Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are going to have how many nominations?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield back my time.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Cochran to introduce a bill that will provide parity between the retirement benefits granted to assistant U.S. attorneys and those granted to other Federal law enforcement officers. There are 5,500 assistant U.S. attorneys in 93 offices throughout the United States, all of whom are serving on the front lines to uphold the rule of law. Having served as a prosecutor for many years in Vermont, I know well the integral role prosecutors play in the administration of justice. Prosecutors are a crucial component of our justice system, and should be recognized as such when they reach the end of their careers. Probation officers, deputy marshals, corrections officers, and even corrections employees not serving in a law enforcement role receive enhanced benefits greater than those received by assistant U.S. attorneys. This is an inequity that should be remedied. By correcting this disparity, Congress would also help the Federal justice system retain experienced prosecutors. Of all the prosecutors who leave the government for the private sector, 60 to 70 percent do so with experience of between 6 and 15 years. With the Department of Justice's rapidly expanding role in combating terrorism, we cannot afford to lose the experienced men and women who serve in this vital role. This legislation also addresses concerns about the cost to the Federal Government of providing enhanced retirement benefits to assistant U.S. attorneys. Proponents of the bill have helped craft provisions that would assist the Department of Justice in recovering money owed to the Federal Government as a result of judgments and other fines. By bolstering the Department's ability to collect the funds it is owed, resources would be freed up to provide the parity in retirement benefits sought by assistant U.S. attorneys. The result of the creative efforts to fund these benefits in an alternative manner is that the Department of Justice will, through its duties as the Nation's law enforcement agency, be able to provide the benefits its employees deserve at little or no cost to the taxpayer. By passing this legislation, we will signal the Federal Government's recognition that prosecutors in our society fulfill a critical role. Congress can send the message that the service of these prosecutors is a valued and indispensable component of our Federal justice system. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this legislation to ensure that Federal policy equally respects the contributions of all members of the law enforcement community in keeping our society safe and secure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Cochran to introduce a bill that will provide parity between the retirement benefits granted to assistant U.S. attorneys and those granted to other Federal law enforcement officers. There are 5,500 assistant U.S. attorneys in 93 offices throughout the United States, all of whom are serving on the front lines to uphold the rule of law. Having served as a prosecutor for many years in Vermont, I know well the integral role prosecutors play in the administration of justice. Prosecutors are a crucial component of our justice system, and should be recognized as such when they reach the end of their careers. Probation officers, deputy marshals, corrections officers, and even corrections employees not serving in a law enforcement role receive enhanced benefits greater than those received by assistant U.S. attorneys. This is an inequity that should be remedied. By correcting this disparity, Congress would also help the Federal justice system retain experienced prosecutors. Of all the prosecutors who leave the government for the private sector, 60 to 70 percent do so with experience of between 6 and 15 years. With the Department of Justice's rapidly expanding role in combating terrorism, we cannot afford to lose the experienced men and women who serve in this vital role. This legislation also addresses concerns about the cost to the Federal Government of providing enhanced retirement benefits to assistant U.S. attorneys. Proponents of the bill have helped craft provisions that would assist the Department of Justice in recovering money owed to the Federal Government as a result of judgments and other fines. By bolstering the Department's ability to collect the funds it is owed, resources would be freed up to provide the parity in retirement benefits sought by assistant U.S. attorneys. The result of the creative efforts to fund these benefits in an alternative manner is that the Department of Justice will, through its duties as the Nation's law enforcement agency, be able to provide the benefits its employees deserve at little or no cost to the taxpayer. By passing this legislation, we will signal the Federal Government's recognition that prosecutors in our society fulfill a critical role. Congress can send the message that the service of these prosecutors is a valued and indispensable component of our Federal justice system. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this legislation to ensure that Federal policy equally respects the contributions of all members of the law enforcement community in keeping our society safe and secure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on July 4, the Nation will celebrate the 41st anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, landmark legislation that has guaranteed the public's ``right to know'' for generations of Americans. Regrettably, the Senate will mark this very important anniversary without having passed the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in Our National Government Act, the OPEN Government Act, S. 849, comprehensive legislation that Senator Cornyn and I introduced earlier this year to strengthen and reinvigorate FOIA for all Americans. Responsive government and transparent decisionmaking are bedrock American values. FOIA honors and helps translate those values into practice, and the OPEN Government Act will help FOIA work better in serving the public's interest. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bipartisan legislation in April. But a Republican hold is delaying consideration of this important FOIA reform bill. The Senate Republican leadership has also ignored requests to debate this bill on the Senate floor, needlessly stalling these long-overdue, bipartisan reforms to strengthen FOIA. For more than four decades, FOIA's timeless values of openness and transparency in government have ensured access to Government information. Just this week, we witnessed the great value of FOIA in shedding light on a controversial policy within the Office of the Vice President regarding the handling of classified information, with news reports that a FOIA request to the Justice Department first revealed that the Attorney General may have delayed a review into the legality of this troubling policy. Although FOIA remains an indispensable tool in shedding light on bad policies and Government abuses, this open Government law is being hampered by excessive delays and lax FOIA compliance. Today, Americans who seek information under FOIA remain less likely to obtain it than during any other time in FOIA's 40-plus year history. According to the National Security Archive, an independent research institute, the oldest outstanding FOIA requests date back to 1989, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moreover, more than a year after the President's FOIA Executive order to improve agency FOIA performance, FOIA backlogs are at an alltime high. According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, Federal agencies had 43 percent more FOIA requests pending and outstanding in 2006 than in 2002. In addition, the percentage of FOIA requestors who obtained at least some of the information that they requested from the Government declined by 31 percent in 2006, according to a study by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government. As the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade, the OPEN Government Act would help to reverse these troubling trends and to restore the public's trust in their Government. In so doing, this bill is a fitting tribute to FOIA and a wise investment in our American democracy. The OPEN Government Act promotes and enhances public disclosure of Government information under FOIA by helping Americans to obtain timely responses to their FOIA