Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the time allotted to me, I will talk about some other things. Later this afternoon, a wonderful American man who had a life that epitomizes what is best in our country will be buried in Arlington. I am speaking about Jack Valenti. Jack and his wife Mary Margaret first took my wife Marcel and I under their wings when I came here as an unknown 34-year-old Senator from Vermont. We had so many wonderful times with both of them. There would be times, obviously, as many of us did during Jack's years as president of the Motion Picture Association, when we would gather for a dinner at the MPAA, always with at least one Italian dish, and then watch a first-run movie. Jack would be greeting everybody by name. For those of us who sometimes have to remember the names of our own families, he was remarkable. But the remarkable thing was, he greeted everybody. He knew about you and was interested in what you were interested in, but also on the points that he wanted to get across, he would do so in a way with integrity, with brilliance, and with the respect of both Republicans and Democrats, as he would go through the halls of the Senate and the House. On a personal basis, with he and Mary Margaret, we would sit sometimes having a quiet meal at their house or on one occasion at a favorite restaurant of theirs, on a soft summer evening, sitting outdoors and talking about kids and, in that case, their pending grandchild. I could not help but think about this man, who by all rights never should have made it through World War II. He was a highly decorated fighter bomber pilot. He went through battles where there were enormous casualties. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross and just about every other bravery medal one could, and he survived. He came back to a career that ranged from being somber, as we all know, in Texas at the time of President Kennedy's death, to going on the plane with President Johnson, and sharing those Texas roots and working with him. From a personal point of view, I think of the time he spent with my late mother who was an Italian American. They had that bond. He would single her out at national gatherings of Italian Americans. She loved it. She called me once and said: I saw that nice young man on television. I said: Mother, whom are you talking about? She said: Jack Valenti, that nice young man. I said: Mom, Jack is almost 20 years older than I am. She said: Really. Well, he doesn't look it. And then came the killing shot. She said: Patrick, you should take better care of yourself. When Jack had one of his many retirement parties--I will speak to that in a moment--I told that story. I am afraid more than one person in the audience agrees with my mother. I said ``one of his many retirements.'' He never retired. He continued to write books. He had one that he just finished before a stroke silenced him a few weeks ago. I have a copy of his book in my desk on the Senate floor. I have a copy of all his books. They are well written. He had a command of the English language that all of us would like to think we could master with the best of all speechwriters, and we can't. He did it. He was his own speechwriter. Nobody else could begin to match what he did. One of the things I think of--and I was thinking of this at his funeral, where I had the honor of being an honorary pallbearer--I spoke with Mary Margaret and his son John afterward, his daughter Courtney. I was speaking with others. I remembered an op-ed piece that my friend Matt Gerson wrote for the Saturday, April 28, Washington Post about Jack. Matt refers to the mentoring that he did of so many people. Matt refers to his own mentoring by Jack Valenti. Well, I am one of those Senators--one of hundreds of Senators--on both sides of the aisle mentored by Jack. I, along with my wife, am among the thousands of people who will miss his phone calls, who will miss his conversations, who will miss his friendship, and we join in sending our condolences to Mary Margaret, and know she carries on great memories of her own, and memories we will continue to share. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed piece I referred to by Matt Gerson be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today, we had a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Pace were there. I was at that meeting. I had questions that I asked. I have been bothered since the meeting, not so much by what they said, but by what has happened in the last few days. Every one of us, when we turn on our television set, sees the devastation in Kansas by a tornado--something we would not see in my State of Vermont. But even in a State where these are not unusual things, the devastation of this tornado was unique. I thought yesterday about how the President of the United States, through his spokesperson, blatantly dismissed the all too real concerns of the Governor of Kansas, Governor Sebelius, about the equipment levels available to our National Guard for dealing with such emergencies at home as this horrible disaster I spoke of that befell Greensburg, KS. The White House spokesperson, sitting comfortably at the White House, said: Well, you know, there is no problem. The Guard has considerable equipment stocks still available. Everybody who has studied the situation with our National Guard around this country knows that assertion is absurd on a number of levels. Maybe they felt they could make a political statement because the Governor is of another party. But the reality is, the Governor spoke the truth. She knows the Guard faces real, incontrovertible shortfalls in vital equipment. Contrary to what the White House has said, the Governors--I am talking about the Governors; Republican, Democratic Governors alike-- and their adjutant generals--those who are the heads of the National Guard in their respective States--are reporting something quite different than the blase attitude of the White House. State after State reports missing humvees, medium-sized trucks, generators, dump trucks, communications systems. These are not claims from just any observer of Guard issues; these are the leaders who have been elected by the people to provide for their security and deal with these