Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. That is correct. Now, some relief organizations have already been told that they may have to shut down programs for lack of funds. This is happening in a country that desperately needs the most basic staples such as water, education and medical care. I agree with those who point out that many other nations have yet to fulfill pledges of assistance to Afghanistan. But, if the President is serious about a Marshall Plan, and I believe he is right, then we need to do much more to help rebuild that country.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, I would.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree with the majority leader. As I have said over and over, it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting. If such nations cannot successfully rebuild, there is a real risk that they will once again become havens for terrorists.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished majority leader for his question. Much has been accomplished in Afghanistan over the course of the last year. The brutal Taliban regime has been vanquished to the ash heap of history. Thousands of Afghans have returned to their homes, and our humanitarian efforts have raised the standard of living of many Afghans. We have spent billions to win the war. I fear, however, that unless we dramatically increase our efforts there we could lose the peace. The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains critical. Thousands of people are still homeless and as winter comes, so too will the very real threat of widespread hunger, even famine. Afghans whose homes were mistakenly bombed have not been helped. There are reports that some Afghans are starting to return to refugee camps in Pakistan. It is a very dire situation. We have a moral duty to help the people of Afghanistan. Beyond that, there are critical U.S. interests at stake in ensuring that this country becomes peaceful and prosperous. That's why I was pleased when, earlier this year, President Bush called for a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. I commended him for that important announcement, but since that time we have not seen the resources put behind these statements. No one is asking the Administration to spend 13 percent of the entire federal budget, as we did with the original Marshall Plan. But the Administration did not even ask Congress for a single cent for Afghanistan in its budget for fiscal year 2003. The Foreign Operations Subcommittee was advised informally that the Administration planned to spend $98 million for relief and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. The Subcommittee felt that this amount was still insufficient to adequately address the needs in Afghanistan, and provided $157 million, an additional $59 million. I would also add that the Senate is not alone in its concern for the situation in Afghanistan. Just yesterday, I received a letter from the President of CARE, a non-partisan, relief organization with significant operations in Afghanistan, which stated: President Bush has committed the United States Government to work ``in the best traditions of George Marshall'' and help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country. For this goal to be achieved, CARE believes that the international community, led by the United States Government, must do two things. We must provide at least $10 billion in reconstruction funding over the next five years, and we must respond positively to the requests of the Afghan Government to expand the International Security Assistance Force beyond Kabul as part of a comprehensive plan to improve security for all Afghans This letter goes on to say that a CARE report, ``finds that the U.S. Government has actually exceeded its one-year Tokyo pledge of $297 million, primarily in the form of humanitarian assistance. Our concern, however, is that the Administration, to date, has not made any long- term commitment to Afghan reconstruction.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today marks the 15-month anniversary of the reorganization of the Senate Judiciary Committee following the change in the Senate majority last summer. This week also became another milestone as the Judiciary Committee voted on the 100th judicial nominee of President George W. Bush. This historic demonstration of bipartisanship toward this President's judicial nominees has been overshadowed by partisan attacks in this very chamber and in the press. I have worked diligently along with the other Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee to hold a record number of hearings for this President's district and circuit court nominees during the past 15 months and to bring as many as we could to a vote this year. Given all of the competing responsibilities of the committee and the Senate in these times of great challenges to our Nation, hearings for 103 judicial nominees, voting on 100, and favorably reporting 98 is a record of which the Judiciary Committee and the Senate can be proud. We have transcended the relative inaction of the prior 6\1/2\ years of Republican control by moving forward on judicial nominees twice as quickly as our predecessors did. Indeed, the Senate has already confirmed more judicial nominees in 15 months than the Republican- controlled Senate did during its last 30 months. More achieved, and in half the time. The raw numbers, not percentages, reveal the true workload of the Senate on nominations and everyone knows that. Anyone who pays attention to the federal judiciary and who does not have a partisan agenda must know that. In addition, Democrats have moved more quickly in voting on judicial nominees of a President of a different party than in any time in recent history. Led by Majority Leader Daschle, the Democratic majority in the Senate has confirmed 80 judicial nominees, including 14 circuit court nominees, for a President of a different party, in just 15 months since the reorganization of the Judiciary Committee. In comparison, in the first two full years of President George H.W. Bush's administration, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed 71 judicial nominees. In fact, during the first 15 months of the first Bush Administration, only 23 judges were confirmed, with eight to the circuit courts. Our confirmation of 80 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees in just 15 months is historic progress for a President and a Senate led by different parties. Apparently, however, Republicans believe that there is partisan hay to be harvested in complaining that every single judicial nominee has not yet been confirmed. The fact is that we have proceeded with hearings for 103 of the 110 judicial nominees eligible for hearings 94 percent, for those focused on percentages. The other 17 judicial nominees who have not participated in a hearing either lack home-state consent or peer reviews or both. Thus, when partisans harp on the nominations of Terrence Boyle and Carolyn Kuhl and other nominees without home-State Senator support, they know they are being misleading. Senator Hatch never proceeded on a nomination without home- State Senator support and acknowledges that this is the Senate's tradition. At least six of the President's circuit court nominees fall into this category and, for many if not all of them, the White House knew about the lack of home-State Senator support before the nominations were made. The committee has voted on 100 of the 103 judicial nominees eligible for votes--97 percent. Of those voted upon, 98--98 percent have been reported favorably to the Senate. In addition to the 80 judges already confirmed, another 18 approved by the Judiciary Committee await Senate action on the Senate Executive Calendar. It is disappointing that the Republican leader and others are reported to have said that they will not be allowed Senate votes before we adjourn. Earlier this year the majority leader had to work through a problem caused by the administration's failure to work with Senators on executive branch appointments. The majority leader was required by Republican objection to invoke cloture in order to vote on President Bush's judicial nominations. Whether there is time left in this session to overcome Republican objections to action on the roster of President Bush's judicial nominations currently on the calendar is problematic. To date, and unlike the recent past, every judicial nominee who participated in a hearing has been considered and voted upon by the Judiciary Committee but for the three controversial circuit court nominees we continue to consider. I know that Senator Thurmond is very disappointed that we could not bring his choice for the Fourth Circuit to a vote this week. I regret that he is upset. The nomination of his former aide for a promotion to the Court of Appeals has grown more controversial. On our committee, as on all committees, controversy takes a toll in the time needed for action on a bill or on a nomination. Members of the committee need time to fully evaluate the merits of concerns about this nomination raised by hundreds if not thousands of citizens from throughout the Fourth Circuit and the Nation. In accordance with our responsibilities under the Constitution to evaluate these nominations for lifetime appointments, the members of the committee continue to work diligently on simultaneously evaluating three controversial circuit court nominations. As much as I personally would have liked to resolve this nomination by now at the request of the distinguished Senior Senator from South Carolina, and as hard as I have worked to resolve the problems with it, we were not able to vote on it this week. I worked hard to try to move the nomination of his former aide forward to a vote up or down but, with war resolutions pending before the Senate and limited time for debate this Tuesday, I had to make a difficult decision. Seventeen relatively noncontroversial judicial nominations were ready for committee votes this week. I decided to try to bring some relief to 17 vacant seats in district courts across our country rather than begin what promised to be a lengthy and inconclusive debate about Judge Shedd's record as a Federal district court judge and whether he should be elevated. That was a tough decision for me, personally, but the rising tide of citizen distress over the Shedd nomination made bringing that vote to a conclusion an impossibility this week. Republican efforts to gain some political advantage for this difficult situation are especially unfounded given the stark contrast between what we have achieved in the past 15 months compared with the most recent period of Republican control of the committee. In the 15 months before the reorganization of the Judiciary Committee after the shift in Senate majority, the Senate confirmed only 32 judicial nominees, including three to the circuits. Under Democratic leadership, we have already confirmed 80, including 14 to the circuit courts, in just 15 months. Even if we compare our record with a period of Republican control that is twice as long--the last 30 months of Republican control--our predecessors confirmed only 72 judges, while in half the time, we have confirmed 80. Alternatively, if we go back and compare the Republicans' first 15 months of Senate control in 1995 and 1996, we have accomplished far more: more hearings, 26 versus 14, for more judicial nominees, 103 versus 67, with more committee votes, 100 versus 61, for more confirmations, 80 versus 56. We have reached the century mark for committee votes in less than half the time, 15 months, while it took our predecessors 33 months to vote on 100 judicial nominees. In another departure from the past, we have had hearings even for several controversial judicial nominees and brought them to votes this year. Most were voted out of committee despite their controversy. Given the number of vacancies that we inherited--110--concentrating on the most controversial, time-consuming nominations would have been to the detriment of the courts. The President has made a number of divisive choices--divisive to the American people and divisive to the Senate-- for these lifetime seats on the courts, and they take more time to bring to hearings and votes. None of these nominees, however, have waited as long for hearings or votes as did some of President Clinton's judicial nominees, such as Judge Richard Paez, who waited 1,500 days to be confirmed and 1,237 days to get a final vote by the Republican- controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, or Judge Helene White, whose nomination languished for more than 1,500 days without ever getting a hearing or a committee vote. As frustrated as Democrats were with the lengthy delays and obstruction of scores of judicial nominees in the prior 6\1/2\ years of Republican control, we never attacked the Chairman of the Committee in the manner Republicans chose this week. Similarly, as disappointed as Democrats were with the refusal of Chairman Hatch to include Allen Snyder, Bonnie Campbell, Clarence Sundram, Fred Woocher and other nominees on an agenda for a vote by the committee for months following their hearings, we never resorted to the tactics and tone used by Republicans in committee statements, in hallway discussions, in press conferences or in Senate floor debate. We never tried to override the chairman's prerogative to set the agenda for consideration of judicial nominees by trying to manipulate the committee's cloture rule. We did not try to use the committee rule to hold off consideration of an agenda item for at least a week to force either legislation or nominations to be voted on in one week's time. During Republican rule, even some uncontroversial nominees like Judge Kim Wardlaw were held over more than once. We also never sought to invoke Senate Rule 26.3 to make an end-run around Chairman Hatch--even when weeks and months passed without a single nominee on the agenda or when nominees who had hearings went for months without being placed on the agenda. As frustrated and disappointed as we were that the Republican majority refused to proceed with hearings or votes on scores of judicial nominees, we never sought to override Senator Hatch's judgments and authority as chairman of the committee. Some in the other party have spared no efforts in making judicial nominations into a partisan, political issue, all the while refusing to acknowledge the progress made in these past 15 months when 100 of President Bush's judicial choices have had committee votes. We have perhaps moved too quickly on some, relaxing past standards, being more expeditious and generous than Republicans were to a Democratic President's nominees, and trying to take some of them at their word that they will follow the law and the ethical rules for judges. Just last week, on October 2, 2002, we confirmed Ron Clark to an emergency vacancy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Two other judicial nominees, Larry Block and Judge James Gardner, were confirmed the very same day. The commissions for Judge Block and Judge Gardner were signed by the President on October 3, but the judge for the emergency vacancy in the President's home state was not. Just this week we learned that Mr. Clark was quoted as saying that he asked the White House to delay signing his commission while he runs as a Republican candidate for re-election to a seat in the Texas legislature. The White House apparently has been complicit in these unseemly political actions by a person confirmed to the federal bench. Mr. Clark, who the Senate has confirmed to a seat on the Federal district court in Texas, has been actively campaigning for election despite his confirmation. These actions call into question Mr. Clark's ability to put aside his partisan roots and be an impartial adjudicator of cases. In his answers under oath to the committee, he swore that if he were ``confirmed'' he would follow the ethical rules. Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges explicitly provides that the Code applies to ``judges and nominees for judicial office,'' and Canon 7 provides quite clearly that partisan political activity is contrary to ethical rules. In his answers to me, Mr. Clark promised: ``[s]hould I be confirmed as a judge, my role will be different than that of a legislator.'' Yet now that he is confirmed, he has been flaunting his written statements to me personally and to the Senate Judiciary Committee and, by proxy, to the Senate as a whole. That the White House would go along with these partisan ploys reveals much about the political way this administration approaches judicial nominations. Senators Kennedy and Schumer have written a letter of complaint to the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council, which has jurisdiction over ethical complaints arising in that jurisdiction. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and a newspaper report of the Clark scandal be included in the Record. Tonight, only after this scandal came to the Nation's attention in today's news account in the New York Times, the President has apparently signed Mr. Clark's commission. With a White House that is politicizing the Federal courts and making so many nominations, especially to the circuit courts, to appease the far-right wing of the Republican Party, it would be irresponsible for us to simply rubber-stamp these nominations for lifetime appointments to our independent Federal judiciary. Advice and consent does not mean giving any President carte blanche to pack the courts with ideologues from the right or the left. I have worked hard to bring to a vote an overwhelming majority of this President's judicial nominees, but we cannot afford to make errors in these lifetime appointments out of haste or sentimental considerations, however well intentioned. To help smooth the confirmation process, I have gone out of my way to encourage the White House to work in a bipartisan way with the Senate, as past Presidents have, but, in all too many instances, the White House has chosen to bypass bipartisan cooperation in favor of partisanship. The American people expect the federal courts to be fair forums and not bastions of favoritism on the right or the left. These are the only lifetime appointments in our whole system of government, and they matter a great deal to the future of each and every American. I will continue to work hard to ensure the independence of our Federal judiciary. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 9, 2002. The Hon. Carolyn Dineen King, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, LA. Dear Chief Judge King: We write to raise an ethics issue regarding Ronald W. Clark, who was nominated by President Bush on January 24 and confirmed by the Senate on October 2, to be a judge on the U.S. District court for the Eastern District of Texas, but whose commission has not yet been signed by the President. It has come to our attention Mr. Clark continues to hold his seat in the Texas state legislature and continues to campaign for re-election to that seat. Although Mr. Clark does not officially become a federal judge until he takes the oath of office, his continuing campaign activities appear to be in clear violation of Code of Conduct for Untied States Judges. The commentary to Code of Conduct makes clear that the Canons of Ethics define judicial nominees as judges and bind them to the same ethical rules. Canon 7 of the Code states that ``a judge should refrain from political activity'' and should not ``act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization; make speeches for a political organization, or candidate or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; [or] solicit funds.'' Canon 7 goes on to state that a judge ``should not engage in any other political activity.'' Traditionally, this provision has been construed to have limited application to nominees. Because of the contingent nature of the Senate confirmation process, it would be unfair to require nominees to resign from elective office merely upon being nominated. But once the President's nominees are confirmed by the Senate, the process loses its uncertainty. The only step between nominee and judge is a ministerial act that should be completed promptly, and not delayed for partisan or political reasons. Despite the clear applicability of the Code of Conduct, Mr. Clark continues to be a candidate for re-election to the Texas House of Representatives. This matter is of grave concern to us. As Members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, we take our Constitutional confirmation responsibilities seriously. Mr. Clark's continued candidacy appears to be a flagrant violation of the judicial code of conduct, which is deeply troubling. Judges should be paragons of ethics, and Mr. Clark's actions do not set a sterling standard at the outset of his judicial career. According to the Code of Conduct, complaints of ethical misconduct may be lodged with the Circuit council, which we understand you chair. We would appreciate your prompt consideration of this inquiry, and we look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely, Charles E. Schumer, U.S. Senator. Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. Senator.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer two pieces of legislation that would close a loophole that allows Federal regulators to overrule local officials on the building of cellular and broadcast towers. I am proud to be joined by Senator Jeffords, and Senator Murray in introducing legislation that will return decision-making power on the siting of towers to local communities. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which I opposed, contained a provision that allowed the Federal Communications Commission to preempt the decisions of local authorities. Over the last five years, a small loophole in the 1996 Act has spurred David versus Goliath battles across the country. Small communities that pride themselves in deciding what their towns will look like, now have few options when they try to stop or even negotiate a different site for broadcast or cellular towers. In Vermont, we have had several communities, Shelburne, Bethel, and Charlotte, run directly into this problem. What used to be their right to decide these decisions under zoning laws was up-ended. These communities understand that there will be new towers. Demand for wireless services has skyrocketed over the last few years. The mountains and hills of Vermont make many Vermonters joke that cell phones are more useful as paper weights than as a way to talk with friends and family. However, Vermonters and people across the country do not believe that we have to sacrifice our scenic views and residential areas to ensure wireless coverage. As a Vermonter, I do not want to wake up ten years from now and see my State turned into a pincushion of antennas and towers. That is why I am introducing these bills today. In a way, these bills are the culmination of a long battle with the Federal Communications Commission and in the courts to protect local authority. In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission seized on the legislative loophole and proposed an expansive new rule to prevent State and local zoning laws from regulating the placement of cell and broadcast towers on the basis of environmental considerations, aviation safety, or other locally-determined matters. I fought this proposed rule and was joined by many Vermonters, Governor Dean, the Vermont Environmental Board, mayors, zoning officials and others. I also joined with many Vermonters and the rest of the Vermont Congressional Delegation to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, arguing that the preemption of local power to issue building permits was a clear violation of the 10th Amendment. Unfortunately, that petition failed and now I am introducing legislation to fix a problem Congress created. The preemption of local authority should never have happened. Health, safety, and local land use issues should be left in the hands of those who know these issues best and can find a way to balance the needs of their community--the local zoning authorities. In Vermont, we actually have a very well-tested and successful way of finding a balance between protecting the environment, the health and safety of Vermonters, and meeting economic demands. It's called Act 250. It was adopted over three decades ago when Vermonters realized that our cherished hillsides and New England towns could be overrun with homes. Now, the same realization has occurred with cell and broadcast towers. My bill will not prohibit new towers. It will simply let local officials use their state and local protections, like Act 250, find the best solution for their community. I think that many of my colleagues would agree that it is not too much to ask that telecommunication companies follow the zoning laws that apply to everyone else. In fact, we already have ways to meet the needs of telecommunication companies and communities. There are other viable alterative communication technologies to massive towers. I have in the past discussed how PCS-Over-Cable and PCS-Over-Fiber technologies can provide digital cellular service using small antennas, eliminating the need for large towers. These small antennas can be attached to an existing telephone pole or lamp post. Not only is this technology more aesthetically pleasing, but because the companies do not need to buy land for these antennas, these delivery mechanisms are cheaper as well. We should allow local government to require the usage of these less intrusive technologies, This is ultimately a very simple issue. It's an issue of local control. I believe that it is local authorities, not Federal regulators, who should determine when and where these structures are built. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills and two section-by-section analyses be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer two pieces of legislation that would close a loophole that allows Federal regulators to overrule local officials on the building of cellular and broadcast towers. I am proud to be joined by Senator Jeffords, and Senator Murray in introducing legislation that will return decision-making power on the siting of towers to local communities. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which I opposed, contained a provision that allowed the Federal Communications Commission to preempt the decisions of local authorities. Over the last five years, a small loophole in the 1996 Act has spurred David versus Goliath battles across the country. Small communities that pride themselves in deciding what their towns will look like, now have few options when they try to stop or even negotiate a different site for broadcast or cellular towers. In Vermont, we have had several communities, Shelburne, Bethel, and Charlotte, run directly into this problem. What used to be their right to decide these decisions under zoning laws was up-ended. These communities understand that there will be new towers. Demand for wireless services has skyrocketed over the last few years. The mountains and hills of Vermont make many Vermonters joke that cell phones are more useful as paper weights than as a way to talk with friends and family. However, Vermonters and people across the country do not believe that we have to sacrifice our scenic views and residential areas to ensure wireless coverage. As a Vermonter, I do not want to wake up ten years from now and see my State turned into a pincushion of antennas and towers. That is why I am introducing these bills today. In a way, these bills are the culmination of a long battle with the Federal Communications Commission and in the courts to protect local authority. In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission seized on the legislative loophole and proposed an expansive new rule to prevent State and local zoning laws from regulating the placement of cell and broadcast towers on the basis of environmental considerations, aviation safety, or other locally-determined matters. I fought this proposed rule and was joined by many Vermonters, Governor Dean, the Vermont Environmental Board, mayors, zoning officials and others. I also joined with many Vermonters and the rest of the Vermont Congressional Delegation to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, arguing that the preemption of local power to issue building permits was a clear violation of the 10th Amendment. Unfortunately, that petition failed and now I am introducing legislation to fix a problem Congress created. The preemption of local authority should never have happened. Health, safety, and local land use issues should be left in the hands of those who know these issues best and can find a way to balance the needs of their community--the local zoning authorities. In Vermont, we actually have a very well-tested and successful way of finding a balance between protecting the environment, the health and safety of Vermonters, and meeting economic demands. It's called Act 250. It was adopted over three decades ago when Vermonters realized that our cherished hillsides and New England towns could be overrun with homes. Now, the same realization has occurred with cell and broadcast towers. My bill will not prohibit new towers. It will simply let local officials use their state and local protections, like Act 250, find the best solution for their community. I think that many of my colleagues would agree that it is not too much to ask that telecommunication companies follow the zoning laws that apply to everyone else. In fact, we already have ways to meet the needs of telecommunication companies and communities. There are other viable alterative communication technologies to massive towers. I have in the past discussed how PCS-Over-Cable and PCS-Over-Fiber technologies can provide digital cellular service using small antennas, eliminating the need for large towers. These small antennas can be attached to an existing telephone pole or lamp post. Not only is this technology more aesthetically pleasing, but because the companies do not need to buy land for these antennas, these delivery mechanisms are cheaper as well. We should allow local government to require the usage of these less intrusive technologies, This is ultimately a very simple issue. It's an issue of local control. I believe that it is local authorities, not Federal regulators, who should determine when and where these structures are built. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills and two section-by-section analyses be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I will have no objection to that provided the time is not taken from the time the Senator from Vermont has reserved.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have enjoyed this colloquy and would yield further, but I know there are other Senators awaiting their turn to speak. On September 26, I spoke at length in this Chamber about the important issue before us. I voiced my concerns and the concerns of a great many Vermonters--in fact, a great many Americans from whom I have heard. I spoke about the President's plan to send Americans into battle to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Many Senators have also expressed their views on this difficult decision. As I prepared to speak 2 weeks ago, I listened to Senator Bingaman urge the administration to seriously consider a proposal for ``coerced inspections.'' After I finished speaking, Senator Johnson voiced his support for providing the President with the broad authority he seeks to use military force against Iraq. The opportunity and responsibility to have this debate is one of the cornerstones on which this institution, and indeed this country is built. Some have suggested that expressing misgivings or asking questions about the President's plan to attack Iraq is somehow unpatriotic. Others have tried to make it an election year issue on bumper stickers or in TV advertisements. These attempts are misguided. They are beneath the people who make these attempts and they are beneath the issue. This is an issue of war. An issue of war should be openly debated. That is a great freedom of this Nation. We fought a revolution to have such debates. As I and others have said over and over, declaring war is the single most important responsibility given to Congress. Unfortunately, at times like this, it is a responsibility Congress has often shirked. Too often, Congress has abdicated its responsibility and deferred to the executive branch on such matters. It should not. It should pause and read the Constitution. In the Senate, we have a duty to the Constitution, to our consciences, and to the American people, especially our men and women in uniform, to ask questions, to discuss the benefits, the risks, the costs, to have a thorough debate and then vote to declare war or not. This body, the Senate, is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. We should fulfill this great responsibility. In my 28 years in the Senate, I can think of many instances when we asked questions and took the time to study the facts. It led to significant improvements in what we have done here. I can also remember times when Senators in both parties wished they had taken more time to carefully consider the issues before them, to ask the hard questions, or make changes to the legislation, despite the sometimes overwhelming public pressure to pass the first bill that came along. I know following the Constitution is not always politically expedient or popular. The Constitution was not designed to be politically expedient, but following the Constitution is the right course to take. It is what we are sworn to do, and there is no question that having this debate, which really began some months ago, has helped move the administration in the right direction. Today, we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to declare war. But instead of exercising this responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, what have we done? We have chosen to delegate this authority and this burden to the executive branch. This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to. This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed. Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action. Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that. I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance. Two weeks ago, when the President sent Congress his proposed resolution authorizing the use of force, I said that I hoped his proposal was the beginning of a consultative, bipartisan process to produce a sensible resolution to be acted on at the appropriate time. I also said that I could envision circumstances which would cause me to support sending U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq. But I also made it clear that I could never support the kind of blank check resolution that the President proposed. I was not elected to do that. I commend Senator Daschle, Senator Hagel, and others who tried hard to work with the administration to craft a bipartisan resolution that we could all support. But while the resolution that we are considering today is an improvement from the version that the President first sent to Congress, it is fundamentally the same. It is still a blank check. I will vote against this resolution for all the reasons I have stated before and the reasons I will explain in detail now. Mr. President, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace to his people and to Iraq's neighbors. He is a tyrant and the world would be far better without him. Saddam Hussein has also made no secret of his hatred of the United States, and should he acquire a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it, he would pose a grave threat to the lives of all Americans, as well as to our closest allies. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein should be disarmed; it is how imminent is this threat and how should we deal with it? Do we go it alone, as some in the administration are eager to do because they see Iraq as their first opportunity to apply the President's strategy of preemptive military force? Do we do that, potentially jeopardizing the support of those nations we need to combat terrorism and further antagonizing Muslim populations who already deeply resent our policies in the Middle East? Or, do we work with other nations to disarm Saddam, using force if other options fail? The resolution now before the Senate leaves the door open to act alone, even absent an imminent threat. It surrenders to the President authority which the Constitution explicitly reserves for the Congress. And As I said 2 weeks ago, it is premature. I have never believed, nor do I think that any Senator believes, that U.S. foreign policy should be hostage to any nation, nor to the United Nations. Ultimately, we must do what we believe is right and necessary to protect our security, whenever it is called for. But going to war alone is rarely the answer. On Monday night, the President spoke about working with the United Nations. He said: To actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. That is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. I could not agree more. The President is right. The status quo is unacceptable. Past U.N. resolutions have not worked. Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials have lied to the world over and over and over. As the President points out, an effort is underway in the U.N. Security Council--led by the United States--to adopt a strong resolution requiring unconditional, unimpeded access for U.N. weapons inspectors, backed up with force if necessary. That effort is making steady progress. There is wide acceptance that a new resolution is necessary before the inspectors can return to Iraq, and this has put pressure on the other nations, especially Russia and France, to support our position. If successful, it could achieve the goal of disarming Saddam without putting thousands of American and innocent Iraqi lives at risk or spending tens of billions, or hundreds of billions, of dollars at a time when the U.S. economy is weakening, the Federal deficit is growing, and the retirement savings of America's senior citizens have been decimated. Diplomacy is often tedious. It does not usually make the headlines or the evening news. We certainly know about past diplomatic failures. But history has shown over and over that diplomatic pressure cannot only protect our national interests, it can also enhance the effectiveness of military force when force becomes necessary. The negotiations are at a sensitive stage. By authorizing the use of force today, the Congress will be saying that irrespective of what the Security Council does, we have already decided to go our own way. As Chairman and sometime Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for over a decade, I have received countless letters from Secretaries of State--from both Democratic and Republican Administrations--urging Congress not to adopt legislation because it would upset ongoing negotiations. Why is this different? Some say the President's hand will be strengthened by Congress passing this resolution. In 1990, when the United States successfully assembled a broad coalition to fight the gulf war, the Congress passed a resolution only after the UN had acted. The world already knows that President Bush is serious about using force against Iraq, and the votes are there in Congress to declare war if diplomatic efforts fail and war becomes unavoidable. More importantly, the resolution now before the Senate goes well beyond what the President said on Monday about working through the United Nations. It would permit the administration to take precipitous, unilateral action without following through at the U.N. Many respected and knowledgeable people--former senior military officers and diplomats among them--have expressed strong reservations about this resolution. They agree that if there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein is planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or one of our allies, the American people and the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use of American military power to stop him. But they have not seen that evidence, and neither have I. We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war. The administration has also been vague, evasive and contradictory about its plans. Speaking here in Washington, the President and his advisors continue to say this issue is about disarming Saddam Hussein; that he has made no decision to use force. But the President paints a different picture when he is on the campaign trail, where he often talks about regime change. The Vice President said on national television that ``The President's made it clear that the goal of the United States is regime change. He said that on many occasions.'' Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. They point to section 4, which require the President to determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, in concert with our allies. But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on diplomacy along. . . . is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . . .'' Unfortunately, we have learned that ``not likely'' is a wide open phrase that can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. It is a blank check. We have the best trained, best equipped Armed Forces in the world, and I know they can defeat Iraq. I hope, as we all do, that if force is used the Iraqi military surrenders quickly. But if we have learned anything from history, it is that wars are unpredictable. They can trigger consequences that none of us would intend or expect. Is it fair to the American people, who have become accustomed to wars waged from 30,000 feet lasting a few weeks with few casualties, that we not discuss what else could happen? We could be involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed. And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? It is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting. If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once again become havens for terrorists. To ensure that does not happen, do we foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and if so, for how many years? How many billions of dollars will we spend? Are the American people prepared to spend what it will take to rebuild Iraq even when the administration is not budgeting the money that is needed to rebuild Afghanistan, having promised to do so? Do we spend hundreds of billions in Iraq, as the President's Economic Adviser suggested, while not providing at home for homeland defense, drought aid for farmers, education for our young people, and other domestic priorities? Who is going to replace Saddam Hussein? The leading coalition of opposition groups, the Iraqi National Congress, is divided, has questionable support among the Iraqi people, and has made little headway in overthrowing Saddam. While Iraq has a strong civil society, in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq another dictator could rise to the top or the country could splinter along ethnic or religious lines. These are the questions the American people are asking and these are the issues we should be debating. They are difficult issues of war and peace, but the administration, and the proponents of this resolution, would rather leave them for another day. They say: vote now! and let the President decide. Don't give the U.N. time to do its job. Don't worry that the resolution is a blank check. I can count the votes. The Senate will pass this resolution. They will give the President the authority he needs to send United States troops to Iraq. But before the President takes that step, I hope he will consider the questions that have been asked. I hope he considers the concerns raised by former generals, senior diplomats, and intelligence officials in testimony before Congress. I hope he listens to concerns raised privately by some of our military officers. Above all, I hope he will listen to the American