Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 211, S. 535, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Act; that the substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed; the title amendment be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 172, S. 1327, a bill to create temporary district court judgeships, that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering an amendment to the Department of Defense bill to address crimes that terrorize entire communities. Violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate are tragedies that haunt American history. From the lynchings that plagued race relations for more than a century to the well-publicized slayings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., in the 1990s, this is a story we have heard too often in this country. Unfortunately, in my home state of Vermont, there have been two recent attacks that appear to have been motivated by the victims' religion or sexual orientation. A well-respected State representative in the Vermont Legislature has not been immune to threats of violence based solely on his sexual orientation. I am proud to once again be a cosponsor of this legislation. I would like to express my appreciation to the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Oregon for their work on this. I hope that this time Congress will have the courage to pass it. Six years ago, I made this bill one of the first major bills to move through the Judiciary Committee after I became chairman. It passed the Senate in the 106th Congress and again in the 108th Congress, but Republicans in the House blocked this important bill each time. In the Democratically led House of Representatives, the companion bill this year passed by a wide bipartisan margin. So I am hopeful that this time, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate will join together finally to enact this civil rights measure into law. This hate crimes legislation improves current law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Victims will no longer have to be engaged in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a juror, to be protected under Federal law. This bill also focuses the attention and resources of the Federal Government on the problem of hate crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability, which is an important and long overdue expansion of protection. Finally, this bill provides assistance and resources to State, local, and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes. The crimes targeted in this bill are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and their victims' families-- they inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. When James Byrd, Jr., was dragged behind a pickup truck and killed by bigots in Texas in 1998 for no reason other than his race, many African Americans throughout our Nation surely felt diminished as citizens. When Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in Wyoming the same year because of his sexual orientation, many in the gay and lesbian community felt less safe on our streets and in their homes. These crimes promote fear and insecurity that are distinct from the reactions to other crimes, and we need to take action to enhance their prosecution. All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they choose. In the past, we have responded as a Nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for nearly 150 years. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act continues that great and honorable tradition. This bill will strengthen Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a backup, but not a substitute, for State and local law enforcement. States will still bear primary responsibility for prosecuting most hate crimes, which is important to me as a former State prosecutor. In a sign that this legislation respects the proper balance between Federal and local authority, it has received strong bipartisan support from State and local law enforcement organizations across the country. Moreover, this bill accomplishes a critically important goal-- protecting all of our citizens--without compromising our constitutional responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts and threats of violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. But it does not target pure speech, however offensive or disagreeable. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it. As Justice Holmes wrote, the Constitution protects not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it. We have been trying for years to pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It is appropriate to attach this important legislation to the pending Department of Defense authorization bill, as we have done twice in recent memory, because this is a pressing issue. I hope that we will not see another Republican-led filibuster on what should be a bipartisan measure. Adoption of this amendment will show once again that America values tolerance and protects all of its people. I urge the opponents of this measure to consider the message it sends when year after year, we are prevented from enacting this broadly supported bill. The victims of hate deserve better. Let us join together and adopt these provisions without further obstruction and delay. Children's Health Insurance Program Mr. President, I wish to express again my strong support for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. When we talk about the work of this Congress, I believe the extension of CHIP will stand out as one of the great accomplishments of this body. The bill is a clear statement of the priority of the majority in the Congress. In passing this legislation, we state clearly that the health of our Nation's children is an issue too important to be dealt with in a ``business as usual'' fashion. This is a program that represents the best of what can happen when Members of both sides of the aisle come together to forge a consensus, with Democrats and Republicans working together for that consensus. The outcome is a solid compromise on a vital issue: more health insurance coverage for millions of children. The choice is clear. Either you support children's health care or you do not. Either it deserves to be a high priority on our agenda or it does not. Frankly, as a parent, as a grandparent, I don't see this as a choice at all. It is a matter of priority. Few issues are as important as caring for our children. Instead of helping more families who are struggling to afford basic health care for their children, the President would cut thousands in Vermont who have coverage right now. He is failing to lead, so Congress again is stepping in to realign our priorities. If we can find the money to fund the war in Iraq for 41 days, the same amount that would pay for 10 million children to have health insurance for a whole year, then we can pay for this bill. I have heard some argue the bill should be opposed because it raises taxes on tobacco--just tobacco. Anyone who opposes this bill on these grounds is choosing big tobacco over children's health. I support this bill because I believe it is a travesty that in the richest, most powerful country in the world, there are more than 47 million people without health insurance. It is an absolutely shocking number. It represents roughly one in six people who are going without regular trips to the doctor and foregoing needed medications and who are forced to use the emergency room for care because they have nowhere else to turn. These are our friends, our neighbors, and millions of our children. My wife, during the years when she worked as a registered nurse, saw these people and realized what happened to them. The legislation before us will extend and renew health care coverage for 10 million children. My own State of Vermont has been a national leader in children's health care. Even before the creation of CHIP, we knew this was the right thing to do. Because of our early action, Vermont has the lowest rates for uninsured children in the country, making our State a leader and an example for the rest of the Nation. This bill will bring us still closer to the goal of covering all children in our State but also to thousands elsewhere. We are faced with many choices in the Senate. For me, the choice in this bill is clear. It is a must-pass bill. It is worthy of our support. I urge all my colleagues to stand for the children of this country and support this bill, and I urge the President to abandon his ill-advised threats and to sign it into law. If we can afford the war in Iraq, we can afford to insure our children.