Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, I am pleased that the Senate today will pass the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2008. The Senate unanimously passed a similar bill last year. This is a small, but important, piece of legislation and has bipartisan support. This updated version was introduced to address concerns of the Navy, and gives the Department of Defense full assurance that Government and defense designs will not be subject to unwarranted restrictions. I thank the cosponsors of the Senate's bill--Senator Cornyn, Senator Kohl, and Senator Whitehouse--for all their hard work and contributions. In 1998, Congress passed the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act to recognize the significant time, effort, and innovation that figure into ship design. Recent action in the courts has made it clear that in order to be effective, this law needs to be clarified and refined. This bill does exactly that, and no more, by clarifying the definition of ``hull'' and ``deck.'' This ensures that the intellectual property rights of vessel hull designers will be protected. I am pleased the Senate will adopt this measure today, and I look forward to the President signing it into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the majority leader yield for a point?

Mr. LEAHY. I have seen the vote count. I know it will pass the Senate. But I urge Senators, let's not be stampeded into things without even reading it. Here is a report from the Department of Justice's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility about the investigation into the firing of the U.S. attorneys, one of the greatest scandals to hit the Department. This came about because we rushed through on a piece of legislation at the last minute. The Administration slipped in a provision that was on the basis of the administration saying: Trust us--and they manipulated it. People eventually may go to jail because of this. Millions of dollars of investigations are going on because of this. Keep in mind, 10 days ago we were asked to pass something immediately because of the urgency--they told us the world is falling, the sky is falling. That proposal said we would give the Secretary of the Treasury carte blanche to do anything he wants. That proposal said his decisions could not be reviewed by any court, any person, any administrative body, and they insisted that is the only thing--the only thing--the administration could accept. After it was pointed out by myself and others that meant he could actually write himself a check for $700 billion and nobody could ask about it, when a number of those things came about, they suddenly realized they could make changes. We sat in a meeting, all the Senators, with the Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve. I remember asking a question, a simple question. They went around and around and never answered it. Two days later they finally answered it. Let's take time to read what we are voting on for the sake of this country, realizing what happened before when we were stampeded into voting for something because the sky was falling.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, I am glad the Senate is moving forward today by passing a bill to reauthorize funding to provide legal support to victims of crime through Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. Too often, survivors who have been victims of crimes are left without recourse and legal assistance. This bill will help ensure that their needs are not forgotten. It is vitally important that we continue to recognize the needs of crime victims and their family members and work together to promote victims' rights and services. We have been able to make some progress during the past 27 years to provide victims with greater rights and assistance. In particular, I was honored to support the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, VOCA, Public Law 98-473, which established the Crime Victims Fund. The Crime Victims Fund allows the Federal Government to provide grants to State crime victim compensation programs, direct victim assistance services, and services to victims of Federal crimes. Nearly 90 percent of the Crime Victims Fund is used to award victim assistance formula grants and provide State crime victim compensation. These VOCA-funded victim assistance programs serve nearly four million crime victims each year, including victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk driving, as well as survivors of homicide victims. Our VOCA-funded compensation programs have helped hundreds of thousands of victims of violent crime. The Crime Victims Fund is the Nation's premier vehicle for supporting victims' services. It is important to understand that the Crime Victims Fund does not receive a dime from tax revenue or appropriated funding. Instead, it is made up of criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalties, and special assessments. In 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, I proposed and Congress passed the Victims of Terrorism Act of 1995. Among other important matters, this legislation authorized the Office for Victims of Crime at the Department of Justice to set aside an emergency reserve as part of the Crime Victims Fund to serve as a ``rainy day'' resource to supplement compensation and assistance grants to States to provide emergency relief in the wake of an act of terrorism or mass violence that might otherwise overwhelm the resources of a State's crime victims compensation program and crime victims assistance services. We also enacted, as part of the Justice for All Act of 2004, Federal rights for victims. In the Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act, we expressly provided for the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding; the right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding; the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, or parole; the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. I wrote a letter to Attorney General Mukasey in June to ask what the Justice Department has done to ensure that family members of 9/11 victims are afforded the same level of respect as the 9/11 court and military commission proceedings and move forward. Since fiscal year 2000, Congress has set a cap on annual obligations from the Crime Victims Fund. I have worked to ensure that the cap has never resulted in resources being lost to the Crime Victims Fund. I believe we need to increase the cap. With the failure of the Bush administration crime prevention policies, crime began to rise under Attorney General Gonzales. Crime victims, the States, and service providers need more assistance. Instead of taking that salutary action, the Bush administration is proposing to raid the Crime Victims Fund and zero it out. The future of the Crime Victims Fund is in danger because the Bush administration has proposed rescinding all amounts remaining in the Crime Victims Fund at the end of fiscal year 2009--just cleaning it out and leaving the cupboard bare. That would leave the Crime Victims Fund with a zero balance going into fiscal year 2010 and create a disastrous situation for providers of victims' services. That is wrong. Over the last few years, we have successfully blocked the Bush administration's past attempts to raid the Crime Victims Fund. This is not a cache of money from which this administration should try to reduce the budget deficits it has created. This administration has turned a $5 trillion budget surplus into a $9.4 trillion debt. Its annual deficits run into the hundreds of millions. It is wrong to try to pay for its failed fiscal policies by emptying out the Crime Victims Fund. These resources are set aside to assist victims of crime. In order to preserve the Crime Victims Fund once again, Senator Crapo and I, as well as 25 other Senators, sent a letter on April 4, 2008, to the Senate Appropriations Committee asking that the committee oppose the administration's proposal to empty the Crime Victims Fund. We asked the committee, instead, to permit unobligated funds to remain in the Crime Victims Fund, in accordance with current law, to be used for needed programs and services that are so important to victims of crime in the years ahead. The Judiciary Committee has worked hard this Congress to pass legislation that protects victims of Crime. This week the Senate unanimously reauthorized the Debbie Smith DNA backlog grant program, which helps forensic labs keep up with the increasing demand for DNA analysis. The Debbie Smith DNA backlog grant program has given States help they desperately needed, and continue to need, to carry out DNA analyses of backlogged evidence, particularly rape kits. It has provided a strong starting point in addressing this serious problem, but much work remains to be done before we conquer these inexcusable backlogs. I was pleased to work with Debbie Smith and Senator Biden to pass the reauthorization. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. This bill will help victims of crime by reauthorizing funding for essential programs such as the Victim Notification System, which is run by the Department of Justice, and programs that provide legal counsel and support services for victims in criminal cases. We need to renew our national commitment to crime victims. I am glad the Senate has passed this important bill today, and I hope that the House will move on this legislation swiftly.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is encouraging that Congress today passed the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008 as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. This is a modest but important commonsense measure that will help restore accountability and deter fraud in the many billions of dollars worth of contracts in connection with the two wars we continue to fight. The failed legacy of the Bush administration is clearer today than ever before, as our Nation faces unprecedented crises at home and abroad. The financial markets are in turmoil as a result of mismanagement of the economy and neglect of the regulatory process that helps maintain confidence in the market. Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure at record rates. Our country remains mired in Iraq, fighting a war that President Bush should never has started, that continues to cost too many lives and billions of dollars each month, with no end in sight. As part of this legacy, the Bush administration has further failed to meet one of its most important obligations during wartime--to protect American taxpayers from losses due to fraud and corruption in war contracting. Fraud and corruption in contracting are all too common in times of war, and these problems have been particularly pervasive in Iraq. New reports just this week have confirmed that corruption and fraud have robbed billions from the American taxpayers during the Iraq war. The former chief investigator of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Salam Adhoob, testified before Congress this week that $9 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds have been lost to corruption and fraud in Iraq. Mr. Adhoob described how senior Iraqi defense officials set up fraudulent front companies that were supposed to buy airplanes, armored vehicles, and guns with $1.7 billion in U.S. funds. But these companies failed to deliver most of the military equipment, and what they did provide was mostly junk, including defective ammunition and unsafe bulletproof vests. These companies also overcharged for military helicopters and aircraft, delivering useless decades-old equipment. Most of the money ended up in German bank accounts controlled by these Iraqi defense officials. The Iraqi chief investigator prepared a full report based on this investigation, and thousands of others, and submitted the documentation to the Iraqi government, as well as to U.S. investigators. Yet so far, neither the Bush administration nor the Iraqi government has taken action in these cases. Instead, the Iraqi government has passed laws giving immunity to many of its corrupt officials, and the U.S. investigators have too often stalled trying to find witnesses and review documents in the midst of a war zone. These examples of fraud and corruption are not isolated, or new. Over the past 2 years, I have chaired hearings in the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees focused on the billions of dollars that have been lost to contracting fraud, waste, and abuse during this war. The testimony at those hearings has also exposed the Bush administration's failure to take aggressive action to enforce and punish wartime fraud. These hearings have shown how difficult it can be for investigators to uncover and prosecute fraud amidst the chaotic environment of war. These persistent problems have been made worse by the Bush administration's use of ``no-bid'' and ``cost-plus'' contracts that have been awarded with little, if any, oversight or accountability. Billions in cash--physical, paper money--have been flown to Iraq and handed out in paper bags, often without records of who received what, and when. Billion-dollar contracts for training services cannot be audited because the records are incomplete, lost, or in disarray. As a result, time and time again, the government has paid for services that were never needed or never provided and for equipment that was too often substandard or actually defective. But as we found again this week, too often we do not learn about wartime fraud and corruption until years after the fact. What we do know is that billions of dollars are unaccounted for, and likely lost to war profiteers and corrupt officials. Fraud investigators from the offices of several inspectors general, as well as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are working to figure out where the money has gone and who has taken it. But they have told us it will take a long time, in some cases years, to figure out exactly what has happened with the billions of dollars in fraud related to war contracts. In the meantime, the statute of limitations that bars Federal fraud prosecutions after 5 years threatens to make this work meaningless and essentially immunize those who are responsible. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on for far more than five years, and with each passing day, we are losing the authority to prosecute fraud committed early on in the wars. As time passes, we are effectively granting immunity to these criminals and letting them get away with taxpayers' money. I introduced the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008 to correct this problem once and for all. Passage of this legislation today is an important step forward to make sure all those who have committed fraud will be held to account. Put simply, this bill will give the government more time to continue investigating these massive wartime frauds and, in time, this provision should save American taxpayers untold millions and help punish those responsible for the fraud. Our country has faced this same problem in past wars and taken similar action. During World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke out against ``war millionaires'' who made excessive profits exploiting the calamity of war. President Harry Truman, when he served in the Senate, held historic public hearings to expose gross fraud and waste by military contractors during the war. In 1942, President Roosevelt signed the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, which made it possible for criminal fraud offenses against the United States to be prosecuted after the war was over. President Truman made that law permanent in 1948. Everyone understood then that it was unrealistic to believe that all wartime fraud could be tracked down immediately in the midst of a war. The law provided an extension of the statute of limitations until the war was over. Congress supported this law overwhelmingly, as they had with a similar provision during World War I. President Roosevelt wrote: The crisis of war should not be used as a means of avoiding just penalties for wrongdoing. Unfortunately, this Roosevelt-era law does not appear to apply to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Current law only applies ``when the United States is at war,'' but the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were undertaken without formal declarations of war. As a result, this law technically does not apply to these ongoing conflicts. This bill simply amends current law to make clear that extending the statute of limitations during wartime applies to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, we will give investigators and auditors the time necessary to continue their efforts to uncover the wartime frauds and prosecute those who are responsible. Without this bill, fraudulent conduct by war contractors and corrupt officials will go unpunished, and the government will have no ability to recover taxpayer money lost to these criminals. The statute of limitations is an important check on the proper use of government power, and we should suspend it only in extraordinary circumstances. Wars provide exactly such circumstances, as Congress and Presidents have recognized in the past. It would be wrong to exempt the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from this common sense law, and passage of this bill will close that loophole for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as any future wars. With passage of this bill today, Congress has taken action, as it has in the past, to protect the American taxpayer and make sure the money spent to support the troops is not wasted through fraud and corruption. The President should now sign this bill to show the American people that we will do all we can to investigate and prosecute those who would undermine our troops and steal from the taxpayer during times of war.