requests. This bill also improves transparency in the Federal Government's FOIA process by restoring meaningful deadlines for agency action under FOIA; imposing real consequences on Federal agencies for missing FOIA's 20-day statutory deadline; clarifying that FOIA applies to Government records held by outside private contractors; establishing a FOIA hotline service for all Federal agencies; and creating a FOIA Ombudsman to provide FOIA requestors and Federal agencies with a meaningful alternative to costly litigation. Let me also be clear about what this bill does not do. This bill does not harm or impede in any way the Government's ability to withhold or protect classified information. Classified, national security and homeland security-related information are all expressly exempt from FOIA's disclosure mandate, and this bill does nothing to alter these important exemptions. Senator Cornyn and I have also offered an amendment to this bill that would preserve the right of Federal agencies to assert these and other FOIA exemptions, even if agencies miss the 20-day statutory deadline under FOIA. The OPEN Government Act is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 13 Senators, including the bill's lead Republican cosponsor, Senator Cornyn. This bill is also endorsed by more than 115 business, public interest, and news organizations from across the political and ideological spectrum, including the American Library Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, OpenTheGovernment.org, Public Citizen, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Sunshine in Government Initiative, and the Vermont Press Association. I thank all of the cosponsors of this bill for their commitment to open government. I also thank the many organizations that have endorsed the OPEN Government Act for their support of this legislation. The OPEN Government Act is a good-government bill that Democrats and Republicans alike can and should work together to enact. If there are legitimate concerns with this bill, those concerns should be openly debated and the Senate should promptly pass this legislation. Senator Cornyn and I both know that open government is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is an American issue. It is in this bipartisan spirit that I urge the Senate to promptly consider the OPEN Government Act and that I encourage all Senators to support this important FOIA reform legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the bill's supporters following my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support for the Baucus-Tester-Collins-Leahy amendment to strip the references to the problematic REAL ID program from the underlying immigration bill. We may agree or disagree about the merits of the actual REAL ID program, but as hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee have shown, REAL ID is far from being ready for prime time. While the Department of Homeland Security has not even released final regulations directing the States on REAL ID implementation, REAL ID licenses are rapidly becoming a de facto national ID card, since you will need one to enter courthouses, airports, Federal buildings, and-- if this bill passes--workplaces all across the country. With roughly 260 million drivers in this country, I do not see how we could have the massive national databases required by REAL ID and this immigration bill up and running by the 2013 deadline set in this bill. Moreover, REAL ID raises multiple constitutional issues whose legal challenges could delay final implementation for years. In addition to numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns, REAL ID is a massive drivers' tax that could cost Americans taxpayers more than $23 billion. Opposition spans the political spectrum, from the right to the left, and a large number of States have expressed concerns about the mandates of the REAL ID Act by enacting bills and resolutions that oppose REAL ID. Georgia, Washington, Oklahoma, Montana, South Carolina, Maine, and New Hampshire have gone so far as to pass binding legislation that says they intend to refuse to comply with REAL ID. The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association have expressed serious reservations about the costs imposed on the States--and the structure of the poorly drafted grant program in the underlying bill. The Center for Democracy and Technology and the ACLU have expressed serious concerns about the lack of privacy and civil liberties protections within the REAL ID program. The reaction to the unfunded mandates and lack of privacy standards in the REAL ID Act is a good example of what happens when the Federal Government imposes a unilaterally devised and ill-considered mandate rather than working to meet goals through cooperation, bipartisanship, and partnership. For any new immigration measures to be effective, they must be well designed. Forcing employers, employees, and the States to use this troublesome national ID card will slow down the hiring process, stifle commerce, and not serve as an effective strategy. In addition, the States have already told us that they will not all have their new license programs up and running by the 2013 deadline called for in this bill. On top of that, I have gone through this bill several times, and I have found money for border fences, money for surveillance technologies, money for border patrol agents, and money for detention facilities, but I cannot find any hard money that actually goes into REAL ID implementation. So doing away with this poorly drafted grant program will not take $1 away from the $4.4 billion in enforcement money contained in this bill. As a result, I do not believe that we should jeopardize the future success of the immigration reforms sought in this bill by tying REAL ID too closely to it. Instead of mandating REAL ID licenses for employment verification, I think we should support the Baucus-Tester-Collins-Leahy amendment to strip REAL ID from this bill and put together a workable employment verification system that does not needlessly burden every legal job seeker in this country with the onerous and problematic requirements of REAL ID.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I want to speak briefly about a remarkable event that happened last Friday, June 15, 2007, in the small town of Windsor in my home State of Vermont. But first a bit of history. In January 1989, a member of my staff, Tim Rieser, traveled to the Thai-Cambodia border to locate a young Cambodian woman whose mother and two brothers, all of them survivors of the Khmer Rouge holocaust, had resettled in Vermont. The woman, Rhumdoul Rom, had been kidnapped and smuggled back into Cambodia, but she had escaped and was in a Thai refugee camp. When Rhumdoul was located she was holding her 5-day-old baby daughter, whose name was Suphada. A few days and several long airplane rides later, the two of them arrived in Vermont where they were reunited with the rest of their family. Sadly, Suphada's grandfather and other family members were among the 2 million Cambodians who were murdered or starved to death by the Khmer Rouge. One of Rhumdoul's sisters survived, and is living in Cambodia today. Adjusting to Vermont was not easy. Imagine traveling for the first time on an airplane and arriving from the tropics in a foreign land in the middle of winter, ice and snow everywhere, and not speaking a word of English. But the family persevered, supported by the generosity of the Windsor community. As the years passed, Rhumdoul learned English, graduated from high school and then community college, and became a skilled medical technician, at the same time that she was raising her daughter as a single mother. Suphada, coming to America so young, learned English easily and over time became an outstanding student and athlete. She won a prize for her writing, learned to play the flute, served meals at a local nursing home, and this year she was the captain of the Windsor girls' basketball team. She is also a very outgoing and friendly person. Recently, tragedy struck the family again, when Rhumdoul's mother and Suphada's grandmother, Prak Soy, died suddenly of meningitis. My wife Marcelle and I had the privilege of meeting Prak Soy, for whom living in the Unites States was not easy. I will always remember her as a selfless person who cared deeply for her children and grandchildren. They meant the world to her. This is a family that has experienced great loss, but they are also an example for those of us who have never known what it is to live through something as horrifying as genocide. On June 15, Suphada graduated from Windsor High School, and I understand that she has been accepted to several colleges, including, I am proud to say, my own alma mater, St. Michael's College in Colchester, VT. It is also the alma mater of another accomplished Cambodian refugee, Loung Ung, who years ago resettled in Vermont and has since become a world renowned author for her book ``First They Killed My Father,'' and a tireless campaigner against the scourge of landmines. I, Marcelle, and my staff would have liked to attend Suphada's graduation, but it was not possible due to the Senate's schedule and other commitments. But I want to congratulate her and her mother for her outstanding scholastic and athletic achievements, and wish her the best in the coming year at whichever college she chooses.