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 5 minutes from the time of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the past 10 days, people around the world have watched with admiration and increasing trepidation as over 100,000 courageous Burmese citizens, led by thousands of maroon clad Buddhist monks, have demonstrated peacefully in Burma's capital city in support of democracy and human rights. They have been calling for an end to military dictatorship and the release of Burma's rightful, democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been either in prison or under house arrest for 11 of the past 18 years. Today, there are reports that Burmese soldiers had cordoned off the streets, fired tear gas, shot and killed several of the protesters and a Japanese journalist, raided monasteries and arrested opposition party members and hundreds of monks. The vicious response by the Burmese military against masses of peaceful, dignified, unarmed citizens, while not surprising, is intolerable and should be universally condemned. Earlier this week, President Bush made a forceful statement before the United Nations General Assembly criticizing the repression of Burma's military leaders and announcing tighter sanctions and visa restrictions. The President's announcement is welcome. U.S. leadership is essential, but it can only go so far. Bringing democracy and human rights to the Burmese people will require far stronger pressure from its neighbors and trading partners such as China, Thailand, Russia, and India. It will require these and other nations to disavow the failed policies of engagement with the Burmese junta. I have long believed that engagement is most often the best policy, but there comes a time when it has demonstrably failed, and there is no more obvious example of this than Burma. A different approach is long overdue. Burma's friends and allies must make unequivocally clear what President Bush and others have said, and what the brave citizens of Burma are calling for: Burma will suffer severe economic sanctions unless Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners are released and the generals in charge agree to hand over power. In his own speech at the United Nations, Secretary General Ban Ki- moon voiced hope that the Burmese junta would ``exercise utmost restraint'' and engage in a dialogue with ``relevant parties'' in seeking national reconciliation. Obviously, that has not happened. Since then, the Secretary General has sent his special envoy to Burma to try to convince the Burmese junta to resolve this crisis peacefully. It is very disappointing that China, Burma's largest trading partner, has once again put its economic interests, and Burma's corrupt generals, above the fundamental rights of the Burmese people. China, which has more influence over the Burmese junta than any other government, blocked the U.N. Security Council from adopting a resolution condemning the violence. It is a sad commentary on a country that the rest of the world entrusted to host the next Olympics. While China has urged the generals to exercise restraint, history has shown that in Burma words alone are not enough. We hoped China would act differently this time, but so far we have been mistaken. Many times in the past, peaceful protests in Burma have been put down with brute force. Countless Burmese citizens have been imprisoned or killed for doing nothing more than speaking out in support of democracy. The past 10 days of protests have attracted far greater crowds, and because of the Internet the whole world can see their numbers, their bravery, and the strength of their conviction. The people of Burma are an inspiration to people everywhere, and they are asking for our support. Without it they cannot succeed. If all nations stand united behind them now, Burma's long nightmare can finally come to an end.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate considers The Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007, a bill concerned with the Nation's growing gang problem. I want to thank Senator Feinstein for her tireless work on this issue over many years and, in particular, for working diligently with me to address my concerns and to formulate what I hope we all agree is an even better gang bill. Violent crime in America is again on the rise. This troubling news is in my view at least in part the result of the Bush administration's failure to heed the lessons learned from our successful fight against violent crime in the 1990s. Congress and the Clinton administration provided significant new funding to strengthen State and local law enforcement and supported programs to prevent gang and youth violence. Our efforts worked. Studies have repeatedly shown that, violent crime and gang offenses steadily dropped to historic lows. But the Bush administration chose a different course, and, despite warnings from me and others, has repeatedly cut funding for State and local cops on the beat and community programs targeting the prevention of youth crime. I hope that this bill will be part of a return to productive law enforcement strategies that worked so well in the past. I share the views expressed at the hearing in June by Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton that ``we can't arrest our way out of our gang crime problem.'' As those who have worked on this issue for years know all too well, we must match our commitment to law enforcement with an equal commitment to intervention and prevention as a means of curbing gang violence. Neither strategy works without the other, and I believe, as so many law enforcement and civil leaders do, that any legislative proposal to address gang violence must focus on new means to prevent youth and gang violence. I am glad that Senator Feinstein's bill now reflects these priorities. The Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 represents a significant improvement over earlier gang legislation. It does not contain the death penalties, mandatory minimums, and expansive juvenile transfer provisions that were among my strongest objections to some past proposals. Further, Senator Feinstein has worked with me and others to ensure that this bill will provide some of the resources necessary to reverse the policies of this administration, which have neglected the officers who combat gang violence on a daily basis and the organizations that work to keep children out of gangs. I particularly appreciate provisions in the bill to provide up to $1 billion over 10 years to support collaborative law enforcement and community prevention efforts, with a significant portion of that amount going to civic groups for innovative prevention programs that truly work to reduce gang violence. I have long said that I don't believe that sweeping new Federal crimes, which federalize the kind of street crime that States have traditionally addressed and can handle with the right resources and assistance, are the right way to go. The bill still contains more emphasis on federalizing crime and mandating sentences than I would like. But I have tried to work with Senator Feinstein to reduce its impact on the sphere of criminal law traditionally handled by the States and to focus on the most serious offenders and conduct, for which Federal attention is needed. I also appreciate Senator Feinstein and Senator Schumer working with Senator Whitehouse and me to ensure that small States such as Rhode Island and Vermont could be eligible under the bill to receive crucially important witness protection grants. We all care deeply about eradicating gang violence, and we must work together to create a comprehensive solution to this troubling, persistent problem. I hope that this bill will be a step toward reversing the mistakes of the Bush administration and reinvigorating our efforts to provide Federal support for those who combat gang violence every day and to protect those who are its victims.