Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week we join in mourning the tragic killings at Virginia Tech on Monday. The innocent lives of students and professors are a terrible loss for their families and friends and for their community. It affects us all. We honor them and mourn their loss. I expect that in the days ahead, as we learn more about what happened, how it happened and perhaps why it happened, we will have debate and discussion and perhaps legislative proposals to consider. For example, I know that Senator Boxer has introduced a School Safety Enhancement Act, S. 677, to allow matching grants for school security, including surveillance equipment, hotlines and tip lines and other measures. We may need to further enhance the COPS in Schools Program begun by President Clinton. I look forward to working with Regina Schofield, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice, Domingo Herraiz, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and others to make improvements that can increase the safety and security of our children and grandchildren in schools and colleges. Today, we may finally make progress on security in another important setting by turning to the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, S. 378. Frankly, this legislation should have been enacted last year but was not. It should not be a struggle to enact these measures to improve court security. We are fortunate that we have not suffered another violent assault on judges and their families.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, again, this morning the Senate voted overwhelmingly to proceed to the court security bill. Ninety-four Senators voted for cloture to bring debate to a close on the motion to proceed to the bill. Yet here we are still stuck in postcloture debate or, in fact, nondebate on that procedural step of going to the bill. I have heard rumor that one Senator, a Senator on the Judiciary Committee the panel that unanimously reported this very bill, now has 10 amendments to propose. I say to him and to all Senators, that no amendments can be offered until we get to the bill. This objection is apparently what is preventing that. Today, we may finally make progress on security in another important setting by turning to the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, S. 378. Frankly, this legislation should have been enacted last year but was not. It should not be a struggle to enact these measures to improve court security. We are fortunate that we have not suffered another violent assault on judges and their families. 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. We witnessed the horrific violence at the courthouse in Atlanta in which a Georgia State court judge was killed. And then last year there was the violence against a State judge in Nevada. Despite our efforts and the commitment of Senator Durbin and Senator Reid, despite Senate passage of this measure twice last year, Congress has yet finally to enact these measures to improve court security. I introduced this bipartisan measure on January 24, 2007, along with Senator Specter, the majority leader, Senator Durbin, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator Schumer and Senator Collins. Senator Cardin also joined the bill as a cosponsor. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers introduced an identical measure in the House also with bipartisan support. We hoped to send a signal with our bicameral, bipartisan introduction at the beginning of this year that we intended to move quickly to complete our work and increase legal protections for the Judiciary and their families. The Judiciary Committee then held a remarkable hearing in February with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. That hearing reminded us all of the need to provide resources and protections crucial to our Federal and State courts. We also discussed the critical need to preserve the independence of our Federal Judiciary so that it can continue to serve as a bulwark protecting individual rights and liberty. As the Judiciary Committee discussed in our hearings, the independent Judiciary faces many types of threats. I take all of these threats seriously, from the threats to judges' physical safety to rhetorical attacks by some affiliated with the political branches upon their independence. We cannot tolerate or excuse violence against judges, their families and those who serve our justice system. Nor should we excuse the overheated rhetoric that has become so prominent in political campaigns lately. During the last few years, even as judges have come under physical attacks, we have seen federal judges compared to the Ku Klux Klan, called ``the focus of evil,'' and in one unbelievable instance referred to as a threat ``more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.'' A prominent television evangelist proclaimed the Federal Judiciary ``the worst threat America has faced in 400 years--worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War.'' We have seen some in Congress threaten the mass impeachments of judges with whom they disagree and heard comment that violence against judges could be brought on by their own rulings. That is irresponsible and dangerous. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has spoken out in recent years about the danger of this rhetoric and criticized the uncivil tone of attacks on the courts, noting that they pose a danger to the very independence of the Federal Judiciary. Like Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy urged us to find a more civil discourse about judges and their decisions. This high-pitched partisan rhetoric should stop, not just for the sake of our judges, but also for the independence of the Judiciary. Judicial fairness and independence are essential if we are to maintain our freedoms. During the last few years it has been the courts that have acted to protect our liberties and our Constitution. We ought to do all we can to protect them, physically and institutionally. We can take a significant step today by passing the Court Security Improvement Act. This bill responds to the needs expressed by the Federal Judiciary for a greater voice in working with the U.S. Marshals Service to determine their security needs. It would enact new criminal penalties for the protections of judges, their families, and others performing official duties, expand resources available to state courts for their security, and provide additional protections for law enforcement officers. 