Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate may not consider the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act,'' the OPEN Government Act, S. 849, before it adjourns for the Memorial Day recess. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bipartisan bill. We have filed a committee report on this important legislation. Regrettably, an anonymous Republican hold is stalling this important Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, legislation, needlessly delaying long-overdue reforms to strengthen FOIA and to protect the public's right to know. It is both unfortunate and ironic that this bipartisan bill, which promotes sunshine and openness in our government, is being hindered by a secret and anonymous hold. This is a good government bill that Democrats and Republicans alike, can and should work together to enact. I hope that the Senator placing the secret hold on this bill will come forward, so that we can resolve any legitimate concerns, and the full Senate can promptly act on this legislation. The OPEN Government Act is cosponsored by 10 Senators from both sides of the aisle. This bill is also endorsed by more than 100 business, public interest, and news organizations from across the political and ideological spectrum, including, the American Library Association, Conservation Congress, the Liberty Coalition, OpenTheGovernment.org, the Sunshine in Government Initiative, the Republican Liberty Caucus and Public Citizen. I thank all of the cosponsors of this bill and commend Senator Cornyn as our lead Republican sponsor. I also thank the many open government organizations that are working tirelessly to encourage the Congress to enact this bill this year. This measure is cleared for passage on the Democratic side. It should be passed without further delay. 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 and improving transparency in the Federal Government's FOIA process. During the recent hearing that the Judiciary Committee held on this legislation, we learned that, 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-year history. This bill would help to reverse this trend and to restore the public's trust in their government. 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 spirit that I urge the removal of the anonymous hold placed on this bill. I also urge all Members of the Senate to join me in supporting this important open government legislation. We have received numerous letters of support from such organizations as the American Library Association, the National Press Club, Pubic Citizen, Sunshine in Government Initiative and OpenTheGovernment.org. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support sent to the majority and Republican leaders of the Senate and endorsed by more than 100 organizations from across the political spectrum be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote against the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental conference report. Although there are many sound and worthy provisions in this bill--such as assistance for Afghanistan and other countries, and additional funds not requested by the administration to help address the backlog of equipment for the National Guard--the inescapable fact is that this legislation would not reverse this administration's disastrous Iraq policy. I simply cannot vote in favor of a bill, containing tens of billions of additional dollars for the President's policy in Iraq, that does not begin to bring our troops home. As one of the 23 Senators who opposed authorizing this war, I believe it is vital that we send a strong signal that Congress is going to exercise its article I constitutional powers and end our central involvement in Iraq's civil war. Every Senator--for or against this military adventure--must take a stand on whether to continue the status quo or change course. That, at the end of the day, is what this vote represents. Congress had a workable and I believe widely acceptable plan in the original version of this supplemental bill. Taking a page from the Iraq Study Group recommendations, the plan was to end the military mission in Iraq as we currently know it. We would reduce American forces to the contingent necessary for limited Iraqi troop training, counterterrorism operations, and protecting remaining American personnel. I and others joined with Senator Feingold in an effort to strengthen that position by ensuring that no funding could go toward deployment, beyond those narrow purposes. About a month ago, we all saw the President veto the supplemental bill. Then last week, the President muscled his congressional allies to vote against the stronger Feingold- Reid-Leahy provision. So what we are left with is this new version of the supplemental--the status quo, more of the same old stay the course. The reality is that this new conference report does nothing to stop the President's open- ended escalation. It will not force the Iraqis to make the difficult political compromises which they need to make. Nor will it begin a redeployment of American forces. The final legislation drops the mandatory timetable for planning and commencing redeployment with a targeted completion date. Beyond some reporting requirements, there is no limitation on troop levels. What the legislation does do is limit our aid to the Iraqi government if actions toward reconciliation are not taken, although the President may waive these limitations. I agree that we should tie our aid to the Iraqi government to clear benchmarks. But that alone is not sufficient. The reality is that despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, the violence has increased. We all know that the trends are going in the wrong direction. This piecemeal approach assures that our troops will remain in the middle of harm's way for the foreseeable future. And when it comes to changing the dynamic in Iraq, it is troop levels that matter. The introduction of more forces through this open-ended escalation that the President calls the surge is sending the wrong signal to the Iraqis and to countries in the region that have interests there. It says they do not have to make the tough decisions because the American forces are there to do the dirty work, to spill their blood and to contain sectarian militias or deal with unwelcome foreign fighters. Rory Stewart, a perspicacious observer with hands-on experience in Iraq, rightly pointed out in a recent public forum that our presence there is fundamentally undermining Iraq's political system, ``infantilizing'' Iraq politics, to use his phrase. He notes that Iraqi politicians are far more capable of making deals and reaching compromise than we think, but that our troop presence allows them to play hardball with each other. ``Were we to leave,'' Mr. Stewart says, ``they would be weaker and under more pressure to compromise.'' As I have said, there are many aspects of this supplemental that I support. We have, for example, included $1 billion in unrequested funding to help rebuild our National Guard, which is suffering from dangerously low equipment stocks because so much of the Guard's equipment has been sent to Iraq. We have funded the Marla Ruzicka Fund to aid innocent Iraqi civilians who have suffered casualties, and a similar program to aid civilian victims of war in Afghanistan. There is other funding for refugees and humanitarian assistance in Africa and the Middle East, as well as for Kosovo. I am gratified that we have been able to include funding for elections in Nepal, to support reintegration of former combatants in northern Uganda, and to begin the clean up of dioxin-contaminated sites in Vietnam and for health programs in nearby communities. These are just a few of the things carried over from the original, vetoed version of the bill that I support and for which I have worked hard. I thank Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and our counterparts in the House, Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf, for working together in a bipartisan way to allocate the foreign assistance funding in this bill. Yet there is a central fact that we must meet head on. This war has been a costly disaster for our country. Our ability to fight terrorism, pursue our larger national security and foreign policy goals, and secure the welfare of every American has been diminished because of it. Thousands of our troops have lost their lives or suffered grievous, life-altering injuries. Tens of thousands--and possibly hundreds of thousands--of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives. We have opened a gaping wound in the Middle East and severely damaged our image and our influence. This war has been a foreign policy failure of epic proportions. It is time to bring our troops home. It is time to show the Iraqi people that they cannot expect us to make these sacrifices if they won't make the hard decisions that are spread before them. I regret that this legislation whitewashes what was a reasonable, good faith effort to bring real pressure to bear in Baghdad and beyond. I cannot in good conscious vote for it. defense subcommittee funding

