut plan leaves out millions of taxpayers who do not pay Federal income taxes but who do pay payroll taxes. In Vermont, there are 23,000 families who do not pay Federal income taxes. But 82 percent of those families do pay payroll taxes. For the vast majority of taxpayers, payroll taxes generate the largest tax burden, and yet this plan does not touch payroll taxes. This tax plan has not been thoroughly reviewed and is full of budgetary gimmicks designed to mask the true effects of the bill. There are many unforeseen consequences of this tax bill that we should take into account before enacting this massive tax cut. However, with Republicans pushing to get this bill done by Memorial Day, there is great pressure to ram through a $1.35 trillion tax cut without a full review of all the proposals. The New York Times has reported that one unanticipated effect of full repeal of estate tax may be greater capital gains taxes for most estates. After 2011, when the estate tax will be repealed, capital gains taxes would be owed on everything inherited above $1.3 million. As the Times reporter said: Presumably, the drafters of the legislation did not worry if all the pieces did not fit together in a coherent package because they were primarily interested in getting a bill on the table for debate. States that tie their State tax returns to Federal returns are going to be hurt by the lost Federal revenues. Vermont's tax system is one of three in the nation in which taxpayers use their Federal tax bill to calculate their State income taxes. It is a simple system, but it is affected by every little tax change at the Federal level. In effect, a massive Federal tax cut leads to a massive State tax cut. According to Vermont State economists, the State stands to lose $506 million over the next ten years because of this tax bill. In FY 2002 alone, Vermont will lose $35.7 million. The conservative Heritage Foundation has estimated that Vermont may lose up to $1.5 billion because of this huge tax cut. This is a very large amount of money for a State whose population is only 609,000. How will the State make up these lost revenues? Vermont was hurt 20 years ago when Congress last considered a massive tax cut. Those rewrites to the Federal Tax Code put the State in red ink for years. As the red ink grew, an emergency tax study group assembled by the Governor found that between 1982 and 1987 the State stood to lose $300 million because of the Reagan tax cut. Now we will be putting Vermont back in a similar situation. As our Governor has already warned, without raising State taxes to make up for Federal loses, Vermont will once again see major deficits. This tax bill also asks States to pay for repealing the Federal estate tax by abruptly ending payments from Federal estate tax revenue that are now shared with the States. This bill will cut by half the Federal credit that States receive for the Federal estate taxes that are collected and will deny States between $50 billion and $100 billion over 10 years, or as much as two-thirds of the cost of the estate tax repeal in the bill. Another anomaly of this bill is the way the AMT is calculated. While Democrats hoped to exempt people who make under $100,000 from AMT permanently, Republicans only want to slightly increase the exemption for 4 years from 2002 to 2006. The Republican plan would cause 39.6 million taxpayers to be subject to the AMT by 2011. Clearly this flies in the face of the original intent of the AMT, which was to ensure that wealthy taxpayers cannot make use of tax breaks to eliminate much or all of their tax liability. The tax bill will force more and more middle-class taxpayers to pay a tax that was meant to reach very few, well-off taxpayers. I do not like the marriage penalty and think it is poor public policy. While this bill does contain two provisions designed to provide marriage penalty relief, it makes couples wait 5 years for that relief. While the rate cuts in upper-income tax brackets take effect next year, married couples will have to wait until 2005 to get relief and until 2010 until full repeal is fully phased in. This is 3 years after the upper income bracket rate cuts are fully effective. After years of hard choices, we have balanced the budget and started building surpluses. Now we must make responsible choices for the future. Our top priorities should be paying off the national debt, saving Social Security, creating a real Medicare prescription drug benefit, protecting domestic spending programs, and passing a fair and responsible tax cut. This tax bill falls far short of these priorities. It uses gimmicks to hide the bill's true costs. It provides no marriage penalty relief for five years. It contains no immediate tax refund to stimulate the economy. It has a hidden tax increase on the middle-class through the AMT. And its costs explode after 10 years, just as the baby boom generation begins to retire. For the sake of our economy and the working families of America, I will vote against this tax cut bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Susan Dollenmaier of Tunbridge who was chosen as the Vermont Small Business Person of the Year. She has shown extraordinary innovation and