sometimes terrifying State emergencies. As the Presiding Officer knows, the Governors command the Guard when operating in a State, and we have to give special credence to what they say. The idea that there is no problem--this kind of dismissive ``there is no problem''--is equally ridiculous because it has been clearly documented there is a very real $24 billion equipment shortfall in Army National Guard equipment alone. Now, those are reports that do not take into consideration the shortfalls within the Air National Guard. But both the Active Army and the National Guard agree on this figure. It was developed together with the National Guard Bureau working closely with the Army staff. To say there is no problem, on the one hand, and have an arm of the administration, on the other hand, say there is a $24 billion shortfall--to me, that is a problem. What is a greater problem is there are no plans to address this shortfall in the long-range budget. There are no plans to buy the 18,000 needed humvees, no plans to obtain the 30,000 medium-sized trucks, no plans to purchase the 12,000 required generators, no plans to purchase the 62,000 communications sets--the list goes on and on. Another reason the White House's assessment of Guard equipment issues is so flawed is that everyone--from the Guard leadership to the Army leadership to Members here on the Hill--knows that, very frequently, that equipment slated for the Guard never actually makes it to the Guard because it is diverted, transferred to the Active Force before it gets into Guard stocks. Even when the Guard equipment makes it into the Guard stocks, it is often quickly turned around and sent right back off to Iraq, along with deploying Guard units, many of which now face their second Iraq deployment. It is passing strange to me that while this administration asks for a blank check to resupply the Iraqi National Guard, they do not have 1 cent in their long-range budget to resupply the American National Guard. Now, whether someone is for or against the war in Iraq, you would think our own forces--our own American national guard--could be treated at least on par with the Iraqi national guard, especially as we see the brave men and women of our National Guard not only answering the call in Iraq and Afghanistan, but answering the call when there are dangers here at home. We do not see them, as we have seen in units of the Iraqi national guard, setting out to kill each other or forming death squads. So why do we write blank checks for the Iraqi national guard when we can't take care of our own? I wish the President and the White House would come to fully realize this reality. Here is the real situation when it comes to National Guard equipment: The Guard does not have adequate stocks to deal with emergencies where they can maximize their full potential. In a smaller scale disaster, they cannot respond as quickly to support first responders and local law enforcement. That is what we saw recently in Kansas. Now, suppose you have another emergency in Kansas or a larger scale emergency or something like Hurricane Katrina or, God forbid, two simultaneous disasters. The Guard is going to be hard pressed to respond as well as it did along the gulf coast almost 2 years ago. Let me show you some photographs. You can see from these photographs, these are things our Guard does. You see this capsized tanker, and helicopters trying to rescue the people. Those are National Guard helicopters. Here we have a forest fire close to an urban area, where homes are in danger. You can see an airplane putting down a fire retardant. That is a National Guard airplane. Here you see a little child being rescued, carried up to a helicopter in the arms--the embracing arms, the safety of the arms--of a National Guard member. Here you see the rescue of somebody who was in an accident. Here you see National Guard in armored personnel carriers in a flooded area. In case you are wondering where that area is, look at the sign in the background that says ``Welcome to New Orleans.'' Much of that sign is under water. First responders--the police, fire departments--in New Orleans were totally overwhelmed, figuratively and literally. The Guard responded. Look at these firefighters, trudging through a forest, at risk to their own lives, to put out a forest fire. Who are they? National Guard members. The Secretary of Defense maintained this morning in his appearance before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that the Guard has 56 percent of its equipment stocks available. Well, that figure contradicts everything I have heard from other responsible officials, who put the figure closer to 35 percent. Frankly, 35 percent or 56 percent is not adequate, by any means. In the latest supplemental spending bill, which the President seemed happy to veto, I worked with my colleague on the National Guard Caucus, Senator Bond. We cochair the National Guard Caucus. We also serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. We added $1 billion for Army Guard equipment purchases. That $1 billion was not requested by the administration. We had virtually unanimous support, Republicans and Democrats, in this body for it. It would go directly for dealing with that $24 billion shortfall. Now, that has been vetoed. We are going to work together in a bipartisan fashion to get it back into whatever spending bill we pass. We cannot do that unless we work together--unless we work together. This is a case where it almost becomes a cliche to say: We cannot afford to let our Guard down--but we cannot. We do not have tornadoes in Vermont, but we have had some pretty vicious floods--one that nearly wiped out my hometown of Montpelier, VT, the capital. We have had some pretty vicious ice storms--one that almost removed the agricultural sector of a major part of our State. In each case--as hard working as the local responders were, and they were, the police and the fire departments--the first call of the Governor went to the Guard, the National Guard. And they came. They rescued people. They kept people going. When you have an ice storm, and it is 10 degrees below zero in your State, you can't wait for them to say: Well, we have 56 percent or we have 35 percent of your equipment. The other