Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 3 minutes be yielded to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. LEAHY. To answer that question, the Senator from Pennsylvania is one of the most articulate, best trial attorneys in this place. He could do in a minute what others would take an hour to do. I did try to take far less time than was used to attack me this morning.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. No. We are trying to make life easy. The Pope would like to make life easier for the majority leader.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEAHY. I believe the mass is the Thursday after.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at a time when we are all concerned with the fate of Iraqi refugees and the need to help as many of them as possible resettle in safe havens, I ask unanimous consent that a March 24, 2008, article in the Brattleboro Reformer entitled ``Difficult Choices: Son's Birth Deepens Couple's Concern Over Future,'' be printed in the Record. This article illustrates what Vermonters are doing to help two Iraqi refugees, Revan Hedo and Aseel Pola, who recently gave birth to Brattleboro, Vermont's first Iraqi-American citizen, Matthew. As Vermonters and other Americans open their hearts, their homes, and their wallets to try to alleviate the suffering of Iraqis who have been forced to flee their homeland to escape the violence, it is an important reminder that no matter how one may feel about this war, there is a humanitarian dimension that requires everyone's attention. I am proud that Vermonters are doing their part. We all hope that some day Iraq will be safe enough for those who want to return home to do so. But there are some 2 million Iraqi refugees stranded in Jordan, Syria, and other countries, and millions more displaced inside Iraq. Only a tiny fraction of those who need and deserve our help have received U.S. visas. This is unconscionable. I urge the White House to expedite the processing for resettlement of Iraqis whose lives are threatened because they had the courage to serve as translators, drivers, and provide other services to the United States. These people risked their lives for us, and they have every reason to expect that we will not abandon them. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak about the situation in Tibet, which has captured the world's attention in recent days and weeks. For those of us who have visited Tibet, as I did in 1988, and for millions of people here and abroad, the press reports of Chinese police officers arresting and beating Tibetan protesters, and of Tibetans destroying the property of Han Chinese, are deplorable. Estimates of the number of protesters killed have ranged from 13 to 140, and more than 1,000 arrested. Knowing the way Tibetans have been tortured and mistreated in Chinese prisons, we should be very concerned with the welfare of those in custody. More than a dozen Han Chinese were reportedly killed and their businesses ransacked and burned. Violent attacks against civilians and their property cannot be justified, even when they may be prompted by longstanding, legitimate grievances. For many years, the Chinese Government has been systematically implementing a strategy to destroy Tibetan culture and solidify its control of Tibet. A flood of Han Chinese into Tibet has fueled an economic boom, but this has also exacerbated tensions between Chinese business owners and the Tibetans who have become increasingly marginalized and discriminated against in their own homeland. When first asked about the recent violence, Chinese authorities in Beijing and Lhasa insisted that only a handful of agitators were involved and there was no cause for concern. Then, as photographs were posted on the internet of Tibetans being chased and beaten bloody by baton-wielding, helmeted riot police, the Chinese Government blocked access for journalists and blamed the Dalai Lama for instigating the violence to sabotage the Beijing Olympics. Many of us have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama. I consider him a friend, and last week I spoke by telephone with one of his advisors, Lodi Ghari, who was in India at the time. It is outrageous to suggest that the Dalai Lama has encouraged violence in Tibet. For decades, the Dalai Lama has shown remarkable tolerance and patience as he has sought a peaceful resolution of the conflict over Tibet's political status. He has repeatedly extended a hand of friendship to the Chinese Government, which has consistently responded by denigrating and misrepresenting the Dalai Lama's views. I would like to hope that this latest outbreak of violence will cause the Chinese Government to recognize that a strategy of repression in Tibet will only provoke further tensions and violence. Brute force is not a solution. Ethnic cleansing is not a solution. Several things should be done immediately. The Chinese Government should distinguish between peaceful protestors and rioters, and reaffirm that it will uphold the Chinese Constitution's protections of free speech and association. It should end its lockdown on Tibetan areas, including allowing full access by the media, and account for those who are missing and dead from the protests. There should be a full accounting of each Tibetan who has been arrested or charged with a crime, including names, charges if any, and the location where they are being detained. The International Red Cross should have access to monitor their treatment. The only way to resolve this conflict is through dialogue conducted in good faith. It is long past time for Chinese authorities to recognize that it has nothing to fear from the Tibetan people if they respect the Tibetans' cultural identity. There has been much talk and speculation about what these events could mean for the Beijing Olympics. I am not among those who believe the Olympic Games should be a political issue. The Olympics should be about the athletes, not about governments. If some countries boycott these Olympics for one reason, other countries will feel justified in boycotting other Olympics for different reasons. The future of the Olympic Games would be in jeopardy. That said, the Chinese Government obviously sees the Olympics as an opportunity to showcase China as a modern, harmonious country. The Chinese Government's actions in Tibet, and its continuing crackdown on dissidents who call for more political freedom, starkly contradict this image. Apparently, neither the Olympic Committee nor the White House impressed upon the Chinese authorities that if the Olympics were to be a success, there needs to be a marked improvement in China's respect for human rights. That message should be conveyed clearly, vigorously, and immediately. It is not acceptable for President Bush to simply say he plans to attend the Olympics as a ``sports fan.'' I have long criticized the Chinese Government's violations of human rights. Its detention and trial on trumped up charges of dissidents who dare to criticize official corruption and repression. Its use of excessive force in Tibet. Its support for the Government of Sudan, even while that government was committing genocide in Darfur. Its torture of prisoners and summary executions after unfair trials. I, with former Senator Jeffords, and then Representative Sanders, worked for 6 years to secure the release from a Chinese prison of Ngawang Choepel, a young Tibetan whose only crime was to use a video camera to record Tibetan music and dance. He posed no threat to China's security. His arrest, his trial, and his imprisonment were a travesty. Just last week, China convicted a human rights activist named Hu Jia of ``inciting subversion'' through his writings on the internet. His crime was to advocate for better protection for people with AIDS, for more religious freedom, and for increased autonomy for Tibet. His case is another reminder that when it comes to human rights, little has changed in China. The Chinese Government insists that China is a country of laws and that his case was dealt with according to the law. That is reminiscent of those who once defended slavery because it was lawful at the time. As long as the Chinese Government criminalizes speech, it will face the criticism of the international community. Criticizing the Chinese Government is not the same as isolating China, which I have never believed is an option. I have visited China several times and have always favored more engagement with China. We should be encouraging closer relations. I have worked to increase funding for professional, educational, and cultural exchanges, and for programs focusing on environmental protection and the rule of law. I have seen the benefits to American and Chinese students who participate in these programs, including from the Vermont Law School. China has an extraordinary history and culture. Its people have suffered many hardships, including devastating wars and famines. Many still toil from dawn until dusk to survive, but China has made extraordinary progress in the 30 years since my first trip there. The Chinese people want the best for their families and their country, as Americans do. They also want a government that is less corrupt and more open and accountable. China wants to be treated like a great power, but the Chinese Government cannot expect to be respected as a world leader just because of China's large population and its economic and military prowess. Not as long as it crushes peaceful dissent and, in Tibet, destroys the culture of a unique people who are admired throughout the world. Other governments of countries where Tibetans have rallied peacefully in support of those back home should also stop the arrests and detentions and use of excessive force. This is particularly so in Nepal, where not long ago tens of thousands of Nepalese people took to the streets in demonstrations which led to the restoration of multi-party government. Those who are in power in Nepal today, because of the people's brave defiance of a corrupt, abusive king, should be respecting the Tibetans' rights of assembly, of association and expression. Speaker Pelosi, who visited the Dalai Lama recently, said it well when she called the crisis in Tibet a matter of conscience for the world. But just as I believe our collective conscience must be steadfast in support of the Tibetan people and their spiritual leader, so should we reaffirm that we recognize this is a conflict the Chinese and Tibetans must solve themselves. I believe a solution is possible that meets the needs and aspirations of both peoples. But after 6 years of talks that have achieved nothing, it is clear that a new approach is needed. Repression is not the answer. Confrontation is not the answer. There are creative, visionary people on both sides who can learn from these events and pursue a new way forward. Those of us half a world away who care about Tibet and China should encourage that. Unfortunately, rather than reach out directly to the Dalai Lama, the Chinese authorities are already tightening their control of