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 our Judiciary have the resources, security, and independence necessary to fulfill their crucial responsibilities. We owe it to our judges 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. Our independent Judiciary is the envy of the world, and we must take care to protect and preserve it so that it may preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the rights and liberties that define us as Americans. I thank the majority leader for recognizing the significance of this bill and seeking to move to it. The Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report the bill after its consideration. I have taken care to report the bill favorably to the Senate with a committee report, which has been available since last month. I was disappointed that we could not gain the consent of the other side to adopt this measure, pass it and send it to the House for its consideration last month. An anonymous Republican objection has stalled Senate action in that regard. Last week, the majority leader sought consent to proceed to the bill, but that was prevented by Republican objection. The Senate has been required to file a cloture petition in order to consider the majority leader's motion to move to this bipartisan, court security legislation. I do not know exactly who has objected or why. It is unfortunate. I have heard rumors that someone objects to the authorization for States, local governments, and Indian tribes to create and expand witness and victim protection programs to prevent threats, intimidation, and retaliation against victims of, and witnesses to, violent crimes. That was a provision contained in the court security bill we passed last year. While other useful programs were required to be stripped from the bill, that one was retained when the Senate passed this measure last fall. I do not know why someone who agreed to that provision last year now finds authorizing a victim program objectionable. We are about to honor and recognize the importance of crime victims by commemorating National Crime Victims' Rights Week beginning this Sunday, April 22. I hope we can pass this bill with the authorization to prevent threats, intimidation and retaliation against victims of violent crime intact. I look forward to Senate consideration and passage of this worthwhile legislation. I hope that secret holds and extraneous proposals will not be used to complicate its passage by the Senate and enactment by the Congress. We have a great deal to do. We have an ambitious agenda to assist the judicial branch. We need to extend needed temporary judgeships that are otherwise expiring and expired. We need to consider the important issue of judicial pay. We will need next year to take a comprehensive look at what additional judgeships are needed in the Federal Judiciary. I hope that those who have acted to delay us will work with us and get down to business. It is past time to enact this judicial security legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is currently pending?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe the managers' amendment is at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I honor Canute Dalmasse of Stowe, VT, who is retiring after 36 years of dedicated service to the State of Vermont, working to conserve, protect, and enhance our State's natural resources. His extraordinary contribution to the stewardship of Vermont's natural environment calls for special recognition. Canute retires as the deputy secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, overseeing fish, wildlife, forests, parks, recreation, and environmental conservation programs and recently served with distinction as acting secretary. His career began in 1971 as one of the first district coordinators implementing Vermont's landmark Act 250 environmental law that uses a holistic approach looking at environmental, visual, and social criteria to assess potential development impacts. A proven leader and innovator, he has served as director of the Office of Water Resources and commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Canute is an avid boater and angler on Lake Champlain and an unflinching advocate for Vermont's waters. He serves on the Lake Champlain Basin Program Steering Committee and as chair of its executive committee, bringing the States of Vermont and New York and the Province of Quebec together to work for a clean, healthy lake. He also serves on the Lake Memphremagog Steering Committee, working with the Province of Quebec to protect and enhance that international water. Canute received his bachelors degree from Columbia University in New York City and served in the 101st Airborne Division in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. He and his wife Diane have two sons, Layton and Canute. He is a longtime resident of Stowe, VT, and is a past president of Stowe Youth Hockey and chair of the Stowe Recreation Commission. Canute Dalmasse is a tribute to his State, his community, and to protecting Vermont's natural environment. The great State of Vermont, with its celebrated natural beauty and well-deserved reputation for exemplary environmental stewardship, honors Canute's dedication, devotion, and hard work that helped set the course for Vermont's environmental future. It is an honor and a privilege to recognize Canute today in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I just arrived back in Washington about an hour ago. I was