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is poised to pass H.R. 3580, a bill regarding the Food and Drug Administration. This legislation addresses many important health care issues and I commend the Senate leaders and relevant committee chairmen for coming to agreement on this complex bill. I have been monitoring the ongoing negotiations between the House and Senate on this legislation because a slight variation in language between the two relevant bills could have affected the claims of thousands of injured American consumers. Last week, I chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the emergence of regulatory agencies like the FDA asserting that its regulations preempt all State laws, even in the absence of congressional intent to do so. At this hearing we received extensive testimony that the Bush administration has been using this approach to shield corporations from civil liability. This regulatory preemption model has been especially troubling in the area of pharmaceutical drugs. Several times in the past several years we have learned from whistleblowers and smoking gun documents that certain corporations knew of dangers in their medical products yet failed to adequately warn consumers. Many consumers have been injured as a result of this corporate misconduct and it is certainly not congress' intent to shield such corporate decisionmaking. The legislation we are set to pass today contains a rule of construction making clear that Congress has again decided that we are not preempting State law regarding the responsibility of drug manufacturers to immediately notify consumers of dangers without waiting for the FDA to act. Drug companies maintain the authority to correct their warning labels if they learn of any information that their products could harm consumers. These corporations can and must immediately correct any existing warning that has been issued and cannot hide behind the Byzantine regulatory structure of the FDA to shield them from liability for causing serious injury. To do otherwise would endanger all Americans who may be injured by their products and would remove the important incentive the corporations currently have to make their products safer and to adequately warn consumers of potential dangers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Feingold amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. This is the strongest amendment for changing course in Iraq among the proposals that we will consider this week. It is the only proposal that addresses the President's failed Iraq policy head on, and that would begin the much needed redeployment of our forces within 90 days. The invasion of Iraq, and the catastrophe it has caused for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, and for the United States, must end. It has been a failure--a failure in terms of our strategic interests, a failure in making us safer, a failure in terms of the President's naive goal of imposing a new Iraqi Government by force. Our troops have stepped up time and time again, many of them sacrificing their lives, and many more suffering severe injuries. Their performance has been superb. Despite what the President and some who defend his policies say, our troops are not the issue. The issues are the glaring shortfalls, and the appalling incompetence, of the President's strategy. The ``surge'' has not brought the Iraqi factions any closer to political reconciliation, which after all is the ultimate goal of the surge strategy. In fact, the divisions among the Iraqi people--already deep because of the brutal manipulations of the Saddam Hussein regime-- seem to be worsening. The White House seems to have no idea how to call things off and get our troops out from the middle of Iraq's civil war. The cold hard truth is that the President has presented the American people with no real option, just more of the same. If the President is going to ignore our true national interests by prolonging this conflict, if the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces is not going to take responsibility, then Congress, as representatives of the people, must be the catalyst to chart a new course. The Iraqi Government is only getting more dependent on a continued American presence. It is the consensus view of our intelligence community, as reflected in the latest National Intelligence Assessment, that there is no prospect that in the next year the Iraqis will come together and reach a political settlement. Even the new White House report, buttressed in part by the nonpartisan and professional General Accountability Office, shows that Iraq is getting a failing grade in its ability to meet key military and political metrics on its path toward reconciliation and stability. The administration cites the positive developments in Anbar Province as justification for continuing this perpetual deployment of American forces. There has been progress there, much of it pre-dating the so- called ``surge.'' Hundreds of members of the Vermont National Guard know how bad the situation was in Anbar less than a year and a half ago, when these soldiers helped make up Task Force Saber in Ramadi. They were in the worst place in Iraq at the worst time. Since then the situation has clearly improved, and our troops and their commanders deserve credit and our thanks for that tough and dangerous work. But the new-found calm is based on a set of agreements between Sunni tribes and American forces, not with the Iraqi Government. The Iraqi Government sees newly organized and perhaps newly armed groups of Sunnis as a threat to its power, and it is doubtful that will change any time soon. In the meantime, the situation elsewhere continues to implode. Passage of the Feingold amendment would force the Iraqis--and neighboring nations with a stake in Iraq's future--to recognize that the open-ended deployment of U.S. forces is ending. The drawdown of our forces, coupled with a strong U.S.-led diplomatic initiative, might bring about the political reconciliation that no amount of additional military force can bring about. It might also cause Iraq's warring ethnic factions to go their own way, splitting the country into separate states. But that is where they are currently headed anyway. The administration's policies and incompetence have brought us to the point where there are no good options. But either of these scenarios is better than the future offered by the President. His war is costing us horrific casualties and enormous sums that could be better spent repairing our frayed international reputation and strengthening our security at home. I urge my colleagues to take the only responsible step and pass this amendment that will finally bring our troops home.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Pennsylvania is the lead cosponsor of this amendment. I proudly yield him 10 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator from Michigan.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the beginning of this debate, I said Congress committed a historic error when it eliminated the Great Writ of habeas corpus because it did it not just for those detained at Guantanamo Bay--that raises enough questions about our sense of history and our sense of our own basic jurisprudence in this country--but Congress also eliminated it for millions--millions--of permanent legal residents here in the United States. Some of them are professors in our finest schools, others are medical people in our hospitals, and some are actually serving in our law enforcement and in our military. Listening to the arguments these past few days of those opposed to restoring habeas rights, it becomes ever more apparent that this was a mistake the last Congress and the administration made based on fear. I cannot think of a greater mistake than one based on fear in the most powerful Nation on Earth. Opponents make the alarmist argument that if we permit people to challenge their detention in Federal court, we will jeopardize our national security and place ourselves in greater danger. In fact, of course, the opposite is true. We have heard these kinds of arguments before during trying and turbulent times in American history, such as when the Government shamefully interned tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II. We should know by now that it hurts this country, and especially our men and women in uniform, when we allow public policy to be guided by fear, rather than by American values and freedoms. The critics of habeas restoration resort to scare tactics because they know that history and the facts are against them. The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values and calls into question our historic role as the defender of human rights around the world. It also allows our enemies to accomplish something they could never achieve on the battlefield--the whittling away of liberties that make us who we are, the liberties we fought during the Revolutionary War to preserve, the liberties we fought a civil war to preserve, the liberties we defended not only our own freedom but the freedom of much of the Western World in two world wars to preserve. The need for the Great Writ has never been stronger than it is today. We have an administration that at every opportunity has aggressively sought unchecked executive power while working to erode or to eliminate constitutionally enshrined checks on that power by the courts and by Congress. Stripping away habeas rights which allow people to go to court to challenge detention by the executive is just the latest brazen attempt in a 6-year-long effort to consolidate power in the executive branch. You could have picked up somebody, locked them up, and all that person wants to say is: I am not the person named here. Before we did this, someone could at least get a writ of habeas corpus, go to the court, and say: I am not going to contest the case or anything else, but just the fact that you picked up the wrong person. They can't even do that now. This is America? The writ of habeas corpus is not some special benefit to be honored only when it is convenient. As no less a conservative than Justice Antonin Scalia has written, ``[t]he very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.'' Habeas has served for centuries to protect individuals against unlawful exercises of state power. Habeas corpus is the only common law writ enshrined in the Constitution. Article I, section 9 provides that the ``Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of rebellion or invasion the public Safety may require it.'' The Judiciary Act of 1789 specifically empowered federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus ``for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.'' In more than two centuries since then, habeas has only been suspended four times, all of them at times of active rebellion or invasion. Even this administration does not claim that we are at such a point now. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 spurned centuries of tradition and empowered the executive to detain noncitizens potentially forever, with no meaningful check by another branch of Government. With this act, Congress permanently eliminated the writ of habeas corpus for any noncitizen determined to be an enemy combatant or even awaiting such determination. If the determination hasn't been made, we are going to spend a few years making up our minds whether you are an enemy combatant, but you still can't contest the fact that we have picked up the wrong person. So a mere accusation by the executive is enough to keep a person in custody indefinitely, and that detention is not subject to review. As our Founders knew well, no administration--no administration, not this one, not the next one, not the one after that--can be trusted with that kind of power. The Specter-Leahy amendment would restore the proper balance of power between the branches of Government by reestablishing the law on habeas as it existed prior to the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act. It creates no new legal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in the Rasul case that American and British courts have routinely assumed jurisdiction over habeas claims made by aliens. British courts in the 18th century considered habeas claims of aliens held as enemy combatants, as did the U.S. Supreme Court during World War II, a war where we faced the possible destruction of democracy. These courts considered habeas claims of alien enemy combatants who had already received military trials--meaning even before their habeas claims, they had already received more process than most noncitizen detainees will ever get now. Our legendary Chief Justice, John Marshall, in one instance granted relief to an alien enemy combatant bringing a habeas claim. In most of these historical cases, though, habeas petitioners lost and were not granted any relief, and indeed most habeas petitioners have their claims dismissed with a simple, one- page ruling from a judge. This historical record is evidence that habeas can be relied upon as a necessary, but entirely reasonable, check on Executive power. As in the past, noncitizen detainees alleged to be enemy combatants should at least have the right to go into an independent court to assert that they are being held in error--not to have a trial but at least to say: Hey, we read the warrant, this is not the person--I am not the person named; you picked up the wrong person. They can't even ask an independent court to determine that. As in the past, a court will only grant habeas relief if the petitioner is able to, in fact, establish this effort. We are not talking about having a trial with all of these red herrings we have heard from those on the other side, who say that somehow we would have to bring in battlefield tactics or we would have to bring in classified information. That is not it. That is not it. We are talking about just being able to at least contest the fact that they have been picked up. If the detainees held at Guantanamo truly are the worst of the worst of our enemies, as this administration claims, surely it will be easy for the Government to make a baseline showing in court that they are lawfully detained. If they are really such enemies, we ought to at least know that and know that they were lawfully detained. Of course, senior government and military officials have told the press a story very different from the party line. They have told the New York Times that the Government detained many of the Guantanamo detainees in error. In any case, the sweep of the Military Commissions Act goes well beyond the few hundred detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It threatens the civil liberties of an estimated 12 million lawful, permanent residents of the United States. They work here, they pay taxes in this country, and under current law, any of these people can be detained forever without the ability to challenge their detention in Federal court simply on the executive say-so, even if the Government made a mistake and picked up the wrong person. As we heard from Professor Mariano-Florentino Cuellar at the Judiciary Committee's hearing on this issue, this is of particular concern to the Latino community, which includes so many of the hard-working lawful permanent residents in this country. The cursory review process set up by Congress for detainees, called combatant status review tribunals or CSRTs, is no substitute for habeas corpus because, among many other deficiencies, it does not provide a neutral arbiter--a Federal judge--to review the factual record for error. This summer, LTC Stephen Abraham, a military lawyer who participated in the CSRT process, said in a sworn affidavit that the evidence presented to CSRTs ``lack[s] even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence.'' He also said that superiors pressured the officers on review panels to find detainees to be ``enemy combatants.'' That is neither just nor fair, and rigged tribunals are not the way this country has ever dispensed justice, nor the way it should. Court review allowed under current law that relies on the findings of such a flawed system falls well short of the independent review that our system of checks and balances demands. Restoring habeas would send a clear message that when we promote democracy and the importance of human rights to the rest of the world, we are practicing what we preach. I have heard so many speeches on the floor of this body--and I agree with them--criticizing other countries for doing what we have done. How do we go to these other countries and say: You can't do this. And they say: But you do it. And we say: Oh, well, that was the war on terror; we are facing this great threat, so we have to do it, but you shouldn't do it. Well, we need to listen to our military leaders and our foreign policy specialists on this point who disagree with what we have done. The former Navy Judge Advocate General Donald Guter told the Judiciary Committee in May that by stripping even our enemies of basic rights, we are providing a pretext to those who capture our troops or our civilians to deny them basic rights. What do we say the next time an American civilian, lawfully in another country, is picked up and detained and not even allowed to raise the point that they picked up the wrong person, and we go to that country, and they say: Hey, wait a minute, that is what you do in your country; don't preach to us. Your American citizen is going to stay behind bars. We are just doing to you what you are allowed to do to us. William H. Taft IV, former Deputy Secretary of Defense under President George H. W. Bush, and a former State Department adviser in the current administration, told us that stripping the courts of habeas jurisdiction sacrificed an important opportunity to enhance the credibility of our detention system. Restoring habeas to detainees will improve our strategic and diplomatic positions in the world and remove a rallying point for our enemies. The right to habeas corpus is a limited right. Habeas, as I said before, does not give a person the right to a trial. It does not give a habeas petitioner a right to personally appear in court. It most certainly does not mean that U.S. service men and women will be pulled from the battlefield to testify in such proceedings, notwithstanding the alarmist comments made on the other side of the aisle. All the Government must do to defeat a habeas claim is demonstrate to a judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the detainee is being lawfully held. That is all. Most habeas petitions are rejected by the Federal courts without the need to call a single witness. I certainly knew that when I was a prosecutor. Any time I ever sent anybody to prison for more than a year, I knew there would be half a dozen habeas petitions filed. They would usually be denied without even ever having called a single witness. In fact, habeas petitions can be, and routinely are, disposed of in Federal court based on a single affidavit by a Government agent explaining the basis for detention. I simply sent over an