equipment you need is in Los Angeles, and we will ship it to you as quickly as we can. That is the old ``check is in the mail.'' If it is 10 degrees below zero, and you have an ice storm, with all the power lines that come down, people are going to die--people are going to die--if they can't get power within a matter of, really, minutes. The Guard can do that. We know what a fiasco it was with our still dysfunctional Department of Homeland Security after Katrina. We have seen how the Department of Homeland Security and its FEMA division have still not responded to that. But we did respond when the Governors called out the National Guard. So I rarely ever respond to comments made by the White House and their press operation, even when they take gratuitous swipes at me, but this one, I couldn't pass up. They know what the numbers are. They know the Governor of Kansas was speaking the truth. They know the Guard is woefully undersupplied. They know they have been diverting money to pay for the Iraqi National Guard from our Guard. So I think it would be really helpful for the White House to stop showing contempt for the views of our Nation's elected Governors. Take and consider their input, respect their thoughts about the Guard given their places with the National Guard in their States. Let's turn the situation around. Let's come up with a new plan to replenish depleted Guard equipment stocks. We can't afford to continue to let our Guard down. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the appropriate charts on this matter.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be charged to both sides.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending judicial nomination.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate continues to make significant progress today with another confirmation of another lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. The judicial nomination we consider is Debra Ann Livingston of New York, who has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That is the circuit for New York, Connecticut and, of course, Vermont. Professor Livingston has the support of both her home State Senators. I thank Senator Schumer for chairing the confirmation hearing at which she appeared. Professor Livingston is the Paul J. Kellner Professor of Law and vice dean of the Columbia Law School, where she has been a professor for 13 years, teaching criminal procedure, evidence, and national security law. She previously taught at the University of Michigan Law School. Prior to her academic career, Professor Livingston served as a Federal prosecutor and deputy chief of appeals for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and worked in private practice for the Wall Street law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. I congratulate Professor Livingston and her family on what I am sure will be her confirmation today. Coincidentally, this is the anniversary of the date 6 years ago, in 2001, on which this President began his assault upon the courts by announcing his first list of nominees. With the help of Senate Republicans, this President has sought to pack the courts and tilt them decidedly in one direction. To a great extent, he has succeeded. After Republican Senators stalled President Clinton's nominees to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, D.C., and other circuits, the Senate proceeded to confirm this President's nominees to the very vacancies that had previously been maintained by pocket filibuster in the Senate. In my time as chairman from mid-2001 to the end of 2002, I worked hard to reach out to this President and tried hard to change the tone and get the confirmation process back on track. We succeeded in confirming 100 nominees in 17 months, including 17 to the circuit courts. But I could not change the tone alone. This White House chose, instead, to use judicial nominations to divide and to seek political gain in the ensuing confrontations. I have tried, again, this year to restore order and civility to the process. In spite of all our progress and all our efforts, we are still confronted by shrill complaints. More ominous are the signals and rumors that the White House is, again, gearing up to nominate more extreme nominees and more who do not have the support of their home State Senators. That is wrong. It may be the good politics to appeal to the Republican base, but it is wrong to use our courts in that way-- just as it is wrong to corrupt the law enforcement responsibilities of the Department of Justice. Some will undoubtedly repeat the current Republican ``talking point'' that the Senate must confirm 15 circuit judges this Congress, this year and next, because that is a ``statistical average'' of selected years. Well, during the 1996 session the Republican-led Senate refused to confirm a single circuit court nominee, not one. That meant that in the 104th Congress, in 1995 and 1996 combined, only 11 circuit nominees were confirmed. It is true that during the last 2 years of this President's father's term, a Democratic-led Senate confirmed an extraordinary number of circuit nominees--20--in fact. That action was not reciprocated by the Republican majority during the Clinton years. It is true that during the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, a Democratic-led Senate confirmed 17 circuit court nominees. That action was not reciprocated by the Republican majority during the Clinton years. Instead, the last 2 years of President Clinton's two terms witnessed a Republican-led Senate confirming only 11 circuit nominees and then, with vacancies skyrocketing to historic highs, 15 circuit nominees in the 106th Congress. Thus, to get to the supposed ``historical average'' that Republicans like to talk about, they take advantage of the high confirmation numbers during Democratic-led Senates and thereby inflate and excuse their own actions from the Clinton years. There are three more factors that the Republican talking point ignores: The first is the number of vacancies. The second is adding additional judgeships by congressional action. The third is the number of qualified circuit nominees. The last Congress of the Reagan administration, the one in which a Democratic-led Senate confirmed 17 