Tibet. Apparently they have concluded that the lesson of this latest uprising is to increase the repression and claim that everything is back to normal. Their idea of what is ``normal'' in Tibet is not the answer. If that is the path they take, it is only a matter of time before the next eruption of violence. And in the meantime, China will further jeopardize the Olympics and do more damage to its international reputation. Nobody wants that. We want closer, cooperative relations with China. Mr. President, let us hope that years from now, the 29th Summer Olympic Games will be remembered not for the violent images of recent weeks, and not for a hardening of positions, but as the catalyst for a new political dialogue that brought about a lasting agreement on Tibet's future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I listened yesterday to the partisan rhetoric we continue to hear from Senate Republicans on nominations, I am disappointed that the Republican leader is ignoring the majority leader's statement from last May 10. Today is April Fools' Day. I do not think the American people are fooled or amused by continued partisan bickering over nominations. Indeed, with a massive subprime mortgage crisis that has left so many Americans in dire straights, fearful of losing their homes, the Republican efforts to create an issue over judicial nominees is misplaced. In fact, I have been working hard to make progress and have treated this President's nominees more fairly than Republicans treated those of President Clinton. Judicial nominations are not the most pressing problem facing the country. Indeed, we have worked hard to lower vacancies to the lowest levels in decades. We have cut circuit vacancies in half. It should be no surprise that the administration would rather focus on having a partisan political fight than the news that, in February, the United States lost 63,000 jobs. To make up for those and other job losses in recent months thanks to this President's policies, this country would need to create 200,000 jobs every month. This administration is apparently more worried about the jobs of a handful of controversial nominees, many without the necessary support of their home State senators, than the loss of jobs by thousands of American workers. Unemployment is up over 20 percent, the price of gas has more than doubled and is now at a record high average of over $3.20, trillions of dollars in budget surplus have been turned into trillions of dollars of debt with an annual budget deficit of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the trade deficit has nearly doubled to almost $1 trillion. Indeed, just to pay down the interest on the national debt and the massive costs generated by the disastrous war in Iraq--the fifth anniversary of which we tragically marked 2 weeks ago--costs more than $1 billion a day. That is $365 billion each year that would be better spent on priorities like health care for all Americans, better schools, and fighting crime and treating diseases at home and abroad. Perhaps the only thing that has gone down during the Bush Presidency is judicial vacancies. After the Republican Senate chose to stall consideration of circuit nominees and maintain vacancies during the Clinton administration in anticipation of a Republican Presidency, judicial vacancies rose to over 100. Circuit vacancies doubled during the Clinton years. Since I became Judiciary chairman in 2001, we have worked to cut those vacancies in half. In the Clinton years, Senator Hatch justified the slow progress by pointing to the judicial vacancy rate. When the vacancy rate stood at 7.2 percent, Senator Hatch declared that ``there is and has been no judicial vacancy crisis'' and that this was a ``rather low percentage of vacancies that shows the judiciary is not suffering from an overwhelming number of vacancies.'' Because of Republican inaction, the vacancy rate continued to rise, reaching nearly 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term. The number of circuit court vacancies rose to 32 with retirements of Republican appointed circuit judges immediately after President Bush took office. Then, as soon as a Republican President was elected they sought to turn the tables and take full advantage of the vacancies they prevented from being filled during the Clinton Presidency. They have been extraordinarily successful over the past dozen years. Currently, more than 60 percent of active judges on the Federal circuit courts were appointed by Republican Presidents, and more than 35 percent have been appointed by this President. The Senate has already confirmed three- quarters of this President's circuit court nominees, compared to only half of President Clinton's. I was here in 1999 when the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee would not hold a hearing for a single judicial nominee until June. In contrast, we have scheduled 3 hearings on 11 nominees so far this year. We have a circuit nominee from Texas listed on the Judiciary Committee agenda this week. I wrote to the President during the last recess commending him for nominating someone for a Virginia vacancy to the Fourth Circuit who is supported by Senator Warner and Senator Webb, a Republican and a Democrat, and indicated that I would use my best efforts to proceed to that nomination as soon as the paperwork is submitted. I will ask that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. In that letter, I also informed the President that an anonymous Republican hold had prevented Senate confirmation of the President's nominees to be the Associate Attorney General, the No. 3 position at DOJ, and the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. Since the resignations of the entire top leadership at the Department of Justice last year in the wake of the scandals of the Gonzales era, I have made restoring the leadership ranks at the Department a priority. Since September, the committee has held seven hearings on executive nominations, including a 2-day hearing for the Attorney General. The Attorney General and the new Deputy Attorney General have been confirmed. But for Republican delays in refusing to cooperate and make a quorum in February, and now the anonymous hold, the Senate would have confirmed two more high-level DOJ nominees. The partisan rhetoric on nominations rings especially hollow in light of the progress we have made. Last year, the Senate confirmed 40 judges, including 6 circuit judges. The 40 confirmations were more than during any of the 3 preceding years with Republicans in charge. The Senate has now confirmed 140 judges in the almost 3 years it has been run by Democrats and only 158 judges in the more than 4 years it was run by Republicans. We continue to make progress. Four district court nominations are pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. I have mentioned the nomination to the Fifth Circuit that is pending on the Judiciary Committee's agenda this week. I have already announced and noticed another hearing this Thursday for four more judicial nominees, two from Virginia and two from Missouri, and for the nominee to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy. This will be the Judiciary Committee's fifth confirmation hearing this year. With respect to the recent nomination of Steven Agee to a Virginia seat in the Fourth Circuit, it is regrettable that Justice Agee's nomination only comes after months of delay when the White House insisted on sending to the Senate the nomination of Duncan Getchell. That nomination did not have the support of either of the Virginia Senators and was withdrawn after the Virginia Senators objected publicly. In fact, the delay in filling that vacancy has lasted years because this President insisted on sending forward highly controversial nominations like William Haynes, Claude Allen, and Duncan Getchell. In my letter to the President, I wrote that I expect the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to proceed promptly to consider and confirm Justice Agee's nomination with the support of Senator Warner and Senator Webb, just as we proceeded last year to confirm the nomination of Judge Randy Smith to the Ninth Circuit, once the President had withdrawn his nomination for a California seat and resubmitted it for a vacancy from Idaho. I urged the President to use the Agee nomination as a model for working with home State senators and Senators from both sides of the aisle. Time is running short. Senate Democrats should not and have not acted the way Republicans did by pocket filibustering more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees. I would rather see us work with the President on the selection of nominees that the Senate can proceed to confirm than waste precious time fighting about controversial nominees who he selects in order to score political points. I would also rather see the Senate focus on addressing the real priorities of the country rather than catering only to an extreme wing of the Republican base with controversial nominees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have finally completed our consideration of the nomination of Kevin O'Connor to be Associate Attorney General, the number three position at the Department of Justice. This nomination was cleared by the Democrats and set to be confirmed before our Easter Recess but was blocked by a last-minute, anonymous Republican hold. Also blocked at that time and still held is the nomination of Gregory Katsas to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division. I was particularly disappointed with that unexpected development in March. We had worked hard to expedite these nominations, holding a hearing on the first day of this session of Congress. After a nearly month-long delay, when Republican Members of the Judiciary Committee effectively boycotted our business meetings in February, we were able to report these nominations to the Senate in early March. They were set for confirmation before the Easter recess, until the last-minute Republican objection stalled them. They joined the President's nomination of Michael Sullivan to be the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as among those stymied by Republican objections. I thank Senator Whitehouse for chairing the hearing on the O'Connor nomination. We continued our work in connection with high-ranking Department of Justice nominees the week before recess when Senator Kennedy chaired our hearing on the nomination of Grace Chung Becker to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division. The Civil Rights Division is entrusted with protecting precious rights of Americans, including our fundamental right to vote. That hearing was the seventh the Committee has held since last September on executive nominations, as we continue to work to restock and restore the leadership of the Department of Justice in the wake of the scandals of the Gonzales era. A little more than a year ago, the Judiciary Committee began its oversight efforts for the 110th Congress. Over the next 9 months, our efforts