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his continued interest in international development and in the Cooperative Development Program. I assure him that the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee intends to continue our strong support of the Cooperative Development Program in the fiscal year 2009 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are about to vote on the continuing resolution to enable the Federal Government to continue functioning until March 6, 2009. I had hoped, as I know Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran had, that we would have been permitted to debate and vote on the individual appropriations bills that the Appropriations Committee has reported. That was not to be, due to President Bush's insistence that he would veto bills that exceed his arbitrary spending cap and to certain Republican Senators who have made it virtually impossible to pass anything here without the necessary 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. A continuing resolution will result in hardship for many Federal agencies, and those hardships will be felt by the American people. But as long as some here would prefer to be obstructionists rather than legislators, this is the only course available to us. Having said that, I commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for what they have done because it is a bipartisan bill that reflects the constructive efforts of the leaders of both parties to do their best under difficult circumstances. There are several items within the jurisdiction of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee in this bill. Senator Gregg and I, working with Congresswoman Lowey and Congressman Wolf, have ensured that vital programs continue and that necessary adjustments are made. For example, we have lifted the cap on administrative expenses for the State Department's refugee and migration assistance programs. We have reauthorized the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and we have provided authority to the Treasury Department to contribute up to $5 million to help Liberia extinguish its commercial debt. The bill also includes supplemental aid for Georgia, and it specifically prohibits the administration from transferring funds from other vulnerable former Soviet and Eastern European countries. We also provide funds to ensure continued Voice of America and Radio Free Europe broadcasting to Georgia, Russia, and the region during this time of heightened tensions. We provide additional funding to ensure the continued operations of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. And we provide emergency assistance for Haiti and other Caribbean countries that were severely damaged by the recent hurricanes. We are all painfully aware that the 2008 hurricane season caused much loss of life and destruction of property in communities along the gulf coast of the United States. And while the Federal Government is trying to help the victims of those disasters, including with additional appropriations for disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Ike in this bill, we sometimes forget that Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and other Caribbean countries suffered catastrophic destruction from Hurricanes Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike. In Haiti, the U.N. has reported that over 400 people have died due to the storms or storm-related causes, over 800,000 were severely affected, and some 150,000 were left homeless. Cuba reportedly suffered damage estimated at $5 billion. The U.S. Government has provided $30 million in emergency humanitarian aid to Haiti, but no additional assistance was requested by the administration. That was inexplicable, and I am pleased that the Congress did not likewise decide to ignore that impoverished nation in which we have already invested so much. This bill includes $100 million in emergency supplemental aid for hurricane relief and reconstruction for Haiti and other Caribbean countries. This assistance was included to address both the short and longer term needs that Haiti and its neighbors face. We not only want to respond to immediate needs like potable water, food, shelter, and medical care, we also want to rebuild infrastructure and stabilize hillsides to avoid future washouts and mudslides that have caused so much loss of life. The U.S. Agency for International Development should use a portion of these funds to significantly enhance its efforts to address environmental vulnerabilities in key Haitian watersheds. We know that next year there will be more hurricanes. For once, let us look beyond the immediate needs and help Haiti and its neighbors strengthen basic infrastructure bridges and roads and help with reforestation, so that damage from future storms is less severe. We also know that Haiti was a destitute country before these latest hurricanes. Its Government is fragile; its economy is in shambles. These devastating storms are capable of reversing whatever economic and social progress has been made in recent years and could trigger chaos and panic and a repeat of the flotillas of fleeing desperate people that we saw a few years ago. Cuba also suffered widespread damage from the hurricanes, and I am disappointed that the Cuban Government has not been willing to accept offers of humanitarian aid from the United States. I also regret that the administration's ill-conceived embargo against Cuba prevents the American people from helping the Cuban people in this time of need. This is an opportunity to cooperate with the Cuban Government for a purely humanitarian purpose. We are long overdue for a new policy toward Cuba, as this disaster so graphically illustrates. I also want to mention the Reid-Byrd stimulus bill we voted on yesterday, which would have provided urgently needed funding for a wide range of domestic programs to help bolster this Nation's ailing economy. These programs address critical needs of urban and rural working class people across America. Despite all the finger pointing and angry talk about how Washington is broken often by those who did their utmost to game the system or who have themselves been in Government for decades this is exactly what the Congress should be doing. I commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Reid for this initiative. After inheriting the largest surplus in this Nation's history, President Bush will leave a legacy of fiscal mismanagement and mile high deficits that dwarf anything in my 34 years in the Senate. For an administration that came into office piously claiming to be the guardians of responsible fiscal conservatism, when it comes to the economic security of middle class Americans this White House has proven to be incompetent, unprincipled and unaccountable. This administration's economic policies have been disastrous for the people of this country who are most dependent on Federal funding for schools, hospitals, police and fire departments, farms and businesses. The stimulus items in S. 3604, none of which were requested by the White House and which most of our Republican friends voted to defeat, would have helped prevent an already precarious economic situation that threatens the livelihoods and retirements of millions of Americans, from becoming worse.