vision in building a successful business in Vermont. Ms. Dollenmaier is the president and co-founder of Anichini Inc., an importing and manufacturing company that designs, wholesales, and retails linens and textiles from Italy, India, the Far East, and Eastern Europe. Anichini also has a furniture division and a line of products for infants. A former social worker for the state of Vermont, Dollenmaier and her ex-business partner, Patrizia Anichini, launched the company about 20 years ago with only a $600 investment. This year, sales of Anichini's linens are expected to top $10 million. Besides its outlet store in West Lebanon, New Hampshire--a site she hopes to move to the Vermont side of the Connecticut River very soon--and a new one slated to open in Manchester, Vermont, Anichini operates retail stores in Beverly Hills and Dallas, along with a boutique in New York City. Susan makes sure that some of the cash flow from her wealthy and demanding clientele finances flex time, day care stipends, generous vacations and holidays, a profit-sharing plan and other benefits--as well as better-than-average wages--for her largely female work force of 45 employees. We are very happy Susan chose to start and maintain her business in Vermont. I commend Susan and all of her employees for receipt of this prestigious award. I ask that a copy of an April 15, 2001, article in the Valley News outlining Ms. Dollenmaier's achievements be printed in the Record. The article follows: SBA Honors Turnbridge's Anichini Inc. (By Bob Piasecki) Turnbridge.--Most people drive right past the yellow farmhouse off Route 110 that contains Anichini Inc.'s offices, and that's just fine with Susan Dollenmaier. Dollenmaier, president and co-founder of Anichini, the importer, manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer of linens and textiles for the rich and famous, prefers to keep a low profile. That explains why there isn't a sign outside Anichini's headquarters or its warehouse farther down the road--and why there never will be, as long as Dollenmaier is running the company. ``I'm not into being a celebrity,'' says Dollenmaier, dressed casually in black leggings and a gray cable-knit sweater. ``I just want us to get recognition because of our products.'' That won't be possible for much longer because Dollenmaier was just named Vermont's Small Businessperson of the Year by the state's Small Business Administration. Some of Dollenmaier's employees went ahead and nominated their boss for the prestigious award without telling her, and she ended up winning. The selection put Dollenmaier in the running for being named the national Small Business Person of the Year award, which will be announced next month in Washington D.C. The SBA singled out Dollenmaier and Anichin for ``seamlessly blending economic success with socially conscious business practices.'' Deborah Mathews, who has worked with Dollenmaier virtually since the day Anichini was launched, said she was willing to reduce her salary and make other painful cuts when times were tough. ``Susan's focus on the needs of her staff and the community in which she lives and works made her an ideal recipient for this honor,'' added Matthews. ``Susan has a profound gift for recognizing hidden potential, and she knows how to bring it out in the open,'' said Kenneth Silvia, director of the SBA's office in Vermont. ``It's manifest not only in her choice of Anichini's product line, but in the people who work at the company--the majority of whom are Vermonters.'' A former social worker for the state of Vermont, Dollenmaier and her ex-partner, Patrizia Anichini, launched the company about 20 years ago with a paltry $600 investment. This year, sales of Anichini's linens are expected to top $10 million. Besides it outlet store in the Powerhouse Mall in West Lebanon, and a new one slated to open this summer in Manchester, Vt, Anichini operates retail stores in Beverly Hills and Dallas, along with a boutique in New York City. Its regular clientele includes celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey, Sharon Stone and Tom Cruise. Not bad for the daughter of an electrical salesman who grew up in Libertyville, Ill., a small agricultural town 45 miles northwest of Chicago. Dollenmaier said she always had a thing for beautiful textiles, but doesn't quite know where that fascination came from. ``That's something to figure out with a therapist,'' she jokes. But she suspects it probably has something to do with her grandmother, a dressmaker who also made her own quilts. She sewed her own clothes as a teenager, and began collecting antique fabrics of all styles and types, never thinking it was ever going to turn into a business. After graduating from Southern Illinois University, where she earned a degree in design and studied under R. Buckminster Fuller--the inventor of the geodesic dome-- Dollenmaier bounced around for a while. Her life changed in the early 1970s, when she came to south Royalton from Los Angeles to visit her sister, whose husband was attending Vermont Law School at the time, and fell in love with the area. ``It was spring. It was so green and there was so much water,'' Dollenmaier recalled, sitting at an enormous