on a flight for a number of hours and heard the horrific news of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. We had scheduled tomorrow morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee a hearing with Attorney General Gonzales. I have discussed this with the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, my friend Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and I called the Attorney General and spoke to him. All three of us agree--and they agree with my proposal--that we will postpone that hearing. The hearing with the Attorney General will not be held tomorrow. We will postpone it until Thursday. The exact time we are working out. The Attorney General certainly was agreeable to that. I am sure he would want to be dealing with the matters of the shooting. Both Senator Specter and I felt this is a matter where our whole Nation is going to be grieving tomorrow and many individual Members in both bodies will be joining in that grieving and that concern for the families, for the victims of this horrible, horrible tragedy. So the Judiciary Committee, I have decided, will not hold its hearing. It will be held Thursday. I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding to me so I could make that announcement.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, will the Senator yield to me, without losing his right to the floor, to make an announcement of some importance?

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we mark the 100th day of the new Congress. We have much more to do on behalf of the American people, but we have already accomplished an awful lot. We have heard the American people's call for accountability and competence in their Government, and we started making those goals a reality. We have returned the focus to the rights and interests of the American people. As I have commended the members of the Judiciary Committee--and I commend the distinguished Presiding Officer as well as the other members for their help and active participation in the work of our committee--I come to the Senate today to thank the majority leader and those Senators who have been working so hard to restore balance to our Government, protect the liberties and rights of all Americans, and also to revive America's leadership in the world. First and foremost, we are making progress restoring the Senate and Congress to their proper constitutional role. From the FBI's illegal and improper use of national security letters to the politically motivated dismissal of so many of the Nation's U.S. attorneys, there are concerns about the competence--but especially the independence--of the Department of Justice. This pattern of abuse of authority and mismanagement causes me, and I might say many Republicans as well as Democrats, to wonder whether the FBI and Department of Justice have been faithful stewards of the great trust the Congress and the American people have placed in them. We need to keep our Nation safe, but we also have to respect the rights and the liberties of all Americans. In the previous Congress, the administration sought expanded powers in the PATRIOT Act to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation and to more freely use national security letters. You know, the administration got those powers, and almost immediately they bungled them. They bungled them badly. In the Judiciary Committee, early oversight efforts included our January 18 hearing with Attorney General Gonzales. There we examined the change in course of this administration, which had engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans, contrary to the law, for years. Under the watchful eye of the new Congress, the President's program for warrantless wiretaps on Americans has been revised, and now the Government has to seek approval for those wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--something we have always expected. If our Government is going to inspect our papers, our computers, our voices, they should get a court order first. We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans, including the right to privacy. The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses. The Administration's recent reversal of course was a good first step. Last month we held oversight hearings with FBI Director Mueller, and we called him to task for the longstanding FBI abuses of national security letters. The inspector general's report we insisted be provided included troubling findings of widespread illegal and improper use of national security letters to obtain Americans' phone and financial and credit and other records. Nobody would stand for it if you had somebody--agents--walk into your home in the middle of the night grabbing these records. It is the same thing when they grab them electronically. Inspector General Glenn Fine testified there could be thousands of additional violations among the tens of thousands of national security letters the FBI is now using, willy-nilly, each year. The inspector general also found widespread use by the FBI of so- called ``exigent letters.'' These letters, which are not authorized by any statute, were issued at least 739 times to obtain Americans' phone records when there was often no emergency and never a follow-up subpoena, as the FBI had promised. Despite these extensive abuses, the top leadership at the FBI sat idly by for years, doing nothing to stop this practice. We questioned the FBI Director about these matters and reports that the FBI has repeatedly submitted inaccurate information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in its efforts to obtain secret warrants in terrorism and espionage cases. It severely undermines the Government's credibility in the eyes of the Chief Judge of that court. If the people charged with law enforcement in this country don't follow the law themselves, it all breaks down. Every one of us, every one of the 100 Senators, every one of us are required to follow the law. None of us--no American--is above the law, but