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate has passed the Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008, a bill to provide important assistance to the men and women who comprise our Federal judiciary system. I am pleased the Senate has given its unanimous support to this important legislation. I thank Senators Schumer and Sessions for moving this bill through the Senate. Four years ago, a similar bipartisan measure I introduced never moved out of Committee in a Republican Congress. I am glad that, in a Democratic Congress, the bill we pass today has not suffered a similar fate. I hope the House of Representatives will promptly consider this bipartisan measure, and the President will sign it into law. This bill is intended to improve the administration and efficiency of our Federal court system by replacing antiquated processes and bureaucratic hurdles with the necessary tools for the 21st century. Those who honorably serve on our Federal judiciary do not deserve to experience unnecessary bureaucratic delays in fulfilling their constitutional duties. Their dedication to defend our Constitution, and deliver justice in a neutral and unbiased manner, ought to be met by an equal commitment from Congress to provide the tools for them to fulfill their critical duties as effectively and efficiently as possible. The legislation we pass today contains technical and substantive proposals carried over from previous Congresses. It also contains additional proposals that the Federal judiciary believes will improve its operations and allow it to continue to serve as a bulwark protecting our individual rights and liberties. First, the provisions in the bill facilitate and update judicial operations. For example, the bill would authorize realignments in the place of holding court in specified district courts. It also would remove a ``public drawing'' requirement for the selection of names for jury wheels, which is now a function performed more efficiently by computers. These provisions would add convenience to the men and women--who as lawyers, litigants, and jurors--appear before our Federal courts. Second, the bill contains provisions that would improve judicial resource management and strengthen the constitutional protection of Americans' right to serve on juries. The bill would make a juror eligible to receive a $10 supplemental fee after 10 days of trial service instead of 30 days. Juries serve to vindicate the rights of all Americans, including the poor, the powerless, and the marginalized. I am glad this bill takes steps to ensure that economic hardship will not be an obstacle to an individual performing his or her duty to serve on a jury. Equally important, the bill takes important steps to ensure that no American will be threatened or intimidated from exercising their right to serve on a jury. Third, in the area of criminal justice, numerous provisions in the bill would also clarify existing law to better fulfill Congress's original intent or to make technical corrections. In particular, I am glad the bill would explicitly authorize the Director of Administrative Office to provide goods and services to pretrial defendants and clarify similar authority recently made available for postconviction offenders through the Second Chance Act of 2007. Under current law, there is no explicit statutory authority to provide for services on behalf of offenders who do not suffer from substance abuse problems or psychiatric disorders. This provision would fill in that gap by providing services to pretrial defendants to ensure their appearance at trial. I am also pleased that the bill contains a provision, similar to the JUDGES Act that I cosponsored in 2003, that would reverse the troubling and ill-conceived provisions in the so-called Republican Feeney Amendment that limited the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. Our Federal judges are experts on sentencing policy, and I am glad this restoration has been included. I thank the organizations that have supported this bill. I am especially grateful to the Administrative Office of the Courts who, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, sent us policy recommendations from the Federal judiciary. Many of those recommendations are included in this bill, and I commend them for working so hard to enact this measure. Our independent judiciary is the envy of the world. Yet in these changing times and circumstances, the judiciary needs improvements to increase its efficiency and administrative operations. With passage of this bill, the Senate has taken an important step to ensure that the Federal judiciary has the tools to keep up with the changes and challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, in July, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act, an important bill designed to protect our communities and particularly our most precious asset, our children. I am disappointed that Republican objections continue to prevent this vital bipartisan legislation from passing the Senate this year. This bill seeks to not only keep our children safe and out of trouble, but also to help ensure they have the opportunity to become productive adult members of society. Senator Specter and Senator Kohl have been leaders in this area of the law for decades, and I was honored to join with them once again to introduce this important initiative. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act sets out Federal policy and standards for the administration of juvenile justice in the states. It authorizes key Federal resources for States to improve their juvenile justice systems and for communities to develop programs to prevent young people from getting into trouble. With the proposed reauthorization of this important legislation, we recommit to these important goals. We also push the law forward in key ways to better serve our communities and our children. The basic goals of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act remain the same: keeping our communities safe by reducing juvenile crime, advancing programs and policies that keep children out of the criminal justice system, and encouraging States to implement policies designed to steer those children who do enter the juvenile justice system back onto a track to become contributing members of society. The reauthorization that we consider today augments these goals in several ways. First, this bill encourages states to move away from keeping young people in adult jails. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded late last year that children who are held in adult prisons commit more crimes, and more serious crimes, when they are released, than children with similar histories who are kept in juvenile facilities. After years of pressure to send more and more young people to adult prisons, it is time to seriously consider the strong evidence that this policy is not working. We must do this with ample consideration for the fiscal constraints on States, particularly in these lean budget times, and with ample deference to the traditional role of States in setting their own criminal justice policy. We have done so here. But we also must work to ensure that unless strong and considered reasons dictate otherwise, the presumption must be that children will be kept with other children, particularly before they have been convicted of any wrongdoing. As a former prosecutor, I know well the importance of holding criminals accountable for their crimes with strong sentences. But when we are talking about children, we must also think about how best to help them become responsible, contributing members of society as adults. That keeps us all safer. I am disturbed that children from minority communities continue to be overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. This bill encourages States to take new steps to identify the reasons for this serious and continuing problem and to work together with the Federal Government and with local communities to find ways to start solving it. I am also concerned that too many runaway and homeless young people are locked up for so-called status offenses, like truancy, without having committed any crime. In a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year on the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, I was amazed by the plight of this vulnerable population, even in the wealthiest country in the world, and inspired by the ability of so many children in this desperate situation to rise above that adversity. This reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Act takes strong and significant steps to move States away from detaining children from at- risk populations for status offenses and requires States to phase out the practice entirely in 3 years, but with a safety valve for those States that are unable to move quite so quickly due to limited resources. As I have worked with experts on this legislation, it has become abundantly clear that mental health and drug treatment are fundamental to making real progress toward keeping juvenile offenders from reoffending. Mental disorders are two to three times more common among children in the juvenile justice system than in the general population, and fully 80 percent of young people in the juvenile justice system have been found by some studies to have a connection to substance abuse. This bill takes new and important steps to prioritize and fund mental health and drug treatment. The bill tackles