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1165.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this modification is required by the authors of the bill in order for dairy provisions to be accepted into this bill. I have attempted through this language to ensure as best we can that our Nation's dairy farmers have adequate access to labor in the future. This amendment only deals with prospective immigration and is focused on dairy only. Dairy is a year-round operation where interruptions to a farmer's labor force can have significant consequences--the H-2A provisions as they exist in the bill now do not adequately address the unique needs of dairy because they permit only 10-month terms of work. This sort of interruption does not work for dairy farmers, who need year-round, dependable employees. In the AgJOBS legislation that this body passed last year and that we reintroduced this year, I supported a much broader provision to address the unique needs of the dairy industry. That provision had the overwhelming endorsement of America's family dairy operations. Unfortunately, there were objections from the Bush administration and the authors of the bill now pending, so I have worked with the managers of this bill to craft this compromise. This modification would enable dairy farmers to have multiple avenues to employ legal workers in the future. First, under the H-2A program, dairy farmers would have the ability to hire workers for a 3-year period after which time the workers would return home. Second, this amendment would refine the H-2A program to allow dairy farmers to more easily obtain workers under the normal H-2A time frame of 10-month work periods. In combination with available opportunities under the Y visa program, these changes should provide significant opportunities for America's dairy farmers to obtain future legal workers to meet their needs. I urge support for this modified amendment to ensure that essential changes for dairy farmers become part of this legislation. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his courtesy.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Casey and Schumer be added as cosponsors.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Texas to do me the courtesy of allowing me 1 minute to take care of something that is going to be accepted, and that is going to modify an amendment that is to be accepted.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, words and numbers are often used on this floor to describe the ongoing war in Iraq. In recent weeks, we have found ourselves debating the policy decisions that created the current climate in Iraq, the current strategy in Baghdad, and the policy shifts that need to occur to bring our men and women home. We frequently cite the fast-rising numbers of military fatalities and injuries and the growing number of innocent civilian deaths. A central element of this picture and of this discussion should always be the sacrifices and the suffering of the families at home. Vermont, small State that we are, bears the burden of the highest fatality rate in the country, with more deaths per capita in Iraq than any other State. These losses have left dozens of families searching for comfort as they mourn their loved ones. But in the darkest and saddest of times, a new Vermont family has emerged, brought together by the efforts of students at Norwich University, the Nation's oldest military college, which calls Northfield, VT, its home. ``Vermont Fallen,'' developed and produced by students at Norwich for a media course, profiles the journeys of families from across our State as they grieve the loss of their sons, fathers, husbands, and friends. Many of these families, brought together by community screenings of the documentary, now are able to turn to each other for comfort. With this remarkable project, these students from Norwich University--many of whom have friends, family, and colleagues serving on the front lines of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--have given a great gift to these families and to us all. They have honored in this special way those from Vermont who have fallen and they have offered a glimpse into the searing and highly personal grief and mourning that have touched thousands of American families and scores of American communities, across Vermont and across the country. They have produced a tribute that speaks directly to each human heart. NBC's ``Today'' recently aired a segment about ``Vermont Fallen.'' I ask unanimous consent that the transcript be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 879, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007, or NOPEC. The Judiciary Committee today reports that bill favorably, with an accompanying committee report. This is not the first time the committee has reported this legislation, but it ought to be the last. Indeed, the Senate Judiciary Committee under three different chairmen has now considered and recommended this legislation for passage. It is long past time for this bill to become law. NOPEC will hold certain oil producing nations accountable for their collusive behavior that has artificially--and drastically--reduced the supply and inflated the price of fuel. It authorizes the Attorney General to take legal action against any foreign state, including members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, for price fixing and artificially limiting the amount of available oil. Just this morning, I read in the Washington Post that the Energy Department declared that ``gasoline prices last week came within a half penny of tying the modern era's inflation-adjusted record set in March 1981,'' and that the nationwide average price at the pump is $3.218 a gallon. That is a rise of more than 11 cents a gallon just in the last week, according to the Energy Information Administration. These increases in price have led to renewed calls for investigation into their causes, but we already know well one significant cause: anticompetitive conduct by oil cartels. While OPEC actions remain protected from antitrust enforcement, the ability of the governments involved to wreak havoc on the American economy remains unchecked. If OPEC were simply a collection of foreign businesses engaged in this type of behavior, they would already be subject to the antitrust laws. I am disappointed that the administration recently announced it would oppose this bill and recommend that the President veto it. 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 OPEC producers off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of national governments. Americans deserve better, and it is time for Congress to act. With the summer months approaching, there is no end in sight to the rise in gas prices. I am hopeful that the Senate will take up and pass this legislation in June. I thank Senator Kohl for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as the Senate prepares to vote on the majority leader's motion to proceed to a comprehensive immigration reform bill, I continue to have concerns about the proposal announced last week. But I wish to commend Senator Kennedy for working so hard over the last several months to revive a bipartisan bill. He worked closely behind the scenes with Senator McCain for several months. When those efforts failed, he didn't give up. In fact, he was not deterred, as many who supported this process before went the other way. On the contrary, he spoke to a number of Republican Senators who had actively worked with us last year. When they wouldn't join him in a bipartisan effort, he continued on and joined the process Secretary Chertoff had begun with opponents of last year's bill. In extended discussions he and others have had, they have now come forward with a proposal. I commend Senator Kennedy's commitment and his efforts. I would also like to thank the majority leader. He had intended to set aside 2 full weeks this