affidavit showing the date and time of conviction to the court clerks. That is all I had to do. Habeas simply provides an opportunity for a detainee to argue to an independent Federal judge that he or she is being held in error. If the detainee is properly held, the Government can easily overcome that claim. The distinguished Presiding Officer was a distinguished U.S. attorney. He understands very well that point. Recent history makes clear that restoring habeas will not invite habeas litigation from abroad, as some have claimed. The Supreme Court found habeas jurisdiction at Guantanamo Bay because Guantanamo is, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. territory. U.S. courts have found no habeas jurisdiction in the case of enemies captured, detained, and held in Iraq. There was no flood of international habeas petitions following the 2004 Rasul decision validating the extension of habeas rights at Guantanamo, and there is not going to be if habeas is restored now. Guantanamo detainees had habeas rights until those rights were conclusively taken away last year. Between 2002 and late 2006, these claims were handled by judges in the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. The judges in that court released no detainees, and they issued no orders compelling the Government to alter the detainees' conditions of confinement. Habeas is a necessary and appropriate check on executive power, but it is a far cry from a get-out-of-jail-free card. Opponents of habeas restoration suggest other countries will not open their courts to petitions from enemy aliens. But if a foreign country imprisoned an American, as I said before--say an aid worker or a nurse or a civilian contract employee--and held that person without any charge as a combatant, or simply said: We are going to ``determine'' whether that person is a combatant because he or she has supported the U.S. military, for example, or had a ``Support Our Troops'' sticker on their car, the U.S. Government would surely demand that American have a chance to go to court. Our consul would be down there immediately demanding that. What kind of a reaction would there be in this country if we read in the paper where another country said: No, you have no right to challenge the fact that we picked them up; you have no right to challenge even that we picked up the wrong person. When we screamed about that in editorials all over this country saying how horrible that is, they would simply answer: We are just doing what you do. By denying basic rights to alien detainees, we encourage other nations to do the same to American civilians, and they will. They will. That is why we hear from so many of our military, so many distinguished people that we should change this. Critics of the Specter-Leahy bill also point to released detainees who they assert went back to the battlefield, as a reason not to restore habeas rights. But the truth is that those Guantanamo detainees who have been released since 9/11 have been freed by the military following its own process, not by Federal judges on habeas review. The critics' assertions that habeas proceedings in Federal court will somehow lead to the sharing of classified information with terrorists is cockamamie. It is merely fear-mongering. This argument demeans our Federal judiciary. It ignores the procedures established by Congress to ensure that classified information is safeguarded in Federal proceedings. Federal judges have significant discretion in determining what kinds of evidence to consider, what witnesses, if any, to allow for a habeas claim. Many detainee habeas claims could be resolved with no recourse to classified documents at all. Where classified evidence is relevant, all Federal judges are cleared to view such information, and they are well equipped to deal with it without compromising national security. We must not succumb to baseless, fear-driven arguments. The sky will not fall if we vote to restore habeas. Quite the contrary: Congress will take a positive step toward returning to our core American values of liberty, due process, and checks and balances. In doing so, we will increase America's security and bolster our place in the world. That is why this amendment has support from across the political and ideological spectrum. I thank Senator Dodd, Senator Menendez, Senator Bingaman, Senator Levin, and Senator Specter for coming to the floor and eloquently calling for a return to basic American values and the rule of law. Yesterday, 41 Republicans voted to filibuster a bill that would have given to hundreds of thousands of residents of the District of Columbia the fundamental right to vote for Congress--the District of Columbia, which has roughly the same population as my own State of Vermont. I hope they will not follow that sad day with a filibuster today of legislation to restore the fundamental right of someone held by the Government without any charge to at least go to court and ask why. The most daunting challenge in the age of terrorism is to strike the proper balance between maintaining our national security against very real threats but also preserving the liberties that are the proudest legacy of our Founders. It is our Founders who were willing to risk capture and hanging to bring about a nation based on the principles that you, Mr. President, and I have always supported and which we supported in our oath of office. More than ever, especially in the wake of September 11, we have to remain vigilant against security threats, but let's never forget that our values are the foundation that makes our Nation strong. Now is the time to reaffirm those values, to be renewing this country's fundamental, longstanding commitment to habeas corpus review. I urge every Senator to support the Specter-Leahy amendment to restore habeas corpus. Mr. President, I wish Members would look at those who support this. Support from this amendment goes across the political spectrum, from the American Conservative Union to liberal groups, to some of our leading citizens, including former Secretary of State Powell and others who have spoken out for this. We should pass this amendment. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. LEAHY. Is it the Senator's intention to close for his side?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from Alabama a question.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if the yeas and nays have not been ordered, I will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Mexico wants 3 minutes. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. Cloture Motion

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are times in virtually every country's history when years of underdevelopment and conflict give rise to opportunities to change course. Such times are rare, and such opportunities are too often missed. I think of our Civil War, which caused so much loss of life and devastation. It preserved the Union, and it led to the emancipation of some 3 million African slaves. Nothing can diminish those achievements or the sacrifice of those who gave their lives. But instead of providing the former slaves with the equal rights to which they were entitled, until passage of the Civil Rights Act a century later African Americans suffered from racially discriminatory laws that kept them in an inferior status. The country remained bitterly divided because of it. Nepal today faces its own historic choice. For more than a decade, Nepal has been plagued by an internal armed conflict in which savage brutality was inflicted on impoverished civilians by Maoist insurgents and the Royal Nepal Army. Over 13,000 people died, mostly noncombatants, and virtually no one has been held accountable for those crimes. For more than two centuries, Nepal has been a monarchy whose Kings, with rare exception, denied the rights and ignored the needs of their people who remain among the world's poorest. In February 2005, King Gyanendra, a narcissistic, arrogant autocrat, seized absolute power, jailed his opponents, and muzzled the press, only to relent in April 2006 in the face of mounting international pressure and the protests of thousands of courageous Nepali citizens. Nepal's previous experiment with multiparty democracy during the 1990s had been disappointing. The leaders of the country's political parties distinguished themselves by amassing personal fortunes and doing little for the people. But since the restoration of civilian government in April last year there has been impressive progress. A Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed, Maoist combatants have gone into cantonments, the army has been confined to barracks, and the Maoists, until today, were part of the interim Government. The King has been stripped of all political power, although the ultimate fate of the monarchy has yet to be decided. The word ``royal'' has been eliminated from Government institutions, including the