several other key facets of juvenile justice reform. It emphasizes effective training of personnel who work with young people in the juvenile justice system, both to encourage the use of approaches that have been proven effective and to eliminate cruel and unnecessary treatment of juveniles. The bill also creates incentives for the use of programs that research and testing have shown to work best. Finally, the bill refocuses attention on prevention programs intended to keep children from ever entering the criminal justice system. I was struck when Chief Richard Miranda of Tucson, AZ, said in a December hearing on this bill that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. I heard the same sentiment from Chief Anthony Bossi and others at the Judiciary Committee's field hearing earlier this year on young people and violent crime in Rutland, VT. When seasoned police officers from Rutland, VT, to Tucson, AZ, tell me that prevention programs are pivotal, I pay attention. Just as this administration and recent Republican Congresses have gutted programs that support State and local law enforcement, so they have consistently cut and narrowed effective prevention programs, creating a dangerous vacuum. We need to reverse this trend and help our communities implement programs proven to help kids turn their lives around. I have long supported a strong Federal commitment to preventing youth violence, and I have worked hard on past reauthorizations of this legislation, as have Senators Specter and Kohl and others on the Judiciary Committee. We have learned the importance of balancing strong law enforcement with effective prevention programs. This reauthorization pushes forward new ways to help children move out of the criminal justice system, return to school, and become responsible, hard-working members of our communities. This legislation seeks to move the country in new directions to protect our communities and give our children the chance they need to grow up to be productive members of society. But we were careful to do so with full respect for the discretion due to law enforcement and judges, with deference to states, and with a regard for difficult fiscal realities. It is unfortunate that, despite the bipartisan nature of the legislation and the careful consideration and consultation that went into drafting it, Republican objections have prevented this important bill from passing and helping to keep our children and our communities safe. I hope, while there is still time, that all Senators will decide to support and pass this vital reauthorization.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, more than a year ago, I introduced a bill aimed at restoring Americans' faith in their elected officials. The bipartisan Public Corruption Prosecutions Improvements Act would complement the accomplishments this Congress has made in passing important ethics and lobbying reforms by giving law enforcement additional tools and resources to root out corrupt conduct. Although the Judiciary Committee reported the bill last November, it has been stalled on the Senate floor for nearly a year. In the waning days of this Congress, we should take the opportunity to take up and promptly pass this critical legislation. Since the bill's introduction, we have seen repeated instances of rampant and corrosive corruption at all levels of government, including at key Federal agencies. Just this month, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of the Interior documented numerous instances where the ``royalty-in-kind'' program--a program that collects billions of dollars from private companies that tap key energy resources--was corrupted by Federal employees who accepted benefits from energy companies ``with prodigious frequency.'' Investigators and prosecutors must have the resources and tools they need to go after this kind of corrupt conduct that compromises America's security. Too often, though, strained budgets and loopholes in existing corruption laws mean that corrupt conduct goes unchecked or simply cannot be prosecuted. Make no mistake: the stain of corruption has spread to all levels of Government and has affected both major political parties. This is not a Democratic or Republican problem--it is an American problem that victimizes every single one of us by chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Congress must send a strong signal that it will not tolerate public corruption by providing better tools for Federal investigators and prosecutors to combat it. This bill will do exactly that. We are also just now learning the role of fraud and perhaps corruption in the catastrophic unraveling of the financial markets and the economy. Prosecutors must have every tool at their disposal to restore accountability. This bill will strengthen the tools prosecutors have to crack down on these insidious crimes. The bill gives investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to effectively enforce existing anti-corruption laws. Specifically, it extends the statute of limitations from 5 to 6 years for the most serious public corruption offenses. Public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. Bank fraud, arson and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy, and a more modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. The bill would also provide significant and much-needed additional funding for public corruption enforcement. Since September 11, 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of white collar crime to counterterrorism. FBI Director Mueller has said recently that public corruption is now among the FBI's top investigative priorities, but a September 2005 report by the Department of Justice inspector general found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. More recently, a study by the research group Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that the prosecution of all kinds of white collar crimes is down 27 percent since 2000, and official corruption cases have dropped in the same period by 14 percent. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that the investigation of a Federal elected official stalled for 6 months because the investigating U.S. Attorney's Office could not afford to replace the prosecutor who had previously handled the case. We must reverse this trend and make sure that law enforcement has the tools and the funding it needs to address serious and corrosive crimes occurring right here at home. Efforts to combat terrorism and official corruption are not mutually exclusive. A bribed customs official who allows a terrorist to smuggle a dirty bomb into our country, or a corrupt consular officer who illegally supplies U.S. entry visas to would-be terrorists, can cause grave harm to our national security. This bill goes further by amending several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption and fraud contexts. This series of fixes will prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities. For example, the bill includes a fix to the gratuities statute that makes clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing regulations, given to them because of their official position. The bill also appropriately expands the definition of what it means for a public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute and closes several other gaps in current law. Finally, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for several laws dealing with official misconduct, including theft of government property and bribery. These increases reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and would harmonize the punishment for these crimes with other similar statutes. This bipartisan bill is supported by the Department of Justice and by a wide array of public interest groups that have long advocated for vigorous enforcement of our fraud and public corruption laws, including the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG. If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to enforce our laws. Passing last year's ethics and lobbying reform bill was a step in the right direction. But we must finish the job by strengthening the criminal law to enable Federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I am disappointed that Republican objections have prevented the full Senate from passing this critical bill. I ask those Republicans Senators who are objecting to proceeding to this anticorruption legislation and to passing it to please reconsider before it is too late. Let us join together in taking bipartisan action.