circuit nominees, the circuit court vacancies went down from 13 to 8 during the course of the Congress. Seven circuit nominations were returned to the President without action. In fact, in addition to filling vacancies that were arising in the regular course, the Democratic-led Senate was working to fill many of the 24 additional circuit judgeships created in 1984. By the end of the Reagan Presidency all circuit vacancies, those from existing judgeships and those created during his Presidency, were reduced from a high of 25 down to 8. During the last Congress of the first Bush administration, the one in which a Democratic-led Senate confirmed 20 circuit judges, the circuit vacancies again went down, from 18 to 16. Again, the Senate was filling both existing and newly created vacancies. In 1990, during President Bush's term, Congress authorized an additional 11 circuit judgeships. That was why vacancies at the beginning of the 102nd Congress rose to 18. By contrast, during the last Congress of the Clinton administration, the one in which a Republican-led Senate confirmed 15 circuit judges, circuit court vacancies skyrocketed from 17 to 26. This rise in circuit vacancies had nothing to do with Congress creating additional circuit judgeships, however. Unlike during the Reagan administration and during the Bush administration, during the Clinton administration the Republican-led Congress refused to act in accordance with the previous 6-year cycle for reviewing needed judgeships. Not a single new circuit judgeship was created during the Clinton administration that I can recall. Instead, the Republican-led Senate engaged in strenuous efforts to keep circuit judgeships vacant in anticipation of a Republican President. Indeed, at the end of the 106th Congress, the last in the Clinton Presidency, 17 circuit court nominees were returned to President Clinton without action. More circuit nominees were returned without action that Congress than were acted upon by the Senate for the first time in modern history. Likewise, during the last Congress of the first term of President Clinton, the one in which a Republican-led Senate confirmed only 11 circuit judges, circuit court vacancies went up, from 16 to 19. Again, this was without the addition of new circuit judgeships. Despite the carping and the clamor, the vacancies on the circuit courts have gone from 26--where a Republican-led Senate forced the circuit vacancies at the end of the Clinton administration--steadily downward during the Bush administration. With the confirmation of Judge Livingston, circuit vacancies will be at half that amount today 13--and approaching a historic low. Judge Livingston will be the third circuit court nomination confirmed this year. It is only May, but we have already equaled the total circuit nominees confirmed in the entire year of 1993. We have far surpassed the total confirmed during the entire 1996 session when the Republican majority would not consider or confirm a single circuit nomination of President Clinton's. This will be the 20th circuit court nomination confirmed while I presided as Judiciary chairman. It is a little known fact that during the more than 6 years of the Bush Presidency, more circuit judges, more district judges and more total judges have been confirmed while I served as Judiciary chairman than during either of the two Republican chairmen working with Republican Senate majorities. This will be the 18th judicial confirmation this year. It is spring and we have already confirmed more judges than were confirmed during the entire 1996 session when President Clinton's nominees were being reviewed by a Republican Senate majority. This is the 118th judicial confirmation while I have served as Judiciary chairman. That exceeds by more than a dozen the confirmations Senator Hatch presided over during the more than 2 years he was Judiciary chairman. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 47 judicial vacancies, yet the President has sent us only 24 nominations for these vacancies. Twenty-three of these vacancies--almost half--have no nominee. Of the 15 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for six of them. That means more than a third of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee. This is the third factor I mentioned above, the lack of nominees. This President has shown that he would rather pick politic fights than good judges. I was encouraged at the beginning of this Congress that a few of the most controversial nominees from the last Congress were not renominated. That sensible approach seems to have ended, however, and this White House seems to be returning to its old, bad habits. Despite the harping and the criticism, the Judiciary Committee has been working hard to make progress on those nominations the President has sent to us. Of course, when he sends nominees that he knows are unacceptable to home State Senators, it is not a formula for success. Sadly, that is what appears to be happening, again. Before the consideration of the Second Circuit nominee today, we had already proceeded with committee and Senate consideration of the nominations of Randy Smith and Thomas Hardiman. They were confirmed to the Ninth and Third Circuits, respectively. Some may recall that I had been working for more than a year to make progress on the Smith nomination. When the President finally renominated Judge Smith for an Idaho vacancy, we were able to make quick progress with that nomination. Our circuit court confirmations so far this year are in addition to the 15 lifetime appointments to the Federal district courts we have proceeded to confirm. During the entire 1996 session only 17 judges were confirmed. We are doing pretty well with 18 confirmations before the middle of May. With respect to circuit nominees, after this confirmation there will be only 13 vacancies. Eight of those are without a nomination. Of the five remaining current circuit nominees, one was only nominated a few weeks ago. Having consulted with the home State Senators from Mississippi, I have scheduled our next judicial confirmation hearing to be held tomorrow to include Judge Leslie Southwick of Mississippi. All three of the other circuit nominations are renominations that were not considered last Congress