Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the Congress's attention on Iraq and the Middle East, I want to take a moment to alert other Senators to an important issue in Guatemala, a country that rarely makes the news in Washington. Many of us remember the decades of civil conflict that caused the deaths of an estimated 200,000 Guatemalans, many of them indigenous Mayan civilians. Since those dark days, most Guatemalans have tried to put that tragic period behind them and to build the institutions of democracy that can provide economic development, stability and justice. While the Guatemalan Army has shrunk to half its size, the peace accords that ended the fighting have yet to be fully realized. Most troubling is the rampant violent crime, organized crime and corruption, much of it perpetrated by illegal armed groups, some of which are comprised of former members of the security forces and their supporters. During the tenure of President Berger, the Guatemalan Government, with the assistance of the United Nations, has sought to establish a commission to investigate and prosecute these clandestine groups. The first attempt was rejected by Guatemala's Constitutional Court, but recently the Court approved the establishment of an International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG. The CICIG is widely regarded as an essential mechanism for combating the cancer of human rights violations and organized crime that are threatening to destroy the foundations of Guatemala's democracy. It is important to note that the Constitutional Court confirmed that CICIG would work alongside the Attorney-General's office in investigating illegal groups. Far from weakening national sovereignty, CICIG will support Guatemala by helping to strengthen the capacity of the country's weak judicial system. Not only could CICIG go a long way in fulfilling the government's commitment under the peace accords to combat illegal armed groups, it could also help to uncover the full extent of these groups and dismantle their underlying structure. Most importantly, it would be an unprecedented step in ending the impunity that has been the greatest impediment to establishing the rule of law in Guatemala. At this point, the future of CICIG is in the hands of the Guatemalan Congress, and with new elections approaching time is running out. It would be a terrible waste of years of hard work by the Guatemalan Government and the United Nations if the CICIG is not approved. Whether for prospective foreign investors or the surviving families of victims of political violence, nothing is more important than knowing the truth and seeing that justice is finally possible. On June 28, the Senate Appropriations Committee, like the House of Representatives last month, unanimously reported the fiscal year 2008 foreign aid appropriations bill. That legislation would authorize the resumption of assistance for the Guatemalan Air Force, Navy and Army Corps of Engineers, if they are respecting human rights and the Guatemalan Congress ratifies the CICIG agreement. I urge the Guatemalan Congress to seize this historic opportunity. The alternative, which is almost unthinkable, of rejecting this essential step to uphold the rule of law, would send a chilling message that it is the forces of crime and violence who will determine Guatemala's future. That is not an outcome that Guatemala or its people can afford.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jill Antonishak, a fellow in Senator Harkin's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of consideration of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I withdraw my request, but I would note that the Senate this week is considering the National Defense Authorization Act. Senator Specter and I will introduce an amendment at such a point as we do not receive objection from the Republican side. What we will introduce will be the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. I want to, first and foremost, thank and actually praise Senator Specter for his strong and consistent leadership on this issue. It is not just leadership this year, it has been leadership in past years. I hope all Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, join us in restoring basic American values and the rule of law while making our Nation stronger. Last year, Congress committed a historic mistake by suspending the great writ of habeas corpus. They did this not only for those confined at Guantanamo Bay but for millions of people who are legally residents in the United States. We held a hearing on this, the Senate Judiciary Committee did, in May. That hearing illustrated broad agreement among people of very diverse political views and backgrounds, that the mistake committed in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 has to be corrected. The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 has 25 cosponsors, and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed it last month with a bipartisan vote. 