it becomes even worse if those who are supposed to enforce the law do not follow the law. These abuses are unacceptable. Director Mueller now knows that and knows these abuses and violations can no longer be continued or repeated. The Judiciary Committee is now in the midst of an investigation in which we are uncovering an abuse of power that threatens the independence of U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country. It undermines the trust and confidence of all Americans in Federal law enforcement. We are examining the mass firing of U.S. attorneys. We are trying to get to the truth of what happened so these abuses do not happen again. I want the American people, all Americans, to have a Justice Department and U.S. Attorneys' Offices that enforce the law without regard to political influence and partisanship. I want the American people to have confidence in Federal law enforcement. I want our Federal law enforcement officers to have the independence they need to be effective and merit the trust of the American people. Sadly, what we have heard from the administration has been a series of shifting explanations and excuses and a lack of accountability or acknowledgment of the seriousness of this matter. The women and men replaced and whose reputations were then stained by those seeking to justify these firings as ``performance related'' were appointees of President Bush. Several had significant achievements in office and glowing performance reviews. As we learn more details about the ousters of these U.S. attorneys, the story grows more troubling. Had we believed and accepted the initial testimony of the Attorney General of the United States and the other Department officials, then we would not have gotten to the truth. The White House and the Attorney General dodged Congress's questions. They ducked real accountability for years. In the past, they counted on a rubberstamping Congress to avoid accountability. The American people have a new Congress, and this is a Congress that asks questions and wants the truth, and we will get the truth. The Attorney General has admitted ``mistakes were made,'' but somehow he doesn't say what those mistakes were. He will have another chance, yet another chance to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth next Tuesday at our Judiciary Committee oversight hearing. The days when he could come by once a year and not answer questions are over. I made no secret during his confirmation hearing of my concern whether Mr. Gonzales could serve as an independent Attorney General of the United States on behalf of the American people and leave behind his role as counselor to President Bush. The Department of Justice should serve the American people by making sure the law is enforced without fear or favor. It is an oath I took when I was a prosecutor. That is the oath all prosecutors take, but it is an oath the Attorney General has to remember. The Department of Justice cannot be turned into a political arm of the White House. Accountability has been lacking in this administration because there has been a ``rubberstamp'' Congress. Loyalty to the President is rewarded over all else. That lack of accountability and the lack of the checks and balances that foster it must end, and I hope it has ended. We do not need another commendation for the ``heckuva job'' for those who failed in their essential duties to the American people. True accountability means being forthcoming, and it means there are consequences for improper actions. The White House continues to stand by the firings of the U.S. attorneys and despite assurances by the President that we would receive cooperation, documents and access to witnesses, the White House has yet to produce a single document or make any witnesses available. Now we are learning that people in the White House were having ``off- book'' communications by using Republican political e-mail addresses, and they say these e-mails have not been preserved. I don't believe that. I don't believe that. You can't erase e-mails, not today. These e-mails have gone through too many servers. They can't say they have been lost. That is akin to saying the dog ate my homework. It doesn't work that way. Those e-mails are there, the White House just doesn't want to produce them. It is similar to the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes. They say these e-mails have been erased or misplaced. They are there. The White House knows they are there, and we will subpoena them, if necessary, and we will have them because now, when the administration suddenly is facing meaningful oversight, they say they cannot produce the information. They have the information. They have to bring it out and show it to the American people. The administration has worn out the benefit of the doubt. They have undermined whatever credibility they had left. The American people are right that they are entitled to full and honest testimony of the White House staff responsible for this debacle. We have asked for administration officials and now former officials to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee in its inquiry, and I hope that they will. Through the committee's oversight work so far, we know some of the answers to some of the questions we have been asking, and the answers are troubling. We have learned that most of the U.S. attorneys that were asked to resign were doing their jobs well and were fired for not bending to the political will of some in Washington. Apparently, their reward for their efforts at rooting out serious public corruption is a kick out the door. Along with these oversight matters, the Judiciary Committee has taken up questions relating to the war in Iraq and congressional authority to condition funding, the plight of Iraqi refugees, the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group on policing and the administration of justice in Iraq, and contracting fraud and abuse in Iraq. We have examined enforcing our antitrust laws, restoring open