people who are urging him to proceed cautiously and not to act alone. Notwithstanding whatever disagreements there may be on our policy toward Iraq, if a decision is made to send troops into battle, there is no question that every Member of Congress will unite behind our President and our Armed Forces. But that time has not yet come. Based on what I know today, I believe in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more terrorists and more enemies, we have to act deliberately and not precipitously. The way the United States responds to the threat posed by Iraq is going to have consequences for our country and for the world for years to come. Authorizing a U.S. attack to overthrow another government while negotiations at the United Nations are ongoing, and before we exhaust other options, could damage our standing in the world as a country that recognizes the importance of international solutions. I am afraid that it would be what the world expects of a superpower that seems increasing disdainful of international opinion or cooperation and collective diplomacy, a superpower that seems more and more inclined to ``go it alone.'' What a dramatic shift from a year ago, when the world was united in its expressions of sympathy toward the United States. A year ago, the world would have welcomed the opportunity to work with us on a wide agenda of common problems. I remember the emotion I felt when I saw ``The Star Spangled Banner'' sung by crowds of people outside Buckingham Palace in London. The leading French newspaper, Le Monde, declared, ``We are all Americans.'' China's Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call Washington and express sympathy after September 11. Why squander the goodwill we had in the world? Why squander this unity? If September 11 taught us anything, it is that protecting our security involves much more than military might. It involves cooperation with other nations to break up terrorist rings, dry up the sources of funding, and address the conditions of ignorance and despair that create breeding grounds for terrorists. We are far more likely to achieve these goals by working with other nations than by going it alone. I am optimistic that the Administration's efforts at the U.N. will succeed and that the Security Council will adopt a strong resolution. If Saddam Hussein refuses to comply, then force may be justified, and it may be required. But we are a great nation, with a wide range of resources available to us and with the goodwill of most of the world. Let us proceed deliberately, moving as close to our goal as we can by working with our allies and the United Nations, rather than writing a blank check that is premature, and which would continue the trend of abdicating our constitutional authority and our responsibility. Mr. President, that trend started many years ago, and I have gone back and read some of the speeches the Senators have made. For example, and I quote: The resolution now pending is an expression of American unity in this time of crisis. It is a vote of confidence . . . but is not a blank check for policies that might in the future be carried on by the executive branch of the Government without full consultation by the Congress. Do these speeches sound familiar? They were not about Iraq. They were spoken 38 years ago when I was still a prosecutor in Vermont. At the end of that debate, after statements were made that this resolution is not a blank check, and that Congress will always watch what the Executive Branch is doing, the Senate voted on that resolution. Do you know what the vote was? 88 to 2. It passed overwhelmingly. In case everyone does not know what resolution I am talking about, I am talking about the Tonkin Gulf resolution. As we know all too well, the Tonkin Gulf resolution was used by both the Johnson and Nixon administrations as carte blanche to wage war on Vietnam, ultimately involving more than half a million American troops, resulting in the deaths of more than 58,000 Americans. Yet, even the Tonkin Gulf resolution, unlike the one that we are debating today, had a sunset provision. When I came to the Senate, there were a lot of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who had voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution. Every single Senator who ever discussed it with me said what a mistake it was to write that kind of blank check on the assurance that we would continue to watch what went on. I am not suggesting the administration is trying to mislead the Congress about the situation in Iraq, as Congress was misled on the Tonkin Gulf resolution. I am not comparing a possible war in Iraq to the Vietnam war. They are very different countries, with different histories, and with different military capabilities. But the key words in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to the infamous resolution of 38 years ago which so many Senators and so many millions of Americans came to regret. Let us not make that mistake again. Let us not pass a Tonkin Gulf resolution. Let us not set the history of our great country this way. Let us not make the mistake we made once before. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, was the Senator from Pennsylvania seeking further time?

Mr. LEAHY. Again, Mr. President, I ask this not be deducted from the time available to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Sessions and Nickles in introducing the Johnny Michael Spann Patriot Trusts Act. This legislation will facilitate private charitable giving for the benefit of spouses of servicemen and other Federal employees who are killed in the line of duty while engaged in the fight against international terrorism. Many of us have fought for some time to achieve fair and expeditious compensation for victims of terrorism. In 1996, we passed the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which authorized grants to states to provide assistance and compensation to victims of terrorism. Two years ago, we passed legislation directing the Justice Department to establish a Federal compensation program for victims of international terrorism. And last year, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, we established a special fund to provide compensation to the many families who lost loved ones on that terrible day. I am proud of these legislative accomplishments. We should make every effort to help the innocent civilians whose lives are shattered by terrorist acts. At the same time, we must not forget those who are killed while serving on the front line in the war on terrorism. Under current law, beneficiaries of members of the U.S. Armed Forces get paid $6,000 only in death benefits from the Government, over any insurance that they may have purchased. Moreover, these individuals may not be eligible for payments from any existing victims' compensation program or charitable organization. The Johnny Michael Spann Patriot Trusts Act will provide much needed support for the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. The bill encourages the creation of charitable trusts for the benefit of surviving spouses and dependents of military, CIA, FBI, and other Federal Government employees who are killed in operations or activities to curb international terrorism. In addition, the bill authorizes Federal officials to contact qualifying trusts on behalf of surviving spouses and dependents, pursuant to regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. This will help to inform survivors about benefits and to ensure that those who are eligible have the opportunity to access the money. It will also spare grieving widows the embarrassment of having to go to a charity and ask for money. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, the bill makes clear that federal officeholders and candidates may help raise funds for qualifying trusts without running afoul of Federal campaign finance laws. While we have greatly improved our victims assistance and compensation programs, we still have more to do. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in advancing this legislation through Congress before the end of the year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we held the 26th hearing for judicial nominees since the change in majority in the summer of 2001. The Judiciary Committee has now considered 103 nominees in less than 15 months. It took the Republican-controlled Senate 33 months--almost 3 full years--to hold hearings for 100 of President Clinton's judicial nominees, although more than 100 were pending well before that. We have reached that mark in less than half that time. Since the summer of 2001, we have held more hearings for more judicial nominees--103 candidates--than in any comparable 15-month period of the 6\1/2\ years before the Senate changeover last year. We have also held more hearings for circuit court nominees--20--than in any comparable period of that previous 6\1/2\ years, when our predecessors allowed an average of only seven circuit court nominees to be confirmed per year. In the past three weeks we held two back-to-back hearings for controversial circuit court nominees back to back. In contrast, at 11 of the judicial nomination hearings held during the prior period of Republican control, no circuit court nominees were on the agenda. During their 6\1/2\ years of control of the Senate, there were also 30 months in which Republicans held no hearings at all. Democrats have held at least one hearing per month and have held almost two per month on average. We have been working nonstop to address the vacancy crisis we inherited. In the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control, before the reorganization of the committee last summer, vacancies on the Courts of Appeals more than doubled from 16 to 33 and overall vacancies rose from 65 to 110. Added to that were the 47 new vacancies that have arisen since last summer. Thus, rather than 157 vacancies, with the 80 circuit and district court nominees we have confirmed, there are now 77 vacancies. The President has yet to nominate anyone for 30 of these vacancies. With today's hearing for 7 judicial nominees, we will have held hearings for 21 of the 47 nominees currently pending. Many of the 26 judicial nominees who have not yet had a hearing were nominated only recently toward the end of this congressional session. Due to the White House's refusal to allow ABA peer reviews to begin prior to nomination and because the ABA peer reviews have been taking between 50 and 60 days from the time of nomination, the White House knows that many of these late nominees will not have their files completed in time for hearings. Thus, of the 26 who have not yet had a hearing, only seven have completed files--especially, ABA reviews and the consent of both of their home-State Senators. That is, the majority of the nominees who have not yet had a hearing--19--do not have completed files. Of the seven who are eligible for a hearing, but who have not yet had a hearing, six have relatively controversial records which require more review. The only remaining district court nominee did not have a complete file by the time the last hearing was noticed. Accordingly, with today's hearing, since the changeover last year we will have held hearings for 103 of the 110 eligible judicial nominees with complete files. Thus, 94 percent of this President's judicial nominees who had completed files have been given hearings. This remarkable achievement is irrefutable evidence of the good-faith efforts we have made to restore order to the confirmation process--good faith efforts that we continue to hope will be matched by the White House. I am certain that President Clinton would have been overcome with gratitude if the Republicans ever gave 94 percent of his judicial nominees hearings in the years Republicans controlled the confirmation process during his administration. They never did. Instead, in 1995 for example, Republicans allowed only 58 of the 86 pending judicial nominations of President Clinton to be confirmed, nowhere near 100 percent or even 90 percent. In 1996, Republicans allowed only 17 of the 49 pending judicial nominees, or 35 percent, to be confirmed, and none were circuit court nominees. In 1997, Republicans allowed only 36 of the 79 Clinton nominees to be confirmed, or 46 percent. In 1998, Republicans allowed 66 of 92 pending judicial nominees to be confirmed. In 1999 they allowed only 33 of the 71 judicial nominees to be confirmed, about 46 percent, and in 2000 they allowed only 39 of the 81 pending judicial nominees to be confirmed, or 48 percent. Thus, during their 6 years of Senate control during the Clinton administration, Republicans allowed only about half of the judicial nominations to be confirmed on average per year. Their percentages are even worse for circuit court nominees. These are detailed in my floor statement of October 4. To this point, the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted on more judicial nominees--83--and on more circuit court nominees--17--than in any comparable 15-month period of prior Republican control. The Democratic-led Senate has already confirmed 80 of the judicial nominations of President George W. Bush. In so doing, we have confirmed more judicial nominees in less than 15 months that were confirmed in the last 30 months that a Republican majority controlled the Senate. We have done more in half the time. The expeditious pace should not be construed as a rush to process the appointment of judges to lifetime positions. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record several recently published editorials from the Rutland Herald, the Barre Montpelier Times Argus and the Los Angeles Times. Each of these articles emphasize the important obligation of the Senate to thoroughly review the records of the President's judicial nominees. They serve as an important reminder that our outstanding record of treating President Bush's nominees more fairly and more expeditiously than President Clinton's nominees were treated.