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 has been a stain on America's reputation in the world. In many places around the world where we had been so admired in the past, they have asked why would America turn its back on one of its most basic rights. We are at 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. It is enshrined in the Constitution, and as stalwart a Republican conservative as Justice Antonin Scalia has recently referred to it as ``the very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separation of powers.'' The Military Commissions Act rolled back these protections by eliminating that right permanently for any non-citizen 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 pick up someone, hold that person with no charges, and say: They are awaiting determination. When we make up our mind this year, or next year, or 10 years from now, then we may label them an enemy combatant. In the meantime, they do not even have the power to say to a court: They picked up the wrong guy. They don't even have my name right. They picked me up by mistake. You can't even do that. Is this America? Is this America? 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. Under this law, the people who can be picked up are people who work and pay taxes, who abide by our laws, and should be entitled to fair treatment. Under this law, any of these people can be detained forever without any ability to challenge their detention in court. Stanford Professor Mariano-Florentino Cuellar called this an issue about which the Latino community, which encompasses so many of the Nation's legal permanent residents, must be concerned. Giving the Government such raw, unfettered power should concern every American. Since last fall, I have been describing a nightmare scenario about a hard-working, legal permanent resident who makes an innocent donation to, among other charities, a Muslim charity, that the Government secretly suspects of ties to terrorism. I suggested that on the basis of this donation, and perhaps a report of suspicious behavior of an overzealous neighbor or a cursory review of library records, this permanent resident can be brought in for questioning, can be denied a lawyer, and confined indefinitely. Such a person would have no recourse in the courts for years, or for decades, or forever. When I said this, some people thought this nightmare scenario was fanciful. I wish it were, but it was not. In November that scenario was confirmed by our Department of Justice in a legal brief submitted in a Federal court in Virginia. They asserted that the Military Commissions Act allows the Government to detain any non-citizen designated an enemy combatant without giving that person any ability to challenge his detention in court. This is true, the Justice Department said, even for someone arrested and imprisoned in the United States. In other words, we could do what we always condemned other countries for doing, countries behind the then-Iron Curtain, where they would pick up somebody, hold them indefinitely, and that person had no recourse in court. Rightly so, Republican and Democratic Presidents condemned those countries for doing that. Now we have given ourselves the same power. The Washington Post wrote that the brief ``raises the possibility that any of the millions of immigrants living in the United States could be subject to indefinite detention if they are accused of ties to terrorist groups.'' I might add, this accusation can be totally erroneous. This is wrong; it is unconstitutional. But more than that, it is truly un-American. It is designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney administration will never again be embarrassed by court decisions that review their unlawful abuses of power. The conservative Supreme Court, with seven of its nine members appointed by Republican Presidents, has been the only check in this administration's lawlessness. The Supreme Court and other conservative Federal courts, and recently even military judges, have repeatedly overturned the lawless systems set up by this administration governing detainees. Many have hoped the courts will come to the rescue again on the issue of habeas corpus. With the continued drift of the Supreme Court toward endorsing greater executive power, we cannot count on the intervention of this conservative, activist court. Besides, are we going to pass the buck? Congress cannot and must not outsource its moral responsibility. We all want to make America safe from terrorism. We come to work proudly every day, in a building that was targeted by those criminals who hijacked planes on 9/11. We do not hesitate to come to work here. We do it proudly. I implore those who support this change to think about whether eliminating habeas corpus truly makes America safe from the world. Does it make us any safer in this building? Does it comport with the values and liberties and legal traditions we hold most dear? Top conservative thinkers such as Professor Richard Epstein and David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, agree this change betrays centuries of legal tradition and practice. Professor David Gushee, head of Evangelicals for Human Rights, submitted a declaration calling the elimination of habeas rights and related changes ``deeply lamentable'' and ``fraught with danger to basic human rights.'' GEN Colin Powell recently advocated habeas corpus rights for detainees, asking: Isn't that what our system's all about? General Powell has it right. But probably the 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. He was working there on September 11, 2001. He saw firsthand the effects of criminality and