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kennedy, Smith, Levin, Hagel, Biden, and Lieberman to introduce this important legislation. In January of this year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine the plight of Iraq's refugees, during which we heard from the State Department, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, nongovernmental organizations and individuals, and Iraqi citizens who had been targeted for assisting the United States. This hearing brought the enormity of the Iraq refugee situation into sharp focus and made clear that we must do more to address this crisis and provide assistance especially to those Iraqis who have assisted the United States with its mission. If enacted, this bill would help the United States fulfill the promises it has made to the people of Iraq. In February of this year, the Bush administration announced that 7,000 Iraqi refugees would be permitted to enter the United States in 2007. Over the last 8 months, however, only 70 Iraqis have been allowed into the United States as refugees. Each year there are 20,000 unallocated slots for refugees that could be applied to Iraq, and an additional 5,000 for the Middle East. Yet the Department of Homeland Security has admitted approximately 700 Iraqis since the war began in 2003. We have an obligation to do better than this when an estimated 4 million Iraqis have been displaced within Iraq or have fled the country due to our involvement there. And we have a special obligation to do all we can for those Iraqis who have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of the United States and who continue to live under the threat of torture and death. Refugees International has called the Iraq refugee crisis the fastest growing refugee crisis in the world. It is estimated that nearly 2 million Iraqis have been internally displaced, while another 2 million have fled the country, with little more than they could carry. With this bill, we show our commitment not to repeat the tragic and immoral mistake from the Vietnam era and leave friends without refuge and subject to violent reprisals. The United States has an obligation to the people of Iraq, and especially to those who have assisted the American military in its efforts there. When an Iraqi man or woman makes the choice to help the United States--whether as an interpreter or in some other role--and puts his or her life on the line, the United States bears a special responsibility to do what it can to reciprocate the loyalty that so many Iraqis have shown us. The bill we introduce today will create a new P2 category for Refugees of Special Humanitarian Concern. Individuals who have assisted the United States, or who have worked for a company, NGO, or other entity that has received a grant or contract from the U.S. Government would be eligible for status as a refugee of special humanitarian concern. In order to implement this new program, the legislation would direct the establishment of consular processing facilities in Iraq to expedite the resettlement process for those Iraqis and their immediate families who qualify under the bill for special relief. The bill also sets up a special immigrant visa category for individuals who have worked as interpreters or translators for the United States for an aggregate of 1 year between 2003 and the present. This new program would augment current efforts to provide protection for those individuals who have assisted the United States by providing interpreter or translation services. The legislation would also direct the Secretary of State to establish an office of Minister Counselor in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. This office would be responsible for overseeing the new programs set up under this bill, and would be the primary point of contact for eligible individuals seeking protection. This official would also have the authority to refer individuals directly to the United States Refugee Resettlement Program. Additionally, parallel Minister Counselor offices would be established in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon to effectuate the P2 refugee program. The Secretary of State would also be required to work with other nations currently hosting Iraqi refugees in order to provide support and to help ensure the safety and well-being of Iraqis located in countries surrounding Iraq. The legislation would also allow Iraqis who applied for asylum in the United States after 2003, and who were denied based on changed country conditions due to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, to have those denials reviewed due to the continuing violence and dangerous conditions in the country. This change will allow our laws to reflect the current reality in Iraq. This legislation will help provide some relief to the brave men and women who have assisted the United States in Iraq, and will help renew the commitment of the United States to the cause of protecting those who turn to us for help. I hope all Senators can join with us in support of the bill we introduce today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kennedy, Smith, Levin, Hagel, Biden, and Lieberman to introduce this important legislation. In January of this year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine the plight of Iraq's refugees, during which we heard from the State Department, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, nongovernmental organizations and individuals, and Iraqi citizens who had been targeted for assisting the United States. This hearing brought the enormity of the Iraq refugee situation into sharp focus and made clear that we must do more to address this crisis and provide assistance especially to those Iraqis who have assisted the United States with its mission. If enacted, this bill would help the United States fulfill the promises it has made to the people of Iraq. In February of this year, the Bush administration announced that 7,000 Iraqi refugees would be permitted to enter the United States in 2007. Over the last 8 months, however, only 70 Iraqis have been allowed into the United States as refugees. Each year there are 20,000 unallocated slots for refugees that could be applied to Iraq, and an additional 5,000 for the Middle East. Yet the Department of Homeland Security has admitted approximately 700 Iraqis since the war began in 2003. We have an obligation to do better than this when an estimated 4 million Iraqis have been displaced within Iraq or have fled the country due to our involvement there. And we have a special obligation to do all we can for those Iraqis who have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of the United States and who continue to live under the threat of torture and death. Refugees International has called the Iraq refugee crisis the fastest growing refugee crisis in the world. It is estimated that nearly 2 million Iraqis have been internally displaced, while another 2 million have fled the country, with little more than they could carry. With this bill, we show our commitment not to repeat the tragic and immoral mistake from the Vietnam era and leave friends without refuge and subject to violent reprisals. The United States has an obligation to the people of Iraq, and especially to those who have assisted the American military in its efforts there. When an Iraqi man or woman makes the choice to help the United States--whether as an interpreter or in some other role--and puts his or her life on the line, the United States bears a special responsibility to do what it can to reciprocate the loyalty that so many Iraqis have shown us. The bill we introduce today will create a new P2 category for Refugees of Special Humanitarian Concern. Individuals who