month for Senate consideration of comprehensive immigration reform. When the informal discussions were not completed on time, he gave those discussions more time. He was right that this issue warrants a significant commitment of the Senate's time, and I am glad to work with him to make sure that consideration is fair and comprehensive. Now, I am going to support the motion to proceed and the majority leader's cloture petition to go to the bill in order to allow the Senate the opportunity to work its will on the matter. Obviously, that doesn't presuppose how I will vote on the final product. Many of us have said that the bipartisan proposal, the Kennedy-Kyl-Chertoff proposal, represents a starting point for consideration. As the authors of the proposal know, this Senator from Vermont feels very strongly about the provisions that affect dairy workers and the circumstances of that important industry. But I also take a particular interest in the provisions that affect seasonal workers for the hundreds of Vermont businesses that require them, as well as the needs of our leading high-technology companies, many of which have significant operations in Vermont. The diverse coalition that put the AgJOBS bill together recognized that certain sectors of agriculture require special circumstances. It is really a shame that the AgJOBS legislation which Republicans and Democrats worked so hard to produce and which had gotten strong bipartisan agreement will not be fully respected. I believe that is a significant mistake and one I will consider in my final determination of how to vote. Notwithstanding that mistake, I will continue to work with the bill's authors to make sure our Nation's dairy farmers have a viable temporary worker program for the future. Beyond these provisions, I have a number of fundamental concerns I hope the Senate will address in the days and perhaps weeks ahead. In his radio address of May 12, President Bush restated that comprehensive reform must ``treat people with dignity.'' He said we must ``honor the great American tradition of the melting pot'' and that we must help immigrants ``embrace our common identity as Americans.'' I agree with President Bush. I believe part of that common heritage is our welcoming of immigrants and families. America is a land in which families matter, in which our values call for us to provide not just for ourselves at the cost of severing family ties but for our families. As the Statue of Liberty proclaims, America is a country that welcomes the poor and those yearning to breathe free, not just the well-educated and those who already speak English. It welcomed my grandparents who did not speak English and were not wealthy. We never know who among those immigrating to our shores will turn out to be the next great military leader, the next great entrepreneur, the next great inventor, the next to lift this Nation to greater heights. I want the bill we pass to recognize the best of America and our values and the best of our traditions as a land of immigrants, the land that brought my grandparents and my parents-in-law to this country. I also want it to be practical and workable. The so-called triggers in the White House proposal do two things. First, they appear to put off implementation of most immigration reform to the next President and the next Congress. Somehow, I don't understand that, why we can't face up to it ourselves. Second, they require absolute faith in the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration. Given the record of this administration, I see little basis for such faith. When this administration's representatives say to us that in the next 18 months they will secure the borders and they will devise and implement identification verification measures and they will do that without fail, I remember the last 24 months in which they failed the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf States. I see an administration that has ignored immigration enforcement for years. I see an administration that does not deal realistically with the northern border. I see an administration that has all but destroyed the Justice Department and severely undermined its traditions as a neutral law enforcement agency above politics. I see an administration that denied global warming, disregarded science and, most egregiously, has disregarded the realities of its current disastrous engagement in Iraq. I say this because we are called upon to just put total faith in the administration. Some of us believe very much in the slogan President Reagan made up for the Russians when he said, ``Trust, but verify.'' In that regard, I am a Reaganite. I have urged the President to invest himself in the process and work with Congress. I did so on the first day of this Congress and at the one Senate hearing held on this matter in February. The path chosen by the administration was not one I recommended. Instead, the administration remained on the far right of the immigration debate and has pushed the bill and the debate in that direction. We have before us a measure that is the product of closed-door meetings between the administration and Republican Senators, which was then put to Democratic Senators as the framework from which any further negotiations could proceed. Senator Kennedy has done his best. He has made improvements in the proposal. He deserves our thanks. But whether the proposal is where it should be is what this debate will begin to determine. The substitute bill the administration endorses creates a temporary worker program with no opportunity to pursue the American dream. This bill risks the creation of a permanent, revolving underclass of workers with limited rights. A temporary worker program with no opportunity to share in the promise of America creates an incentive for overstays and risks creating a new population of undocumented individuals, just as we work hard to bring millions of people out of the shadows of our society. I also worry that the temporary worker program included in the bill doesn't effectively serve the needs of American employers. I am worried that it is unrealistic. This part of the proposal is opposed by a wide array of interests and constituencies, including organized labor, business, and advocates for immigrants. I hope we listen carefully to their concerns as we proceed. The substitute bill also erodes our traditional commitment to family unity by removing whole segments of family-based immigration. No longer will certain family members be allowed to be sponsored by their loved ones in the United States. Instead, proponents seek to create a supposedly merit-based green card system subject to a point system, where family ties are de-emphasized, and immediate contributions through education and job skills already attained are valued. I recognize that we may benefit in the short run from a more highly- skilled foreign labor pool, but I have grave concerns about doing so at the expense of our traditional commitment to family unity and fostering strong families. Where are the family values here? The substitute bill also will require all Americans--not just foreign workers--to verify their citizenship before obtaining a job. Like the REAL ID Act that was forced on the American people outside the normal legislative process, this requirement is yet another example of the Administration's consistent denigration of Americans' rights, including the right to privacy. The Administration is telling all Americans that we can no longer trust you--that Big Brother will control hiring for all jobs in America. From America's country stores to our largest corporations, employers will now be de facto immigration officials, and potential employees will be presumed illegal until they prove themselves citizens. I hope we can reconsider this ill-conceived program, which cuts so hard against the presumptive decency and honesty of American citizens. America's democracy works because law-abiding Americans choose to comply with our laws, pay their taxes, and participate in our civil society. I am pleased that significant parts of AGJOBS have been included in this bill. The legalization provisions for currently undocumented farm workers will go a long way toward helping farmers and removing the cloud of fear from so many workers. I commend Senator Feinstein and Senator Craig for their work in this regard. But the bill also rejects parts of the monumental compromise reached between farm workers and agricultural employers in the AGJOBS bill, which provides much needed reforms