terrorism. He saw his colleagues killed by the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I believe his credibility is unimpeachable when he says that denying habeas rights to detainees endangers our troops and undermines our military efforts. In testimony to the committee, Admiral Guter wrote: 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. The admiral was right. Whether you are an individual soldier or a great and good 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 but especially in the worst of times. Now as we work to reauthorize the many programs that comprise our valiant Armed Forces, it is the right time to heed the advice of Admiral Guter and 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. Elimination of basic legal rights undermines, not strengthens, our ability to achieve justice. It is from strength that America should defend our values and our way of life. It is from the strength of our freedoms and our Constitution and the rule of law that we shall prevail. I hope all in the Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, 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. That is why I am proud to be here with the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania. We have worked together. You know, every one of us serves here only for a certain time. When we leave, we have to ask ourselves: If we had the privilege of being only 1 of 100 people to get to represent 300 million in America in this great body, what do we do to make America better? If we leave this blight--if we leave this blight--on our laws, we have not made it better, we have made it weaker. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield on that point, when I saw that in the press I went and looked it up too. It was a surprise to me. It will be interesting to see what might come out of it, but I think it goes back, though, to what the Senator and I have talked about. We should not have to be bucking this to the Supreme Court for them to decide. We should correct the error here. I will be leaving the floor at this moment, Mr. President, but I want to assure the Senator from Pennsylvania, when they do allow our amendment to come up, I will be here with him proudly side by side on this issue. We can correct what otherwise would become a historic mistake. With his help, his leadership, we will do that.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside so that an amendment by Senator Specter and myself be in order for discussion, with the understanding that then that amendment will eventually be set aside so we can go back to the prior amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to tell my friends in the Senate about the Vermont Frost Heaves, the bumps in the road that we Vermonters are actually proud to claim as our own. Unlike the frost heaves New Englanders have come to know too well under the dented rims of our cars and trucks, these basketball-playing Vermont Frost Heaves are pioneers, superb athletes, role models, and as of this spring, champions of the American Basketball Association. The Frost Heaves' motto, ``we're going to be their bumps in the road,'' rang true many a winter's evening this year. With an overall record of 34-6 and a league record of 30-6, the Frost Heaves quickly became unfamiliar with losing, energizing Bump the moose, the team's mascot, and thousands of cowbell-ringing fans. Then, on March 29, 2007, while the sap was still running out of sugar bushes, the Frost Heaves charged their way to a triumphant 143-to-95 title victory over the Texas Tycoons, adding an exclamation point to the success of their inaugural season. From the birth of the Vermont Frost Heaves, founder and owner Alex Wolff found a way to tie Vermonters into the team, captivating fans near and far and promising to be sustainable, local, built to scale, of the community, and embracing the Internet revolution. As a professional journalist found in the pages of Sports Illustrated, Wolff documented his journey growing a championship team with fan participation along the way. The result--a team beloved by Vermont. Under Wolff's ambitious leadership, and with the permission of his wife Vanessa, the Wolffs created a family-friendly, affordable source of entertainment in central and northern Vermont. With a home schedule split between two of the most historic gymnasiums in the State, the Barre Auditorium and Memorial Auditorium, fans from throughout Vermont had the opportunity to support their team. As the Wolffs explain, ``we wanted to create a legacy for Vermont,'' and that is just what they have done. After Wolff put the selection of their coach to a worldwide vote, the fans chose coach Will Voigt, a native of Cabot, VT, to be their skipper. Voigt, a three-star athlete before embarking upon a successful coaching career, left a coaching position in Norway to return to the Green Mountains. The team starred three Vermonters, Kerry Lyons of Milton, Dana Martin of Stowe, and B.J. Robertson of Burlington. Lyons led the Milton High School Yellow Jackets to four Vermont State final fours. He was named Conference Player of the Year and was chosen as an All-State selection. He then attended Lyndon State College where he served as the team captain for 3 years. Lyons returned to Lyndon State after graduation serving as the assistant coach for both the