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understood we were in a position to move forward on the IP bill, plus a number of judges who are on the calendar. As Members know, in a rather extraordinary fashion, I expedited the consideration of 10 judges, notwithstanding the Thurmond rule and the late date and had gotten support from my side for not holding them over the normal time. I had understood we had an agreement to move forward on the IP bill, plus four or five of these judges this morning. That seems to be somewhat in doubt. According to the House, the IP bill has to go over now. All these matters, I suppose, we could bring them up next year, but I would rather get them done this year.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to momentarily suggest the absence of a quorum. We are into about a 5-minute window to work it out. I respect the rights of all Senators. The suggestion that the IP wait until next year, it is strongly supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, about every Republican group there is. We had worked that out and included things that Republican Senators wanted. As a practical matter, though, if it has to wait any longer, we can assume it is dead. I assume I will still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee next year. I am perfectly happy to bring up all these judges and IP enforcement next year, if that is what my friends on the other side wish. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 964, S. 3325.

Mr. LEAHY. I am committed to vigorous oversight of the Justice Department in all its functions, and as the champion of S. 3325, I am especially interested in ensuring that these programs are effectively and efficiently managed. My interest does not end with the enactment of this bill; in fact, this is just the beginning. I am committing myself and the Judiciary Committee to oversight of these programs; soon after the filing date of the reports required of the Justice Department and the FBI, we will hold hearings to ensure that the information we need to evaluate these programs and the use of the funds that have been appropriated.

Mr. LEAHY. Intellectual property is the lifeblood of our economy, and protecting that property from theft and misappropriation is important to preserving our place at the economic forefront of the world. Combatting intellectual property offenses can help us save jobs for Americans, increase tax revenues from legitimate businesses, and bolster our productivity, with all the gains that come from that. Some of the provisions in this bill authorize significant resources to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to better take on the tasks of battling intellectual property crimes. I have confidence in law enforcement, and I also take seriously the obligation we have in the Congress to ensure that the public's money is well and responsibly spent.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be withdrawn; that a Leahy substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are a nation in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis. It is not just our financial enterprises that are shaken but our confidence in our own economic strength. The Members of this Congress and the people of this Nation are being asked to take extraordinary steps to contain the explosions on Wall Street. We must not, as we try to repair the structure of our financial institutions, neglect the very sources of our economic power. Intellectual property--copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets--is an ever-growing sector of our economy. We are the envy of the world for the quality and the quantity of our innovative and creative goods and services. If we want to continue to lead the world in producing intellectual property, we need to protect Americans' rights in that property. This bill is among the most important I have championed. I drew on the experiences of thousands of intellectual property owners, hundreds of law enforcement officials, and all the legislators on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and we have a bill that provides a focused and honed set of improvements to the intellectual property law, targeted increases in resources for significant enforcement efforts, streamlined interagency efforts to coordinate governmental intellectual property policies but also vigorous oversight of the Justice Department's programs. I thank all those who cosponsored it. Our bill is going to improve the enforcement of our Nation's intellectual property laws, they will bolster our intellectual property-based economy, and it will protect American jobs. Mr. President, we are a Nation in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis. It is not just our financial enterprises that are shaken, but our confidence in our own economic strength. The Members of this Congress, and the people of this Nation, are being asked to take extraordinary steps to contain the explosions on Wall Street. We must not, as we try to repair the structure of our financial institutions, neglect the very sources of our economic power. Intellectual property-- copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets--is an ever-growing sector of our economy. We are the envy of the world for the quality, and the quantity, of our innovative and creative goods and services. If we want to continue to lead the world in producing intellectual property, we need to protect our citizens' rights in that property. Long ago, I was the Chittenden County State's Attorney in Vermont. There is crime everywhere, even in Vermont, and I prosecuted every kind of case. I will never forget how much successful prosecutions depend on whether the investigators and lawyers charged with protecting the public from crime have the right tools to do so. No matter how dedicated the prosecutor, and no matter how outrageous the crime, if the laws are not clearly and sensibly drafted, or if the resources are simply inadequate, no justice will be done. The intellectual property enforcement bill we consider today is designed solely and specifically to ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to protect our Nation's impressive array of intellectual property. The revisions to the civil and criminal statutes, the provision of directed resources to Government at all levels, the coordination across the Federal Government of efforts in creating policies and enforcement efforts, and the requirements for reporting to the Congress--all of these provisions are focused on strengthening the protection of our intellectual property. Vermont is special to me, and the goods from Vermont that embody intellectual property are prized by consumers around the world. But every State in the Union is home to industries based on intellectual property. The creative and innovative Vermonters that I am proud to call friends and constituents have counterparts in every other State. These individuals and industries are essential to restoring and building our fiscal health. In a time of such frightening economic malaise, we should redouble our efforts to make sure that the productive and valuable sectors of our economy are freed from the debilitating effects of theft and misappropriation. Intellectual property is just as vulnerable as it is valuable. The Internet has brought great and positive change to all our lives, but it is also an unparalleled tool for piracy. The increasing inter- connectedness of the globe, and the efficiencies of sharing information quickly and accurately between continents, has made foreign piracy and counterfeiting operations profitable in numerous countries. Americans suffer when their intellectual property is stolen, they suffer when those counterfeit goods displace sales of the legitimate products, and they suffer when counterfeit products actually harm them, as is sometimes the case with fake pharmaceuticals and faulty electrical products. This bill is among the most important I have championed. Drawing on the experiences of thousands of intellectual property owners, hundreds of law enforcement officials, and all of the legislators in Congress, it provides a focused and honed set of improvements to the intellectual property law, targeted increases in resources for significant enforcement efforts, streamlined inter-agency efforts to coordinate governmental intellectual property policies, and vigorous oversight of the Justice Department's programs. I thank all the cosponsors of this legislation for their efforts and support. Our bill will improve the enforcement of our Nation's intellectual property laws, bolster our intellectual property-based economy, and protect American jobs.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go into morning business, with Senators to be recognized at 10-minute intervals.