for America's farmers, dairy operators, and farm workers. I am extremely disappointed that American dairy farmers who want to hire future legal foreign workers end up losing out to the talking point that ``temporary means temporary.'' The bill also neglects the real needs of the high-tech community, which has been vigilant in seeking reliable sources of high-skilled workers. Instead of adding sufficient H-1B visa numbers to allow companies to stay competitive and remain the world's leaders, the bill creates a green card system that doesn't truly address the technology industry's needs and removes hiring decisions from the company and places them with the Federal Government. It says: Trust us; we are from the Federal Government; we can make a better decision for you. Some of us are skeptical. But there are some good aspects of the bill. It incorporates the DREAM Act, a bill I have long supported. It has provisions that can move millions of undocumented people in this country on a path to citizenship, if not unrealistically delayed by the so-called triggers. Regrettably, it currently includes a provision to require immigrants to return to their home country before applying. In my view, that is unrealistic in many circumstances, and it is inflexibly harsh in others. Those who struggled to get here--who escaped oppressive and dysfunctional governments--should not be required to repeat that journey to share in the promise of America. This provision is driven by ideology, not by an American sense of fairness, and it should be revisited in our legislative process. I am also encouraged that we may be past the anti-immigrant opposition that stalled our efforts last year. I hope that we are past trying to make criminals out of undocumented immigrants. I hope that we are past trying to make criminals out of the clergy and advocates that try to help hard-working immigrants seeking a better life for their children. I hope we are past trying to build fences and walls around America and the American dream. I hope that we are past the anti- immigrant rhetoric and the anti-Hispanic slurs that accompanied the debate and electioneering last year. We need to keep working to make sure our legislation is one that takes a commonsense, realistic approach to this situation. I will continue working to produce legislation that treats people with dignity and respects our great traditions as a welcoming nation. We have much work to do before this bill becomes worthy of the Senate and of our great history and tradition as a nation of immigrants, a nation that brought my grandparents and my great-great-grandparents and my parents- in-law to this country. I will vote to support the Majority Leader's effort to proceed to debate on comprehensive immigration reform. I hope that as we move through amendments and debate, the Senate will work toward making this a better bill. We all know that had we insisted on taking up the Senate-passed bill of last year, we would not have the votes to proceed. Many who voted for last year's Senate's bill were prepared to abandon their support. The Majority Leader has demonstrated his good faith. I hope that Senators will join together and work together to produce a bill of which we can be proud and that will honor our parents and grandparents as well as our neighbors and grandchildren. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Gallagher, a detailee to my staff from the Department of Homeland Security, be given floor privileges for the duration of debate on the comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a joint resolution that would grant the consent of Congress to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding, IEMAMOU compact. This joint resolution would formally approve of the IEMAMOU compact, a mutual emergency assistance agreement entered into by the New England States, including my home State of Vermont and several Canadian Provinces, who are our neighbors to the north. This mutual assistance compact, which has been agreed to and operating in principle for more than 5 years, allows for cooperation between emergency responders in the United States and Canada during natural disasters and other serious emergencies. This compact is an extraordinary example of the international cooperation and good will which makes our countries more secure and our citizens safer. Congress should pass this joint resolution to give this vital compact the full force of law. We must all do our best to prepare for the most serious emergencies that can harm our communities. These crises may arise from natural or manmade disasters, or from technological hazards or civil emergencies. As those who live in the Northeast know, extreme weather is not uncommon in New England, or in the eastern Provinces of Canada. Together with our Canadian neighbors, we have endured catastrophic blizzards and ice storms over the years that have closed roads and highways, shut down power for extended periods, and stranded travelers and rural residents for days, or longer. At times, we have also suffered the misfortune of responding to serious accidents, such as train or plane crashes. Of course, our concerns for safety surrounding nuclear powerplants and other industrial sites warrants extensive planning and preparedness for even the possibility of technological disasters. During these events, we turn to our first responders and our emergency management professionals to provide assistance and secure public safety no matter how grave the danger, and no matter how challenging the task. The IEMMOU compact was created in response to the devastating ice storm of 1998. In January of that year, an unprecedented 3-day ice storm paralyzed portions of the northern New England States and the adjacent Canadian Provinces causing massive damage to the electrical and transportation infrastructure. Millions were left in the dark for days and even weeks, leaving more than 30 dead and shutting down normal activities in large cities like Montreal and Ottawa. Following this devastation, the governors and premiers of those regions affected recognized the need for greater cross-border emergency cooperation, and they directed their emergency management leaders to develop and create a memorandum of understanding on these issues that benefit all parties north and south of the border. The IEMAMOU compact was the result of this collaborative, international process, and now stands as a model compact for cross-border mutual emergency assistance. The compact allows for international sharing of resources and expertise in times of extreme emergency or disaster. For example, rural States, such as my own, may need to call upon specialized resources found in other larger States or neighboring Provinces to respond immediately to events, such as chemical disasters or mass transit accidents. With natural disasters, such as prolonged, severe winter storms, the areas affected may be so vast, stretching across several States or Provinces that no single jurisdiction alone could respond fully to the crisis. There are also events that occur along or near our border with Canada which require the immediate response and full cooperation of States and Provinces in both nations. The IEMAMOU compact meets these needs with a thoughtful and forward-looking outline of how to address issues that face first responders and their managers in times of cross-border emergency. This international compact provides a legal framework for cooperation and mutual assistance between the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the Canadian Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The compact requires each participating member, whether State or Province, to formulate plans and programs to facilitate international and interstate or provincial cooperation in case of natural or manmade disaster, technological hazard, or civil emergency. The compact also provides for the temporary suspension of statutes or ordinances in each jurisdiction that may impede the implementation of these plans. For example, under the compact, government officials and law enforcement authorities from one member State or Province can officially work in other jurisdictions during times of emergency, a circumstance that would not be permitted otherwise. The compact also creates a formal mechanism for making assistance requests from one state or province to another, and encourages frequent consultation between the emergency management leaders to develop free exchange of information and resources across borders. In addition, the compact provides a Good Samaritan provision, which gives liability protection for emergency responders who act in good faith in providing assistance in a legal jurisdiction outside their own, and creates reciprocal workers compensation and other benefits to emergency responders who may get injured in responding to an emergency under the compact. Finally, the compact allows for reimbursement between members States or Provinces for losses or damages incurred in responding under the agreement. All members of this compact have agreed to its terms and join in requesting Congress's consent for the agreement. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have joined the IEMAMOU compact, and many of these States have passed legislation adopting the compact under State law. The Premiers of Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have similarly approved of the compact. The IEMAMOU compact has been functioning in principle for more than 5 years, as the emergency management leaders from each member State and Province meet twice a year. Planning among the constituent members of the compact is also ongoing. This compact works well and should be supported by Congress. The IEMAMOU compact is an international agreement between States and a foreign power, and it cannot have the full force of law without the formal approval of Congress. The U.S. Constitution requires that ``[n]o state shall . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power'' unless with the ``consent of Congress.'' U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10, cl. 3. The joint resolution introduced today provides this necessary consent, and would give legal force to the compact. Congressional approval of this compact would also provide jurisdiction for Federal courts to resolve any disputes under the agreement. This joint resolution is vitally important to the New England States and our Canadian Provinces to the north. Congress should support their cooperative, international leadership in creating and implementing this unique emergency management compact. The Governor of Vermont supports this joint resolution as do the leaders of the North East States Emergency Consortium, which represents each of the New England States in the compact. This is not the first time I have supported this joint resolution. In 2001, this joint resolution was introduced by my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Robert Smith, and I joined him as a cosponsor along with Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Chafee, and Gregg. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I moved the joint resolution through Committee where it passed by unanimous consent on October 31, 2001. With my support and that of other Senators, the joint resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 20, 2001, in the last month of the Democratic majority in the 107 Congress. Unfortunately, the House never came to consider the joint resolution, and it failed to become law. Since then, under the Republican leadership of the 108 and 109 Congresses, the joint resolution has only been introduced once and has not moved beyond referral to committee. It is time to take action and pass this joint resolution without further delay. The IEMAMOU compact provides invaluable international cooperation and mutual assistance in times of natural disaster and extreme emergency. This compact works well for New England and the eastern Canadian provinces, and it stands as a model for emergency management planning and cooperation across this country. It is a crucial element of the security and safety planning for all communities in New England and eastern Canada, and we can wait no longer for it to become law. 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 joint resolution that would grant the consent of Congress to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding, IEMAMOU compact. This joint resolution would formally approve of the IEMAMOU compact, a mutual emergency assistance agreement entered into by the New England States, including my home State of Vermont and several Canadian Provinces, who are our neighbors to the north. This mutual assistance compact, which has been agreed to and operating in principle for more than 5 years, allows for cooperation between emergency responders in the United States and Canada during natural disasters and other serious emergencies. This compact is an extraordinary example of the international cooperation and good will which makes our countries more secure and our citizens safer. Congress should pass this joint resolution to give this vital compact the full force of law. We must all do our best to prepare for the most serious emergencies that can harm our communities. These crises may arise from natural or manmade disasters, or from technological hazards or civil emergencies. As those who live in the Northeast know, extreme weather is not uncommon in New England, or in the eastern Provinces of Canada. Together with our Canadian neighbors, we have endured catastrophic blizzards and ice storms over the years that have closed roads and highways, shut down power for extended periods, and stranded travelers and rural residents for days, or longer. At times, we have also suffered the misfortune of responding to serious accidents, such as train or plane crashes. Of course, our concerns for safety surrounding nuclear powerplants and other industrial sites warrants extensive planning and preparedness for even the possibility of technological disasters. During these events, we turn to our first responders and our emergency management professionals to provide assistance and secure public safety no matter how grave the danger, and no matter how challenging the task. The IEMMOU compact was created in response to the devastating ice storm of 1998. In January of that year, an unprecedented 3-day ice storm paralyzed portions of the northern New England States and the adjacent Canadian Provinces causing massive damage to the electrical and transportation infrastructure. Millions were left in the dark for days and even weeks, leaving more than 30 dead and shutting down normal activities in large cities like Montreal and Ottawa. Following this devastation, the governors and premiers of those regions affected recognized the need for greater cross-border emergency cooperation, and they directed their emergency management leaders to develop and create a memorandum of understanding on these issues that benefit all parties north and south of the border. The IEMAMOU compact was the result of this collaborative, international process, and now stands as a model compact for cross-border mutual emergency assistance. The compact allows for international sharing of resources and expertise in times of extreme emergency or disaster. For example, rural States, such as my own, may need to call upon specialized resources found in other larger States or neighboring Provinces to respond immediately to events, such as chemical disasters or mass transit accidents. With natural disasters, such as prolonged, severe winter storms, the areas affected may be so vast, stretching across several States or Provinces that no single jurisdiction alone could respond fully to the crisis. There are also events that occur along or near our border with Canada which require the immediate response and full cooperation of States and Provinces in both nations. The IEMAMOU compact meets these needs with a thoughtful and forward-looking outline of how to address issues that face first responders and their managers in times of cross-border emergency. This international compact provides a legal framework for cooperation and mutual assistance between the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the Canadian Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The compact requires each participating member, whether State or Province, to formulate plans and programs to facilitate international and interstate or provincial cooperation in case of natural or manmade disaster, technological hazard, or civil emergency. The compact also provides for the temporary suspension of statutes or ordinances in each jurisdiction that may impede the implementation of these plans. For example, under the compact, government officials and law enforcement authorities from one member State or Province can officially work in other jurisdictions during times of emergency, a circumstance that would not be permitted otherwise. The compact also creates a formal mechanism for making assistance requests from one state or province to another, and encourages frequent consultation between the emergency management leaders to develop free exchange of information and resources across borders. In addition, the compact provides a Good Samaritan provision, which gives liability protection for emergency responders who act in good faith in providing assistance in a legal jurisdiction outside their own, and creates reciprocal workers compensation and other benefits to emergency responders who may get injured in responding to an emergency under the compact. Finally, the compact allows for reimbursement between members States or Provinces for losses or damages incurred in responding under the agreement. All members of this compact have agreed to its terms and join in requesting Congress's consent for the agreement. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have joined the IEMAMOU compact, and many of these States have passed legislation adopting the compact under State law. The Premiers of Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have similarly approved of the compact. The IEMAMOU compact has been functioning in principle for more than 5 years, as the emergency management leaders from each member State and Province meet twice a year. Planning among the constituent members of the compact is also ongoing. This compact works well and should be supported by Congress. The IEMAMOU compact is an international agreement between States and a foreign power, and it cannot have the full force of law without the formal approval of Congress. The U.S. Constitution requires that ``[n]o state shall . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power'' unless with the ``consent of Congress.'' U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10, cl. 3. The joint resolution introduced today provides this necessary consent, and would give legal force to the compact. Congressional approval of this compact would also provide jurisdiction for Federal courts to resolve any disputes under the agreement. This joint resolution is vitally important to the New England States and our Canadian Provinces to the north. Congress should support their cooperative, international leadership in creating and implementing this unique emergency management compact. The Governor of Vermont supports this joint resolution as do the leaders of the North East States Emergency Consortium, which represents each of the New England States in the compact. This is not the first time I have supported this joint resolution. In 2001, this joint resolution was introduced by my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Robert Smith, and I joined him as a cosponsor along with Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Chafee, and Gregg. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I moved the joint resolution through Committee where it passed by unanimous consent on October 31, 2001. With my support and that of other Senators, the joint resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 20, 2001, in the last month of the Democratic majority in the 107 Congress. Unfortunately, the House never came to consider the joint resolution, and it failed to become law. Since then, under the Republican leadership of the 108 and 109 Congresses, the joint resolution has only been introduced once and has not moved beyond referral to committee. It is time to take action and pass this joint resolution without further delay. The IEMAMOU compact provides invaluable international cooperation and mutual assistance in times of natural disaster and extreme emergency. This compact works well for New England and the eastern Canadian provinces, and it stands as a model for emergency management planning and cooperation across this country. It is a crucial element of the security and safety planning for all communities in New England and eastern Canada, and we can wait no longer for it to become law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this weekend we witnessed an act of senseless violence in Moscow, ID, the home of the University of Idaho, where someone reportedly laid siege to a courthouse, killing a police officer and wounding a sheriff's deputy and another person. The gunman then retreated into a church, where he apparently killed a church sexton and then took his own life. The attack at the courthouse in Idaho is another reminder of the need to provide resources and protections crucial to our Federal and State courts. It was 2 years ago when the mother and husband of Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago were murdered in their home. Judge Lefkow's courageous testimony in our committee hearing in May 2005 is something none of us will forget. Later that year a Georgia State court judge was killed at a courthouse in Atlanta and there was an attack on a State judge in Nevada. Last month, by a vote of 97-0, the Senate passed S. 378, the bipartisan Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. I introduced this measure in January along with Senator Specter, the majority leader, Senator Durbin, Senator Cornyn and others. House Judiciary chairman John Conyers introduced an identical measure in the House also with bipartisan support. Among the bill's many protections are provisions expanding the access of State courts to grant programs for their security. The additional resources provided by this bill may not have prevented what occurred this weekend, but we must do what we can. I wish this legislation had been enacted last year. Despite our efforts, despite Senate passage of this measure twice last year, the House last Congress did not take up and pass these measures to improve court security. I expect that the new House soon will take up and pass S. 378 in this Congress. It should not be a struggle to enact these measures to improve court security. Our Nation's Founders knew that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the political branches of Government, those rights and privileges would not be preserved. The courts are the ultimate check and balance in our system. We need to do our part to ensure that the dedicated women and men of the Federal and State judiciary have the resources, security, and independence necessary to fulfill their crucial responsibilities. This weekend serves as another tragic reminder that we owe it to our judges and those protecting our courthouses to better protect them and their families from violence and to ensure that they have the peace of mind necessary to do their vital and difficult jobs.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, this Congress has been making important efforts to show our support and commitment to our Nation's law enforcement officers. This week marks the 44th year that we have celebrated National Police Week. On May 1, the Senate passed a resolution sponsored by my colleague Senator Specter, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and myself, marking May 15, 2007 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Earlier this week, I was honored to participate in that ceremony here at the Capitol hosted by the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary. As we do each year, we gathered with the families of those who lost loved ones in 2006 while serving in the line of duty. We commemorated their sacrifice to keep us safe and secure. On Tuesday, the House passed H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvements Act of 2007, by an overwhelming vote of 381 to 34. The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to report the Senate's companion bill which I joined with Senator Biden to introduce. Despite tremendous support for this legislation, a Republican objection to passing the House bill has prevented this important legislation from passing the Senate. I am disappointed that Senate action on these vital improvements to the COPS Program has stalled, and I hope the objection is withdrawn so that the Senate can pass H.R. 1700. This legislation would reauthorize and expand the ability of the Attorney General to award grants aimed at increasing the number of cops on the streets and in our schools. To accomplish this goal, this bill would authorize $600 million in designated funds to hire more officers to improve and expand community policing, which will in turn help reduce crime. In Vermont, for example, passage of the COPS Improvements Act would likely mean that 110 new officers would be put on the beat. Additionally, the COPS Improvements Act would authorize $200 million annually