men's and women's basketball teams during the 2000 to 2001 season. Dana Martin attended Stowe High School and Proctor Academy in New Hampshire and continued on to play basketball for Skidmore College. Martin was the first basketball player from Skidmore to enter the professional ranks, playing in Germany after graduation, where he led his team in scoring with more than 22 points a game. Martin has offered a basketball camp for the past six summers in his hometown of Stowe for elementary school students aspiring to follow in Martin's Frost Heave footsteps. B.J. Robertson is a graduate of Burlington High School and St. Michael's College, entertaining Vermonters with his pizzazz at both the high school and college levels. He is the all-time leading scorer at Burlington High, a record his brother owned prior to his arrival on the scene. Well known by high school sports aficionados, Robertson was named ``Mr. Basketball'' by the Burlington Free Press his senior year. At St. Michael's, Robertson played in 104 games at the collegiate level, starting 91 of them in 4 years. He consistently was among the leaders on both the offensive and defensive side of the ball for the Purple Knights Other Frost Heaves players came by way of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, and even as far as Senegal. Aaron Cook led the Frost Heaves in scoring and minutes played for the inaugural season, averaging 16.3 points on 22 minutes. Kelvin Parker led the team in field goal percentage. Antonio Burks led the team in free throw percentage, completing nearly 83 percent of shots from the foul line. John Bryant led the team in rebounding, with 246 for the season, also leading the team in blocks. Travarus Bennett led the team in steals, his quick hands averaged 2.6 per game. Markus Austin, Johann Collins, Kevin Mickens, Antoine Hyman, Tyrone Levett, Issa Konare, Melvin Creddle, and Tyrone Barley round out the roster of the championship squad. The extended Frost Heaves coaching staff includes assistant coaches Wayne Lafley and Marvin Safford; strength and conditioning coach Scott Caulfield; assistant coach and statistician Mark Saltus; and athletic trainer Meggan Robinson. The Frost Heaves staff worked to establish a balance of physical strength and mental toughness in each player. Today, the sounds of cowbells echoing off the necks of Holsteins grazing in the fields of Vermont instills a bit of excitement in Frost Heaves' fans eagerly awaiting another winter of basketball. I hope my friends in the Senate will joining me in congratulating the Vermont Frost Heaves for a great season and wishing them even more success next winter.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question on that point?

Mr. LEAHY. Would the distinguished Senator accept the offer of the President, if the rejoinder of the President was if we did it the way you describe--transcript, knowing that the criminal code applies--but once you have done that, there would be no followup? Even if you were to find something out during that meeting, there would be no followup; there would be a promise of no subpoenas, there would be no further proceedings?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, does the Senator from Vermont have any time remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 3 minutes of the time I have reserved between this vote and the next vote be yielded to the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan at this point.

Mr. LEAHY. I will take it off my time between the votes. But there will be time for both the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Vermont between the votes.

Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection to that.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, before the Senator from Michigan speaks, the first pending is who?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on both the O'Grady and the Neff nominations at this point.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on those two and only those two.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I am about to yield momentarily to the Senator from Michigan. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has assured, as I have, the Senator from Kansas that he will have a minute. Then I will yield back whatever time remains so we can go to a rollcall vote on this nomination. Neither the Senator from Pennsylvania nor I will ask for rollcall votes on the remaining nominations. They would then have a voice vote, assuming this one is confirmed. I yield such time as the Senator from Michigan needs.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Judge Neff was voted out of the committee with strong bipartisan support and was on the agenda to be confirmed under Republican control of the Senate last year when we had the snag on judges. She has my strong support and the support of the committee. I urge that she be confirmed. If nobody else is seeking recognition, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Some may be happy to have one or two rollcall votes and get out of here.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will be very happy to do that. I think there are a lot of people who have stacks of paper since we have been gone who would probably be happy to have one or two rollcalls.

Mr. LEAHY. I am sorry, what was the question?