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week Republican critics, for whom we expedited hearings and committee votes on a number of judicial nominees in their home States, spoke on the floor about their frustration that not all the President's judicial nominees have yet been confirmed. They complain about a handful of judicial nominees. The fact is that the hearing I will chair next week will include the 100th judicial nominee to receive a hearing since the Democrats became the majority party in the Senate less than 15 months ago. Had the Senate been more productive in 1999 and 2000 and the first months of 2001, when a Republican majority was not holding hearings and votes on judicial nominees, we would be farther along. Since the shift in majority, we have been proceeding dramatically faster than the Republicans. It took Republicans 33 months, almost 3 full years, to hold hearings for 100 of President Clinton's judicial nominees when they were in the majority, we will exceed that mark next week, in less than 15 months. Republican critics who now come to the floor of the Senate expressing outrage that a handful of judicial nominees have not had a hearing in the past year, were deafeningly silent when scores of President Clinton's judicial nominees never received hearings after many months and years. For example, Judge Helene White of Michigan, nominated to the Sixth Circuit, waited in vain for over 4 years, 1,454 days, for a hearing and never had a hearing or a vote. James Beaty of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit, waited in vain for almost 3 years, 1,033 days, and never got a hearing. H. Alston Johnson of Louisiana, nominated to the Fifth Circuit, waited in vain for over 600 days and never got a hearing. Others, such as Allen Snyder and Bonnie Campbell who were nominated to the D.C. Circuit and Eighth Circuit, received hearings but no committee vote. Likewise, Clarence Sundram, nominated to the Northern District of New York, waited 19 months for a hearing and then languished in committee without the committee vote for 18 months before his nomination was returned, after pending before the Senate for 1,119 days. There were others, too many others, who waited in vain for a hearing or after a hearing for committee consideration. In addition, it often took months and sometimes years for those who were ultimately confirmed to be acted upon by the Republican-controlled Senate. For example, Judge Richard Paez, nominated to the 9th Circuit, was finally confirmed after four years, 1,520 days; Judge William Fletcher, also nominated to the 9th Circuit, was finally confirmed after 1,264 days; Judge Hilda Tagle, nominated to the District Court in Texas, waited 943 days to be confirmed; Judge Susan Molloway, nominated to the District Court in Hawaii, waited 913 days to be confirmed, Judge Ann Aiken, nominated to the District Court in Oregon, waited 791 days to be confirmed; Judge Timothy Dyk, nominated to the Federal Circuit, waited 785 days to be confirmed; Judge Marsha Berzon, nominated to the 9th Circuit, waited 772 days to be confirmed; Ronald Gould, nominated to the 9th Circuit, waited 739 days to be confirmed; Margaret McKeown, nominated to the 9th Circuit, waited 728 days to be confirmed; and Margaret Morrow, nominated to the California District Court, waited almost 2 years to be confirmed. Many others took more than 1 year. I understand how difficult the confirmation process can be. During the 6\1/2\ years Republicans controlled the Senate only 39 judicial nominees, including seven circuit court nominees, were confirmed per year on average. In contrast, in less than 15 months, the Democratic majority has already confirmed 80 judicial nominees. The confirmation process can be frustrating at times, but it is also important work by which we implement our constitutionally-mandated advise and consent role for these lifetime appointments. It is a role that I do not take lightly and the other Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee do not take lightly. Accordingly, it is distressing to hear unintentionally inaccurate portrayals of the progress we have made in the less 15 months of Democratic control of the Senate. It is true that we have not been able to confirm every single judicial nominee proposed by this President, but we have worked at a historically fast pace to address the vacancy crisis by moving consensus nominees first and working our way through the more controversial and divisive nominees. Since the summer of 2001, we have held more hearings for more judicial nominees and more hearings for circuit court nominees than in any comparable 15-month period of the 6\1/2\ years in which Republicans last controlled the committee. With our hearing last week, the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee has now held 25 hearings for 96 district and circuit court nominees. This is twice the pace at which the Republican majority considered President Clinton's judicial nominees. The Judiciary Committee has likewise voted on more judicial nominees, 83, and on more circuit court nominees, 17, than in any comparable 15-month period of prior Republican control. In fact, Democrats have given votes to more judicial nominees than in 1996 and 1997 combined as well as in 1999 and 2000 combined. During their 6\1/2\ years of control, Republicans allowed only 39 judicial nominees to be confirmed per year, on average, 39, and only seven circuit court nominees to be confirmed per year on average. In contrast, in little more than a year, Democrats have already confirmed 80 of this Republican President's judicial nominees, including 14 circuit court nominees. We have done twice as much as their average, and yet they still complain. Rather than compare the improvements we are making over the way they treated the judicial nominees of the last President when they were recently in the Senate majority, they would pick other times when the Senate and executive branch were headed by those of the same party. This reveals how embarrassed they must be about their own record. That must be why they ignore their own record and refuse to acknowledge the improvements we have made, the hard work we have done, and all that we have accomplished. This past week, Republicans reiterated their claim that other Presidents had 80 or 90 percent of their circuit court nominees confirmed. This ignores entirely the efforts of these same Republicans to block President Clinton's circuit court nominees. For example, in 1996, Republicans allowed none, zero percent and the absolute number of zero circuit court nominees to be confirmed. In 1997, Republicans allowed only 7 of President Clinton's 21 circuit court nominees to be confirmed, about one-third. Only 5 of President Clinton's first 11 circuit court nominees that year were confirmed that same year. In 1998, Republicans allowed 13 of the 23 pending circuit court nominees to be confirmed, which was 56 percent for the year, their best year for circuit court confirmations in their 6\1/2\ years of control of the Senate. In 1999, Republicans were back down to 28 percent, when they allowed only seven of the 25 circuit court nominations made to be confirmed, or about one of every four. Four of President Clinton's first 11 circuit court nominees that year were not confirmed. In 2000, Republicans allowed only 8 of the 26 circuit court nominees pending to be confirmed, or 31 percent. All but one of the circuit court candidates initially nominated that year, were returned to President Clinton without confirmation. Republicans simply have no standing to complain that 100 percent of President George W. Bush's circuit court nominees have not been confirmed. Recent history makes their complaints on this point ring hollow. Democrats have been better by far to this President's judicial nominees than Republicans were to the last President's. For example, at the most recent judicial nominations hearing held last week, Democrats had already given hearings to 96 of the 105 eligible judicial nominees with complete files, the remaining two dozen nominees did not have completed files. Thus, 91 percent of judicial nominees who had completed files were given a hearing. This remarkable achievement is irrefutable evidence that we are not blocking this administration's judicial nominees. I am certain that President Clinton would have been overcome with gratitude if the Republicans ever gave 91 percent of his judicial nominees hearings in the years Republicans controlled the confirmation process during his administration. They never did. Instead, almost half the time his judicial nominees never got hearings or votes. Indeed, only 49 percent of President Clinton's circuit court nominations were confirmed, 46 out of 93 nominations during the period of Republican control. How dare they complain that 100 percent or 90 percent of President Bush's circuit court or district court nominees have not been confirmed in our first 14\1/2\ months of control. The real reason there are so many circuit vacancies is because Republicans blocked so many of President Clinton's judicial nominees. During the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control, the number of circuit vacancies more than doubled from 16 to 33, and the total number of vacancies increased from 65 to 110 by the time of the reorganization of the committee in the summer of 2001. If Republicans had not blocked the confirmation of almost two dozen, 22, circuit court nominees and many more district court nominees, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would have begun with 11 circuit court vacancies, instead of the 33 we inherited. With the 10 new circuit court vacancies that arose over these past 14\1/2\ months, there would have been a total of 22 circuit court vacancies for this President to fill. At the Democratic pace of considering circuit court nominees, almost of all of them would have had hearings by now, and 14 of them would have already been confirmed, with our pace of confirmation. That would have left only 6 vacancies on the circuit courts today. That is what might have been, but for the determined, strategic blocking of so many circuit court nominees during the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate. Instead, even after 14 circuit confirmations, there are 27 circuit court vacancies. This number is still fewer than at the start of this Congress and fewer than the 33 vacancies we inherited. We have outstripped attrition and are making progress. We cannot undo the damage done between 1995 and 2001 overnight, but we have held hearings for 96 of this President's judicial nominees, which is more circuit and district court nominees in less than 15 months than they held when they first took over the Senate or in their subsequent years. It is more in raw numbers and in percentages. We have made real progress to fix the problems that we inherited from the period of Republican control of the process. The Judiciary Committee has focused on consensus nominees. This prioritization will help end the crisis caused by Republican delay and obstruction by confirming as many of the President's judicial nominees as quickly as possible. Most Senators understand that the more controversial nominees require greater review. This process of careful review is part of our democratic process. It is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system of government that does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to one person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines, to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the mainstream of legal thought, and whose decisions would further divide our nation. The Senate should not and will not rubber stamp nominees who would undermine the independence and fairness of our federal courts. It is our responsibility to preserve a fair, impartial and independent judiciary for all Americans, of all races, all religions, whether rich or poor, whether Democrat or Republican. The committee continues to try to accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. Virtually all of the Court of Appeals nominees included at hearings so far this year have been at the request of Republican Senators, including Senator Grassley, Senator Lott, Senator Specter, Senator Enzi, Senator Smith, and Senator Thompson, Republican Senators who each sought a prompt hearing on a Court of Appeals nominee and who was accommodated. However, the whipsawing by Republicans has been truly remarkable. When we proceed on nominees that they support and on whom they seek action, we are criticized for not acting on others. When we direct our effort to trying to solve problems in one Circuit, they complain that we are not acting in another. Since these multiple problems arose on their watch while they were in the majority, it is a bit like the arsonist who complains that the local fire department is not responding fast enough to all of his destructive antics. This week the Senate confirmed its 79th and 80th judicial nominees since the change in Senate majority and reorganization of the Judiciary Committee less than 15 months ago. In so doing, we have confirmed more judicial nominees than were confirmed in the first 15 months of any of the past three Presidents and more judicial nominees than were confirmed in the last 30 months that a Republican majority controlled the Senate. Simply put, we have done more in half the time. We have achieved what we said we would by treating President Bush's nominees more fairly and more expeditiously than President Clinton's nominees were treated. Partisan critics of these accomplishments ignore the facts. The facts are that we are confirming President Bush's nominees at a faster pace than the nominees of prior presidents, including those who worked closely with a Senate majority of the same political party. At this important time in our Nation's history we can all appreciate the need for a sound judiciary. Under the Democratic majority, we will continue to review nominees' files expeditiously and grant hearings regularly to candidates with complete paperwork and home State consent. Our record breaking efforts in the past 14\1/2\ months have left us with few remaining nominees who are ready to appear before the Committee. Of the circuit court nominees who have not yet received a hearing, half of them, 6, are without home State consent. Only 3 remain from the initial 11 circuit court nominees who have not had a hearing and have home State Senator support. Of the 17 district court nominees who have not yet received a hearing, more than half of them 9 have incomplete paperwork, including six of them without home State consent. Moreover, 9 out of 17 district court nominees are without ABA ratings. Despite the partisan din about blockades and obstructionism, Democrats are actually achieving almost twice as much as our Republican counterparts did to staff the Federal courts. The Democratic Senate has shown its resolve to work in a bipartisan way to fill judicial vacancies. That is what the confirmation of 80 judges in less than 15 months demonstrates. But let me be clear. Our judiciary would be in even better shape if so many judicial nominees of the prior administration had not been purposely blocked and defeated, if we received more timely reviews from the ABA, and even a little cooperation from this administration by nominating more moderate, mainstream judicial nominees. I, again, invite the President and all Republicans to join with us and work with us to fill the remaining judicial vacancies as quickly as possible with qualified, consensus nominees chosen from the mainstream and not for their ideological orientation, nominees who will be fair and impartial judges and will ensure that an independent judiciary is the people's bulwark against a loss of their freedoms and rights.