for district attorneys to hire community prosecutors and $350 million annually for technology grants. The COPS Program has been a resounding success, and the improvements to the program that are contained in this bill would help our State and local law enforcement agencies cope with the substantial reductions in funding they have endured in recent years. Despite these reductions in funding, law enforcement officers have an increased role in homeland security responsibilities. H.R. 1700 includes ``Terrorism Cops,'' officers who are focused specifically on homeland security, and would also include the Troops to Cops Program to help soldiers returning from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, this legislation gives our law enforcement officers the tools they need to reduce crime and protect our citizens. The Government Accountability Office has reported that between 1998 and 2000, COPS hiring grants were responsible for 200,000 to 225,000 less criminal acts--one-third of which were violent. With violent crime on the rise and our State and local law enforcement officers stretched thin with new responsibilities, it is essential that we pass this legislation. I urge those on the other side of the aisle to withdraw their objections and support our State and local law enforcement agencies by passing H.R. 1700.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I proudly tell my friends in the Senate about an impressive milestone in the history of Vermont business. This winter marked 50 years since IBM President Tom Watson Jr. opened a manufacturing plant in Essex Junction. Today, IBM is Vermont's largest private employer and one of the foundations to a growing technology sector throughout our State. Many events have and will be planned to celebrate the many achievements IBM and its workforce have made in the Green Mountain State. Most recently, Vermont Business Magazine ran a collection of news pieces and special features in its April 2007 issue about IBM's history in Vermont. I ask unanimous consent that an op-ed I wrote recognizing the successes that IBM and Vermont have enjoyed during the past 50 years be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to commend the senior Senator from Washington State for her statement. She expressed similar concerns at the time of the original vote on the war in Iraq. She courageously stood up and spoke to why the mistakes were being made. I have to say, especially seeing the distinguished Presiding Officer from my own State of Vermont, I think it is safe to say, if the same speech had been given in the State of Vermont, way over across the continent to our State, it would have been widely and happily received. We have a situation where one time people put on the ribbons to support the troops, as we all do, we all do, but then when the budget comes, we find, well, we will support everything but those things needed by our troops when they come home--everything that is needed by our veterans, everything that is needed by a lot of our troops while they are over there, and this will not change until more people speak out as courageously as the Senator from Washington State has. I commend her. She has been very consistent. They are words that this Vermonter is glad to hear. I am glad she is saying it at a time when both the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Vermont, and I had a chance to be here. I applaud her for it.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today our nation mourns the loss of Yolanda King, the eldest daughter of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Coretta Scott King, and the ``first daughter'' of the civil rights movement. Yolanda King's life moved in the stream of American civil rights history. Born in segregated Montgomery, AL, in November of 1955, she came into this world only 3 weeks before the Interstate Commerce Commission issued its ban on racial segregation in interstate commerce and 2 weeks before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a bus in Montgomery. Yolanda was 7 years old when her father, in his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech, said ``I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of the skin but by the content of their character.'' In a 2004 statement entitled, ``The Meaning of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday,'' Coretta Scott King recalled that ``Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. Life's most persistent and nagging question . . . is what are you doing for others?'' Yolanda led a life that made her family and her Nation proud. She was an actress, an author, and a producer. But she also worked in service to others. The world will remember her as an activist for peace, an ardent supporter of nonviolence, and a torchbearer for Dr. King's dream of racial harmony. Through her actions, the King family legacy lives on. Like her parents, Yolanda inspired a generation of youths to dedicate their lives to service. Her life is a shining example that we all can make a difference, and her deeds will continue to inspire generations to come. Our thoughts are with the King family today. I salute Yolanda's life, and hope that our Nation will continue its march towards a more inclusive democracy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, today, the U.S. Sentencing Commission took another important step in addressing the wide disparity in our Federal cocaine sentencing laws. The Commission released its fourth report to Congress in 12 years that, once again, provides a comprehensive review of our cocaine policies, and recommendations about how those policies can be improved. Almost 3 weeks ago, the Commission recommended to Congress a change in the Sentencing Guidelines that would lower the offense level for crack offenders across the board. Both of these actions are positive steps, but real progress in this area requires congressional action. Under current law, an offender apprehended with 5 grams of crack cocaine faces the same 5 year mandatory minimum sentence as an offender with 500 grams of powder cocaine--that is the same sentence for 100 times more powder cocaine. In 2000, the average sentence for a crack cocaine defendant was nearly 4 years longer than the average sentence for a powder cocaine defendant. Last week, the Commission announced it will issue a guideline change that lowers the offense level for crack offenders by 2 points across the board. As a result, 75 percent of Federal crack offenders will have their sentences reduced by approximately 16 months. This change represents a step in the right direction. For far too long, the Federal crack-powder sentencing laws have created an injustice in our Nation. Over 20 years now, Congress has silently stood by as this policy swelled our prisons, disproportionately impacted African Americans, and misdirected precious Federal resources on low-level street dealers rather than on the worst offenders--drug kingpins who bring crack into our neighborhoods. Twenty years of irresponsible policy is enough. I hope the Commission's report and recommendations will serve as a roadmap for the 110th Congress. Americans deserve a Congress that will make Federal drug laws fair and proportional. We can, and should, fix this injustice on a bipartisan basis. It is time to act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today marks the 26th year that peace officers from around the country have gathered in the Nation's Capital to participate in the National Peace Officers Memorial Day Service. Every year, Peace Officers Memorial Day offers the people of the United States, in their communities, in their State capitals, and in the Nation's Capital, the opportunity to honor and reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by our police forces. I welcome the visiting peace officers and their family members who are gathered in Washington today as we honor their services and those lost this past year. Earlier this month, the Senate passed a resolution marking today National Peace Officers Memorial Day. This is now the 11th year running that I have sponsored this resolution to honor the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who give their lives serving their communities. Senator Specter, himself a former prosecutor, former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and now our ranking member, was the lead Republican sponsor of this bipartisan measure this year. I thank the majority leader, himself a former police officer, and all Senators for their support in recognizing the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make each day for the American people. Currently, more than 900,000 men and women who guard our communities do so at great risk. After the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, 72 peace officers died while trying to ensure that their fellow citizens in those buildings got to safety. That act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of our country and is a tragic reminder of how important it is for the Congress to provide all of the resources necessary to protect officers in the line of duty. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 17,900 law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. We are fortunate in Vermont that we rank as the State with the fewest officer deaths. With 19 deaths, however, that is, of course, 19 deaths too many. In 2006, 145 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually and a drop from 2005 when 156 officers were killed. That is still 145 officers too many. We need to continue our support for better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved training, and advanced emergency medical care. I hope as the 110th Congress moves forward that all Senators can work together to ensure that all of our law enforcement officers and their families have the full support and the resources they need from the Federal Government. I have been working to help make it safer on the beat for our officers. Back in 1998, Senator Campbell and I authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act, in part a response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout on the Vermont-New Hampshire border in which two State troopers who lacked bulletproof vests were killed. Since then, we have successfully reauthorized this program three times: In the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, in the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2004, and most recently as part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. It is now authorized at $50 million per year through fiscal year 2009 to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. Senator Specter and I joined together to send a letter to other Senators last week to make sure that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program is fully funded this year. Bulletproof vests have saved the lives of thousands of officers and are a fundamental line of defense that no officer should be without. It is crucial that Congress provide the full funding authorized to the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. Hundreds of thousands of police officers and local jurisdictions are counting on us. I am disappointed that not all of Congress's actions to protect and help our law enforcement officers are implemented by this administration. President Bush has repeatedly proposed drastic cuts to the bulletproof vest initiative and other grant programs that directly assist State and local law enforcement. The Bush administration has spent more than $400 billion on a failed policy in Iraq, and yet the President continues to propose cuts in funding for programs here in the United States for first responders who protect our Nation's communities. I will mention one other important example of a law I sponsored and helped pass in 2003, the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act. This important, bipartisan legislation reflects the belief of Congress that the families of firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other first responders should be cared for when a public safety officer dies of a heart attack or stroke in the line of duty. To date, the Department of Justice has made only two positive determinations from the more than 230 applications it has received. It is inexcusable that the Department of Justice appears to be interpreting this law as narrowly as possible and is denying and delaying so many of these claims. Congress and the American people want to see fair and equitable treatment for the families of the brave individuals who lose their lives in the line of duty, not foot-dragging and excuses from the Justice Department. We can all agree that the men and women in law enforcement who have sacrificed for our safety deserve our deep gratitude and respect. National Peace Officers Memorial Day recognizes real-life heroes. Our Nation's law enforcement officers deserve our commitment to provide for those who help keep us all safe. I support and respect our State and local police officers and all of our first responders and am proud to recognize their role in upholding the rule of law and keeping our Nation safe and secure.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the Senator is still on the floor, I wish he had heard my statement. I can assure him that neither the chairman of the Judiciary Committee nor the majority leader intends to emulate what the Republicans did, with a pocket filibuster of more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees. I know of nobody on this side of the aisle who expects the Democrats to do a pocket filibuster of 60 of President Bush's nominees, as the Republicans did of President Clinton's. It is interesting, when I hear this talk about historical averages, they weren't only--when you bring up the number of times there was a Democratic majority with a Republican President, a Republican President was treated far better than the Republicans treated a Democratic President. At no time were the Democrats ever pocket-filibustering 60 of the President's nominees. There has been talk about President Bush withdrawing some of these nominees he had last year. I point out he had a Republican majority throughout the year, and they didn't pass through many. One was opposed by organizations that had never taken a position on a judge before--the Wildlife Federation--and all the Native American councils. Another one was not only involved in running the torture memos, but after swearing under oath and telling us information, he broke that oath by never giving or bringing the information. That was a person who would not have gotten a majority under a Republican-controlled committee. He would not have gotten out of committee because both Republicans and Democrats would have opposed him. So no big deal withdrawing people who were not going to go forward. In fact, in one instance, because somebody was nominated in the wrong State for a circuit court, that person was withdrawn. We moved very quickly to put the next nominee in that came from the right State. I remember once that I got criticism from the White House, Karl Rove, and Vice President Cheney for holding up because a person asked about a nominee. I must admit, to their credit, they withdrew his name after he was indicted and pled guilty to fraud. They are probably kind of happy I didn't let him go forward. The Senator from Texas says we should compare. I wish he would stay with me one more moment. If the Senator from Texas doesn't want to listen and we have closed minds, I can't do anything about it. I will say this: I have been chairman for 21 months during President Bush's Presidency. During that time, counting today's, we have confirmed 20 circuit judges and 98 district judges. One of the other chairmen was there for 2 years, there were 18 circuit judges. They were there longer than I have been with less judges; 85 district judges compared to my 98 in less time. Another chairman, 16 circuit judges compared to my 20; 35 district judges compared to the 98 we put through. What we have done, of course, is the distinguished ranking member, as chairman, put together strenuous debate on two Supreme Court nominees. I think he knows full well the Democrats cooperated with him, whether they supported the nominee or not, to get them through. Frankly, I am tired of misstatements of the record, and I will take time--I probably will have to have time on every single judge that comes up--to correct that. So people understand, we will not do as the Republicans did and pocket filibuster 60 or more of President Bush's nominees and, secondly, obviously we know when the Republican rule, the Strom Thurmond rule, kicks in next April, that changes all the rules. I will point out, the proof is in the pudding. In less than 2 years, with the Democrats in control, we have moved faster on the President's nominees than during comparable times with Republicans. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. No, sir.

Mr. LEAHY

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