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a very serious matter that I will discuss at this time in my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The Presiding Officer is one of the most distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee. Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers and I received another letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding responding to duly authorized subpoenas with a blanket assertion of executive privilege. I had hoped that the Judiciary Committee subpoenas would be met with compliance, not with confrontation. But instead they have been met, yet again, with Nixonian stonewalling that shows this White House's disdain for our system of checks and balances. This is more stonewalling for a White House that believes it can unilaterally control the other coequal branches of Government. It raises this question: What is the White House trying to hide by refusing to turn over this evidence? From the outset of this scandal, the President spoke about the firing of U.S. attorneys as if it were a matter handled and decided by the Attorney General, and something Mr. Gonzales would have to explain to Congress and the American people. The President was hands off and arms' length. He had to ask others whether anything was improperly done and relied on a review by White House lawyers for his assertion that nothing improper was done. This President and the Attorney General have both from time to time expressed confidence that the Congress would get to the bottom of this as if they themselves had no idea what had transpired. Are we now to understand from the White House claims of executive privilege that, contrary to what the President said, these were decisions made by the President? Is he taking responsibility for this scandal, for the firing of such well-regarded and well-performing U.S. attorneys? When we had the Attorney General testify under oath, he didn't know who added U.S. attorneys to the list of those to be fired, or the reasons they were added. Somehow they mysteriously arrived on the Attorney General's list. You know, it occurred to me when I flew down from Vermont today and I was looking in the paper, the latest Harry Potter movie is coming out. These mysterious lists sound like something would you see in that movie, not in the White House or the Attorney General's Office. Indeed, the bottom line of the sworn testimony from the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Attorney General's former Chief of Staff, the White House liaison, and other senior Justice Department officials was that while the President was not involved in the decisionmaking that led to the unprecedented firings of several well-performing prosecutors, these people were not responsible either. So I ask, who made these decisions? Was it the political operatives at the White House who set out to severely damage the careers of well- performing U.S. attorneys? Even this White House cannot dispute the evidence we have gathered to date showing that White House officials were heavily involved in these firings--not only heavily involved in these firings and in the Justice Department's responses to inquiries that I made, the distinguished Presiding Officer made, and others, Republicans and Democrats alike made, about them. The White House continues to try to have it both ways, but at the end of the day it cannot. The White House cannot block Congress from obtaining the relevant evidence and credibly assert that nothing improper occurred. They are just saying: Trust us, we did nothing wrong. Trust us? With the revelations that come out almost every single day of things that tell the American people they should not trust them. What is the White House hiding? Was the President involved, were his earlier statements to the American people therefore misleading and inaccurate? Is this an effort by the White House legal team to protect the White House political operatives whose partisan machinations have been discovered in a new set of White House horrors? Several weeks ago, after Mr. Fielding first conveyed the President's blank executive claim--and I have yet to hear directly from the President--Chairman Conyers and I sent a letter to the White House asking for a specific factual basis regarding each document withheld and the normal privilege log that would be shown at the time. I asked the White House to provide this information so that it could substantiate its claim. For months--and I have not done so precipitously but carefully--I have been giving the White House every opportunity to provide voluntarily the information we have sought. For months the only answer we have received is the same unacceptable ``take it or leave it'' offer. I have tried to give the White House every opportunity to explain its claims. A serious assertion of privilege--one they honestly believed in--would include an effort to demonstrate to the committee which documents and which parts of those documents are covered by any privilege that is asserted and why. But it is apparent this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and believes it doesn't have to explain itself to anyone--not to the people's Representatives in Congress, but worse yet not to the American people. The White House's refusal to provide a listing of those documents on which it asserts privilege, and a specific factual and legal basis for the assertion of executive privilege claims, raises even more questions. What is the White House so intent on hiding? What is it they are so afraid of becoming public that they cannot even identify the documents or the dates, authors, and recipients? Would we see the early and consistent involvement of the White House political operatives in what should be independent and neutral law enforcement decisions? Would we see early and consistent involvement of White House political operatives who are trying to manipulate law enforcement? Nor is the White House content with blanket assertions of privilege regarding matters in its control. It has now reached outside the White House to direct the Republican National Committee not to provide information it has to Congress and has today instructed a former White House official, Sara Taylor, not to cooperate with the