wooden table in Anichini's spacious conference room. ``It was so refreshing, I turned to my sister and said, `this has got to be one of the most beautiful places in the world,' and essentially I never left after that.'' She got a job as a social worker for the state of Vermont, and helped set up several programs including Meals on Wheels in Tunbridge and many of the other towns along the First Branch of the White River. At the same time, Dollenmaier continued to go to tag sales, flea markets and estate sales, collecting antique fabrics for her burgeoning collection. After she sold part of her cache in New York City, Dollenmaier decided it was time for a major life change. ``It finally dawned on me that I wanted more challenges, and that I was headed toward running some government program in Washington, D.C., if I continued to be a social worker,'' she says. So she quit after seven years, and with her partner, rented a loft in Manhattan on 20th Street. ``We lived there hand-to- mouth,'' she said buying, selling and swapping antique linens. She remembers driving an old, unheated bread truck filled with their wares back and forth from New York and Vermont, where she also kept an apartment in Tunbridge. The duo got their first big break when Barney's, the upscale New York department store, agreed to sell some of their material in its home furnishings store, which was just opening. During a trip to Venice with her husband, glassblower Robin Mix, Dollenmaier got the idea of making and selling new, heirloom quality textiles, which is essentially what Anichini does today. ``In Italy I found women who were still making the same kind of textiles I was buying and selling,'' she says. ``That's really where the seed of the business was formed.'' Soon after that, Anichini caught another break when one of Italy's premier textile weavers took a chance on the fledgling company and agreed to give it $50,000 worth of materials on consignment. The business sold all $50,000, and was on its way. It grossed $100,000 in its first year, and has continued to expand and grow. Dollenmaier and Anichini eventually sold their loft in New York, and used the proceeds to buy the buildings the company still owns in Tunbridge. The partners went their separate ways a few years ago, when Dollenmaier bought out Anichini's share in the business. Today, Anichini has a furniture division, a line of products for infants and is widening its scope to include fabrics and designs from India, the Far East, Eastern Europe and other countries. It no longer bills itself as simply an purveyor of Italian, Dollenmaier says. The company recently worked out an agreement with a weaver in India who is trying to keep some of the country's old techniques alive. Dollenmaier acknowledges that the 2,000 or so women who make textiles for Anichini in India are, at least by Western standards, poor. Asked how this squares with Anichini's Ben & Jerry's-style commitment to social responsibility, Dollenmaier says she has thought deeply about this question. ``I guess I'd say they've got to be working doing something, and they are making a lot more money making stuff for us as opposed to someone else.'' One thing is certain, Anichini's 60 employees in the United States are treated quite well. The company provides profit sharing, which has averaged more than 10 percent of the employee's salary over the past five years, 11 paid holidays, five weeks vacation after five years of service, and paid membership in gym. Dollenmaier hopes to eventually move Anichini's outlet store in West Lebanon across the river to the Route 4 corridor in Vermont. Long-range, she also plans to consolidate all of Anichini's operations in a new facility in Tunbridge that will be even harder to find than its existing buildings. Looking back on her life and how she has parlayed a hobby and passion into a highly successful business, Dollenmaier says: ``I'm really doing exactly what I want. I really have very few regrets.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are a great many important policy issues that divide Democrats and Republicans. When we find certain common sense principles that we agree on, however, we should seize the opportunity and act on them. I believe that we have such an opportunity today. On April 24, 2001, the Supreme Court issued its latest in the never-ending sequence of 5- to-4 ``State's rights'' decisions, Alexander v. Sandoval. I rise to urge my colleagues to reaffirm our shared values by passing legislation to reverse the Court's decision in this case. By doing so, we can reinstate what was always Congress's intent, and reaffirm our nation's commitment to civil rights for all Americans. Let me explain. Let's start with the principle of cooperative federalism. Every year, we in Congress send billions of Federal taxpayer dollars to the States to help fund education systems, health care, motor vehicle departments, law enforcement and other government services that every American is entitled to enjoy, no matter which State he or she lives in. That is the essence of federalism: helping to fund the States to perform government functions that are best performed at the local level. It is not Republican, and it is