revealed a Department of Justice gone awry. The leadership crisis came more and more into view as Senator Specter and I led a bipartisan group of concerned Senators to consider the United States 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. This crisis of leadership has taken 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 many high-ranking Department officials. The partisan accusations of ``slow walking'' nominations that the President engaged in at the White House recently, and repeated even today by Republican Senators, are belied by the facts. They are about as accurate as when President Bush ascribed Attorney General Gonzales' resignation to supposed ``unfair treatment'' and having ``his good name . . . dragged through the mud for political reasons.'' The U.S. Attorney firing scandal was of the administration's own making. It decimated morale at the Department of Justice. A good way to help restore the Justice Department would be for this administration to acknowledge its wrongdoing. What those who say we are ``slow-walking'' nominations do not say is that as a result of the mass resignations at the Justice Department in the wake of the scandals of the Gonzales era, the Committee has held seven hearings on high-ranking nominations to restore the leadership of the Department of Justice between September of last year and this month, including confirmation hearings for the new Attorney General, the new Deputy Attorney General, the new Associate Attorney General, and so many others. Of course those months also include the December and January holiday period and break between sessions. What is being ignored by the President and Senate Republicans as they play to a vocal segment of their Republican base is that we have worked hard to make progress and restore the leadership of the Department of Justice. In the last 6 months, we have confirmed a new Attorney General, a new Deputy Attorney General, held hearings for several other high-ranking Justice Department positions, and voted those nominations out of the Judiciary Committee. Today we continue that progress with the confirmation of the Associate Attorney General. It is vital that we ensure that we have a functioning, independent Justice Department. In January, the Judiciary Committee held our first oversight hearing of the new session and the first with new Attorney General Michael Mukasey. We held another oversight hearing last month with FBI Director Mueller and tomorrow we are holding an oversight hearing with Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff to explore that Department's handling of issues within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction related to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the so-called REAL ID Act, naturalization backlogs, the resettlement of Iraqi refugees and asylum seekers and the shameful, continuing aftermath from Katrina. These are more steps forward in our efforts to restore checks and balances to our Government and begin to repair the damage this administration inflicted on our Constitution and fundamental American values. We continue to press for accountability even as we learn startling new revelations about the extent to which some will go to avoid accountability, undermine oversight, and stonewall the American people's right to the truth. We find shifting answers on issues including the admission that the CIA used waterboarding on detainees in reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice; the destruction of White House e-mails required by law to be preserved; and the CIA's destruction of videotapes of detainee interrogations not shared with the 9/11 Commission, Congress or the courts. The only constant is the demand for immunity and unaccountability among those in the administration. This White House continues to stonewall the legitimate needs for information articulated by the Judiciary Committee and others in the Congress, and contemptuously refuse to appear when summoned by congressional subpoena. In spite of the administration's lack of cooperation, the Senate is moving forward with the confirmation of executive nominations. With the confirmation today, we will have confirmed 27 executive nominations, including the confirmations of nine U.S. Attorneys, five U.S. Marshals, and the top three positions at the Justice Department so far this Congress. Of course, we could have made even more progress had the White House sent us timely nominations to fill the remaining executive branch vacancies with nominees who will restore the independence of federal law enforcement. There are now 19 districts across the country with acting or interim U.S. Attorneys instead of Senate-confirmed, presidentially-appointed U.S. Attorneys. For more than a year I have been talking publicly about the need to name U.S. Attorneys to fill these vacancies to no avail. We have seen what happens when the rule of law plays second fiddle to a President's agenda and the partisan desires of political operatives. It is a disaster for the American people. Both the President and the Nation are best served by a Justice Department that provides sound advice and takes responsible action, without regard to political considerations--not one that develops legalistic loopholes to serve the ends of a particular administration. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass by unanimous consent S. 980, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. This is an important bill that would create potent new tools for law enforcement to prosecute those who illegally sell drugs online, and allow State authorities to shut down online pharmacies even before they get started. I thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Sessions for their commitment to combating illicit drug trafficking by online predators. Their hard work and diligent efforts, have put together a strong bipartisan bill that includes important modifications and clarifications that will protect our children and grandchildren from purchasing illegal dangerous drugs online and reducing the prevalence of rogue online pharmacies in our society. As the longtime cochair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, I understand full well the growing danger that illegitimate online pharmacies pose to youth. I am pleased to join the bill's sponsors in support of this legislation. I am also very pleased that several of my recommendations to improve the bill are included in this legislation. This bill could not come at a more urgent time for our Nation. In the digital age, the Internet has enabled all Americans better access to convenient and more affordable medicine. Unfortunately, the prevalence of rogue online pharmacies has also made the Internet an increasing source for the sale of dangerous controlled substances without a licensed medical practitioner's valid prescription. Online drug traffickers have used evolving tactics to evade detection by law enforcement and circumvent the proper constraints of doctors and pharmacists. The check and security provided by our local pharmacists in local pharmacies--those who have served Americans for generations and helped us get well and keep us well--is not always replicated online. As a result, dangerous and addictive prescription drugs are too often only a click away. Last May, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this issue. We heard compelling testimony from Francine Haight, a mother whose teenage son died from an overdose of painkillers he purchased online from a rogue pharmacy. We also heard from Joseph Califano, the former Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Both strongly supported legislation to fill a gap in existing law and help protect young people from illicit drugs online. Following our hearing, the Internet Drug Advisory Committee held a briefing for the Judiciary Committee on this matter. We heard from various members of the Internet community on how the private sector may effectively collaborate with the public sector to combat the sales of dangerous drugs online. These private sector groups will be vital in that effort, and we were happy to receive the benefit of their insights. The administration supports this bill, and that is the right thing to do. I know that our hard working men and women at the Drug Enforcement Agency need the added tools this bill would offer to assist their efforts to combat rogue online pharmacies. Even more, our children and grandchildren need the safety and security of operating online free from drug dealers seeking to trick them into purchasing dangerous controlled substances. The Judiciary Committee reported an amendment in the form of a substitute which includes several recommendations I have made to improve the bill and make it more effective. These changes were later perfected and improved upon after the bill was reported out of Committee. I am pleased that the amendment includes my suggestion that the Drug Enforcement Administration report to Congress on recommendations to combat the online sale of controlled substances from foreign countries via the Internet and on ways that the private sector can assist in this effort. A key ingredient in diminishing the impact of rogue Web sites on American citizens is combating the international aspect of this problem, and strengthening the public-private sector collaboration can help provide a solution. The amendment narrows the U.S. Sentencing Commission directive to ensure that the most dangerous prescription drugs abused online are treated more severely than less harmful prescription drugs. This addition will ensure that the commission has clear guidance to issue the guidelines necessary to hold those individuals who peddle dangerous prescription drugs to minors online accountable. The amendment also protects legitimate retail drug chains with online websites for customers seeking refills on prescriptions, by exempting them from the bill's requirements. This ensures that the bill does not target legitimate pharmacies that provide Vermonters and other Americans with access to needed medicines nor does it burden legitimate pharmacies with additional registration and reporting requirements. I believe this measure will be better with these changes. I am confident that this legislation will strengthen our Nation's ability to effectively combat online drug trafficking. It furthers the goals of drug enforcement and deterrence, while also providing Congress with additional oversight tools. I support its passage.