government by reinvigorating the Freedom of Information Act, ending antitrust immunity for insurers, increasing drug competition, strengthening protections against identity theft, and providing for fair and comprehensive immigration reform. We have also moved legislative initiatives. Indeed, I think the first legislation passed by the Senate this year was our bill to restore the cost-of-living adjustment for Federal judges. We have passed a bill to amend the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act to honor the contribution of Cesar Chavez and other outstanding Americans. We passed by a bipartisan vote of 94 to 2 a bill to repeal that part of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that had contributed to the U.S. attorney firings and thereby moved decisively to repeal the Attorney General's unlimited authority to appoint so-called interim U.S. attorneys without Senate consideration. At long last, we have given final passage to the bill against animal fighting that has languished for so many years. And we have passed the Genocide Accountability Act, the first legislative result of the new subcommittee I worked with Senator Durbin to create within the Judiciary Committee on Human Rights and the Law. I hope that the Senate will soon be considering a number of our other legislative initiatives. We have reported a court security bill, S. 378; a bill to increase drug competition by giving the FTC authority to stop drug companies from paying other companies not to compete, S. 316; a bill to establish a school loan program for those willing to serve as prosecutors and public defenders, S. 442; and legislation to reauthorize the successful Byrne grant program for law enforcement, S. 231. A number of additional items are not far behind, including a bill to reauthorize the COPS program, S. 368; and a bill that Senator Sessions and Senator Landrieu cosponsored attacking fraud in disaster and emergency relief funding. I hope to see action on our bill against war profiteering, S. 119, as well. It is a new Congress. It is a new Congress that is off to a strong start in restoring accountability, revitalizing the checks and balances of our system, and earning back the public's trust in Government which was eroded during the rubberstamp Congress. Much remains to be done, but we have made meaningful progress in just 100 days.

Mr. LEAHY. Of course, I will yield.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. Of course, he is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and one of the most active members we have. He has spent countless hours on this issue. We talk every single day. We have worked together. I have been so proud of what he has done on that committee. He made my job a lot easier. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I would ask that the time not be charged to either side.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the bill before the Senate this week, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This legislation will put us on the path of progress by reversing the President's policy a policy that is holding back the promise of stem cell research. It is unfortunate that the Congress must even spend time debating this measure. The majority of Americans support stem cell research, as does the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni. It has been 6 years since the President announced his administration's restrictive policy on stem cell research, which limited the number of stem cell lines available for use with Federal funding. Now we know that all of these lines are contaminated by the use of mouse feeder cells, and they will probably never meet the standards required for human treatment. It is clear that, because of the President's policy, we are now years behind in developing therapies and cures for diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer. That is time that millions of Americans simply do not have to waste. For millions of others, this wasted time has dampened hope. Some families who hold out hope for the potential of stem cell research are from Vermont. Many are either afflicted by, or know someone one who is suffering from, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's or Lou Gehrig's disease. I have met these Vermonters, many of whom are advocating not for themselves, but for future generations who they hope will not endure the debilitating nature of these diseases. There are others in Vermont who know firsthand the good this research could bring. These are the scientific researchers at the University of Vermont and Dartmouth College who are doing groundbreaking work that needs the support of our federal government to be truly successful. These scientists know that the most viable method for progress in research is to expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines that are available. I would like to take a moment to also address some of the myths perpetrated about what S. 5 will and will not do. Let us be clear: This bill will not allow Federal funds to be used for the destruction of human embryos. While Federal dollars can be used for research on stem cell lines that are derived from human embryos, the creation of these lines cannot be funded with Federal moneys. S. 5 will do nothing to change this policy. This legislation will also ensure that Federal funding will be used only for researching stem cells lines that are derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics. The in vitro fertilization process creates more embryos than are needed, and the remaining embryos will simply never be used. There are more than 400,000 of these embryos that are frozen in fertility clinics, the majority of which will ultimately be destroyed. This week the Senate will vote on two stem cell bills. While I support both, only one of these bills will take us solidly forward. The time for passage of this legislation is now, and I urge the President not to veto this critical bill. I hope that the President will heed the advice