not Democratic; it is common sense. The Federal Government and Federal taxpayers count on the States to use those Federal funds in a lawful manner, and most everyone would agree that the States should be accountable for doing so. President Bush has made accountability the central guiding principle of his education proposals. We have some immensely important differences of view on how to achieve accountability. But we should not lose sight of what unites us. Republicans believe in accountability, and so do Democrats. We here in Washington owe the American people a duty, when we send their tax dollars to State and local authorities, to ensure that the people get a chance to hold those authorities accountable for using their money for the public good, for the benefit of all the people, and in accordance with the law of the land. That is not politics; it is common sense. What has all this got to do with the Supreme Court? Well, 37-years ago, Congress enacted perhaps the most important piece of legislation of the post-war era, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is an accountability provision pure and simple. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, in any program or activity that receives Federal funds. The Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act was committed to full and strong enforcement of civil rights. It recognized that discrimination comes in many forms. Governmental practices may be intentionally discriminatory or, more commonly, they may be discriminatory in their effect, because they have a disparate or discriminatory impact on minorities. To catch this more subtle but no less harmful form of discrimination, Congress authorized the Federal agencies that were responsible for awarding federal grants and administering federal contracts to adopt regulations prohibiting Federal grantees and contractees from adopting policies that have the effect of discriminating. There has never been any serious question about Congress's intent in this matter. Before Sandoval, the Federal Courts of Appeals had uniformly affirmed the right of private individuals to bring civil suits to enforce the disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI. The Supreme Court itself, in a 1979 case called Cannon v. University of Chicago, had concluded that Title VI authorized an implied right of action for victims of race, color, or national origin discrimination. And as Justice Stevens noted in his dissenting opinion in Sandoval, the plaintiff in Cannon had stated a disparate-impact claim, not a claim of intentional discrimination. I will not attempt in these brief remarks to go over all the reasons why Sandoval was incorrectly decided as a matter of Supreme Court precedent. Justice Stevens does an excellent job in his dissent of demonstrating how the activist conservatives on the Court rejected decades of settled laws. I will say this: The holding in Sandoval makes no sense as a matter of national policy. The lower courts in Sandoval found that the defendant, the Alabama Department of Public Safety, was engaged in a discriminatory practice in violation of Federal regulations. The Supreme Court did not challenge that finding, and also accepted that the regulations at issue were valid. Yet the Court's conservative majority held that the victims of the discrimination had no right to sue to enforce the Federal regulations. You do not have to be liberal, and you do not have to be conservative, to be troubled by the notion that a State can engage in unlawful discrimination and yet not be accountable in any court. The good news is that the Sandoval holding is based on statutory interpretation and not constitutional law. The Congress is therefore free to overturn it, and we should do so at the very first opportunity. By doing so, we will fully preserve what I have called cooperative federalism. We will continue to provide funding assistance to the States. At the same time, we will prove that we are serious about the right of the American people to hold their government accountable in the most basic sense, accountable for obeying the law. And we will prove that we are as serious about the civil rights of minorities as the groundbreaking Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Fixing what the Court has broken should be a bipartisan undertaking. This is not about being a Republican or a Democrat; it is about reaffirming the will of the people as expressed by the Congress, reaffirming that the American people are entitled to have a government that is accountable, and reaffirming that in America, discrimination is not acceptable, whether it is done openly and crassly, or more invidiously and subtly. The unfair effects are the same and deserve redress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, the Standard Times of New Bedford, MA, published an op-ed piece by Senator Kennedy on the situation in East Timor, in which he discussed the legislation on East Timor that he introduced with Senator Chafee, which is also cosponsored by myself and Senators Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Jeffords, and Reed. This legislation recently passed the House of Representatives