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased again to join my friend and colleague Senator Kit Bond of Missouri in bringing to the Senate another matter of importance to the missions of the National Guard and to the dedicated men and women of the Guard who perform these missions. Today we are introducing the National Guard Empowerment and State- National Defense Integration Act of 2008. We introduce this legislation on behalf of the 91-member U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus, which we co-chair. The military is still not structured properly to respond to the domestic emergencies that we know will come again. This legislation would take us tangible steps forward in correcting that. Our bill would sharpen the Defense Department's focus on helping the National Guard respond to domestic emergencies. This legislation is a new phase in our bipartisan and bicameral drive to empower the Guard for successfully meeting the challenges that our States and the Nation are asking the Guard to meet. It would clear away bureaucratic cobwebs in the Defense Department's organizational structure to improve decision making on homeland defense issues that involve the Guard. This bill builds on some of the strong provisions enacted from the previous version of the Guard Empowerment Bill in the recently enacted fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill. By empowering the National Guard through more responsibilities, authorities, and new lines of control, this bill focuses the Defense Department's attention on this critical realm of domestic defense. The bill structures potential military operations within the U.S. in a way outlined by the Constitution, ensuring local and State control--not Federal control--in these emergencies. We know that the military--the active duty force, the National Guard, and the Reserves--has an important role in responding to emergencies at home, events like natural disasters. The events of Hurricane Katrina and so many other situations have amply underscored that reality. Our civilian authorities will continue to want to tap into the resources, personnel, and expertise, and there is no question that we need a system that permits that. The debate taking place, mostly behind the scenes and within the walls of the Pentagon, has been about how we structure that response. The goal must be an effective response in line with the Constitution. Our national charter protects our basic liberties and places sovereignty in the hands of the people through government with adequate checks and balances, splitting administration among Federal, State, and local levels. This Empowerment Bill would be effective because it drives to enhance the National Guard, our first military responders. This force has stepped up during dire situations time and time again. The National Guard takes its responsibility to carry out relief missions at home as seriously as it takes its missions abroad as the nation's primary military reserve. The National Guard is a locally based force, spread out in armories and readiness centers across the country. The Guard can flow forces among States through the Emergency Management Assistance Compacts process, which helped make the force one of the few shining lights in the darkness of the response to Hurricane Katrina. The National Guard has units that specialize in civil support, including highly trained, full-time teams located in every one of our States. The bottom line is that the Guard has shown that it can do this mission and do it superbly. The approach of the Empowerment Bill is constitutional because it properly involves every layer of Government. It is our mayors, our public safety chiefs, and our Governors who are responsible for the security of their communities. Under our governmental system, they are the ones that should be in control of emergency situations and any Federal assets that come in should be strictly in support of them-- certainly not the other way around. The Guard is a State force that works closely with these civilian authorities all the time. The Guard, which serves under the command of the Governors, is part and parcel of the community. The Guard knows that it is civilians, including their elected leaders and the populace, who are the ultimate decision-makers in these situations. Our bill includes several key provisions. To improve the quality of advice at the highest levels, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau would gain a full seat on the Joint Chief of Staff, a key advisory body where insufficient attention is paid to homeland defense matters. The bill would ensure that U.S. Northern Command remains a Federal military headquarters that truly supports the Governors and the initial Guard response in an emergency, providing for the Governors to have tactical control over any active duty and Reserve assets that might be operating in their home State during an emergency. The National Guard Bureau is enhanced in another section which specifically gives the National Guard a separate budget to purchase domestic defense-oriented items. The Bureau would carry out its responsibilities in close cooperation with a newly established planning committee and council that integrally involves the States' Adjutants General. And the bill assigns several key command and deputy command positions to National Guard officers who have experience in homeland defense and domestic emergency response matters. This fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill ushered in several improvements to the National Guard, including an elevation of the Bureau Chief to the rank of four-star general. The National Guard Bureau is now more a joint agency than a sub-branch of the Army and the Air Force, though the Guard remains a key part of the Army and Air Force's Total Force. The Deputy Commander or Commander of U.S. Northern Command now must come from the ranks of the National Guard. These are far-reaching steps, though I remain concerned that the Department has yet to implement these provisions, not even filling the four-star position yet. Together, last year's enacted organizational changes and those put forth in this bill will fundamentally improve our preparations for an emergency, and ensure an effective, swift, and constitutional response when another emergency occurs. Our National Guard has never let our country down, and--once again-- we cannot let our Guard down. I urge prompt attention and action on this vital legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and supporting material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Hatch to introduce a bipartisan bill to address the resource needs of our men and women on the Federal judiciary and people around the country by authorizing additional U.S. courts of appeals and district court judgeships. It has been 18 years since the last time a comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted to address the growth in the workload of the Federal judiciary by adding new Federal judgeships. That legislation established 11 additional circuit court judgeships and 61 permanent and 13 temporary district court judgeships. Since 1990, case filings in our Federal appellate courts have increased by 55 percent and case filings on our district courts have risen by 29 percent. Without a comprehensive bill, Congress has proceeded to authorize only a few additional district court judgeships and extend temporary judgeships when it could. For instance, in 2002 we were able to provide for 15 new judgeships in the Department of Justice authorization bill. However no additional circuit court judgeships have been created since 1990 despite their increased workload. In 2006, the weighted number of filings in district courts, which takes into account an assessment of case complexity, were 464 per judgeship, well above the Judicial Conference's standard. The same year, the national average circuit court caseload per three-judge panel approached the record number of 1,230 cases, recorded a year earlier. Our Federal judges are working harder than ever, but in order to maintain the integrity of the Federal courts and the promptness that justice demands, judges must have a manageable workload. The bill that we are introducing today would add 12 permanent circuit court judgeships, 38 permanent district court judgeships, and convert five existing temporary judgeships into permanent positions. These additional judgeships would address the significant increase in caseloads that the Federal courts have seen over the nearly two decades since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. It is based on the recommendations of the Judicial Conference and its analysis of caseloads and needs. Our bipartisan bill would also add 14 temporary district court judgeships, two temporary circuit court judgeships, and extend one existing temporary district court judgeship. These additional temporary judgeships allow Congress some flexibility with regard to future judgeship needs. If caseloads continue to increase, Congress has the option to introduce legislation making permanent or renewing these temporary judgeships. By providing that these new judgeships become effective the day after the inauguration of the next President, we attempt to insulate this effort from partisan politics. This bill has the support of the Judicial Conference and Senators on both sides of the aisle. I thank Senators Feinstein and Schumer for joining us in this effort. A comprehensive bill to respond to the increasing workload of our Federal judiciary is long overdue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the well publicized naturalization backlog that the administration has allowed to build up over the last year threatens not just to deprive hundreds of thousands of people the right to participate in the upcoming Federal elections, but it has undermined the legitimate expectations of those who have followed the law that their government will function as it is intended. The related issue of a backlog at the FBI in completing security name checks in connection with naturalization applications not only contributes to these delays, but undermines the very purpose of the security check itself. If a security name check is pending for as long as three years, the result is that either someone who should not be in the United States is languishing unaccounted for, or that someone who should be approved is caught in a bureaucratic gridlock. Neither result is acceptable. Our amendment gives Congress the flexibility to legislate a solution in relation to the backlogs at both the FBI and USCIS if the administration is unable to resolve this situation. Whether it is necessary to give more resources or additional authority to these agencies, it is becoming apparent that Congress may need to intervene. The administration's efforts thus far to address this issue are too little too late. Many in Congress have been rightly concerned about this situation in light of the serious security questions it raises, and we should not tolerate the vulnerabilities we are left with. What was a foreseeable situation was not foreseen. It is disappointing that for all of the administration's rhetoric in support of fair and realistic immigration reform, it has allowed this to happen. Those individuals who have come lawfully to the United States and who have proven their commitment through hard work, perseverance, and responsibility deserve better. I urge all Senators to join us in support of this amendment. Amendment No. 4245