with a Republican majority. Two are renominations that the White House made knowing full well that they did not yet have the support of their home State Senators. When I previously chaired the committee, I was able to break the blockade of Sixth Circuit nominations that was established by the Republican majority when it pocket filibustered several of President Clinton's outstanding nominations to the Sixth Circuit. Once we broke through with two Sixth Circuit confirmations in 2002, President Bush was left with seven appointments to the Sixth Circuit during his term in office. Given the White House's unwillingness to work with the home State Senators of the two current nominees, however, it will be very difficult to make more progress. With respect to the nomination of Peter Keisler, that renomination is controversial. He was previously nominated in June of 2006 but was not considered by the Republican majority then in control. The Republican majority did not seek to proceed with this controversial nomination at that time. In fact, the President and the Republican Senate majority insisted, instead, to proceed over the last several years on other nominations to the important D.C. Circuit, which were, themselves, highly controversial. The nominations of Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh were each apparently a higher priority for this White House and the Republican majority than the nomination of Mr. Keisler. The others have each been confirmed to lifetime appointments on this very important court. At the end of the last Congress, the Keisler nomination was returned to the President without action in accordance with Senate Rules. The Republican Senate majority pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's qualified and moderate judicial nominees. I have proceeded on more judicial nominees far faster than Republicans did on President Clinton's nominees. With the cooperation of the President, with his working with Senators from both parties in making his nominations, with the cooperation of the committee and the Senate, we can continue to make progress. I will yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the grand marshal.

Mr. LEAHY. I am told the Senator wishes 2 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor, but the Senator from New York wants to speak briefly, and I have also been advised there are a number of Republicans who want to go to a burial service. So just so people can plan, as soon as the Senator from New York has finished his speech, which will be very brief, I am prepared to yield back our time to accommodate those who wish to go to the burial service.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Vermont have?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are making significant progress today with another confirmation of a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. I am sure Frederick J. Kapala will be confirmed for the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. His nomination is supported by the home State Senators. I thank Senator Durbin for chairing the hearing on this nomination. Judge Kapala serves as a state appellate judge on the Second District Appellate Court in Illinois. He has almost 20 years of experience as a state trial court judge. Before coming to the bench, he worked for the Rockford, Illinois law firm of Pedderson, Menzimer, Conde, Stoner and Killoren, and he worked as an Assistant State's Attorney in Winnebago County. Prior to his legal career, he served 10 years in the U.S. Army. This will be the 17th judicial confirmation this year. The calendar just turned to the month of May, it is spring, and we have already confirmed as many judges as were confirmed during the entire 1996 session, when President Clinton's nominees were being reviewed by the Republican-controlled Senate majority. We have done as much in May in a Democrat-controlled Senate as the Republican-controlled Senate did in a whole year for President Clinton. That was a session when not a single circuit court nominee was confirmed. Of course, we have already confirmed two circuit court nominees in the early months of this session. I mention this because it is somewhat frustrating to hear the gross misstatements made by some of the Republican leaders, such as Vice President Cheney, Mr. Rove, and others, who speak for the President on the pace of judicial nominees. Not only is this the 17th judicial confirmation this year, it is also the 117th judicial confirmation in the approximately 2 years I have served as Judiciary chairman over the past 6 years. That exceeds by more than a dozen the confirmations Senator Hatch presided over during the 2 years he was Judiciary chairman. It also exceeds by more than a dozen the district court nominees confirmed during the two years he was Judiciary Chairman. With the confirmation of Judge Hardiman to the Third Circuit earlier this year, the total circuit court confirmations achieved during my chairmanships, which have not yet extended over the 24 months of Senator Hatch's chairmanship, also exceed those achieved during his. I only mention this because if you listen to what comes down to being total mistruths by the Vice President or others, you would think we blocked the President's judges. Actually, we have done far better for President Bush--far better than when a Republican majority was here and pocket filibustered 61 of President Clinton's nominees. It is a little known, and obviously unappreciated, fact that during the more than 6 years of the Bush Presidency, more circuit judges, more district judges, and more total judges have been confirmed while I served as Judiciary Committee Chairman than during the tenures of either of the two Republican Chairman working with Republican Senate majorities did. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 48 judicial vacancies. Yet, the President has sent only 25 nominations for these vacancies. Twenty-three of these vacancies--almost half--have no nominee. Of the 16 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for six of them. Despite the harping and the criticism, the Judiciary Committee has been working hard to make progress on those nominations the President has sent to us. Of course, when he sends nominees that he knows are unacceptable to home state Senators, it is not a formula for success. I congratulate Judge Kapala, and his family, on his confirmation today.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested?