as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Senator Kennedy's legislation would provide additional economic assistance for East Timor, which is struggling to overcome the violence and destruction perpetrated by Indonesian militias, with the support of the Indonesian military, after the vote for independence in August 1999. It would also provide for scholarships for East Timorese students, funding for the Peace Corps to start a program there, and other initiatives. This legislation outlines a comprehensive approach to a new, positive relationship between the United States and East Timor, including the establishment of full diplomatic relations as soon as independence takes place. As one who, like Senator Kennedy, has admired the courage and determination of the East Timorese people and their capable leaders, Xanana Gusmao and Jose Ramos-Horta, I commend him for this legislation and ask unanimous consent that his op-ed piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing the Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit Fairness Act as part of Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Last night, I voted for the Smith amendment to add the Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit Fairness Act to the reconciliation tax package, and I am proud to cosponsor the Senate companion bill, S. 881, introduced by the senior Senator from Utah. Since the House of Representatives passed the Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit Fairness Act, H.R. 1727, on May 15, 2001, by a vote of 419-0, I am hopeful that this legislation to support the families of our nation's public safety officers will soon become law. This legislation extends present-law treatment of survivor annuities for public safety officers killed in the line of duty on or before December 31, 1996. It is needed to correct a harsh inequity in the tax code that treats some survivors of slain public safety officers differently than others based on the date of the officer's death. That is unconscionable. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provided that a survivor annuity paid on account of the death of a public safety officer who is killed in the line of duty is excluded from income for individuals dying after December 31, 1996. The survivor annuity must be provided under a government plan to the surviving spouse of the public safety officer or to a child of the officer. Public safety officers include law enforcement officers, firefighters, rescue squad or ambulance crew. But the family members of public safety officers killed before January 1, 1997 are fully taxed on their survivor annuities. I believe that survivors of public safety officers killed in the line of duty should all receive the same tax treatment. We should do all we can to support the families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty. Basic fairness demands it. I look forward to the Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit Fairness Act becoming law. It is only right that our Nation's tax laws support the families of public safety officers who gave the ultimate sacrifice to make America a safer place.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 143. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to waive the Budget Act on amendment No. 747 offered by Senator Carper.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate William Hazelett of Colchester who was chosen as the United States Small Business Administration National Exporter of the Year. Bill has shown extraordinary innovation and vision in building a very successful business in Vermont. Bill Hazelett and his wife Dawn are old friends of mine and Marcelle's. Bill is the president of Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., a manufacturing firm that designs and makes continuous metal casting machines designed to produce long sheets of metal and wire for everything from pennies to aluminum siding to automobile bodies. Hazelett Strip-Casting now employs 145 people. Foreign business accounts for 70 percent of its $23 million in annual sales, and Hazelett Strip-Casting has clients all around the world, including much of Europe, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Chile. Bill moved his company to Vermont from Connecticut in 1957 because, as he says, ``I wanted to ski.'' We are very happy he came and decided to stay. I commend Bill and Dawn for receipt of this prestigious award. I ask that a copy of a May 9, 2001, article in the Burlington Free Press outlining Bill Hazelett's achievements be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Burlington Free Press, May 9, 2001] Colchester Man Named SBA's National Exporter of the Year R. William Hazelett of Colchester on Tuesday received the U.S. Small Business Administration's National Exporter of the Year award from President George W. Bush in a White House ceremony. Hazelett, 82, president of Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., was honored for building a manufacturing firm for which foreign business accounts for 70 percent of its $23 million in annual sales. Hazelett had a simple reason for the recognition. ``We have a technology that is superior to any other technology in fabricating sheet