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will support the Senate budget resolution brought to the Senate by the Budget Committee and Chairman Conrad. This budget continues the long process that the new Congress started last year to restore fiscal responsibility and order to our Federal budget. I commend Chairman Conrad and his colleagues on the Budget Committee for producing a responsible budget resolution that strives to meet the real needs of the American people and to optimize our Nation's most pressing challenges and opportunities. As we debate the budget, it is important to recall how we got to this point. When he took office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited a record Federal budget surplus. Instead of steering the country on a prudent course that would have helped prepare for the retirement of the baby boomers, supported the aspirations of working families, met the pressing needs of those who are struggling, and paid down our large national debt, the President immediately pushed through more than $1 trillion in tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest Americans and corporations. Since then, the Bush administration has pursued fiscal policies of recklessness and squander that have short-circuited the priorities of hard-working families, children and seniors. For the Bush administration, investments in health care, education, housing, the anticrime and antidrug work of our law enforcement community, our first responders, and the rising home heating costs of those who can least afford them have taken a back seat to a costly, misguided and mismanaged war in Iraq and to the administration's disastrous fiscal policies here at home. Now that a worsening housing slump, high gas prices and dampened consumer confidence have caused jitters throughout our Nation's financial markets--leading to continued job losses and weaker-than- expected retail sales--the President's continued fiscal mismanagement has hamstrung the government's ability to provide needed investments in programs that will help hard-working American families weather the financial storm. We cannot continue on the path of fiscal irresponsibility the current administration has set, by holding to a course that will cost more than $3 trillion in Iraq and ignoring the needs of our most important domestic programs. As far as the White House is concerned, anything goes when it comes to spending in Iraq, while the real priorities of the American people have been forced farther and farther back in the line. With the budget plans of the past 2 years, the new Congress has ended the days of rubberstamping the President's budget, and the process has begun of shifting our country in a new direction that will be better for hard-working Americans everywhere. By strengthening our economy, creating jobs, investing in our infrastructure, increasing our energy independence and supporting our military veterans and first responders, the Senate's budget plan puts the concerns of the working Americans front and center. Moreover, by carefully targeting and reallocating resources, the budget resolution would return us to Federal budget surpluses in 2012 and 2013 and accomplish this without raising new taxes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I oppose the DeMint amendment to impose a year-long moratorium on congressionally directed spending projects, popularly known as earmarks, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Rather than finding real solutions to a weakening economy and American dollar, the growing debt and job losses, and the fact that millions of Americans are losing their homes, the Senate is being asked to bow to political posturing by turning to the already much debated issue of earmarks. Discretionary spending in the Federal budget continues to be a decreasing share of the overall budget, and appropriations provisions initiated in the Congress amount to only a sliver of that. Meanwhile, the President, and many in Congress who talk so much about earmarks, seem to find no inconsistency as they push Congress every few months to approve tens of billions of additional dollars to be sent to Iraq. An analysis by two prominent economists, published last Sunday in The Washington Post, forecast that the overall, budget and off-budget cost of the Iraq war eventually will exceed an incredible one trillion dollars. And unlike the regular appropriations bills, the periodic Iraq spending bills are off the budget altogether--they go directly onto the national debt, waiting there to be paid by our children and grandchildren. Funny thing, but the President never bothers to point out to his audiences that these Iraq spending bills dwarf congressionally led appropriations items. Nor does he point out that regular appropriations bills are paid for, whereas his budget proposals for Iraq are not. Nor does he point out that by far the majority of earmarks suggested for appropriations bills are requested by the President, not by Congress. In Vermont, and in many of our States, we would call that kind of illogic about earmarks ``the old bait and switch.'' As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I take seriously my responsibility to help craft a responsible budget for the Federal Government, and I know from long experience in working with my colleagues that this sense of responsibility is felt throughout the committee. Each of the annual appropriations bills forged by the Appropriations Committee and its 13 subcommittees comes in at or under the amount allocated under the budget process, and they often come in below the departmental amounts recommended by the President. For instance, the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill that we brought to the Senate Floor last year for this fiscal year was $2 billion below the President's request. Long ago I became used to seeing sensational headlines about spending priorities that are authored by Congress instead of by the executive branch. Lists are drawn up that label every line item, every program and every project not explicitly proposed by the President as ``pork- barrel spending''--regardless of their merit, need or importance to communities nationwide. The Constitution confers the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President. As elected representatives from diverse districts, we each are closer to the needs of our states and communities than are the unelected staffers in White House's budget office. We also have an obligation to be responsive to our constituents' priorities. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I often advocate for projects that benefit Vermont and feel strongly that the carefully drawn initiatives that I have worked to secure have improved my State's infrastructure, economy and quality of life. Over the years I have secured funds to improve community wastewater systems, roads and bridges, strengthen public safety, and build affordable housing. These address real needs that often are unknown or overlooked by the federal bureaucracy. Similarly, I work each year to shape and address other priorities that are ignored in presidential budget requests, on issues ranging from developing safer antipersonnel landmines, or helping to save the lives of the poorest of the poor from preventable death or disease. Attempts to ban earmarks would limit the ability to address these and other issues. The alternative would be to leave all spending decisions up to the executive branch, which--when given no direction by Congress--can descend into political favoritism, feasibility and retribution when it comes to choosing whose states receive Federal funding. That would also lessen accountability. In 2007 the Democratic-led Congress added unprecedented transparency and accountability to the earmark process. More than ever before, we are now committed to openness and accountability. Projects receiving funds in fiscal year 2008 are identified by member, amount, purpose and location. Those who make funding requests must certify that they have no financial interest in their earmarks and those letters are posted online. Never before has it been as simple for the public, for outside groups, for journalists or for Members of Congress themselves to see the spending their elected officials are advocating. Earmark opponents mislead when they say that congressional earmarks are given no scrutiny or oversight. Actually, the money is not just handed to an award recipient, but rather carefully vetted by the appropriate federal agency to make sure the intended award recipient and project qualify under that specific program's regulations. There is an assistance agreement between the federal agency administering the grant and the award recipient on the amount of funding and a plan for how exactly those funds will be spent. DeMint amendment proponents will tell you that earmarks tripled in number over the last decade, but they neglect to say that President Bush signed those earmarks into law. They also do not mention that the tripling in earmarks occurred under prior Republican-led Congresses. In fact, fiscal year 2008 congressional earmarks dropped significantly, with overall earmark costs cut by $14.9 billion, or 51 percent, compared with the earmarks contained in the Republican appropriations bills of 2 years ago. A 51-percent reduction in earmark costs, total transparency and total disclosure--I could have sworn that is what earmark opponents advocated when we considered and passed the ethics bill last year. Another thing earmark opponents do not widely broadcast is that presidents, including the current one, are champions in the earmarking process. President Bush stuffs his budgets with billions and billions for his designated projects. In fact, the President directs 20 times as much spending to special projects than Congress does. Look through the fiscal year 2008 omnibus bill or the fiscal year 2009 budget proposal and you will see page after page of special projects amounting to billions of dollars, all requested by the President. With the reforms that the Democratic-led Congress put in place last year, congressional earmarks now receive far, far more public scrutiny than do the President's. The amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina fails to include a moratorium on Presidential earmarks. If we are bent on doing away with congressional earmarks, then we should apply the same rules to earmarks requested by the President. Lastly, I am struck by the tunnel vision of several of this amendment's backers who have been stalwart supporters of the biggest earmark of all: The blank checks written for hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars for the war in Iraq. The proponents of this amendment claim that they want to get our Nation's checkbook in order, but what they do not say is that congressional earmarks are already paid for--the money is there to be spent, as prioritized by the appropriations bills. They are ready and willing to support the President's request to Congress for billions in emergency funding to continue the war in Iraq. Those dollars do not score against the budget, so the White House can advance the fiction that the President is being fiscally responsible at the same time that he piles on the debt for future generations. Democracy depends on openness and accountability in government. Last year, the new Congress moved promptly to improve accountability by dramatically reducing earmark costs, and implementing a system of total transparency and total disclosure. We would be making a mistake to impose a rash and unnecessary moratorium on congressional earmarks. We will be shirking our constitutional responsibility by ceding the power of the purse to the executive branch. I will vote no on the DeMint amendment, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4212