have assisted the United States, or who have worked for a company, NGO, or other entity that has received a grant or contract from the U.S. Government would be eligible for status as a refugee of special humanitarian concern. In order to implement this new program, the legislation would direct the establishment of consular processing facilities in Iraq to expedite the resettlement process for those Iraqis and their immediate families who qualify under the bill for special relief. The bill also sets up a special immigrant visa category for individuals who have worked as interpreters or translators for the United States for an aggregate of 1 year between 2003 and the present. This new program would augment current efforts to provide protection for those individuals who have assisted the United States by providing interpreter or translation services. The legislation would also direct the Secretary of State to establish an office of Minister Counselor in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. This office would be responsible for overseeing the new programs set up under this bill, and would be the primary point of contact for eligible individuals seeking protection. This official would also have the authority to refer individuals directly to the United States Refugee Resettlement Program. Additionally, parallel Minister Counselor offices would be established in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon to effectuate the P2 refugee program. The Secretary of State would also be required to work with other nations currently hosting Iraqi refugees in order to provide support and to help ensure the safety and well-being of Iraqis located in countries surrounding Iraq. The legislation would also allow Iraqis who applied for asylum in the United States after 2003, and who were denied based on changed country conditions due to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, to have those denials reviewed due to the continuing violence and dangerous conditions in the country. This change will allow our laws to reflect the current reality in Iraq. This legislation will help provide some relief to the brave men and women who have assisted the United States in Iraq, and will help renew the commitment of the United States to the cause of protecting those who turn to us for help. I hope all Senators can join with us in support of the bill we introduce today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I join Senator Kohl as a cosponsor of his NOPEC amendment and urge the Senate to adopt it. Under Senator Kohl's leadership, the NOPEC bill has passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without amendment in four separate Congresses, under both Democratic and Republican leadership. The support for this legislation is both bipartisan and bicameral. The House of Representatives recently passed NOPEC with 345 Members voting for it. NOPEC will simply hold accountable certain oil-producing nations for their collusive behavior that has artificially reduced the supply and inflated the price of fuel. Unless this amendment becomes law, consumers across the Nation will continue to suffer. The rise and fall of oil and gas prices has a direct impact on American consumers and our economy. Last month, gas prices in the United States reached a near record high. While prices have come down slightly in recent weeks, that is no reason to condone anticompetitive conduct by foreign government cartels. American consumers should not be held economic hostage to the whim of colluding, foreign governments. The Associated Press recently reported the Iranian oil minister's announcement that members of OPEC would not increase the supply of oil despite reports that demand is on the rise. Without collusion, OPEC members would compete to serve that demand and prices at home would fall. When entities engage in anticompetitive conduct that harms American consumers, it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute. It is wrong to let members of OPEC off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of national governments. I am disappointed that the administration does not share this view and has threatened a veto. Americans deserve better, and it is time for Congress to act. We know the oil cartel and Big Oil companies like things just the way they are, and why shouldn't they? They continue to break new records as they roll up huge profits taken from consumers' pockets. I hope this Senate and this Congress will take the side of American consumers, not the side of Status Quo, Incorporated. We cannot claim to be energy independent while we permit foreign governments to manipulate oil prices in an anticompetitive manner. I thank Senator Kohl for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a small but important piece of intellectual property legislation today with my friends from Texas, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island. Our recent collaborations have been fruitful and important. The OPEN Government Act with Senator Cornyn, NOPEC with Senator Kohl, and patent reform with Senator Whitehouse. Today, we are joining together to reintroduce the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2007. Designs of boat vessel hulls are often the result of a great deal of time, effort, and financial investment. They are afforded intellectual property protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that Congress passed in 1998. This law exists for the same reason that other works enjoy intellectual property rights: to encourage continued innovation, to protect the works that emerge from the creative process, and to reward the creators. Recent courtroom experience has made it clear that the protections Congress passed 7 years ago need some statutory refinement to ensure they meet the purposes we envisioned. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments shore up the law, making an important clarification about the scope of the protections available to boat designs. We continue to be fascinated with, and in so many ways dependent on, bodies of water, both for recreation and commerce. More than 50 percent of Americans live on or near the coastline in this country. We seem always to be drawn to the water, whether it is the beautiful Lake Champlain in my home State of Vermont or the world's large oceans. As anyone who has visited our seaports can attest, much of our commerce involves sea travel. Protecting boat designs and encouraging innovation in those designs are worthy aims, and I hope we can move quickly to pass this bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a small but important piece of intellectual property legislation today with my friends from Texas, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island. Our recent collaborations have been fruitful and important. The OPEN Government Act with Senator Cornyn, NOPEC with Senator Kohl, and patent reform with Senator Whitehouse. Today, we are joining together to reintroduce the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2007. Designs of boat vessel hulls are often the result of a great deal of time, effort, and financial investment. They are afforded intellectual property protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that Congress passed in 1998. This law exists for the same reason that other works enjoy intellectual property rights: to encourage continued innovation, to protect the works that emerge from the creative process, and to reward the creators. Recent courtroom experience has made it clear that the protections Congress passed 7 years ago need some statutory refinement to ensure they meet the purposes we envisioned. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments shore up the law, making an important clarification about the scope of the protections available to boat designs. We continue to be fascinated with, and in so many ways dependent on, bodies of water, both for recreation and commerce. More than 50 percent of Americans live on or near the coastline in this country. We seem always to be drawn to the water, whether it is the beautiful Lake Champlain in my home State of Vermont or the world's large oceans. As anyone who has visited our seaports can attest, much of our commerce involves sea travel. Protecting boat designs and encouraging innovation in those designs are worthy aims, and I hope we can move quickly to pass this bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007. Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have significantly declined when adjusted for inflation. This bill would demonstrate our respect and appreciation for our hardworking Federal judges by authorizing an immediate and substantial increase in judicial salaries. Our bill recognizes the important constitutional role judges play in administering justice, interpreting our laws, and providing the ultimate check and balance in our system of government. It is time Congress treated the Federal judiciary with the respect that a co-equal branch of government deserves. Eight years ago, in 1999, the President's salary was doubled to $400,000 a year. We are not proposing to increase judges' salaries by 100 percent, but by half that, by 50 percent. The increase is an important step in ensuring the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence is critical for preserving our system of government and protecting the rights of all Americans. Surely we can do half as much for the judicial branch of Government as we did for the executive branch 8 years ago. For too long, judicial salaries have failed even to keep up with inflation while public and private sector salaries have surged ahead. According to information provided by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, judicial salaries have declined by nearly 25 percent in real terms since 1969. During the same time, private sector salaries have increased by more than 15 percent. In 1969, a Federal district court judge earned 20 percent more than a law school dean and about 30 percent more than a senior law professor at a top law school. By contrast, today top law school deans make twice as much as district court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 percent more. Many recent law school graduates will make more in their starting salary at a private law firm than we pay to an experienced district court judge. Those in the executive branch have enjoyed periodic raises that have taken their salaries well above those of judges. For example, SEC trial attorneys now make up to $180,330, which is significantly higher than the annual salary of our Federal trial judges. In addition, the workload for Federal judges has increased dramatically. Since 1960, the caseload for district court judges has climbed by almost 60 percent and the caseload of circuit court judges has jumped more than 200 percent. Judges who are working to preserve the rule of law in America and to make equal justice a reality should be respected, and their labor should be compensated. Paul Volcker, the chair of the National Commission on the Public Service, recently noted in The Wall Street Journal that congressional inaction on judicial pay could erode the high professional standards and independence of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Rehnquist repeatedly called for an increase in judicial pay, warning that ``[i)nadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure'' and that ``. . . low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench.'' Chief Justice Roberts pointed to an increasing trend in early retirement in his last ``Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,'' noting that many of those retired judges have gone to work in the private sector. Justice Anthony Kennedy testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February about similar threats to judicial independence. This bill addresses these concerns by granting a raise for all Federal judges. This bipartisan legislation has broad support. President Bush supports a significant pay raise for judges, as does the American Bar Association, as do the deans of 130 of the Nation's top law schools, civil rights groups, and others. One of the first bills we passed in the Senate this year, S. 197, authorized cost-of-living adjustments for the salaries of United States judges. Senators Specter, Feinstein and Cornyn joined me in cosponsoring this bill. Unfortunately, that bill has failed to move through the House of Representatives. Too often during the last several years our Federal judges have not been given a standard cost-of-living raise. That, too, has contributed to the diminution in their real compensation. Our democracy and the rights we enjoy depend on a strong and independent) judiciary. During the last few years it has been the courts that have acted to protect our liberties and our Constitution. The independence of the judiciary is compromised, however, if judges leave the bench for financial reasons. The quality of the judiciary is threatened if judges' salaries are inadequate to attract and retain our best legal minds. Given the essential role that the judiciary plays in our system of government, we should pass this raise to judicial salaries. I thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues, Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn for agreeing to join me in introducing this bill. I also thank Majority Leader Reid, as well as Minority Leader McConnell, for their support of this legislation and their commitment to the Federal judiciary.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007. Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have significantly declined when adjusted for inflation. This bill would demonstrate our respect and appreciation for our hardworking Federal judges by authorizing an immediate and substantial increase in judicial salaries. Our bill recognizes the important constitutional role judges play in administering justice, interpreting our laws, and providing the ultimate check and balance in our system of government. It is time Congress treated the Federal judiciary with the respect that a co-equal branch of government deserves. Eight years ago, in 1999, the President's salary was doubled to $400,000 a year. We are not proposing to increase judges' salaries by 100 percent, but by half that, by 50 percent. The increase is an important step in ensuring the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence is critical for preserving our system of government and protecting the rights of all Americans. Surely we can do half as much for the judicial branch of Government as we did for the executive branch 8 years ago. For too long, judicial salaries have failed even to keep up with inflation while public and private sector salaries have surged ahead. According to information provided by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, judicial salaries have declined by nearly 25 percent in real terms since 1969. During the same time, private sector salaries have increased by more than 15 percent. In 1969, a Federal district court judge earned 20 percent more than a law school dean and about 30 percent more than a senior law professor at a top law school. By contrast, today top law school deans make twice as much as district court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 percent more. Many recent law school graduates will make more in their starting salary at a private law firm than we pay to an experienced district court judge. Those in the executive branch have enjoyed periodic raises that have taken their salaries well above those of judges. For example, SEC trial attorneys now make up to $180,330, which is significantly higher than the annual salary of our Federal trial judges. In addition, the workload for Federal judges has increased dramatically. Since 1960, the caseload for district court judges has climbed by almost 60 percent and the caseload of circuit court judges has jumped more than 200 percent. Judges who are working to preserve the rule of law in America and to make equal justice a reality should be respected, and their labor should be compensated. Paul Volcker, the chair of the National Commission on the Public Service, recently noted in The Wall Street Journal that congressional inaction on judicial pay could erode the high professional standards and independence of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Rehnquist repeatedly called for an increase in judicial pay, warning that ``[i)nadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure'' and that ``. . . low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench.'' Chief Justice Roberts pointed to an increasing trend in early retirement in his last ``Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,'' noting that many of those retired judges have gone to work in the private sector. Justice Anthony Kennedy testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February about similar threats to judicial independence. This bill addresses these concerns by granting a raise for all Federal judges. This bipartisan legislation has broad support. President Bush supports a