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to reintroduce the Uniting American Families Act. This legislation would allow U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to petition for their foreign same-sex partners under our family-based immigration system. I hope that the Senate will demonstrate our Nation's commitment to equality under the law by passing this measure. I am pleased to act today in concert with Congressman Nadler, who is introducing this same measure in the House of Representatives. Congressman Nadler has been a steady advocate for these changes, and I commend his efforts to promote fundamental fairness for Americans whose loved ones are foreign citizens. Under current law, foreign same-sex partners of Americans are unable to benefit from the family-based immigration system, which accounts for the majority of green cards awarded annually. As a result, gay Americans in this situation face the difficult choice of living apart from their partner, or leaving the U.S. to reside together. This bill provides parity while also retaining strong prohibitions against fraud. To qualify as a permanent partner, potential beneficiaries must be at least 18 years old and in an exclusive, committed relationship with an adult U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, where both parties intend a lifelong union. The couple must prove that their union is not cognizable as a marriage under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Penalties for fraud would be the same as in any other marriage-based case: up to 5 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for the petitioner, and possible deportation for the alien partner. Like many people across the country, Vermonters involved in permanent partnerships with foreign nationals often feel abandoned by immigration laws and restrictions. This bill would allow them, and other gay and lesbian Americans, to become more fully integrated into our society. Promoting family unity has long been a critical aim of Federal immigration policy, and we should honor that purpose by providing all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation the opportunity to be with their loved ones. The idea that immigration benefits should extend to same-sex couples is not new. Many nations recognize that their respective immigration laws should respect family unity, regardless of sexual orientation. Indeed, 16 of our closest allies--Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom all acknowledge same-sex couples for immigration purposes. Our immigration laws treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships as second-class citizens. This injustice should be addressed not only on behalf of those individuals but also to promote more broadly a fair and consistent policy for America. I hope that the Senate will act to demonstrate our Nation's commitment to equality under the law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to address the needs of the Federal Judiciary, our coequal branch of Government. This bill would respond to a discrete situation in five States regarding the need for temporary judgeships. In order to adequately address fluctuations in a court's caseload, Congress can authorize a judgeship on a temporary basis. These temporary fixes do not undermine the independence that comes with lifetime appointment to the judiciary because the judges assigned to fill these vacancies, are, in fact, appointed for life, as are all Federal judges. They are temporary in the sense that when these judgeships expire, the next vacancy in the jurisdiction is not filled and the extra judgeship expires. Last Congress two of these needed temporary judgeships were allowed to expire. One was in Nebraska and the other in California. That was unfortunate in my view since they continue to have high caseloads. This legislation would restore those judgeships by reauthorizing those temporary judgeships to restore the status quo in those two busy districts. In addition, three districts have temporary judgeships that are close to expiration. Caseloads in Ohio, Hawaii, and Kansas remain at a high level. I support acting to ensure their continuation until we have had the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of the judgeship needs throughout the Federal system. I hope to undertake that review next year. This legislation would extend each of the five temporary judgeships for 10 years. This will allow Congress some flexibility with regard to future judgeship needs. This measure is supported by the Judicial Conference of the United States and every Senator representing the five States. I thank Senators Feinstein and Brownback, who also serve on the Judiciary Committee, for their work on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to reintroduce the Uniting American Families Act. This legislation would allow U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to petition for their foreign same-sex partners under our family-based immigration system. I hope that the Senate will demonstrate our Nation's commitment to equality under the law by passing this measure. I am pleased to act today in concert with Congressman Nadler, who is introducing this same measure in the House of Representatives. Congressman Nadler has been a steady advocate for these changes, and I commend his efforts to promote fundamental fairness for Americans whose loved ones are foreign citizens. Under current law, foreign same-sex partners of Americans are unable to benefit from the family-based immigration system, which accounts for the majority of green cards awarded annually. As a result, gay Americans in this situation face the difficult choice of living apart from their partner, or leaving the U.S. to reside together. This bill provides parity while also retaining strong prohibitions against fraud. To qualify as a permanent partner, potential beneficiaries must be at least 18 years old and in an exclusive, committed relationship with an adult U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, where