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the time before the 2-week Easter recess, we continue to make progress in filling high level vacancies at the Department of Justice. Today, the Senate will confirm three nominations to important positions at the Department, including nominations of David Hagy to be Director of the National Institute of Justice; Ondray Harris to be Director of the Community Relations Service; and William Joseph Hawe to be U.S. Marshal for the Western District of Washington. I thank Senator Cardin for chairing the hearing on these nominations. We continued our work in connection with high-ranking Department of Justice nominees earlier this week when Senator Kennedy chaired our hearing on the nomination of Grace Chung Becker to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division. The Civil Rights Division is entrusted with protecting precious rights of Americans, including our fundamental right to vote and our rights against discrimination. That hearing was the seventh the committee has held since last September on executive nominations, as we continue to work to restock and restore the leadership of the Department of Justice in the wake of the scandals of the Gonzales era. A little more than a year ago, the Judiciary Committee began its oversight efforts for the 110th Congress. Over the next 9 months, our efforts revealed a Department of Justice gone awry. The leadership crisis came more and more into view as Senator Specter and 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. This crisis of leadership has taken 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 many high-ranking Department officials. The partisan accusations of ``slow walking'' nominations that the President engaged in at the White House recently, in which he used Republican Senators and nominees as political props, are belied by the facts. They are about as accurate as when President Bush ascribed Attorney General Gonzales' resignation to supposed ``unfair treatment'' and having ``his good name . . . dragged through the mud for political reasons.'' The U.S. Attorney firing scandal was of the administration's own making. It decimated morale at the Department of Justice. A good way to help restore the Justice Department would be for this administration to acknowledge its wrongdoing. What those who say we are ``slow-walking'' nominations do not say is that as a result of the mass resignations at the Justice Department in the wake of the scandals of the Gonzales era, the committee was holding eight hearings on high-ranking replacements to restock and restore the leadership of the Department of Justice between September of last year and this month, including confirmation hearings for the new Attorney General, the new Deputy Attorney General, the new Associate Attorney General, and so many others. Of course those 5 months also include the December and January holiday period and break between sessions. What is being ignored by the President and Senate Republicans as they play to a vocal segment of their Republican base is that we have worked hard to make progress and restore the leadership of the Department of Justice. In the last few months, we have confirmed a new Attorney General, a new Deputy Attorney General, held hearings for several other high-ranking Justice Department spots, and voted them out of the Judiciary Committee. Today we continue that progress with three more executive nominations confirmed. We could have made progress even sooner, had the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee not effectively boycotted our business meetings in February and obstructed our ability to report the O'Connor nominations and other high-ranking Justice Department nominations as well as judicial nominations. I adjourned both our February 14 and February 28 meetings for lack of a quorum. It is vital that we ensure that we have a functioning, independent Justice Department. In January, the Judiciary Committee held our first oversight hearing of the new session and the first with new Attorney General Michael Mukasey. We held another oversight hearing this month with FBI Director Mueller. These are more steps forward in our efforts to lift the veil of White House secrecy, restore checks and balances to our government, and begin to repair the damage this administration inflicted on the Department, our Constitution, and fundamental American values. We continue to press for accountability even as we learn startling new revelations about the extent to which some will go to avoid accountability, undermine oversight, and stonewall the American people's right to the truth. We find shifting answers on issues including the admission that the CIA used waterboarding on detainees in reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice; the destruction of White House emails required by law to be preserved; and the CIA's destruction of videotapes of detainee interrogations not shared with the 9/11 Commission, Congress or the courts. The only constant is the demand for immunity and unaccountability among those in the administration. This White House continues to stonewall the legitimate needs for information articulated by the Judiciary Committee and others in the Congress, and contemptuously to refuse to appear when summoned by congressional subpoena. In spite of the administration's lack of cooperation, the Senate is moving forward with the confirmation of these executive nominations. With the confirmations today, we will have confirmed 26 executive nominations, including the confirmations of 9 U.S. attorneys, 5 U.S. marshals, and the top 2 positions at the Justice Department so far this Congress. Of course, we could have made even more progress had the White House sent us timely nominations to fill the remaining executive branch vacancies with nominees who will restore the independence of Federal law enforcement. There are now 19 districts across the country with acting or interim U.S. attorneys instead of Senate-confirmed, presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys. For more than a year I have been talking publicly about the need to name U.S. Attorneys to fill these vacancies to no avail. I was disappointed but not surprised to see the administration return to tired political attacks. What better time than right now, when the economy is slipping farther off the tracks, when the President's budget shows record annual deficits, with Osama bin Laden still at large, when gas prices rise well beyond $3 a gallon, when we lost 63,000 jobs last month, and when a mortgage crisis grips many parts of the country. I wish the President would put aside his partisan playbook and work with us to address the priorities of ordinary Americans. We have seen what happens when the rule of law plays second fiddle to a President's agenda and the partisan desires of political operatives and it is a disaster for the American people. Both the President and the Nation are best served by a Justice Department that provides sound advice and takes responsible action, without regard to political considerations--not one that develops legalistic loopholes to serve the ends of a particular administration. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Hatch to introduce a bipartisan bill to address the resource needs of our men and women on the Federal judiciary and people around the country by authorizing additional U.S. courts of appeals and district court judgeships. It has been 18 years since the last time a comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted to address the growth in the workload of the Federal judiciary by adding new Federal judgeships. That legislation established 11 additional circuit court judgeships and 61 permanent and 13 temporary district court judgeships. Since 1990, case filings in our Federal appellate courts have increased by 55 percent and case filings on our district courts have risen by 29 percent. Without a comprehensive bill, Congress has proceeded to authorize only a few additional district court judgeships and extend temporary judgeships when it could. For instance, in 2002 we were able to provide for 15 new judgeships in the Department of Justice authorization bill. However no additional circuit court judgeships have been created since 1990 despite their increased workload. In 2006, the weighted number of filings in district courts, which takes into account an assessment of case complexity, were 464 per judgeship, well above the Judicial Conference's standard. The same year, the national average circuit court caseload per three-judge panel approached the record number of 1,230 cases, recorded a year earlier. Our Federal judges are working harder than ever, but in order to maintain the integrity of the Federal courts and the promptness that justice demands, judges must have a manageable workload. The bill that we are introducing today would add 12 permanent circuit court judgeships, 38 permanent district court judgeships, and convert five existing temporary judgeships into permanent positions. These additional judgeships would address the significant increase in caseloads that the Federal courts have seen over the nearly two decades since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. It is based on the recommendations of the Judicial Conference and its analysis of caseloads and needs. Our bipartisan bill would also add 14 temporary district court judgeships, two temporary circuit court judgeships, and extend one existing temporary district court judgeship. These additional temporary judgeships allow Congress some flexibility with regard to future judgeship needs. If caseloads continue to increase, Congress has the option to introduce legislation making permanent or renewing these temporary judgeships. By providing that these new judgeships become effective the day after the inauguration of the next President, we attempt to insulate this effort from partisan politics. This bill has the support of the Judicial Conference and Senators on both sides of the aisle. I thank Senators Feinstein and Schumer for joining us in this effort. A comprehensive bill to respond to the increasing workload of our Federal judiciary is long overdue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased again to join my friend and colleague Senator Kit Bond of Missouri in bringing to the Senate another matter of importance to the