investigation by testifying to the best of her knowledge. Mr. President, let me explain our attempts to procure the e-mails that White House officials sent using Republican National Committee accounts. At first, they gave the impression that we would be happy to give you those 60,000 of her e-mails, or 130,000 of Karl Rove's but, of course, they were all erased, so we cannot give them to you. When I and others suggested that you cannot erase e-mails like that and that they are in a backup system somewhere else, they sent somebody who works in the White House Press Secretary's Office out to tell the American people that this is a ridiculous claim and that we now have Senators pretending to be computer experts. Actually, no, that is an answer any 12-year-old could have given. What happened? Suddenly, they found, yes, they do have the e-mails. And as we had said, and as any 12-year-old would have said, they weren't erased. Ms. Taylor is scheduled to testify on Wednesday to comply with a subpoena authorized by the committee. It is unfortunate that the White House is trying to interfere with Ms. Taylor's testimony before the Senate, and they are trying to interfere with Congress's responsibility to get to the truth behind the unprecedented firings of several U.S. attorneys. Let's review the facts. Sometimes it is good to get outside the hyperbole of politics and just talk about the facts. There is clear evidence that Sara Taylor is one of several White House officials who played a key role in these firings and the administration's response to cover up the reasons behind them when questions first arose. The question I have is this: Why were they so eager to cover up what they did? There is also clear evidence that Ms. Taylor was part of 66,000 RNC e-mails being kept from the public as part of a White House effort to avoid oversight by ignoring the laws meant to ensure a public record of official Government business. Basically, they are saying the law applies to everybody else, but they are above the law. I am willing to discuss the matter in good faith with the White House. I have been trying to engage the White House for months in discussions to come to some sort of accommodation. I hope we can do that. I am reluctant to agree to anything, though, that prevents Congress from doing our oversight job effectively. I have been here with six administrations, with Republicans and Democrats alike, and we found ways to work with Congress. Ultimately, even the Nixon administration--the administration that was here before I arrived-- found ways. This administration, unlike all those others, wants to obstruct and obfuscate. We should not lose sight of the fact that this is a serious matter. This is about improper political influence on our justice system. It is about the White House manipulating the Justice Department into its own political arm. It is about manipulating our justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. It is about pressuring prosecutors to bring cases of voter fraud to try to influence elections--of sending a partisan operative like Bradley Schlozman to Missouri to file charges on the eve of an election, in direct violation of their own Justice Department guidelines. It is about high-ranking officials misleading Congress and misleading the American people about their political manipulation of justice. It is about the unprecedented and improper reach of politics into the Department's professional ranks, such as the admission by the Department's White House Liaison, Monica Goodling, that she improperly screened career employees for political loyalty and wielded undue political influence over key law enforcement decisions and policies. It is about political operatives pressuring prosecutors to bring partisan cases and seeking retribution against those who refused to bend to their political will, such as the example of New Mexico's U.S. attorney, David Iglesias, who was fired a few weeks after Karl Rove complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported ``voter fraud'' enforcement cases in Mr. Iglesias's jurisdiction. Along the way, this subversion of the justice system has included lying, misleading, stonewalling, and ignoring the Congress in our attempts to find out what happened. We know White House officials are involved, but it is difficult to get the facts when the White House, even as of today, refuses to provide even a single witness or a single document. This administration has instituted an abusive policy of secrecy aimed at protecting themselves from embarrassment and accountability. Apparently, the President and Vice President think they are above the law. In America, nobody is above the law, not even George Bush or Dick Cheney. The President has sought to make the Vice President's former Chief of Staff above the law when he granted him a form of amnesty last week. The President chose to override a prosecution, jury trial, conviction, and prison sentence and to excuse his lying to Federal investigators and a grand jury and his perjury, and to reward his silence by giving Mr. Libby what commentators have called a ``get out of jail free'' card. The lack of accountability for anyone in the Bush administration has reached new heights--or lows. It is not often that the New York Times and the Washington Times editorial boards agree, but they did about this President's abrupt commutation of Mr. Libby's 30-month prison term for perjury and obstruction of justice. The Washington Times opined that President Bush's action is ``neither wise nor just,'' and it continued in its Independence Day editorial by saying: Perjury is a serious crime. . . . The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury. I would add that the widely respected trial judge, who was nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate at the time I chaired the committee in 2001, imposed a reasonable sentence which was actually at the lower end of what the prosecutor recommended, and the DC Circuit refused to stay the sentence pending appeal in accordance with the law. The New York Times in a July 3 editorial entitled ``Soft on Crime'' called the President's action a ``baldly political act,'' noting that ``[a]s president, he has repeatedly put himself and those on his team, especially