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 779, 780, 781, 782, and 783; that the Senate then proceed to the nominations en bloc, the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session; that any statements relating to these nominations be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield for a moment, both Senators from Florida have talked about this, and I will not say anything different than what they have heard me say. They work very well, in a bipartisan fashion, to seek out the best possible people. I have a great deal of respect for both of the Senators. Because they have done that, it has made my job as chairman a lot easier. I look at the distinguished Presiding Officer from Virginia as another example because he was worked so well with the distinguished senior Senator from that state. Again, it is a situation where there is a Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator. They have worked very closely together to try to bring the best. I have no problem with different parties in an, obviously, political position choosing partisan positions. In the Federal judiciary, which is supposed to be outside of partisan politics, I wish more Senators and Presidents--the next President, whoever it is--would look at the model of the Senators now on the floor. I include the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the Presiding Officer, in this. Seek the best possible man or woman for these judgeships. Let those of us in legislative office take care of the partisan politics. We can do that. But let the American people, when they walk into a courtroom, say: Whether I am plaintiff or defendant or whether I am rich or poor, no matter who I am, this judge will give me a fair trial. Win or lose, I will walk out knowing I had a fair trial and it was based on the facts, not on politics. I thank my two friends from Florida.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as this Congress winds down, we need to focus on confronting the worst financial crisis we have experienced since the Great Depression, one that has exposed the American taxpayers to trillions in losses. But just as I continued to hold hearings on nominations on September 13, 2001, in the wake of the attacks of 9/11, I have continued deep into this Presidential election year to hold hearings and take action on both executive and judicial nominees. Indeed, yesterday the Judiciary Committee reported out 13 nominations, including 10 nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, and the nomination of Greg Garre to be Solicitor General of the United States, one of the highest and most prestigious positions at the Department of Justice. I went the extra mile to hold two expedited hearings this month on judicial nominations--despite the Thurmond Rule that Republicans created and followed with Democratic Presidents, despite the practices they followed in 1996 and 2000, and despite the record of Republicans in filibustering and raising objections to important bills with broad bipartisan support. I held a hearing just 3 days ago as an accommodation to Senator Specter, the ranking republican member of our committee and a former chairman. I have accommodated Senator Hatch, another former chairman. I also accommodated the Senator from Kansas and included the nominee from Kansas at a hearing Tuesday afternoon, even though his nomination has raised concerns. We also have proceeded with hearings on another nominee from Virginia, a nominee from California, and the two nominees from Colorado. I continue my practice of working with Senators on both sides of the aisle. Today I have continued to do so, and the Senate has confirmed all 10 of these Bush judicial nominations: Clark Waddoups of Utah, Michael Anello of California, Mary Stenson Scriven of Florida, Christine Arguello and Phillip A. Brimmer of Colorado, C. Darnell Jones II, Mitchell S. Goldberg, and Joel H. Slomsky of Pennsylvania, Anthony J. Trenga of Virginia, and Eric Melgren of Kansas. I have said throughout my chairmanship that I would treat President Bush's nominees better than Republicans treated President Clinton's, and I have done so. In the 17 months I served as chairman of this committee during President Bush's first term with a Democratic majority, the Senate confirmed 100 of the President's judicial nominations. In the 38 months I have served as Judiciary Committee chairman, the Senate has now confirmed 10 more nominees than it did during the more than 4 years Republicans led the committee, 168 nominees compared to 158. Even before the August recess, we had confirmed more judicial nominations in this Congress than were confirmed during the previous 2 years when a Republican Senate majority and Republican chairman of this committee did not have to worry about the Thurmond Rule and an abbreviated session due to a Presidential election. With the confirmations today we have confirmed 68 this Congress, 14 more than in the last Congress with a Republican majority. My approach has been consistent throughout my chairmanships during the Bush presidency. I submit that the results have been positive. Last year, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported 40 judicial nominations to the Senate, and all 40 were confirmed. That was more than had been confirmed in any of the 3 preceding years when a Republican chairman and Republican Senate majority managed the process. Even though this is a Presidential election year, we confirmed more of President Bush's nominees this year--28--than the Republican-led Senate confirmed in 2005 and virtually the same number as in 2006, both non- Presidential election years. Indeed, the contrast between our productivity on judicial nominations by confirming 10 judicial nominees late in this Congress and the flurry of activity undone by Republican obstructionism at the end of the last Congress is significant. Although we wasted many months during the 109th Congress debating a handful of President Bush's most extreme failed nominees, the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee worked especially hard as time ran down in that Congress to be accommodating on judicial nominations. We agreed to the request of Senator Specter, then the committee chairman, to hold four hearings in September 2006 on nominations and numerous extra business meetings. But our work to be accommodating and move nominations forward was to no avail when holds by Senator Brownback and other Republicans stopped the Senate from confirming 14 judicial nominees. Included in these were three nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies in the Western District of Michigan, a situation not resolved until this Congress, when the Michigan Senators and the White House worked together with us to fill those vacancies. Despite our efforts to step away from the tit for tat of the nomination battles of the past and the work we have done to dramatically lower judicial vacancies by approving the nominees of a President from the other party, our efforts have yet to be acknowledged. After today, we will have cut the judicial vacancies from I encountered in the summer of 2001 after years of pocket filibusters of moderate and qualified nominees of President Clinton by Republican Senate leadership, to about a third, from 110 to as low as 34 today. In the 6 years of Senate Republican majority control during the Clinton administration, the pocket filibusters and obstruction of moderate, qualified nominees more than doubled circuit court vacancies. By contrast, we have cut circuit court vacancies by two-thirds, from 32 to a low of 9 this summer. We have broken through longstanding logjams in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits and lowered vacancies in virtually every circuit from when President Bush took office. With the recent confirmations of Helene White and Ray Kethledge to seats on the Sixth Circuit, that circuit, which had four vacancies after the Republican pocket filibusters, now has none. The Fifth Circuits had a circuit-wide emergency due to the multiple simultaneous vacancies during the Clinton years, when Republicans controlled the Senate. The Fifth Circuit now has no vacancies. We have succeeded in lowering vacancies in the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit, the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit. Judicial vacancies that rose steadily and dramatically under Republican Senate control with a Democratic President have fallen dramatically with a Republican President when a Democratic Senate majority was in charge. I recall that as the Presidential elections in 2000 drew closer, Republican pocket filibusters resulted in the judicial vacancy