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Monday in Boston and Tuesday in New York there will be tribute concerts in memory of Timothy White, the editor of Billboard Magazine who recently died at the young age of 50. Tim is survived by his wife Judy Garlan and twin sons Christopher and Alexander. I understand that these concerts includes performances by some of my favorite musicians, performers, and recording artists, including Sheryl Crow, Don Henley, John Mellencamp, Sting, Billy Joel, James Taylor, Jimmy Buffett, and Roger Waters. These are people with big hearts as well as talent. Tim White loved his family and he loved music. He wrote: Music entered my world on a summer morning in 1956, in the tough mill town of Paterson, N.J., when a band of Italian street musicians ambled down East 27th Street and paused in front of my family's tiny Cape Cod-style house. . . . What still moves me most about musicians--about all creative people who disclose the depths of their better selves--is that same thing that touched me on that otherwise torpid August afternoon--that these people would be willing to trust another stranger with the open expression of such inner truths. He was an editor, a writer, an observer and a person of conviction and commitment. In addition to his family and friends, those who care about music will miss him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last night, the Senate confirmed its 79th and 80th judicial nominees, and its 65th and 66th nominees to the Federal district courts since the change in Senate majority and reorganization of the Judiciary Committee less than 15 months ago. In so doing, we have confirmed more judicial nominees than were confirmed in the first 15 months of any of the past three Presidents, and more nominees than were confirmed in the last 30 months that a Republican majority controlled the Senate. We have done more in half the time. We have achieved what we said we would by treating President Bush's nominees more fairly and more expeditiously than President Clinton's nominees were treated. Since the summer of 2001, we have held more hearings for more judicial nominees and more hearings for circuit court nominees than in any 15-month period of the six and one-half years in which Republicans last controlled the Committee. With our hearing last week, the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee has not held 25 hearings for 96 district and circuit court nominees. This is approximately double the pace at which the Republican majority considered President Clinton's nominees. The Judiciary Committee has likewise voted on more judicial nominees, 83, and on more circuit court nominees, 17, than in any comparable 15-month period of prior Republican control. In fact, Democrats have given votes to more judicial nominees and, in particular, to nominees to the Courts of Appeals, than in 1996 and 1997 combined, and than in 1999 and 2000 combined. Last night, the Senate voted on the nomination of Ronald Clark to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. I was troubled by a number of aspects of Mr. Clark's background. Since 1997, Mr. Clark has been a Representative in the Texas State Legislature. His record as a State legislator is controversial, as he has taken positions that would, among other things, limit civil rights, consumer rights and women's reproductive rights. But he has never served as a judge, and he assured us that, as a judge, he would follow precedent and apply the law as written, without partisanship. I am hopeful that Mr. Clark will be a person of his word: that he will follow the law and not seek out opportunities to decide cases in accord with his private beliefs rather than his obligations as a judge. The confirmation of Mr. Clark last night made the 28th nominee that we have confirmed to fill a judicial emergency vacancy since the change in Senate majority last year, and the 21st judicial emergency vacancy that we have filled this year. Despite Republican claims about a crisis in the courts, this Administration has failed to nominate people to ten seats that have been declared judicial emergencies, seven vacancies on the Courts of Appeals and three vacancies on the District Courts. I would note that President Bush has nominated nine people to fill district court vacancies in Texas, and with yesterday's vote, we have already considered seven of them and confirmed six of them. Mr. Clark's confirmation made the 13th Texas nominee that we have confirmed and the second nominee that we confirmed to the District Court for the Eastern District. With his confirmation, there are no longer any vacancies on the district Court for the Eastern District of Texas. With our confirmations earlier this year of Randy Crane and Andrew Hanen to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, we filled the remaining vacancies in that court as well. We have provided much needed help to the courts in Texas, which are facing large caseloads and some of the highest number of filings of criminal cases in the country. Under Republican control of the Senate, three Texas judicial nominees never received hearings or votes. The Republican-led Senate failed to provide any hearings on nominees to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, in the six years of their majority during the Clinton Administration. Moreover, they delayed action or gave no hearings to a number of district court nominees. It was not long ago when the Senate was under Republican control that it took 943 days to confirm Judge Hilda Tagle to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. She as first nominated in August 1995, but not confirmed until march 1998. When the final vote came, she was confirmed by unanimous consent and without a single negative vote, after having been stalled for almost three years. I recall the nomination of Michael Schattman to a vacancy on the Northern District of Texas. He never got a hearing and was never acted upon, while his nomination languished for over two years. These are district court nominations that could have helped respond to increased filings in the trial courts if acted upon by the Senate over the last several years. Yesterday's confirmation of Mr. Clark serves as another example of the Democrats' proven record of action and fairness on this President's judicial nominees. Even though Mr. Clark is a conservative Republican, as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I voted to report him out of Committee and I voted to confirm him yesterday, based on his testimony before the Committee and his written word. Far from payback for Republican actions in the recent past, the Democratic-led Senate continues to take action notwithstanding those wrongs and to help solve a vacancy crisis created solely by the Republican obstruction and defeat of more than 50 of President Clinton's nominees. Despite the right-wing and partisan din about blockades and obstructionism, Democrats are actually achieving almost twice as much as our Republican counterparts did to staff the Federal courts. But let me be clear. We would be even farther along if so many circuit court and district court nominees of the prior administration had not been purposely blocked and defeated, and if we received more timely reviews from the ABA, even a little cooperation from this unilateralist Administration and received the nominations of more moderate, mainstream judicial nominees.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank Senators for this overwhelming vote in bringing this debate to a close. This is a piece of legislation that passed in the other body 400 to 4. This vote shows overwhelming support in this body. Senator Hatch, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, is necessarily absent. I know he supports this bill, too. And I thank, also on his behalf, those Senators who joined in this vote. I do not know what the pleasure of the body is, Mr. President, but I am perfectly willing to move forward. I am not going to request a rollcall vote. I don't know if anyone else wishes to have one. I think to have had such an overwhelming vote--93 to 5--gives a pretty good understanding of where the body is on a piece of legislation such as this that covers everything from drug abuse in juvenile areas, to creating 20 new judges, to protecting our FBI in dangerous situations. So, Mr. President, I am about to yield the floor, but I am perfectly willing to just go forward on the legislation. Obviously, if anybody else wants to speak on it or ask for a rollcall vote, that is their prerogative. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the majority leader for filing cloture on the bipartisan 21st Century Department of Justice Authorization Act conference report. I regret that consideration and a vote on final passage on this important measure has been delayed. I had hoped this measure would have been considered and passed by the Senate last week, following House passage by a vote of 400 to 4 last Thursday. Unfortunately, Members from the other side of the aisle threatened opposition to the motion to proceed to the conference report and they have refused to proceed to vote on final passage of the conference report. All Democrats were prepared to pass the conference report last Thursday and then agreed to vote immediately, after limited debate earlier this week. Given the objection by the other side, however, to proceed to a vote or agree to a time agreement, the majority leader was required to file cloture on this conference report. I do not understand why anyone would filibuster this conference report. This legislation is truly bipartisan. It passed the House 400 to 4. The conference report was signed by every conferee, Republican or Democrat, including Senator Hatch and Representatives Sensenbrenner, Hyde, and Lamar Smith. I thank Senator Hutchison for coming to the floor on Tuesday to support this conference report. Senator Hutchison has spoken to me many times about the need for more judgeships along the Texas border with Mexico to handle immigration and criminal cases. The conference report includes three new judgeships in the conference report for Texas, one more than was included in the bill reported to the Senate by the Senate Judiciary Committee and passed by the Senate last December. I thank Senator Sessions for his statement on Tuesday in support of this bipartisan conference report. Although he opposes Senator Hatch's legislation regarding automobile dealer arbitration, which enjoys more than 60 Senate cosponsors and 200 House cosponsors and was included in the conference report, Senator Sessions is supporting this conference report because it will improve the Department of Justice and support local law enforcement agencies across the nation. I appreciate Senator Sessions' work on the provisions in the conference report on the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants and the Centers for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama and other States. I thank Senator Feinstein for her excellent speech earlier this week in support of this conference report. Senator Feinstein has been a tireless advocate for the needs of California, including the needs of the federal judiciary along the southern border. She has led the effort to increase judicial and law enforcement resources along our southern border. I am proud to have served as the chair of the House-Senate conference committee that unanimously reported a bill that includes five judgeships for the Southern District of California. Long overdue relief for the Southern District of California could be on the way once this conference report is adopted. Of course, our bipartisanship is evidenced by our included authorization for additional judgeships not only in California but in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois and Florida, as well. In essence, in the six and one-half years that they controlled the Senate the Republican majority was willing to add only eight judgeships to be appointed by a Democratic President, and most of them were in Texas and Arizona, states with two Republican Senators. We have, on the other hand, proceeded at our earliest opportunity to increase federal judgeships where most needed by 20 to be appointed by a Republican President who has shown little interest in working with Democrats in the Senate, and we have included a number of jurisdictions with Democrats Senators. I also commend the senior senator from California for her leadership on the ``James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act,'' the State Criminal Alien Assistant Program reauthorization, and the many anti- drug abuse provisions included in this conference report. She spoke eloquently on the floor of the Senate regarding many of the important provisions she has championed in this process. This conference report will strengthen our Justice Department and the FBI, increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks, prevent crime and drug abuse, improve our intellectual property and antitrust laws, strengthen and protect our judiciary, and offer our children a safe place to go after school. This conference report is the product of years of bipartisan work. The conference report was unanimous. By my count, the conference report includes significant portions of at least 25 legislative initiatives. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this conference report so that all of this bipartisan work and all the good that this legislation might is not flushed down the drain. Over the past 2 days of debate, I have heard only a few Members raise objections to passage of the Department of Justice Authorization Conference Report. I thank these Members for coming to the floor to discuss their views and concerns so that they may be addressed. I should note that even in posing an objection to and delaying passage of the conference report--as is their rights as Senators--these Members acknowledged that there were parts of this bill they liked or may like upon review. I appreciate that not all Members were or could be conferees and participate in the conference, but I do hope that after they have had a full opportunity to study the conference report passed last week in the House by a vote of 400 to 4, that they will find that on the whole this is a good, solid piece of legislation. Senator Hatch worked very hard to help construct a good, fair and balanced conference report as did all of the conferees. We all owe him thanks for his attention to this matter and his work. This legislation is neither complicated nor controversial. It passed the House 400 to 4 in short order. It was signed by every conferee, Republican or Democrat, including Senator Hatch and Representatives Sensenbrenner, Hyde, and Lamar Smith. Senators Sessions and Hutchison came to the floor to support it. I did not think there was a need for extensive debate in the Senate on this measure and had hoped that Members would be willing to allow an up or down vote of the conference report. Contrary to those who may argue that this legislation is not a priority, it is. Congress has not authorized the Department of Justice in more than two decades. While the Justice Department would certainly continue to exist if we were to fail to reauthorize it, that is not an excuse for shirking our responsibility now. I know that Senator Hatch and Representatives Sensenbrenner and Conyers share my view. It is long past time for the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate--and the Congress as a whole--to restore their proper oversight role over the Department of Justice. Through Republican and Democratic administrations, we have allowed the Department of Justice to escape its accountability to the Senate and House of Representatives and through them to the American people. Congress, the people's representative, has a strong institutional interest in restoring that accountability. The House has recognized this, and has done its job. We need to do ours. I agree with those Members who say that we need to give anti- terrorism priority, but not lose sight of the other important missions of the Department of Justice. The conference report takes such a balanced approach. Those critics who say that there is nothing new in this legislation to fight terrorism, have missed some important provisions in the legislation as well as my floor statements over the past week outlining what the conference report contains to help in the anti-terrorism effort. Let me repeat the highlight of what the conference report does on this important problem. The conference report fortifies our border security by authorizing over $20 billion for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and alien registration. It also authorizes funding for Centers for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Nevada, Vermont and Pennsylvania, and adds additional uses for grants from the Office of Domestic Preparedness to support State and local law enforcement agencies. These provisions have strong bipartisan support, including that of Senator Sessions. Another measure in the bill would correct a glitch in a law that helps prosecutors combat the international financing of terrorism. I worked closely with the White House to pass the original provision to bring the United States into compliance with a treaty that bans terrorist financing, but without this technical, noncontroversial change, the provision may not be usable. This law is vital in stopping the flow of money to terrorists. Worse yet, at a time when the President is going before the U.N. emphasizing that our enemies are not complying with international law, by blocking this minor fix, we leave ourselves open to a charge that we are not complying with an anti- terrorism treaty. I agree with other Members that we should do more to help the FBI Director in transforming the FBI from a crime fighting to a terrorism prevention agency and to help the FBI overcome its information technology, management and other problems to be the best that it can be. The Judiciary Committee reported unanimously the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act, S. 1974, over 6 months ago to reach those goals, but this legislation has been blocked by an anonymous hold from moving forward. This conference report contains parts of that bipartisan legislation, but not the whole bill, which continues to this day to be blocked to this day. Since the attacks of September 11 and the anthrax attacks last fall, we have relied on the FBI to detect and prevent acts of catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American people and the institutions of our country. Reform and improvement at the FBI was already important, but the terrorist attacks suffered by this country last year have imposed even greater urgency on improving the FBI. The Bureau is our front line of domestic defense against terrorists. It needs to be as great as it can. Even before those attacks, the Judiciary Committee's oversight hearings revealed serious problems at the FBI that needed strong congressional action to fix. We heard about a double standard in evaluations and discipline. We heard about record and information management problems and communications breakdown between field offices and Headquarters that led to the belated production of documents in the Oklahoma City bombing case. Despite the fact that we have poured money into the FBI over the last five years, we heard that the FBI's computer system were in dire need of modernization. We heard about how an FBI supervisor, Robert Hanssen, was able to sell critical secrets to the Russians undetected for years without ever getting a polygraph. We heard that there were no fewer than 15 different areas of security at the FBI that needed fixing. The FBI Reform Act tackles these problems with improved accountability, improved security both inside and outside the FBI, and required planning to ensure the FBI is prepared to deal with the multitude of challenges we are facing. We are all indebted to Senator Grassley for his leadership in the area. Working with Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee we unanimously reported the FBI Reform Act more than six months ago only to stymied on our bipartisan efforts by an anonymous Republican hold. The conference report does not contain all of the important provisions in the FBI Reform Act that Senator Grassley and I, and the other members of the Judiciary Committee, agreed were needed, but it does contain parts of that other bill. Among the items that are, unfortunately, not in the conference report and are being blocked from passing in the stand-alone FBI Reform bill by an anonymous Republican hold are the following: Title III of the FBI Reform bill that would institute a career security officer program, which senior FBI officials have testified before our Committee would be very helpful; title IV of the FBI Reform bill outlining the requirements for a polygraph program along the lines of what the Webster Commission recommended; title VII of the FBI Reform bill that takes important steps to fix some of the double standard problems and support the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, which FBI Ethics and OPR agents say is very important; and title VIII to push along implementation of secure communications networks to help facilitate FISA processing between Main Justice and the FBI. These hard-working agents and prosecutors have to hand-carry top secret FISA documents between their offices because they still lack send secure e- mail systems. The FBI Reform bill would help fix may of these problems and I would hope we would be able to pass all of the FBI Reform Act before the end of this Congress. These should not be controversial provisions and are designed to help the FBI. Yet passage of these provisions are being blocked both in a stand-alone FBI Reform bill, S. 1974, and the provisions we were able to include in this conference report. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of the conference report so that we can start making progress on the important reforms in the bill. Some Members have complained that we included provisions in this conference report that were not contained in either the Senate or House bills. Now, each of the proposals we have included are directly related to improving the administration of justice in the United States. We were asked to include many of them by Republican members of the House and Senate. Let me give you some examples. The conference report reauthorizes the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which President Bush has sought to eliminate. On March 4 of this year, Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein sent me a letter asking me to include an authorization for SCAAP--which was not authorized in either the House- or Senate-passed bill--in the conference report. That proposal had been considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee but a Republican hold has stopped Senate consideration and passage. I agreed with Senator Kyl that we should authorize SCAAP. I still believe that it is the right thing to do. In addition to including the reauthorization of SCAAP, the conferees also authorized an additional judge for Arizona. Members have been arguing for years that their States need more judges. We took those arguments seriously, and added another new judge for Arizona on top of the two that were added in 1998 and the third that was added in 2000. As I said before, we have added twenty new judge positions in this conference report. Some have been critical of the conference report's authorization of funding for DEA police training in South and Central Asia, and for the United States-Thailand drug prosecutor exchange program. I believe that both of these are worthy programs that deserve the Senate's support. I have listened to President Bush and other in his Administration and in Congress argue that terrorist organizations in Asia, including al Qaeda, have repeatedly used drug proceeds to fund their operations. The conferees wanted to do whatever we could to break the link between drug trafficking and terror, and we would all greatly appreciate the Senate's assistance in that effort. Beyond the relationship between drug trafficking and terrorism, the production of drugs in Asia has a tremendous impact on America. For example, more than a quarter of the heroin that is plaguing the northeastern United States, including my State of Vermont, comes from Southeast Asia. Many of the governments in that region want to work with the United States to reduce the production of drugs, and these programs will help. It is beyond me why any Senator would oppose them. Some have complained that the conference report demands too many reports from the Department of Justice and that this would interfere with the Department's ongoing counterterrorism efforts. It is true that our legislation requires a number of reports, as part of our oversight obligations over the Department of Justice. I assure the Senate, however, that if the Department of Justice comes to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and makes a convincing case that any reporting requirement in this legislation will hinder our national security, we will work out a reasonable accommodation. I think, however, that such a turn of events is exceedingly unlikely, as no one at the Department has mentioned any such concerns. Some Members have complained that the conference report includes pieces of legislation that had not received Committee consideration. Let me deal with some of the specific proposals that have been cited. The Law Enforcement Tribute Act was mentioned as a provision not considered by the Judiciary Committee, but this is incorrect. In reality, the Committee reported that bill favorably on May 16. Its passage has been blocked by an anonymous Republican hold. Complaints have been made about inclusion of the motor vehicle franchise dispute resolution provision in the conference report for bypassing the Committee. But, again, that is incorrect. The Judiciary Committee fully considered this proposal and reported Senator Hatch's Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act last October 31. It has been stalled from the Senate floor by anonymous Republican holds. A section allowing FBI danger pay was cited as a proposal that bypassed Committee consideration, but, again, the Judiciary Committee did consider this proposal as part of the original DOJ Authorization bill, S. 1319. Some have complained that the Federal Judiciary Protection Act, which is included in the conference report, had not come before the Committee, but on the contrary, this legislation, S. 1099, was passed the Judiciary Committee and the Senate by unanimous consent last year and in the 106th Congress, as well. There has been a complaint on the floor about the provisions on the U.S. Parole Commission being included in the conference report. That was included because the Bush Administration included it in its budget request. Some have complained on the floor about the conference report's provision establishing the FBI police to provide protection for the FBI buildings and personnel in this time of heightened concerns about terrorist attacks. Contrary to the critics, this proposal was considered by the Judiciary Committee as part of the FBI Reform Act, S. 1974, which was reported unanimously on a bipartisan basis but has been blocked by an anonymous hold. Similarly, a complaint was made on the floor about bypassing the Committee with the provision in the conference report for the FBI to tell the Congress about how the FBI is updating its obsolete computer systems. Again, this is incorrect. This provision was included in the FBI Reform Act, S. 1974, which was considered by the Judiciary committee and unanimously reported without objection. Some critics have complained that the conference report includes intellectual property provisions that have passed neither the House or the Senate. It is not for lack of trying to pass these provisions through the Senate, but anonymous Republican holds have held up for months passage of the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, S. 407. This legislation has passed the House on three separate times in three consecutive Congresses. Let us get it passed now in the conference report. The conference report also contains another intellectual property matter, the Hatch-Leahy TEACH Act, to help distance learning. Contrary to the critics' statements, this passed the Senate in June, 2001. The intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act, S. 320, contained in this conference report, was passed by the Senate at the beginning of this Congress, in February, 2001. It is time to get this done. The criticism made on the floor that the juvenile justice provisions in the conference report never passed the House or Senate is simply wrong. The conference report contains juvenile justice provisions passed by the House in September and October of last year, in H.R. 863 and H.R. 1900. The criticism that the conference