metal,'' he said. ``My business was selected (for the award) as being very, very good at creating exporting business for the United States.'' The company designs and makes continuous metal casting machines, behemoths designed to produce long sheets of metal and wire that can weigh as much as 120 tons and cost $15 million. The machines produce sheet metal for everything from pennies to aluminum siding to auto bodies, Hazelett said. Clients are scattered all over the world, including much of Europe, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Chile, he said. Earlier this year, a Hazelett representative was part of the trade mission that traveled to Argentina with Gov. Howard Dean. Though no sale was made on the trip, it started a process that will lead to a sale, Hazelett said. ``You don't sell one of these machines overnight because a machine might cost $15 million,'' he said. ``You've got a whole plant that might cost $150 million that they go into. It's a very long-term consideration.'' Hazelett was confident a deal would be signed. ``We will get the business because we are the best in the world,'' he said. Hazelett, which does all of its engineering and manufacturing in Vermont, employs 145 people. The company moved here in 1957 from Connecticut because, Hazelett said, ``I wanted to ski.'' In naming Hazelett for the honor, the SBA noted his company's ``stellar success in export marketing.'' ``Bill Hazelett's contribution to Vermont's stature as a world-class exporter center is absolutely outstanding,'' said Kenneth Silver, director of the SBA's Vermont district office.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate to report on the progress the Judiciary Committee is making with respect to a number of administration nominations to the Department of Justice. Over the last several weeks, I have been working to reach an understanding on how this committee will handle nominations. A number of procedural and substantive issues have been raised in these regards for both Executive and Judicial Branch nominations. The Democratic members have sought to work out arrangements and understandings so that all members of the committee would know what our rules are, know what our practices and procedures will be, and understand how this committee will approach our important responsibilities with respect to nominations. Over the last 2 weeks the chairman's insistence that the committee proceed with nominations before those practices and procedures had been agreed upon has lead to public reference to outstanding issues that we should have resolved first. I always regret when we are not able to work out matters through reason and cooperation. I do not believe it was appropriate for Republican members of this committee to deride Democratic members as acting ``irresponsibly'' or ``despicably'' or ``in breach of their constitutional duties.'' I know that it was not helpful. Nonetheless, I was proud of the Democratic members of this committee when we jointly sent our May 4 letter to the chairman and provided a way out of the impasse in spite of the name calling. A few days later the chairman responded with language that reflected our respectful tone and for which I thank him. While I disagree with much of what the chairman argues and asserts in his letter, I appreciate that he has now indicated that with respect to judicial nominations, he ``intends to be fully respectful of [Democratic Senators'] views and will assist in any way to ensure that you and our other Senate colleagues receive real, meaningful consultation by the White House on judicial nominees.'' I appreciate that in his letter he writes that he ``respect[s our] views and efforts in ensuring [we] will be appropriately consulted in a meaningful manner on nominees to vacancies in [our] home states.'' For the last several weeks, we have also been seeking to resolve concerns about how this committee handles certain confidential information about nominations, information that may reflect on their fitness for office, and may be relevant to how Senators in this committee vote on reporting nominations to the Senate, as well as how Senators vote on confirmations. Those concerns have also been pending for several weeks now without resolution. Those concerns are what prompted our request for an executive session in accordance with Rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of the Senate so that we could fully discuss these very important matters in accordance with the confidentiality rules that bind us. Those concerns made it inappropriate to proceed on certain matters over the last few weeks. Although our Republican colleagues knew about our concerns, they nonetheless berated us without any acknowledgment that those open issues, which affect executive as well as judicial nominations, were still unresolved. That, too, was most unfortunate. Over the last several days I have also reached out to the Bush administration to work with us on ways to resolve these concerns. Those outreach efforts may provide the opportunity to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of these matters. I hope so. In light of the cooperation we began receiving from the administration last week, we were