army. Elections for a Constituent Assembly to be held in June were postponed, but they have been rescheduled for November 22. The assembly is to draft a new constitution. Also during this period, Nepal's ethnic minorities, women, and other groups who have long been persecuted and denied a voice have demanded equal rights and representation. This poses both challenges and opportunities for the Government. The international community, including the United States, has supported the peace process directly and through our financial contributions to the United Nations which has performed key monitoring functions. Recently, the United States provided $3 million to purchase the ballots for the elections. Much has transpired since April 2006, when I last spoke in this Chamber about political developments in Nepal. Today, just 65 days before Nepal's elections, I would like to address my brief remarks to the people of Nepal and to Nepal's political parties, including the Maoists. On November 22, the people of Nepal will be presented with one of two options: They will either have a historic opportunity to create a legitimate, representative government which can only be achieved through a popular vote or they will be denied that opportunity. If the elections are held, Nepal will continue on a path that can bring its governmental institutions and its society into the modern age and begin to finally address the poverty and injustices that gave rise to the conflict. If they are denied, the Nepali people will likely see their country become more fragmented and ungovernable and more vulnerable to external influences over which they have little control. Recent developments have been both encouraging and troubling. Perhaps that is to be expected in a country of multiple ethnic groups speaking some 93 languages that is struggling to transform itself. The bombings in Kathmandu 3 weeks ago, other violent acts perpetrated by newly formed armed groups in the Terai and members of the Maoist young wing, the Young Communist League, and the Maoists decision to withdraw from the Government illustrate the fragility of the process. Moreover, the leaders of the Congress parties and the Maoists have done little to prepare for the elections. At times, party members have seemed more interested in furthering their own personal ambitions and in derailing the electoral process altogether. The leading party of the left, the UML, has done more to prepare. But all parties will need to promptly step up their election activities if voters are to have the informed choice they deserve. On the positive side, the Election Commission deserves credit for a voter registration process that has reached Nepal's remotest villages. There is no doubt that the people are eager to go to the polls, just as they were determined to put an end to the King's abuse of power. Over the past 3 years, I have observed the fortitude of the Nepali people's desire for peace, for justice, and for a meaningful voice in government. Their desire is shared and admired by the American people. To the Maoists, I would say that it was you who called for a Constituent Assembly. Saying you are committed to the democratic process at the same time that you withdraw from the Government, make new demands that contradict previous commitments, support disruptive economic strikes, and threaten to return to confrontation is not the way to earn the people's trust and support that are necessary to become an effective force for change. Nor is it the way to earn the trust of the United States. I have campaigned for elective office five times over more than 30 years, and I know something about earning the people's trust and support. It does not come from dogmatic speeches or lofty party platforms or manifestos. It does not come from saying one thing and then doing the opposite. It certainly does not come through the use of violence, threats, and extortion. It comes by showing that you deserve the people's trust and support. There is no better way to begin that process than to seize this opportunity and show the people that you can make the government work for them. History is replete with examples of armed groups that achieved popular legitimacy through the democratic process. If the Maoists win seats through free and fair elections, uphold the commitments they have made in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and other agreements, and devote themselves to working for change peacefully, I am confident the United States will treat them as rightful members of the elected Constituent Assembly or of the Government. We may disagree with their positions on some issues but not about their right to serve in Government and to advocate for those positions. I know the Maoists are looking to the United States to lift our restrictions on their party and its leaders and to remove them from our list of terrorist organizations. In order for that to happen, the Maoists need to take unequivocal, positive steps. The cases of the murdered Nepali security guards need to be satisfactorily resolved. The party's resumption of land seizures and the reopening of so-called people's courts are steps in the wrong direction. To the other political parties in Government, I would say that it is time to make good on your commitments. Not only the Maoists but traditionally marginalized groups as well are increasingly skeptical that the Government is serious about delivering on its key commitments to the peace process, whether downsizing and reforming the army, supporting land reform, or creating jobs and opportunities for minority groups that have long been disadvantaged and ignored. While those groups should pursue their grievances through a vigorous election campaign, not through obstruction of the democratic process, the failure of the parties to govern and match rhetoric with action threatens the elections, as does the Maoists' saber rattling. The leaders of Nepal's political parties know that the power of holding office comes with responsibilities, and the spotlight is on them. Lasting legitimacy comes not only through the ballot box but in the day-to-day ability to honor commitments and improve the lives of all citizens. This is their chance to put the Nepali people and their country first, by showing that they believe in effective, accountable government. If they do not, the United States, and I suspect many other countries, will no longer afford them the legitimacy they will need for our continued support. Mr. President, Nepal's path to the future may be decided in the waning months of this year. Although a small country wedged between two emerging giants, Nepal is unique in more ways, more beautiful ways, than most other countries its size. Today, the United States--Congress and the Executive--are united in our desire to help Nepal become a democracy whose Government is representative of Nepal's remarkably diverse population and where the fundamental rights of all people are respected.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize it is not possible, because agreement has not yet been reached, to set aside the pending legislation to bring up the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment. As the managers of the bill are not on the floor, I certainly will not take advantage of that and do it. So let me speak about it. I now am speaking on the National Defense Authorization Act. At an appropriate time, I will bring up amendment No. 2022. I will tell you why I will do this. Last year, Congress committed an historic mistake by suspending the Great Writ of habeas corpus--not just for those confined at Guantanamo Bay but for millions of legal residents in the United States. The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing in May on this bill illustrated the broad agreement among representatives from diverse political beliefs and backgrounds that the mistake committed in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 must be corrected. The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, S.185, the bill on which this amendment is based, has 30 cosponsors. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported it on a bipartisan basis. I hope Senators will review the committee report on this measure. Habeas corpus was recklessly undermined in last year's Military Commissions Act. Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the elimination of habeas rights was an action driven by fear, and it was a stain on America's reputation in the world. This is a time of testing. Future generations will look back to examine the choices we made during a time when security was too often invoked as a watchword to convince us to slacken our defense of liberty and the rule of law. The Great Writ of habeas corpus is the legal process that guarantees an opportunity to go to court and challenge the abuse of power by the Government. The Military Commissions Act rolled back these protections by eliminating that right, permanently, for any noncitizen labeled an enemy combatant. In fact, a detainee does not have to be found to be an enemy combatant; it is enough for the Government to say someone is ``awaiting'' determination of that status--something detainees cannot even contest when they are held in jail. The sweep of this habeas provision goes far beyond the few hundred detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, and it includes an estimated 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today. These are people who work and pay taxes, people who abide by our laws and should be entitled to fair treatment. It is, after all, the American way. It is what we brag about when we go to their countries. But under this law, any of these people can be detained, forever, without any ability to challenge their detention in court. This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. Top conservative thinkers, evangelical activists, and prominent members of the Latino community have all spoken out on the need to restore these basic American rights. GEN Colin Powell, like many leading former military and diplomatic officials, has spoken of the importance of these habeas rights. He asked, ``Isn't that what our system's all about?'' Perhaps most powerful for me was the testimony of RADM Donald Guter, who was working in his office in the Pentagon as Judge Advocate General of the Navy on September 11, 2001, and saw firsthand the effects of terrorism. His credibility is unimpeachable when he says that denying habeas rights to detainees endangers our troops and undermines our military efforts. Admiral Guter testified: As we limit the rights of human beings, even those of the enemy, we become more like the enemy. That makes us weaker and imperils our valiant troops, serving not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the globe. He was right. Whether you are an individual soldier, or a great nation, it is difficult to defend the higher ground by taking the lower road. The world knows what our enemies stand for. The world also knows what this country has tried to stand for and live up to in--the best of times, and the worst of times. Now, as we work to reauthorize the many programs that compose our valiant armed forces, it is the right time to heed the advice of so many of our top military lawyers who tell us that eliminating basic legal rights undermines our fighting men and women; it does not make them stronger. I especially want to thank Senator Specter and acknowledge his strong and consistent leadership on this issue. Senator Specter and I came to this floor to offer this amendment back on July 10, when this bill was initially being considered, and thereafter. I hope all Senators will now join with us in restoring basic American values and the rule of law, while making our Nation stronger. It is from strength that America should defend our values and our way of life. It is from the strength of our freedoms, our Constitution, and the rule of law that we shall prevail. I hope all in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, will join us in standing up for a stronger America, for the America we believe in, and support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to commend longtime friends, Harold and Anne Howrigan and their sons of Fairfield, VT, whose farm was recently named 2007 Vermont Dairy Farm of the Year. Harold, his wife Anne and their sons operate two farms comprised of more than 500 head of holstein cattle and some 1,800 acres of cropland and forest, including a significant maple sugaring operation. The Howrigan farm was selected by University of Vermont Extension and the Vermont Dairy Industry Association, who described it as an excellent, well managed dairy operation which consistently produces high-quality milk. With some of the farm acreage in the family since the mid 19th Century, the Howrigan family indeed exemplifies a long-term commitment to agriculture. As much as he loves the home farm, over the years Harold has spent considerable time away from the farm serving Vermont agriculture. He has served as president of the Green Mountain Dairy Farmers Federation of Cooperatives and as a director with both the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers Association and the Vermont Dairy Promotion Council. Harold has served on the St. Albans Cooperative board of directors since 1981 and as president from 1988 until stepping down in 2005. At one time or another, Harold was chairperson of the Vermont Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission, chair of the Council of Northeast Farmer Cooperatives and chair of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. He also served on the U.S. Dairy Export Council and the National Milk Producers Federation. With this level of engagement in the interest of dairy farmers and their industry, it is a tribute to Harold, Anne and their sons to earn this distinguished award. I join my fellow Vermonters in recognizing a Vermont dairy farm--and family--with its tradition of hard work, common sense and love of agriculture as the 2007 Vermont Dairy Farm of the Year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I would say to my colleague from New Hampshire that my staff informs me that they were not consulted by the State Department on this matter.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2005, President Bush praised the Iraqi people for exercising the Democratic right to vote. He noted that by participating in free elections, the Iraqi people firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists, and they demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government. Similar to President Bush, I applaud when anyone has the right to vote and the right to determine where they will go with that right to vote. I wish, though, the President would speak as enthusiastically about voting rights for the American citizens who live literally in his backyard, in the same city where he resides in the White House. It is disappointing that the Bush administration has threatened to veto legislation that would give a vote to the Member of the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia. I also understand the opponents of this voting rights bill are considering a filibuster to prevent its passage. In a recent column in the Washington Times, former Maryland Governor Michael Steele and former Congressman J.C. Watts, two Republicans, reminded us that the last time a voting rights bill was filibustered was 50 years ago. I was much too young to even vote, but I do remember that filibuster. Despite Senator Thurmond's record-setting effort, the Senate rightfully passed the Civil Rights Act in 1957. It followed up with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in 1960, 1964 and 1965. I hope the Senate does not return to the days when it filibustered voting rights, especially for its African-American citizens. The city of the District of Columbia has approximately the same number of people as the State of Vermont. We are the 14th State in the Union. We have had the right to vote, for Senators and Representatives, for over 200 years. The distinguished Presiding Officer, of course, represents one of the very first States of this Union. In fact, he can proudly represent a State whose forefathers did much to design the United States of America and has provided President after President but especially laid the cornerstone of a great nation. It made it possible for the State of Vermont to be the first State admitted after the original 13. There is no way I could go back to my State of Vermont and say that the District of Columbia, with almost exactly the same number of people, does not have a voting Member in the House of Representatives. Back in my State, they would say we have two Senators, but at least let us take this step. Let us vote it up or down. Let's not go back to the shameful days of 1957 when such rights were filibustered. We have had hearings on this in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have heard compelling testimony. This month the Judiciary Committee marked the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 with a hearing. Congressman John Lewis, a courageous leader during those transformational struggles only decades ago, gave moving testimony reminding us that ``we in Congress must do all we can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the mission of equal justice.'' While we are observing this golden anniversary, it is fitting that the Senate turn to this important voting rights measure, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation to end the unfair treatment of District of Columbia residents and give them full representation in the House of Representatives. I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for bringing this timely issue to the Senate for consideration. In April, the House of Representatives worked