rate rising to 10 percent. Democrats have reversed that course. We have now lowered that number to 34, less than a third of where they stood after Republican pocket filibusters and obstruction. The vacancy rate is below 4 percent vacancy now. As unemployment for ordinary Americans has now risen about 6 percent nationwide and much higher in some States and communities, we have cut the judicial vacancy rate dramatically. I suspect many of these facts have been lost among the Republican election-year gambits and grumblings about judicial nominations that always seem loudest when we are moving forward on nominations. Partisan Republican critics ignore the progress we have made on judicial vacancies. They also ignore the crisis that they had created by not considering circuit nominees in 1996, 1997, and 1998. They ignore the fact that they refused to confirm a single circuit nominee during the entire 1996 session. They ignore the fact that they returned 17 circuit court nominees without action to the White House in 2000. They ignore the public criticism of their actions by Chief Justice Rehnquist during those years. They ignore the fact that they were responsible for more than doubling circuit court vacancies through pocket filibusters of moderate and qualified Clinton nominees or that we have reduced those circuit court vacancies by more than two thirds. In the 1996 session, the Republican majority confirmed only 17 of President Clinton's judicial nominees, and none were circuit court nominations. In stark contrast, under Democratic leader in this election year, the Senate has confirmed 28 judicial nominees, 4 of them to prestigious circuit courts. I have yet to hear explanations for why they did not proceed with the nominations of Barry Goode, Helene White, Alston Johnson, James Duffy, Elena Kagan, James Wynn, Kathleen McCree Lewis, Enrique Moreno, Allen Snyder, Kent Markus, Robert Cindrich, Bonnie Campbell, Stephen Orlofsky, Roger Gregory, Christine Arguello, Andre Davis, Elizabeth Gibson, and so many others. One of those many nominees blocked by the Republican abuses of those years was finally confirmed today. I was happy to accommodate Senator Salazar's request that we add two Colorado nominees to the first of our September hearings, after he and Senator Allard reached an agreement. That agreement led Senator Allard finally to return the blue slip for Ms. Arguello. Of course, Ms. Arguello was nominated by President Clinton to the Tenth Circuit, but a Republican pocket filibuster in 2000 stalled her nomination. Ms. Arguello, like Judge Helene White, who was confirmed to the Sixth Circuit earlier this year, has now been nominated by Presidents of both parties. I thank the committee for completing the work on her nomination we should have completed a decade ago, and I am pleased that she was confirmed today. I am also pleased that today we confirmed the nomination of Darnell Jones, who has been a highly regarded judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for more than 20 years, serving as the President Judge of that court for the last two. Judge Jones will now become just the 88th African-American Federal judge or justice, out of 875 seats, and the 72nd African-American district court judge. There is still much work to be done. In his two terms, President Bush has nominated only 25 African-American judges to the Federal bench, compared to 77 African-American judges nominated by President Clinton in his two terms, more than three times as many. President Bush's failure to nominate an African-American judge from Mississippi even though that State has the highest percentage of African-American residents of any State is disappointing and inexplicable. I have urged, and will continue to urge, this President and the next one to nominate men and women to the Federal bench who reflect the diversity of America. Racial diversity remains a pillar of strength for our country and one of our greatest natural resources. Diversity on the bench helps ensure that the words ``equal justice under law,'' inscribed in Vermont marble over the entrance to the Supreme Court, is a reality and that justice is rendered fairly and impartially. Another aspect of the problem created by Republicans that we have worked hard to improve is a dramatic reduction in the number of judicial emergency vacancies. Nearly half of the judicial nominees the Senate has confirmed while I have chaired the Judiciary Committee have filled vacancies classified by the Administrative Office of the Courts as judicial emergency vacancies. Eighteen of the 27 circuit court nominees confirmed while I have chaired the committee filled judicial emergency vacancies, including 9 of the 10 circuit court nominees confirmed this Congress. When President Bush took office, there were 28 judicial emergency vacancies. Now that number is 13, fewer than half. Of course, we have made this progress even while devoting extensive time and attention to rebuilding the Justice Department in the wake of the scandals of the Gonzales era and the Bush-Cheney administration. At the beginning of this Congress, the Judiciary Committee began its oversight efforts. Over the next 9 months, our efforts revealed a Department of Justice gone awry. The leadership crisis came more and more into view as I led a bipartisan group of concerned Senators to consider the U.S. attorney firing scandal, a confrontation over the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, the untoward political influence of the White House at the Department of Justice, and the secret legal memos excusing all manner of excess and subverting the rule of law. What our efforts exposed was a crisis of leadership that took a heavy toll on the tradition of independence that has long guided the Justice Department and provided it with safe harbor from political interference. It shook the confidence of the American people. Through bipartisan efforts among those from both sides of the aisle who care about Federal law enforcement and the Department of Justice, we joined together to press for accountability. That resulted in a change in leadership at the Department, with the resignations of the Attorney General and virtually all of its highest ranking officials, along with several high ranking White House officials. Earlier this month the Judiciary Committee held its ninth hearing to restock and restore the leadership of the Department of Justice in the last year alone, including confirmation hearings for the new Attorney General, the new Deputy Attorney General, the new Associate Attorney General, and so many others. We have already confirmed 35 executive nominations so far this Congress and are poised to add to this total, having reported out of committee this month another six high-level executive nominations, including the nomination of Greg Garre to be Solicitor General of the United States, one of the highest and most prestigious positions at the Department of Justice, and of J. Patrick Rowan to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the National Security Division. The reduction in judicial vacancies is one of the few areas in which conditions have actually improved over the last couple of years. I wish we could say the same about unemployment or the price of gas or food, or the condition of our financial markets and housing markets. The economy has experienced job losses every month this year, and they now total more than 650,000. Compare the progress we have made on filling judicial vacancies with what has happened to cost of gasoline, food prices, health care costs, inflation, the credit crisis, home mortgages, and the national debt. All those indicators have been moving in the wrong direction, as is consumer confidence and the percentage of Americans who see the country as on the wrong track. The American people are also best served by a Federal judiciary they can trust to apply the law fairly regardless of who walks into the courtroom. The judiciary is the one arm of our Government that should never be political or politicized, regardless of who sits in the White House. I have continued to work in the waning days of this Congress with Senators from both sides of the aisle to confirm an extraordinary number of nominees late in the election year. I will continue to work with the next President to ensure that the Federal judiciary remains independent and able to provide justice to all Americans, without fear or favor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 622, S. 2304.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Kennedy amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the committee substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.