significant pay raise for judges, as does the American Bar Association, as do the deans of 130 of the Nation's top law schools, civil rights groups, and others. One of the first bills we passed in the Senate this year, S. 197, authorized cost-of-living adjustments for the salaries of United States judges. Senators Specter, Feinstein and Cornyn joined me in cosponsoring this bill. Unfortunately, that bill has failed to move through the House of Representatives. Too often during the last several years our Federal judges have not been given a standard cost-of-living raise. That, too, has contributed to the diminution in their real compensation. Our democracy and the rights we enjoy depend on a strong and independent) judiciary. During the last few years it has been the courts that have acted to protect our liberties and our Constitution. The independence of the judiciary is compromised, however, if judges leave the bench for financial reasons. The quality of the judiciary is threatened if judges' salaries are inadequate to attract and retain our best legal minds. Given the essential role that the judiciary plays in our system of government, we should pass this raise to judicial salaries. I thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues, Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn for agreeing to join me in introducing this bill. I also thank Majority Leader Reid, as well as Minority Leader McConnell, for their support of this legislation and their commitment to the Federal judiciary.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am proud to join Senator Kohl in supporting his amendment to the Energy Act. Under Senator Kohl's leadership, the NOPEC bill has passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without amendment in four separate Congresses, under both Democratic and Republican leadership. This NOPEC amendment will hold accountable certain oil producing nations for their collusive behavior that has artificially reduced the supply and inflated the price of fuel. Unless this amendment becomes law, consumers across the Nation will continue to suffer. According to a recent Washington Post article, gas prices last month came within a half-penny of the modern era's inflation-adjusted record set in 1981. The rise and fall of oil and gas prices has a direct impact on American consumers and our economy. Prices have come down slightly in recent weeks, but that is no reason to condone anticompetitive conduct by foreign government cartels. American consumers should not be held economic hostage to the whim of colluding foreign governments. Just a few days ago, the Associated Press reported Iran's oil minister's statement that the members of OPEC would not release more oil into the market. This, despite reports that demand is on the rise. Without collusion, OPEC members would compete to serve that demand and prices at home would fall. When entities engage in anticompetitive conduct that harms the American consumers, it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute. It is wrong to let members of OPEC off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of national governments. I am disappointed that the administration, which announced it would oppose this bill, does not share this view. NOPEC has bipartisan, bicameral support. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved it unanimously, and the House passed it with 345 Members voting for it. We cannot claim to be energy independent while we permit foreign governments to manipulate oil prices in an anticompetitive manner. It is long past time for Congress to act. I thank Senator Kohl for his leadership on this issue. amendment no. 1546 to amendment no. 1502

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for her courtesy in allowing me to go forward. White House Subpoenas Mr. President, the reason I speak on this sort of stage--instead of doing a press conference and calling every one of you about it--today I have issued, on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee, subpoenas to the White House in connection with our investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys around the country. I have spoken recently with Mr. Fielding, the White House Counsel, and I have consulted with the ranking Republican on the committee. Regrettably, to date, the White House has not produced a single document nor allowed White House staff to testify, despite our repeated requests for voluntary cooperation over the last several months. The White House's stonewalling of the congressional investigative committees continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation. Those who bear the brunt of this approach are the American people, those dedicated professionals at the Department of Justice who have tried to remain committed to effective law enforcement in spite of the untoward political influences from this administration, and, thirdly, the public's confidence in our justice system. That is why I believe we have to do everything we can to overcome the administration's stonewalling and get all the facts out on the table--get the facts out so Republican Senators and Democratic Senators and the American people can see what the facts are. Actually, the White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses--or saying they might let witnesses testify behind closed doors, with no transcript, no oath, which neither Republicans nor Democrats would ever accept--but then simultaneously claim that nothing improper ever happened. The involvement of the White House's political operation in these matters, including former Political Director Sara Taylor and her boss Karl Rove has been confirmed by information gathered by congressional committees. Some may hope to thwart our constitutional oversight efforts by locking the doors and closing the curtains and hiding things in their desks, but we will keep asking until we get to the truth. The House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Conyers, is likewise issuing and serving subpoenas today. He makes the point that these subpoenas are not merely requests for information; they are lawful demands on behalf of the American people through their elected representatives in Congress. So we will issue and serve three subpoenas today--two seeking the documents and testimony of Sara M. Taylor, the former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs, and another seeking White House documents relevant to the panel's ongoing investigation. Incidentally, Senator Specter and I had written to Ms. Taylor asking for voluntary cooperation. We did this more than 2 months ago, on April 11, so there would not be any need for a subpoena. We asked for voluntary cooperation. Well, that did not go very far. As I noted in my cover letter to the new White House Counsel, Mr. Fielding, I have sent him a half dozen previous letters during the past 3 months seeking voluntary cooperation from the White House with the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation into the mass firings and replacements of U.S. attorneys and politicization at the Department of Justice. It is now clear from the evidence gathered by the investigating committees that White House officials played a significant role in originating, developing, coordinating, and implementing the plan and the Justice Department's response to congressional inquiries about it. Yet to date the White House has not produced a single document or allowed even one White House official involved in these matters to be interviewed. It has been 2\1/2\ months since Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected their take-it-or-leave-it offer of off-the-record, backroom interviews with no followup. We said it was unacceptable. We have offered to try to work these things out. They have stayed the course: Take it or leave it. Take it or leave it: a backroom, closed- door meeting, with no transcript and no oath. Mr. President, I will leave that one quickly. As I told the White House Counsel, I would be subject to legislative malpractice if I were to ever accept on the part of the Senate such an offer. Ironically, Mr. Rove and the President have had no reluctance to comment publicly that there was, in their view, no wrongdoing and nothing improper. But they won't even tell us what they base that on. They cannot have it both ways. Their continuous stonewalling leads to the obvious conclusion they have something to hide. Because they continue their refusal, I issued these subpoenas. So we formally demanded--this is what it is--production of documents in the