in a bipartisan manner to pass their version of a voting rights bill for the District of Columbia, led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. As a young lawyer, she worked for civil rights and voting rights around the country. It is a cruel irony that upon her return to the District of Columbia and election to the House of Representatives she does not yet have the right to vote on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia who elected her. She is a strong voice in Congress but the people of the District of Columbia deserve a vote, as well. This is not the time for further delay. It is the Senate's turn to do what is right. The Senate bill would give the District of Columbia delegate a full vote in the House. To attract Republican support, the bill offsets that vote for DC by according Utah an additional Representative in the House, as well. This is an effort to provide political balance. With it or without it, I support representation for the District of Columbia. I believe that the legislation that we are considering today is within Congress's powers as provided in the Constitution. I agree with Congressman Lewis, Congresswoman Norton and numerous other civil rights leaders and constitutional scholars that we should extend the basic right of voting representation to the hundreds of thousands of Americans residing in our Nation's Capital. They pay Federal taxes, defend our country in the military and serve on Federal juries. They are citizens no less than the citizens of any State. Their votes should count. They should be represented. In May the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this legislation. We heard compelling testimony. Retired Chief Judge Patricia Wald testified that this legislation is constitutional and highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power in accordance with the Constitution to confer full statehood on the District certainly contains the lesser power to grant District residents voting rights in the House of Representatives. She also reminded us that Congress has exercised this authority in the past without a rigid adherence to the constitutional text when it granted voting rights to Americans abroad in their last State of residence regardless of whether they are citizens of that State, pay taxes to that State, or have any intent to return to that State. Her former colleague on the DC Circuit, Ken Starr, echoed her conclusion that this legislation is constitutional. Congress has repeatedly treated the District of Columbia as a ``State'' for various purposes. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton testified that although ``the District is not a State,'' the ``Congress has not had the slightest difficulty in treating the District as a State, with its laws, its treaties, and for constitutional purposes.'' Examples of these actions include a revision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that broadened article III diversity jurisdiction to include citizens of the District even though the Constitution only provides that Federal courts may hear cases ``between citizens of different States.'' Congress has also treated the District as a ``State'' for purposes of congressional power to regulate commerce ``among the several States.'' The 16th amendment grants Congress the power to directly tax incomes ``without apportionment among the several States.'' That constitutional provision has been interpreted also to apply to residents of the District. In fact, the District of Columbia pays the second-highest Federal taxes per capita, yet has no vote in connection with how those dollars are spent. The local license plates say a good deal and remind us of our heritage when they say ``Taxation without Representation.'' As I said, in 2005, President Bush praised the Iraqi people for exercising their democratic right to vote, and he noted that ``by participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the antidemocratic ideology of the terrorists [a]nd they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self- government.'' Unfortunately, the President does not speak so enthusiastically about voting rights for the American citizens living literally in his backyard. It is disappointing that the Bush administration has threatened to veto this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today, the President announced his intention that he will, at some appropriate time, send the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to the Hill to be the next Attorney General. When that nomination arrives, with the appropriate FBI clearance and all, the Judiciary Committee will approach consideration of this nomination in a serious and deliberate fashion. The administration, of course, took many months in determining that a change in leadership was needed at the Department of Justice. Then after they made the determination they had to change the leadership, the President spent several weeks before making his nomination public. It wasn't until Saturday of this past weekend that I was told by the press whom he was going to nominate. Our focus now, of course, will be on securing the relevant information the committee needs to proceed to scheduling fair and thorough hearings, and we will do that. I am not in any way critical of the President for taking so many weeks in deciding whom he wanted. In fact, I would compliment him on his decision not to go with some of the names that apparently were presented to him. I tried to stress to the President and others at the White House, with all the problems at the Department of Justice, that choosing a person who would be there solely for political purposes would not be a wise thing to do. I know the President had a number of names that would have fallen into that category, and to his credit, those names that would have created the greatest political problems were rejected. Now, I have also been in discussion with White House officials about some of the committee's outstanding requests, and I let them know that cooperation with the White House would be central in determining that schedule. In this regard, I wish to compliment the President's counsel, Mr. Fielding. Mr. Fielding called me yesterday evening. Without going into the details of that conversation, I believe he understands there are certain materials that we have requested from the White House-- requested for some time now--that will be necessary so that we can engage in thorough deliberations. I take him at his word that we will try to work out a way to get us some of those materials. It will make it far easier for both Republicans and Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask appropriate questions. This is a big job, being Attorney General. It becomes even bigger now, as the next Attorney General must regain the public trust and begin the process of restoring the Department of Justice to its proper mission, and also replacing a very large number of key members of the Department of Justice who have resigned and whose replacements, themselves, will require confirmation by the Senate. So I am hopeful that once we obtain the information we need, once we have had the opportunity to consider this nomination, we will be able to make progress in this regard. As I told the White House last night, I stand ready to work with them in the coming weeks to get the material we need, and then once that material is available, to find an appropriate time to schedule a hearing. I look forward to meeting with Judge Mukasey in the coming days. We will meet briefly tomorrow and then at greater length once his background check has been completed. I wish to learn more about his record, but I also wish to learn about his ideas on improving the relationship between Congress and this administration so we can conduct more effective oversight and take the steps toward rebuilding the Justice Department to be worthy of its name. In the meantime, I have told Judge Mukasey he will have a lot on his plate in the coming days. I complimented him and his family for being willing to be considered for this nomination and urged him, even as busy as he may be, to spend time with his family. I understand he has a wonderful family--grandchildren and so forth--and I am sure he will do so. I again urge the White House that we do not need to have all kinds of press comments about the date for hearings. I think what would be more important to do would be to work, as we have in the past, will to get the information necessary; and in the fullness of time, we will have an appropriate hearing. I will do it--working, of course, with Senator Specter--and, as I think we have demonstrated before, we will have a hearing that will make the Senate proud. Both Republicans and Democrats, with the complete record before them, then will be able to ask all the appropriate questions, the questions of course that the American public wants and deserves to have us ask.