able to proceed to report and confirm Larry Thompson to be the Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice and Dan Bryant to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs. I understand that they were sworn in last Friday and, again, congratulate them and their families. I have spoken to Attorney General Ashcroft about the staffing needs of the Department of Justice and assured him that I will do my part. For those with short memories, I note that Attorney General Ashcroft was confirmed 6 weeks before Attorney General Reno's confirmation in the last administration and the Deputy Attorney General was confirmed 3 weeks before his counterpart in the last administration. Assistant Attorney General Bryant was confirmed 7 weeks before his counterpart in the previous administration. The committee is moving expeditiously on the administration's nominations to the Department of Justice. Indeed, we are ahead of the confirmations schedule of the Clinton administration for each and every nominee confirmed to date. The Clinton administration's Assistant Attorney General to head the Criminal Division was not confirmed until November. The committee proceeded to consider the Chertoff nomination this week, after a hearing last week. That is extremely expeditious. Indeed, in spite of Mr. Chertoff's role as the lead counsel to the Republicans in the Whitewater investigation, an extremely partisan effort, we are moving ahead. Mr. Chertoff explained at his hearing that he understands the role of the head of the Criminal Division and will carry out those functions without regard to politics or partisanship. I believe him and look forward to working with him. The Assistant Attorney General to head the Office for Policy Development in the last administration was not confirmed until August, 95 days after her nomination. Professor Dinh did not return his responses to written questions until this Tuesday. He was precipitously placed on the committee agenda last week. Once his responses were in, he was considered and reported out this week, months ahead of his counterpart in the last administration. While we consider the current nominations, the many dedicated employees at the Department of Justice continue to work, do their jobs, and serve the public. Many of the comments made over the last several weeks disparage their fine work and commitment. I see no evidence that the Department is ``floundering'' or that the dedicated public servants who staff the Department and the United States Attorneys' offices around the country have stopped doing their jobs. The chairman has noticed another hearing for Department of Justice nominees next week, although he has yet to specify who will be included at that hearing, which is less than a week away. Democrats on the committee are continuing to work expeditiously and cooperatively to consider, report and confirm the vast majority of the President's nominations to the Department of Justice.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Post Office Community Partnership Act. Too often the Postal Service's designs for new offices fail to conform with local land use laws and these new cookie-cutter structures are replacing what were once the heart and soul of our towns. This legislation will ensure that the Postal Service does a better job of listening to local communities, respecting zoning regulations, and preserving Vermont's distinctive character. In Vermont and across the country, Post Offices are community linchpins, serving more than just generic mailing stations. It is the Post Office where people go to meet their neighbors and talk about the latest news. The Postmaster is sometimes the only national representative in a community, and they often provide advice and guidance about important issues. The Post Office is inextricably linked with daily life. Remove it, and the special character of the place is lost. As the Post Office has experienced financial difficulties in recent years, the prospect of Post Office closures has loomed larger. Unfortunately, inadequate processes are in place to ensure that the U.S. Postal Service will consult with local communities in the event of a closure, relocation, or consolidation. This legislation will ensure that the service notifies communities far in advance of any action, and ensure that concerned citizens have a role in decisions. With such provisions in place and other much-need reforms, the U.S. Postal Service will work through its difficulties. The service will continue to grow, expanding access and making much-needed modernizations to its older facilities. Too often, though, new post offices look like they do not belong in the heart of a traditional town center. Local zoning ordinances are ignored, and the Post Office contributes to unsightly sprawl. While there are many success stories, there are few detailed guidelines to avoid repetitions of the failures. That is why this legislation also includes provisions to ensure the U.S. Postal Service will follow local land use laws. Successful mail service is a subtle balance between efficiency and contributing to the community. I think this important legislation will help the U.S. Postal Service find that balance well into the future. I commend Senator Jeffords for introducing this legislation, and I urge its swift consideration and passage, as it will help preserve the important role of our Post Offices in our way of life.