missions of the National Guard and to the dedicated men and women of the Guard who perform these missions. Today we are introducing the National Guard Empowerment and State- National Defense Integration Act of 2008. We introduce this legislation on behalf of the 91-member U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus, which we co-chair. The military is still not structured properly to respond to the domestic emergencies that we know will come again. This legislation would take us tangible steps forward in correcting that. Our bill would sharpen the Defense Department's focus on helping the National Guard respond to domestic emergencies. This legislation is a new phase in our bipartisan and bicameral drive to empower the Guard for successfully meeting the challenges that our States and the Nation are asking the Guard to meet. It would clear away bureaucratic cobwebs in the Defense Department's organizational structure to improve decision making on homeland defense issues that involve the Guard. This bill builds on some of the strong provisions enacted from the previous version of the Guard Empowerment Bill in the recently enacted fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill. By empowering the National Guard through more responsibilities, authorities, and new lines of control, this bill focuses the Defense Department's attention on this critical realm of domestic defense. The bill structures potential military operations within the U.S. in a way outlined by the Constitution, ensuring local and State control--not Federal control--in these emergencies. We know that the military--the active duty force, the National Guard, and the Reserves--has an important role in responding to emergencies at home, events like natural disasters. The events of Hurricane Katrina and so many other situations have amply underscored that reality. Our civilian authorities will continue to want to tap into the resources, personnel, and expertise, and there is no question that we need a system that permits that. The debate taking place, mostly behind the scenes and within the walls of the Pentagon, has been about how we structure that response. The goal must be an effective response in line with the Constitution. Our national charter protects our basic liberties and places sovereignty in the hands of the people through government with adequate checks and balances, splitting administration among Federal, State, and local levels. This Empowerment Bill would be effective because it drives to enhance the National Guard, our first military responders. This force has stepped up during dire situations time and time again. The National Guard takes its responsibility to carry out relief missions at home as seriously as it takes its missions abroad as the nation's primary military reserve. The National Guard is a locally based force, spread out in armories and readiness centers across the country. The Guard can flow forces among States through the Emergency Management Assistance Compacts process, which helped make the force one of the few shining lights in the darkness of the response to Hurricane Katrina. The National Guard has units that specialize in civil support, including highly trained, full-time teams located in every one of our States. The bottom line is that the Guard has shown that it can do this mission and do it superbly. The approach of the Empowerment Bill is constitutional because it properly involves every layer of Government. It is our mayors, our public safety chiefs, and our Governors who are responsible for the security of their communities. Under our governmental system, they are the ones that should be in control of emergency situations and any Federal assets that come in should be strictly in support of them-- certainly not the other way around. The Guard is a State force that works closely with these civilian authorities all the time. The Guard, which serves under the command of the Governors, is part and parcel of the community. The Guard knows that it is civilians, including their elected leaders and the populace, who are the ultimate decision-makers in these situations. Our bill includes several key provisions. To improve the quality of advice at the highest levels, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau would gain a full seat on the Joint Chief of Staff, a key advisory body where insufficient attention is paid to homeland defense matters. The bill would ensure that U.S. Northern Command remains a Federal military headquarters that truly supports the Governors and the initial Guard response in an emergency, providing for the Governors to have tactical control over any active duty and Reserve assets that might be operating in their home State during an emergency. The National Guard Bureau is enhanced in another section which specifically gives the National Guard a separate budget to purchase domestic defense-oriented items. The Bureau would carry out its responsibilities in close cooperation with a newly established planning committee and council that integrally involves the States' Adjutants General. And the bill assigns several key command and deputy command positions to National Guard officers who have experience in homeland defense and domestic emergency response matters. This fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill ushered in several improvements to the National Guard, including an elevation of the Bureau Chief to the rank of four-star general. The National Guard Bureau is now more a joint agency than a sub-branch of the Army and the Air Force, though the Guard remains a key part of the Army and Air Force's Total Force. The Deputy Commander or Commander of U.S. Northern Command now must come from the ranks of the National Guard. These are far-reaching steps, though I remain concerned that the Department has yet to implement these provisions, not even filling the four-star position yet. Together, last year's enacted organizational changes and those put forth in this bill will fundamentally improve our preparations for an emergency, and ensure an effective, swift, and constitutional response when another emergency occurs. Our National Guard has never let our country down, and--once again-- we cannot let our Guard down. I urge prompt attention and action on this vital legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and supporting material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, as we approach the national celebration of Sunshine Week 2008, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the OPEN FOIA Act of 2008, a concise and straightforward bill to further strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. This bill is the next step in the important work that Senator Cornyn and I have undertaken to reinvigorate and strengthen FOIA, and it follows the enactment late last year of the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act, a law which made the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade. The OPEN FOIA Act simply requires that when Congress provides for a statutory exemption to FOIA in new legislation, Congress must state its intention to do so explicitly and clearly in that bill. This commonsense bill mirrors bipartisan legislation that unanimously passed the Senate during the last Congress, S.1181. I hope that the Senate will once again promptly and unanimously pass this good-government bill. While no one can fairly question the need to keep certain government information secret to ensure the public good, excessive government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant democracy. For more than 4 decades, FOIA has served as perhaps the most important Federal law to ensure the public's right to know and to balance the government's power with the need for government accountability. FOIA contains a number of exemptions to its disclosure requirements for national security, law enforcement, confidential business information, personal privacy and other circumstances. The FOIA exemption commonly known as the ``(b)(3) exemption,'' requires that Government records that are specifically exempted from FOIA by statute may be withheld from the public. Of course, neither I nor Senator Cornyn would quibble with the notion that some Government information is appropriately kept from public view. But in recent years we have witnessed an alarming number of FOIA (b)(3) exemptions being offered in legislation--often in very ambiguous terms--to the detriment of the American people's right to know. The bedrock principles of open government lead me to believe that (b)(3) statutory exemptions should be clear and unambiguous, and vigorously debated before they are enacted into law. Of course, sometimes this does happen. But more and more often, legislative exemptions to FOIA are buried within a few lines of very complex and lengthy bills, which are never debated openly and publicly before becoming law. The consequence of this troubling practice is the erosion of the public's right to know and the shirking of Congress' duty to fully consider these exemptions. Senator Cornyn and I both believe that Congress must be diligent in reviewing any new exemptions to FOIA, to prevent possible abuses and a situation where the exceptions to disclosure under FOIA swallow this important disclosure rule. The OPEN FOIA Act will ensure openness and clarity about how we treat one of our most important open Government laws. Our bill will also shine more light into the process of creating legislative exemptions to FOIA--which is the best antidote to exemption creep. Democratic and Republican Senators alike have rightly supported and voted for this bill in the past. As I have said many times before, open Government is not a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue. It is an American value and a virtue that all Americans can embrace. I urge all Members to support this bipartisan good-government bill to strengthen the public's right to know. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to strengthen and make permanent the Regional Center pilot program at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS. l am pleased that Senator Specter has joined me in this effort, and I commend him for his recognition of this program's importance. The Regional Center program has had tremendous success in creating American jobs and infusing investment capital into many economically challenged areas across the country, and I urge all Senators to join us in building upon this success. The Regional Center pilot program was created in 1993 by the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. In 1993, I worked to reauthorize the program for an additional five years as part of the Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act. The Regional Center pilot program is set to expire in September of 2008. Should Congress fail to act before then, millions of dollars in capital and thousands of potential American jobs will be forfeited. The legislation I introduce today would make this pilot program permanent, and would make other important changes to strengthen its solid foundation. The Regional Center program allows a regional governmental agency or private enterprise within a State to apply for designation as a Regional Center through USCIS. This designation allows the enterprise to recruit foreign investors to a discrete project or projects, and provides USCIS with an additional layer of screening against immigration fraud. The process for a foreign citizen to gain legal permanent residence through the Regional Center program is a rigorous one. Prior to applying to invest in a Regional Center, a foreign investor must pledge a minimum of $500,000 and independently apply for an EB-5 visa through USCIS, which solely determines the potential investor's eligibility for a visa. If approved, the investor is given a 2-year conditional green card. At the end of the conditional period and in order to continue legal residence in the United States, the investor must demonstrate that his or her investment created a minimum of 10 jobs within the Regional Center, and that his or her investment was fully obligated to the targeted project. This program's continuation promises a bright future for job creation and capital investment in participating communities. The Regional Center program has resulted in millions of dollars of direct investment and the creation of thousands of jobs in the U.S. Moreover, foreign investment serves to attract additional domestic private sector capital, further increasing the program's beneficial economic effects. There are 17 Regional Centers across the country--and several more with pending applications--which manage investments in a diverse range of projects from energy production to resort development. Making this successful program permanent will provide significant economic benefits to participating States at no cost to the taxpayer. My home State of Vermont has benefited tremendously from this program, with foreign investments committed to local projects ranging in the millions of dollars. As a result of these ongoing developments, many new jobs are being created for Vermont's residents. For example, two of Vermont's premier ski resorts are active participants in this program, and have been successful in attracting foreign investment to help make ambitious development projects a reality. In a rural State like Vermont, which depends heavily on tourism and its natural resources, the Regional Center program has been instrumental in supporting projects that take advantage of Vermont's natural beauty and outdoor recreation opportunities. In addition to making the Regional Center program permanent, the bill also makes a number of other improvements to ensure its efficiency and to accommodate expected expansion. The bill provides a premium processing option for potential investors, allowing expedited processing for an additional fee to USCIS, as well as concurrent processing of a potential investor's application for designation as an immigrant investor and his or her adjustment of status application to obtain conditional permanent residency. Finally, the bill creates a $2,500 fee for those domestic entities applying for Regional Center status, and directs USCIS to re-invest this additional revenue back into the Regional Center program to allow the agency to accommodate future growth in the program. Because the pilot program is set to expire in 2008, potential investors are feeling a chill stemming from uncertainty about the Regional Center Program's future. Permanently authorizing this program will create certainty and predictability for potential investors interested in the numerous projects currently in development across the country. This non-controversial program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and I strongly believe that we would do well to increase American job creation and capital investment by matching American ingenuity with the desire of those who seek not only to invest in the U.S., but who seek to share in our country's promise as eventual citizens. In a time of severe economic turbulence, and in an era where Americans are witnessing the outsourcing of too many good jobs overseas, this bill builds upon a proven record of success and encourages investment and job creation in the States and local communities of our Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to strengthen and make permanent the Regional Center pilot program at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS. l am pleased that Senator Specter has joined me in this effort, and I commend him for his recognition of this program's importance. The Regional Center program has had tremendous success in creating American jobs and infusing investment capital into many economically challenged areas across the country, and I urge all Senators to join us in building upon this success. The Regional Center pilot program was created in 1993 by the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. In 1993, I worked to reauthorize the program for an additional five years as part of the Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act. The Regional Center pilot program is set to expire in September of 2008. Should Congress fail to act before then, millions of dollars in capital and thousands of potential American jobs will be forfeited. The legislation I introduce today would make this pilot program permanent, and would make other important changes to strengthen its solid foundation. The Regional Center program allows a regional governmental agency or private enterprise within a State to apply for designation as a Regional Center through USCIS. This designation allows the enterprise to recruit foreign investors to a discrete project or projects, and provides USCIS with an additional layer of screening against immigration fraud. The process for a foreign citizen to gain legal permanent residence through the Regional Center program is a rigorous one. Prior to applying to invest in a Regional Center, a foreign investor must pledge a minimum of $500,000 and independently apply for an EB-5 visa through USCIS, which solely determines the potential investor's eligibility for a visa. If approved, the investor is given a 2-year conditional green card. At the end of the conditional period and in order to continue legal residence in the United States, the investor must demonstrate that his or her investment created a minimum of 10 jobs within the Regional Center, and that his or her investment was fully obligated to the targeted project. This program's continuation promises a bright future for job creation and capital investment in participating communities. The Regional Center program has resulted in millions of dollars of direct investment and the creation of thousands of jobs in the U.S. Moreover, foreign investment serves to attract additional domestic private sector capital, further increasing the program's beneficial economic effects. There are 17 Regional Centers across the country--and several more with pending applications--which manage investments in a diverse range of projects from energy production to resort development. Making this successful program permanent will provide significant economic benefits to participating States at no cost to the taxpayer. My home State of Vermont has benefited tremendously from this program, with foreign investments committed to local projects ranging in the millions of dollars. As a result of these ongoing developments, many new jobs are being created for Vermont's residents. For example, two of Vermont's premier ski resorts are active participants in this program, and have been successful in attracting foreign investment to help make ambitious development projects a reality. In a rural State like Vermont, which depends heavily on tourism and its natural resources, the Regional Center program has been instrumental in supporting projects that take advantage of Vermont's natural beauty and outdoor recreation opportunities. In addition to making the Regional Center program permanent, the bill also makes a number of other improvements to ensure its efficiency and to accommodate expected expansion. The bill provides a premium processing option for potential investors, allowing expedited processing for an additional fee to USCIS, as well as concurrent processing of a potential investor's application for designation as an immigrant investor and his or her adjustment of status application to obtain conditional permanent residency. Finally, the bill creates a $2,500 fee for those domestic entities applying for Regional Center status, and directs USCIS to re-invest this additional revenue back into the Regional Center program to allow the agency to accommodate future growth in the program. Because the pilot program is set to expire in 2008, potential investors are feeling a chill stemming from uncertainty about the Regional Center Program's future. Permanently authorizing this program will create certainty and predictability for potential investors interested in the numerous projects currently in development across the country. This non-controversial program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and I strongly believe that we would do well to increase American job creation and capital investment by matching American ingenuity with the desire of those who seek not only to invest in the U.S., but who seek to share in our country's promise as eventual citizens. In a time of severe economic turbulence, and in an era where Americans are witnessing the outsourcing of too many good jobs overseas, this bill builds upon a proven record of success and encourages investment and job creation in the States and local communities of our Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, recently the Associated Press wrote a great article about Stephen and Gwen Huneck and their Dog Mountain studio. I have seen this article reprinted throughout the country. If one goes into my office in Washington, my office in Vermont, my home in Vermont, or my home here, one would see many pieces of Stephen's artwork. Both Marcelle and I are great fans of his. One of the pleasures of living in a small State like ours is that we had the opportunity to get to know Stephen and Gwen and realize what real human beings they are. They are among our valued friends, and I want the Senate to have the opportunity to read this article as part of an insight into why we think so highly of them. I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the advantages of growing up in Montpelier, VT, is that I still see friends of mine and my family when I am back home. Glen and Esther Goodall were dear friends of my parents, Howard and Alba Leahy, and it is always nice to catch up with them, especially at the farmers' market in Montpelier in the summer. Recently, Glen Goodall wrote a superb article for the Times Argus newspaper, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. In the article, he tells what happened when the USS President Coolidge struck antisubmarine mines and sank. Glen is one of those unsung heroes of World War II, and it is an honor to know him.