Mr. Cheney, above the law.'' They noted that the President ``sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.'' That Presidential act sent the message that silence, bad memory, and abject loyalty would be rewarded, just as the mass firings of U.S. attorneys sent the message that all remaining Federal prosecutors and law enforcement had better knuckle under to the political agenda of the administration. Untoward White House interference with Federal law enforcement is a serious matter. It corrupts Federal law enforcement, threatens our elections, and has seriously undercut the American people's confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement. Despite the attitude of the current administration, our Constitution does not include the phrase ``executive privilege'' or ``unitary executive.'' What the U.S. Constitution does provide in the oath of office is that the President has to swear to ``faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States'' and ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' His essential duties require him to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' I have grave concern with regard to how this administration is fulfilling these sworn and essential duties. The political intrusion into the law enforcement functions of the Government through the scheme to fire and replace our U.S. attorneys is a key part of that concern. Congress will continue to pursue the truth behind this matter not only because it is our constitutional responsibility but because it is the right thing to do. I hope the White House stops the stonewalling. I hope they accept my offer to negotiate a workable solution to the committee's oversight needs so we can effectively get to the bottom of what was done wrong and what has gone wrong. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam Presient, the Senate continues to make progress today with the confirmation of three more lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, Benjamin Hale Settle to the District Court for the Western District of Washington, Richard Joseph Sullivan to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Joseph S. Van Bokkelen to the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The nominations of Mr. Settle and Mr. Sullivan are for vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to be judicial emergencies. All three nominees have the support of their home State Senators. I thank Senators Murray, Cantwell, Clinton, Schumer, Lugar, and Bayh for working with us and with the President on the nomination. These 3 judges will bring this year's judicial confirmations total to 21. It is before the Fourth of July recess, and we have already confirmed many more judges than were confirmed during the entire 1996 session when President Clinton's nominees were being reviewed by a Republican Senate majority. That was the session in which not a single circuit court nominee was confirmed. We have already confirmed three circuit court judges in the early months of this session. As I have previously noted, that also puts us well ahead of the pace established by the Republican majority in 1999. As the Judiciary Committee chairman, I have always treated this President's judicial nominees more fairly than Republicans treated President Clinton's. With these confirmations, the Senate will have confirmed 121 judges while I have served as Judiciary Chairman. It is a little known and wholly unappreciated fact that during the more than 6 years of the Bush Presidency, more circuit court judges, more district court judges, and more total judges have been confirmed while I served as Judiciary chairman than during the longer tenures of either of the two Republican chairmen working with Republican Senate majorities. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 48 judicial vacancies after these nominations are confirmed, yet the President has sent us only 26 nominations for these vacancies. Twenty two of these vacancies--almost half--have no nominee. Of the 15 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 6 of them. That means more than a third of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee. Of the 13 circuit court vacancies, more than half are without a nominee. If the President had worked with the Senators from Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Michigan, and the other States with the remaining circuit vacancies, we could be in position to make even more progress. As it is, we have cut the circuit vacancies in half, from 26 to 13. Contrast that with the way the Republican-led Senate's lack of action on President Clinton's moderate and qualified nominees resulted in circuit court vacancies increasing from 17 to 26. During most of the Clinton years, the Republican-led Senate engaged in strenuous efforts to keep circuit judgeships vacant in anticipation of a Republican President. To a great extent they succeeded. The Judiciary Committee has been working hard to make progress on those nominations the President has sent to us. Of course, when he sends us well-qualified, consensus nominees with the support of his home-state Senators like those before us today, we can have success. Mr. Settle is a partner and cofounder of the Shelton, WA, law firm of Settle & Johnson, PLLC, where he has worked for 30 years. He also served 7 years as a prosecutor and defense counsel in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps. Mr. Sullivan is general counsel to Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., where he has worked since 2005. Before that, he worked as a Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and in private practice at the Wall Street law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz. Mr. Van Bokkelen is the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, where he has served since 2001. He has worked in private practice for the law firms of Goodman, Ball, Van Bokkelen & Leonard and Wilson, Donnesberger, Van Bokkelen & Reid. He previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney and as an assistant attorney general in the Indiana Attorney General's office. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmation today. Have the yeas and nays been asked for on the Benjamin Hale Settle nomination?