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Post Office Community Partnership Act. Too often the Postal Service's designs for new offices fail to conform with local land use laws and these new cookie-cutter structures are replacing what were once the heart and soul of our towns. This legislation will ensure that the Postal Service does a better job of listening to local communities, respecting zoning regulations, and preserving Vermont's distinctive character. In Vermont and across the country, Post Offices are community linchpins, serving more than just generic mailing stations. It is the Post Office where people go to meet their neighbors and talk about the latest news. The Postmaster is sometimes the only national representative in a community, and they often provide advice and guidance about important issues. The Post Office is inextricably linked with daily life. Remove it, and the special character of the place is lost. As the Post Office has experienced financial difficulties in recent years, the prospect of Post Office closures has loomed larger. Unfortunately, inadequate processes are in place to ensure that the U.S. Postal Service will consult with local communities in the event of a closure, relocation, or consolidation. This legislation will ensure that the service notifies communities far in advance of any action, and ensure that concerned citizens have a role in decisions. With such provisions in place and other much-need reforms, the U.S. Postal Service will work through its difficulties. The service will continue to grow, expanding access and making much-needed modernizations to its older facilities. Too often, though, new post offices look like they do not belong in the heart of a traditional town center. Local zoning ordinances are ignored, and the Post Office contributes to unsightly sprawl. While there are many success stories, there are few detailed guidelines to avoid repetitions of the failures. That is why this legislation also includes provisions to ensure the U.S. Postal Service will follow local land use laws. Successful mail service is a subtle balance between efficiency and contributing to the community. I think this important legislation will help the U.S. Postal Service find that balance well into the future. I commend Senator Jeffords for introducing this legislation, and I urge its swift consideration and passage, as it will help preserve the important role of our Post Offices in our way of life.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act, S. 39, which was introduced by Senator Stevens, and its House counterpart, H.R. 802, which already passed the House of Representatives in March. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation. I congratulate Senator Stevens for introducing the measure and thank him for his leadership. We had worked together on a number of law enforcement matters and the senior Senator from Alaska is a stalwart supporter of the men and women who put themselves at risk to protect us all. I looked forward to enactment of this measure and to seeing the extraordinary heroism of our police, firefighters and correctional officers recognized with the Medal of Valor. On May 18, 1999, I was privileged to be on the floor of the Senate when we proceeded to consider S. 39 and passed it unanimously. I took that occasion to commend Senator Stevens and all who had worked so hard to move this measure in a timely way. That was almost two years ago, during National Police Week of 1999. The measure was sent to the House where it lay dormant for the rest of the last Congress. That delay was most unfortunate. Again, in this Congress, I have worked with Senator Stevens, Senator Hatch, and others to prefect the final version of this bill and finally get it enacted into law. We have crafted bipartisan improvements to ensure that the Medal of Valor Board will work effectively and efficiently with the National Medal of Valor Office within the Department of Justice. Our legislation should establish both of these entities and it is essential that they work well together to design the Medal of Valor and to create the criteria and procedures for recommendations of nominees for the award. The men and women who will be honored by the Medal of Valor for their brave deeds deserve nothing less. I look forward to the President signing the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont thanks the Senator from Vermont for yielding to the Senator from Vermont, and the Senator from Vermont thanks the Chair for recognizing both Senators from Vermont. Someday somebody looking through trivia in the Record will try to figure out what the heck that was all about. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are there amendments pending?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 424 be added to the list of those amendments that are now pending. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does this become the 12th amendment, or one on the list on those now pending?