both parties intend a lifelong union. The couple must prove that their union is not cognizable as a marriage under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Penalties for fraud would be the same as in any other marriage-based case: up to 5 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for the petitioner, and possible deportation for the alien partner. Like many people across the country, Vermonters involved in permanent partnerships with foreign nationals often feel abandoned by immigration laws and restrictions. This bill would allow them, and other gay and lesbian Americans, to become more fully integrated into our society. Promoting family unity has long been a critical aim of Federal immigration policy, and we should honor that purpose by providing all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation the opportunity to be with their loved ones. The idea that immigration benefits should extend to same-sex couples is not new. Many nations recognize that their respective immigration laws should respect family unity, regardless of sexual orientation. Indeed, 16 of our closest allies--Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom all acknowledge same-sex couples for immigration purposes. Our immigration laws treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships as second-class citizens. This injustice should be addressed not only on behalf of those individuals but also to promote more broadly a fair and consistent policy for America. I hope that the Senate will act to demonstrate our Nation's commitment to equality under the law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to address the needs of the Federal Judiciary, our coequal branch of Government. This bill would respond to a discrete situation in five States regarding the need for temporary judgeships. In order to adequately address fluctuations in a court's caseload, Congress can authorize a judgeship on a temporary basis. These temporary fixes do not undermine the independence that comes with lifetime appointment to the judiciary because the judges assigned to fill these vacancies, are, in fact, appointed for life, as are all Federal judges. They are temporary in the sense that when these judgeships expire, the next vacancy in the jurisdiction is not filled and the extra judgeship expires. Last Congress two of these needed temporary judgeships were allowed to expire. One was in Nebraska and the other in California. That was unfortunate in my view since they continue to have high caseloads. This legislation would restore those judgeships by reauthorizing those temporary judgeships to restore the status quo in those two busy districts. In addition, three districts have temporary judgeships that are close to expiration. Caseloads in Ohio, Hawaii, and Kansas remain at a high level. I support acting to ensure their continuation until we have had the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of the judgeship needs throughout the Federal system. I hope to undertake that review next year. This legislation would extend each of the five temporary judgeships for 10 years. This will allow Congress some flexibility with regard to future judgeship needs. This measure is supported by the Judicial Conference of the United States and every Senator representing the five States. I thank Senators Feinstein and Brownback, who also serve on the Judiciary Committee, for their work on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from Iowa.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield to me for 1 minute?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, when I was a young law student at Georgetown, the event that stands out the most in my memory was a morning that I and a few other young law students working at various agencies for the summer had with the then Attorney General. It was Attorney General Robert Kennedy. In that meeting, he stressed to us over and over again the professionalism of the Department of Justice and how the professionals had to stay out of any kind of partisan politics and that he would insist upon it. I was inspired by that meeting. I think it probably shaped my decision to go into public life more than any other single meeting I had. I ask unanimous consent that an article in today's USA Today by Ronald Goldfarb entitled ``Crossing the Line at Justice'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is considering today a bipartisan resolution to designate May 15, 2007, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day that Senator Specter and I introduced along with the majority leader, and Senators Biden, Grassley, Cornyn, Stabenow, Menendez, Durbin, Kohl, Kennedy and Brownback. Last week, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported this resolution unanimously. I thank all members of the Judiciary Committee and the cosponsors on this bipartisan resolution for their support in recognizing the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make each day for the American people. This is now the eleventh year running that I have been involved in this resolution to honor the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who give their lives serving their communities. For many years I introduced this resolution with my friend Senator Campbell, a former deputy sheriff. Both Senator Campbell, and I, as a former prosecutor, witnessed firsthand the risks faced by law enforcement officers every day while they serve and protect our communities. I am pleased that Senator Specter, himself a former prosecutor, former chair of the Judiciary Committee, and now our ranking member, has become the lead Republican sponsor of this bipartisan measure. Currently, more than 870,000 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 in history. With 19 deaths, however, that is 19 deaths too many. In 2006, 147 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually, and a drop from 2005 when 156 officers were killed. That is 147 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 am proud of the work I have been involved in 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 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 more 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. I have already begun to