possession, custody, or control of the White House related to the committee's investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice's politicization of the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys. The documents compelled by the subpoena include documents related to the administration's evaluation of and decision to dismiss former U.S. attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. ``Bud'' Cummins, John McKay, Carol Lam, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan, Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves, or any other U.S. attorney dismissed or considered for dismissal since President Bush's reelection, the implementation of the dismissal and replacement of the dismissed U.S. attorneys, and the selection, discussion, and evaluation of possible replacements. They have yet to be explained. Among these documents are documents related to the involvement of Karl Rove, Harriet E. Miers, William Kelley, J. Scott Jennings, Sara M. Taylor, or any other current or former White House employees or officials involved in the firings and replacements, as well as documents related to the testimony of Justice Department officials to Congress regarding this matter--part of the reason being: What did they tell the Justice Department to say or, even more importantly, not to say. Of course these would include the purportedly ``lost'' Karl Rove e-mails that should have been retrieved by now and should now be produced without further delay. The distinguished Presiding Officer may remember when I said--at the time when they said those were all lost and erased--Well, you could not erase them. Of course they could be found. The White House dismissively said to we computer experts up here: Of course they had been lost. Gee whiz. Golly. Guess what. They seem to have been in a backup hard drive--like the e-mails for all of us are, like everybody knew they were, and notwithstanding the condescending, misleading statements of the White House Press Secretary's Office. Of course the e-mails were there. I am just disappointed that now that it turns out they were not lost like they claimed they were we still do not have them. We have to go to subpoenas to obtain information needed by the committee to fulfill our oversight responsibilities regarding the firings and the erosion of independence at the Justice Department--probably the greatest crime here. But the evidence so far--that White House officials were deeply involved--leaves me no choice, in light of the administration's lack of voluntary cooperation. Mr. President, I thank, again, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for yielding. I know she was to go first. I yield the floor to the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the man who probably understands the necessity of subpoenas better than anybody else in this body.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed just for a few minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I tell the leader and the senior Senator from New York, I know he has worked hard on this. Nobody has had more roadblocks thrown in front of him than the Senator from New York. He has asked legitimate questions. Many times, his legitimate questions were not answered by the Department of Justice. They refused to answer. We had to actually subpoena them to get answers that should have been sent to him by return courier. He has acted in the best sense of oversight. He has done what one should do in oversight. He should not be criticized for that. Maybe those who do the criticizing should ask why they allowed a rubberstamp Senate under their watch to continue for 6 years, with conduct that certainly borders on the criminal and certainly reflects the unethical goings-on at the Department of Justice, and they didn't say one word about it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to bring to the attention of the Senate the important work the members and staff of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board have accomplished during their first 20 years of service to protect Vermont's working landscape and to help ensure that Vermonters have safe and affordable places to call home. Since 1987, VHCB, its board members and staff have invested in 427 farms, resulting in the conservation of 118,500 acres of farmland; protected 250,000 acres of recreational and natural areas; and constructed or rehabilitated 8500 units of affordable housing. This has been a conscious investment of $200 million in our Green Mountains, leveraging an additional $750 million from public and private sources. Few organizations can boast the stimulus of $1 billion in two short decades. For centuries, Vermonters have made their livings working the land. As land use patterns drastically change across the country, including in the valleys of Vermont, VHCB has helped many farmers and communities conserve the rural working landscape that has come to define Vermont and the way of life in our State's communities. VHCB has become a national leader in farmland protection practices--educating family farmers how they can make money protecting working farmland and rural landscape for generations to come. The protections VHCB has been able to offer Vermont's farmers have resulted in hundreds of farms remaining active and contributing members of their communities, allowing them to remain Vermont's ultimate environmental stewards. VHCB's expertise also allowed me to work with them to implement a farm preservation pilot program in Vermont that has since become known as the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, a national farmland protection program. Today, this program has protected nearly a half million acres of farmland in 42 States nationwide. For centuries, the very same farmers who have lived off the land have become well known for their love of fishing, hunting, hiking and snowmobiling across Vermont's forests and open spaces. With encroaching urban sprawl and changing demographics, these lands, too, have been dwindling. VHCB has made it a priority to preserve these natural lands and access to these lands, conserving a quarter of a million acres of these green spaces. As a dual mission organization, VHCB has also led the country in developing and administering steady private, State and Federal funding sources for the preservation, development and rehabilitation of quality affordable housing in all corners of Vermont. These homes, like the great pieces of granite my grandfather once cut out of the mountainsides of Vermont, are the foundations for the future of Vermont. Additionally, many of these homes are designated perpetually affordable, ensuring that generations of Vermonters will have places to call home. Recently the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development named Vermont's federally funded HOME program, administered by VHCB, as the most effective program among 51 participating jurisdictions in the country for the fourth quarter in a row. Like so many Vermonters, I live in a rather old house in the Green Mountains. At least half of Vermont's housing stock is estimated to be more than 50 years old, and many are more than a century old. With this Yankee character comes a great danger that VHCB has identified and tackled with great skill: lead poisoning. The most common cause of lead poisoning is exposure to dust from deteriorated lead-based paint in a child's home or daycare. The Vermont Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Program, administered by VHCB, has provided technical and financial assistance to eligible landlords and homeowners to reduce the risk of lead poisoning in Vermont's buildings and homes. Since the very beginning, my good friend Gus Seelig has steered this organization through both calm and stormy weather. Like any good leader, I am certain that Gus would say this organization owes a great deal of its success to its many past and present board members and staff. On behalf of the people of Vermont, I thank and applaud everyone who has worked to make the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board a success. Congratulations on 20 great years preserving the character and affordability of Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Baucus- Tester-Sununu-Leahy-Akaka-Collins amendment to strip the references to the problematic REAL ID program from the underlying immigration bill. We may agree or disagree about the merits of the actual REAL ID program, but as hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee have shown, REAL ID is far from being ready for primetime. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has not even released final regulations directing the States on REAL ID implementation. With 260 million drivers in this country, I do not see how we could have the massive national databases required by REAL ID and this immigration bill up and running by the 2013 deadline set in this bill. In addition to numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns, REAL ID is an unfunded mandate that could cost the States in excess of $23 billion. Opposition spans the political spectrum, from the right to the left. A large number of States have expressed concerns with the mandates of the REAL ID Act by enacting bills and resolutions in opposition. Georgia, Washington, Oklahoma, and Montana have gone so far as to indicate that they intend to refuse compliance with it. The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association have expressed concerns about the costs imposed on the States. The reaction to the unfunded mandates of the REAL ID Act is a good example of what happens when the Federal Government imposes itself rather than working to create cooperation and partnership. On top of that, even though they are not even in production yet, REAL ID cards are rapidly becoming a de facto national ID card--since they will be needed to enter courthouses, airports, Federal buildings, and now workplaces all across the country. In my opinion, REAL ID raises multiple constitutional issues whose legal challenges could delay final implementation for years. For any new immigration measures to be effective, they must be well designed. Forcing employers, employees, and the States to use this troublesome national ID card will slow down the hiring process, stifle commerce, and not serve as an effective strategy. As a result, we should not jeopardize the future success of the immigration reforms sought in this legislation by tying REAL ID too closely to it. I do not see how it is possible for all of the States to have their new license programs up and running by the 2013 deadline called for in this bill. Thus, I think that instead of mandating REAL ID in this bill, we should support the Baucus-Tester amendment to strip REAL ID from this bill and put together a workable employment verification system that does not needlessly burden every legal job seeker in this country with the onerous and problematic requirements of REAL ID.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I wish to speak briefly about the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia. The federation is a nonprofit grassroots organization that organizes and monitors the extensive network of coffee growers throughout Colombia. Since 1927, it has worked to build an economically and environmentally sustainable coffee culture, strengthen community networks of coffee growers throughout the country, and promote exports of Colombian coffee worldwide. The federation will celebrate its 80th anniversary on June 27 and should be commended for its accomplishments. Coffee is grown today in more than half of Colombia's 1,098 municipalities, employing some 2 million people comprising 566,000 families. Many of these people live and work in small towns and rural areas, not unlike the farmers of my own State of Vermont. In fact, several Vermont companies, including Green Mountain Coffee and Coffee Enterprises, sell coffee produced by Colombian coffee growers who are supported by the federation. In a country where everyone has been affected by the armed conflict and the economic and social disruption it has caused, the Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia has focused increasingly on supporting the social aspects of coffee growers' lives. The federation has worked to bring trained teachers, schools, health clinics, roads, electrification, and other infrastructure to coffee-growing communities. It has provided technical training and the benefits of federation-sponsored research and development to coffee growers to help them improve yields and quality and to market their product. The results speak for themselves. Today, Colombia is the world's second largest coffee exporter by value, totaling $1.677 billion of coffee exported in 2006. The Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia should be recognized and commended for the 80 years that it has contributed in important ways to the well-being of the Colombian people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues in the Senate the accomplishments of several Vermont entrepreneurs. Each June, the Small Business Administration honors the best and brightest of each State's small business community. The entrepreneurial spirit in Vermont breeds many successful small businesses, and today I would like to congratulate the 2007 Vermont Small Business Person of the Year, Jack Glaser, president and cofounder of MBF Bioscience in Williston. Jack is one of the Green Mountain State's wonderful success stories, a University of Vermont graduate who worked with his family, especially his father, Dr. Edmund M. Glaser, to create and grow a successful business in Vermont. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Jack and everyone at MBF Bioscience. I ask unanimous consent that a Burlington Free Press article about Jack and the other 2007 Small Business Champions of the Year in Vermont be printed in the Record to commemorate their achievements.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, In the opening days of the war in Iraq in 2003, before ground forces moved into the country, I received an e-mail at a particularly suitable moment. Just when I was about to step into a meeting with President Bush at the White House, in came a message from my friend and colleague, then two-star Rear Admiral Barry Costello. Admiral Costello was in command of Cruiser-Destroyer Group One, based in the Persian Gulf. Its flotilla, including the aircraft carrier USS Constellation, was launching cruise missile and air strikes, while its contingent of over 7,000 marines waited to move into the country. Barry poignantly said, ``we are in the forefront--and are working hard to make America proud.'' I showed that note to the President. He and I disagreed on pretty much everything in the runup to the war, but at that moment we had a shared pride in Barry and the men and women under his command. The expertise, dedication, and sheer patriotism on display there in the gulf was beyond question. That moment crystallized the depth of gratitude that not only we elected leaders in Washington but also every Vermonter and American feel for our Armed Forces. Barry Costello has recently retired from the Navy after a stellar 36- year career. At every stage, before and after his command during the second Iraq war, professionalism and pure competence have been deeply etched in Barry's career. Whether in postings on the Joint Staff or on the USS Elliot, which he commanded, Barry has impressed those above and below him in the chain of command. His knowledge of the Navy--its organization, its mission, its capabilities is unrivaled. That thoroughgoing command of his surroundings, that superb ability to contribute to the larger organization made him a natural to serve as a legislative liaison here in the Senate and Congress as a whole. Whenever I or any of my colleagues had a question about some program, however obscure, Barry could answer it or get us answer in pretty short order. He was a strong conduit in the other direction too, providing insights to the senior Navy and Department of Defense leadership about the concerns of Congress. In short, he was the perfect liaison. It was fitting that Barry capped his career with command of the Navy's Third Fleet, based out in San Diego. One of the most powerful forces in our military's arsenal, the Third Fleet established itself with distinguished service under the legendary ADM William F. ``Bull'' Halsey. Barry's leadership combines the steadfastness of Halsey and the eagle-eye vision of a Nimitz. At the Third Fleet, he showed himself a Navy officer's officer. At 56, Barry still has ample contributions to make to our country, whether in industry or further public service. He has already served as an inspiration to the Navy and Vermont, and I have no doubt that he will continue make enormous strides on behalf of others in whatever endeavors he pursues. I know I will run across Barry very soon, but I want to congratulate him, his loving wife LuAnne, and their two sons Brendan and Aiden. The Senate, Vermont, and the country join me in expressing our deep gratitude. Thank you.