of his own chief medical researcher in the United States, NIH Director Dr. Zerhouni who, when he testified before the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, said that American science would be better served, and the Nation would be better served, if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines. As Congress is poised to send this legislation to the White House, I hope the President will take note of Dr. Zerhouni's remarks. I hope that he will also listen to Congress and the millions of Americans who believe that we should support all angles in stem cell research, and sign this bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this bill has broad bipartisan support with more than 300 co-sponsors in the House. The companion Senate bill is S. 261. The lead Senate sponsor is Senator Cantwell. There are 30 Senate cosponsors. The Senate Judiciary Committee considered and voted to report the bill favorably on March 8, 2007, and the Senate bill is on the Senate Business Calendar. The legislation in similar forms has passed one or both Houses of Congress several times. The bill also has strong endorsements ranging from the American Veterinary Medical Association to the poultry industry to hundreds of law enforcement groups nationwide. The bill has been endorsed by the United States Department of Agriculture, the Humane Society of the United States, and numerous other animal rights and law enforcement groups, including more than 400 police departments. This bill contains a clarifying amendment like the one we adopted in the Senate Judiciary Committee to ensure that it does not affect legitimate hunting activities. Animal fighting is cruel. In this spectacle, dogs and roosters are often drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries. The animals are enclosed in a pit that they cannot escape, and often are killed during the fights. Animal fighting also spawns other criminal conduct, and endangers public safety. Animal fighting is often associated with illegal gambling, narcotics trafficking, public corruption, and gang activity. Cockfighting has been identified as a pathway for the spread of bird flu, and banning animal fighting is an important step to protect against this pandemic. Federal anti-animal fighting legislation is already on the books, but this new law brings penalties for animal fighting more in line with other penalties for animal cruelty and creates new tools for law enforcement to enforce these laws nationwide. Those engaged in animal fighting ventures must know that this crime is serious and will be punished as a felony.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad that today the Senate is considering the Genocide Accountability Act, which closes a loophole in current law which has until now allowed those who commit or incite genocide to seek refuge in our country without fear of prosecution for their actions. This bill is the first legislation resulting from the work of the Judiciary Committee's new Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. I thank Subcommittee Chairman Durbin for introducing the bill, and I was pleased to join him, along with subcommittee Ranking Member Coburn and Senators Feingold, Cornyn, and Kennedy in cosponsoring the bill. I have long called for greater U.S. involvement in resolving the crisis in Darfur and worked for greater accountability for those who commit war crimes. This bill is an important next step in working to do all we can to combat genocide throughout the world. Too often, we in this country, the richest and most powerful Nation on Earth, have done too little to stop human rights atrocities in Sudan and elsewhere around the world. Many more lives could have been saved if we and other nations had shown stronger leadership. During the last 5 years, America's reputation has suffered tremendously. Some of our ability to lead on human rights issues has been needlessly and carelessly squandered. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have tarnished that role and that tradition. The secret prisons that the President confirmed last year and this administration's role in sending people to other countries where they would be tortured have led to condemnation by our allies, to legal challenges, and to criminal charges. I was proud to work with Senator Durbin to create the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, which is helping us to better fulfill our role in a challenging global environment. This subcommittee will continue to closely examine some of the important and difficult legal issues that have increasingly been a focus of the Judiciary Committee and will work to reverse and correct the damaging policies established by this administration over the last 6 years. The Genocide Accountability Act is a perfect example of the bipartisan, consensus legislation that this subcommittee was created to produce. The bill allows for prosecution of those found in the United States who have participated in horrific acts against humanity in places such as Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur, and gives Federal prosecutors the tools they need to bring these people to justice. This bill would amend 18 U.S.C. 1091, the Genocide Convention Implementation Act--the Proxmire Act--to allow prosecution of non-U.S. nationals who are in the United States for genocide committed outside the country. In the past, Federal investigators have identified perpetrators of genocide, including the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, who have come to the United States under false pretenses and have found safe haven here. Unfortunately, the Justice Department has not been able to prosecute these individuals because the Proxmire Act only criminalizes genocide committed by U.S. nationals or in the United States. The Genocide Accountability Act would close this loophole, allowing Federal prosecutors to prosecute those who have committed or incited genocide who are in our country. This change would make the genocide statute conform with numerous existing Federal crimes that allow for similar extraterritorial jurisdiction if the offender is found in The United States, including torture, piracy, material support to terrorists, terrorism financing, and hostage taking. I commend Senators Durbin and Coburn for holding a hearing on this important issue and for their diligent work to ensure that that this loophole in our law is closed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure that the United States takes this significant step in combating genocide worldwide.