work with my colleagues 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. I know I am not alone in calling for the Senate to fully fund the bulletproof vest partnership program and I hope the Congress agrees that it is crucially important that we provide the funding authorized for this program. Hundreds of thousands of police officers are counting on us. I am also pleased to join with Senator Reed and others to introduce the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, which will provide parity in Federal benefits for law enforcement officers working in private educational institutions and for our Nation's rail carriers. Among these benefits are access to grants under the bulletproof vest partnership, and survivor benefits. All of the men and women who serve our society as law enforcement officers should be equally entitled to all of the benefits the Federal Government provides, no matter where they serve. I think 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 will offer 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. Our Nation's law enforcement officers deserve our commitment to protect those who help keep us all safe. They are the real-life heroes; too many of whom too often make the ultimate sacrifice. It is important to support and respect our State and local police officers and all of our first responders, and to recognize their role in upholding the rule of law and keeping our Nation's citizens safe and secure. During the week of May 13, more than 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington to join with the families of their fallen comrades. I thank the Senate for joining in honoring their service and passing this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has agreed to S. Res. 146, a bipartisan resolution establishing a national American Eagle Day, on June 20, 2007, the day the bald eagle was selected as our national emblem during the Second Continental Congress in 1782. I am delighted that the bald eagle is scheduled to be ``delisted'' from the Endangered Species Act on June 20 of this year. I commend Senators Alexander and Byrd for their work on this resolution. The bald eagle has been protected under Federal law since Congress passed the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act in 1940. This law prohibits the taking, possessing, or commerce of both bald and golden eagles. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 reinforced protection of the bald eagle. I am a longtime supporter of the Endangered Species Act, a landmark environmental law that provides crucial protection to fish and wildlife on the verge of extinction. Vermont is actually one of the only States in the continental United States without nesting bald eagles. Senator Jeffords funded a program about three years ago where orphaned or threatened nestlings were relocated from sites between Maryland and Maine to nests in the Dead Creek State wildlife management area in Addison County, VT, along Lake Champlain. About 25 individual birds were successfully raised and released from nests there. While eagles usually return to nest in the general area where they were nestlings, it can take up to 4 years. Vermont fish and wildlife staff are closely monitoring the effort to see if Vermont will be successful in joining other states as a home to the bald eagle. I support the passage of this resolution, which would allow all of us to celebrate the successful recovery of the bald eagle, and to remember the freedoms and ideals that the eagle represents as a symbol of our country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 75 years ago today, President Herbert Hoover signed a proclamation officially establishing the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont. This was the result of significant effort on the part of the State of Vermont and several of the State's leading conservationists and legislators of the time. While a number of Vermonters had proposed a national forest in the State just after the turn of the 20th century, it took a sustained effort over the next three decades for this vision to become a reality. In 1925, the Vermont General Assembly passed the enabling act to allow the Forest Service to purchase land in Vermont. Many would argue just 2 years later that the devastating impact of the 1927 flood showed the need for sound forest management practices in the Green Mountains. It was fitting that the initial land purchases for the southern half of Vermont's national forest were from the estate of Marshall J. Hapgood, who, years earlier, had advocated for a National Forest in the Green Mountains. Hapgood was a practitioner of scientific forestry on his own lands and saw the value of a sustainable timber resource and watershed protection. From that initial Hapgood acquisition of just over 1,000 acres, the Green Mountain National Forest has grown to more than 400,000 acres today, and it includes in the northern half of the forest many of the lands conserved by another conservation pioneer, Joseph Battell. The Green Mountain National Forest today is fulfilling the vision of those early forestland stewards by protecting watersheds, providing forest products, forest management demonstration and recreational opportunities. The Green Mountain forest hosts segments of the Long and Appalachian Trails, alpine ski areas, several wilderness areas and two national recreation areas, one of which is now named in honor of our late colleague, Robert T. Stafford. As one of Vermont's Senators, I am proud to have been able to play a role in the growth of the national forest in my State, in both land area and with its facilities. I am also grateful to the dedicated, professional staff of the Green Mountain National Forest who recently completed the new land and resource management plan for the forest and who were particularly helpful to the congressional delegation during our recent wilderness deliberations. As we celebrate its 75th anniversary, we are also proud that the Green Mountain National Forest will be providing the 2007 Capitol christmas tree for the National Mall, and the companion trees for many of our public buildings in Washington a tangible example of how the Green Mountain National Forest is being shared by all Americans.