report contains criminal justice improvements that were passed by neither the House or the Senate glosses over two important points: First, that many of the provisions were indeed passed by the House, and, second, that others have been blocked from Senate consideration and passage by anonymous Republican holds. Let me give you some examples. The conference report contains the Judicial Improvements Act, S. 2713 and H.R. 3892, that passed the House in July, 2002, but consideration by the Senate was blocked after the Senate bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee. The Antitrust Technical Corrections bills, H.R. 809, had the same fate. After being passed by the House in March, 2001, and reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, consideration was blocked in the Senate. This conference report is a comprehensive attempt to ensure the administration of justice in our nation. It is not everything I would like or that any individual Member of Congress might have authored. It is a conference report, a consensus document, a product of the give and take with the House that is our legislative process. It will strengthen our Justice Department and the FBI, increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks, prevent crime and drug abuse, improve our intellectual property and antitrust laws, strengthen and protect our judiciary, and offer our children a safe place to go after school. I hope that it will merit the support of every Member of the United States Senate. At the very least, it deserves an up-or-down vote. I was pleased to see some Republicans come to the floor to support this conference report. For the sake of the Justice Department, the United States Congress, and the American people, we should pass this legislation today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with last night's votes on two district court nominees, including Judge James Gardner to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Senate has confirmed its 79th and 80th new judges since the change in majority last summer. In less than 15 months, we have confirmed more judges than the Republican majority confirmed in its final 30 months in the majority. We have been more than twice as productive as they were and Republicans are nonetheless complaining that we have not worked three or four times as fast as they did to fill vacancies that their inaction perpetuated. Similarly, in less than 15 months of Democratic control of the Judiciary Committee, we have confirmed more judicial nominees than Republicans did in the first 2 full years they controlled the Senate in 1995 and 1996, combined, and we have confirmed more judges than Republicans allowed to be confirmed in 1999 and 2000 combined. We have been more fair and more expeditious regarding judicial nominations than Republicans were during their prior 6\1/2\ years of control of the Senate. Last night's vote is another example. The Senate has acted quickly on this nomination to the District Court in Pennsylvania. Judge Gardner was nominated at the end of April, received an ABA peer review in July, participated in a hearing in August, was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in September, and was confirmed last night. The Judiciary Committee has held hearings for 11 district court nominees from Pennsylvania and the Senate has now confirmed all 11 of them in just 6 months. In addition, a Third Circuit nominee, Judge Brooks Smith of Pennsylvania, was also confirmed, although not without controversy based on his record. With the confirmation of 12 judges from Pennsylvania, there is no State that has had more Federal judicial nominees confirmed by this Senate than Pennsylvania. The Senate Judiciary committee and the Senate as a whole have done well by Pennsylvania. This is in sharp contrast to the way vacancies in Pennsylvania were left unfilled during Republican control of the Senate, particularly regarding nominees in the western half of the State. Despite the best efforts and diligence of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to secure confirmation of all of the judicial nominees from every part of his home State, there were seven nominees by President Clinton to Pennsylvania vacancies were never given a hearing or a vote. A good example of the contrast between the way the Democrats and Republicans have treated judicial nominees is the case of Judge Legrome Davis, a well qualified and uncontroversial judicial nominee. He was first nominated to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by President Clinton on July 30, 1998. The Republican-controlled Senate took no action on his nomination and it was returned to the President at the end of 1998. On January 26, 1999, President Clinton renominated Judge Davis for the same vacancy. The Senate again failed to hold a hearing for Judge Davis and his nomination was returned after 2 more years. Under Republican leadership, Judge Davis' nomination languished before the Committee for 868 days without a hearing. Unfortunately, Judge Davis was subjected to the kind of inappropriate partisan rancor that befell so many other nominees to the district courts in Pennsylvania during the Republican control of the Senate. This year, the Democratic-led Senate moved expeditiously to consider Judge Davis, and he was confirmed in just 84 days. The saga of Judge Davis recalls for us so many nominees from the period of January 1995 through July 10, 2001, who never received a hearing or a vote and who were the subject of secret, anonymous holds by Republicans for reasons that were never explained. In contrast, the hearing we had earlier this year for Judge Conti was the very first hearing on a nominee to the Western District of Pennsylvania since 1994, despite President Clinton's qualified nominees. It is shocking to me that this was the first hearing on a nominee to that court in 8 full years. No nominee to the Western District of Pennsylvania received a hearing during the entire period that Republicans controlled the Senate in the Clinton administration. In fact, one of the many nominees to the Western District, Lynette Norton, waited for almost 1,000 days, and she was never given the courtesy of a hearing or a vote. Unfortunately, Ms. Norton died earlier this year, having never fulfilled her dream of serving on the Federal bench. With the confirmation of Judge Conti earlier this year, we confirmed the first nominee to the Western District of Pennsylvania since October 1994. Despite this history of poor treatment of President Clinton's nominees, the Democratic-led Senate continues to move forward fairly and expeditiously. Democrats have reformed the process for considering judicial nominees. For example, we have ended the practice of secretive, anonymous holds that plagued the period of Republican control, when any Republican Senator could hold any nominee from his or her home State, his or her own circuit or any part of the country for any reason, or no reason, without any accountability. We have returned to the Democratic tradition of regularly holding hearings, every few weeks, rather than going for months without a single hearing. In fact, we have held 25 judicial nominations hearings in the past 15 months, and we plan to hold our 26th judicial nomination hearing this coming Monday. We have held a confirmation hearing for judicial nominees every month since the Judiciary Committee was reorganized in July 2001, including two hearings during the August recess in 2001. In contrast, during the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control, there were 30 months in which Republicans held no hearings on judicial nominees. By already holding 25 hearings for 96 of this President's judicial nominees in just 15 months, we have held hearings for more circuit and district court nominees than in 20 of the last 22 years during the Reagan, first Bush, and Clinton administrations. While some complain that a handful of circuit court nominees have not yet had hearings, they fail to acknowledge that Democrats have held hearings for more of President Bush's circuit court nominees, 20, than in any of the 6\1/2\ years in which the Republicans controlled the Committee before the change in majority last summer. This is more nominees than received hearings in either of the first 2 years of the Clinton administration when the White House and the Senate were controlled by the same party. The fact that Democrats have treated this Republican President just as fairly as Democrats treated a President of their own party with regard to hearings for circuit court nominees is remarkable. Republicans have utterly failed to acknowledge this fairness. The myth of Democratic obstruction of judicial nominees fits the partisan Republican political strategy better than the truth. The years of Republican inaction on a number of circuit court vacancies has made it possible for Democrats to have several ``firsts'' in addressing judicial vacancies. For example, we held the first hearing for a nominee to the Sixth Circuit in almost 5 years, that is more than one full presidential term, and confirmed her, even though three of President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth Circuit never received a hearing or a vote. One of those Clinton nominees waited more than 1,500 days and never received a hearing or a vote, up or down, by the Committee. We held the first hearing on a Fifth Circuit nominee in 7 years, including the entire period of Republican control of the Senate, and confirmed her last year, while three of President Clinton's Fifth Circuit nominees never received hearings or votes on their nominations. We also held the first hearing on a Tenth Circuit nominee in 6 years, and we have confirmed two of President Bush's nominees to the Tenth Circuit, while two of President Clinton's nominees to that circuit never received hearings or votes. With last night's confirmation of Judge Gardner, the 12th judicial nominee from Pennsylvania to be confirmed in just 15 months, in addition to the other 79 judicial nominees confirmed in this short period, the Democratic-led Senate has had a record-breaking year of progress and fairness in the judicial confirmation process.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past years I have spoken often on the subject of population growth and the many problems it poses. Even in my own State of Vermont, one of the most rural states, it is impossible to escape the fact that human population can leave a heavy footprint. In the past 50 years the world's population has doubled in size. The implications of this exponential growth are impossible to fully grasp or predict. We do know however, that over 95 percent of new births are occurring in developing countries, many of which are unable to feed or care for their people today. From sub-Saharan Africa to much of Asia, hundreds of thousands of children are born each day without adequate food, medical care or shelter. In fact, of the 4.8 billion people living in developing countries, it is estimated that nearly 60 percent lack basic sanitation. Almost a third do not have access to clean water. A quarter do not have adequate housing, and a fifth, over 1 billion people, have no access to modern health services. In addition, we have all seen the burden the Earth's swelling population places on the environment. The world's rapidly growing population has resulted in severe water shortages, shrinking forests, soil degradation, air and water pollution and the daily loss of animal and plant life. However, there has been progress. Because of the availability of education and modern contraceptives, the average number of births per woman has declined from 6 to 3. Due in large part to the work of organizations like the US Agency for International Development, the UN Population Fund, and the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, many women across the globe are receiving the help they need. These organizations provide essential advice, counseling and information in many countries where it otherwise would not exist. The reduction in family size that results has helped millions escape from poverty and, for many women, enhanced the prospects for education and a better life. Even with these steps forward, much more needs to be done. The world's population is many hundreds of millions higher than it was seven years ago, yet the developing countries are still receiving US family planning assistance at 1995 levels. The inextricable link between world population growth and poverty, political instability, and environmental degradation is widely known. Over 600,000 women die from pregnancy related causes. These programs are about modern contraceptives, about reproductive health, about saving women's lives. Not one dime of US Government funds can be used for abortions, yet the White House and some Members of Congress continue to object to many of these programs. For the United States to be a leader in support of international family planning it is vital for the American people to be aware of the problems posed by unchecked population growth. That is why I am pleased that Governor Howard Dean has proclaimed the week of October 20-26 as World Population Awareness Week in Vermont. I want to support the Governor in this effort, and I ask unanimous consent that his proclamation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that I might proceed for no more than 5 minutes as though in morning business.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I take a moment while the Senator from Alabama is here. I thank Senator Sessions for his statement yesterday in support of the bipartisan conference report on DOJ authorization. I do that because I know he opposes a significant piece of it, Senator Hatch's legislation regarding automobile dealer arbitration, but I applaud Senator Sessions for reaching beyond that for the better bill, the overall bill. I compliment his work on the conference report on the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants, the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama, and a number of other States. In a hurried time, and sometimes partisan Senate, we do not take enough time to acknowledge and appreciate work done by those on the other side of the aisle. I take this moment to express my appreciation of the work of the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I say to my friend, the deputy majority leader, it does. We realize, as the Senator from Nevada has pointed out, we have problems with our borders. We have to enhance our ability to monitor the borders and still keep the open borders of this country. But it will be expensive. We put this in. Incidentally, we put this in with the strong support of the administration.