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a former prosecutor I am a strong supporter of the Marshals Service. We have the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill to fund the U.S. Marshals Service, and there is already $25 million in this bill to support their important work, which is $11 million more than was requested by the President. The amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada has a lot of appeal. Who would not want to support additional funding for the U.S. Marshals Service, or for a whole lot of other programs, for that matter. Police, fire departments, hospitals, schools--the list is limitless. It is unfortunate that the Senator's amendment would be paid for by cutting $15 million in this supplemental bill, requested by the President, to fund international educational and cultural exchange programs. In other words, he reaches across subcommittees to a completely different budget from that which funds the Marshals Service. That is a mistake. It is a road we should not go down. Should we also take money to train teachers in Afghanistan and use it instead to refurbish public schools in the United States? What about cutting funding for reconstruction in Lebanon to pay for new vehicles and equipment for our police and fire departments? Or we could cut the funding in this bill to combat the spread of avian flu and use it instead for victims of crime programs or drug treatment programs here at home. Any of those amendments would pass overwhelmingly in the Senate. But is that really how we want to do our business? The reputation of the United States today has taken a beating unparalleled in our history. We are reviled in the Muslim world. Even our traditional allies have lost faith in our leadership. During his recent trip to Latin America, President Bush encountered this hostility at every stop. Our image has been tarnished, our influence badly eroded. This is an emergency bill to combat terrorism, and these educational exchange programs, which provide Muslim students and professionals the opportunity to come to the United States for education and training, are among the most effective ways we have of combating extremism. Exchanges have been shown to reverse negative perceptions and the spread of hatred. There are far too few tools at our fingertips that are this effective. These funds would support, for example, a first-ever Islamic dialogue two-way exchange program to foster interfaith dialogue, sports exchanges to engage youth and provide the opportunity to visit the United States and summer programs for Muslim students to learn English. This amendment would cut $15 million in this bill for these programs, leaving only $10 million for educational and cultural exchanges for the whole world. I share the Senator's concerns about the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act. We should increase funding for the Marshals Service. But this bill is not the place to do that. This bill is about combating terrorism and responding to humanitarian emergencies overseas. It would be a serious mistake to reduce funding for exchange programs that have strong bipartisan support. The President requested these funds, and he was right to do so. We cannot only look inward. We must look outward as well. No programs are more effective in countering the negative attitudes about America than the exchanges that bring people here from countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Pakistan to meet Americans and experience what life is like in the world's oldest democracy. I support the intent of the amendment of the Senator from Nevada and will reluctantly vote for it, but if he had been willing, I would have been happy to have worked with him to obtain additional funds for the Marshals Service in the appropriate funding bill. Unfortunately he was not.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the supplemental contains a provision, section 1711, which was carefully worked out through discussions between my office, the offices of Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, Senator Kennedy, Senator Coleman and Senator Feingold, as well as with representatives of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the National Security Council. This provision contains six subsections, (a) through (f). Subsections (a) and (d) were written by the administration. Subsections (b) and (f) were written by the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl. Subsection (c) provides an exception for cases involving duress, which is consistent with the administration's policy except that this provision would codify it into law. Section (e) is a reporting requirement. That is the whole provision. It represents months of discussion and compromise on an issue that has been a focus of concern of faith-based organizations and humanitarian organizations, conservative and liberal, Democratic and Republican. Here is the background. Current law, as a result of overbroad amendments in the PATRIOT Act and Real ID Act, has been used to bar refugees and asylum seekers who were either members of groups who fought on the side of the United States, such as the Hmong, the Montagnards, and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, or who were the victims of terrorist groups and forced to provide ``material support,'' such as food, shelter, or other services. Administration officials have acknowledged that they have been inexcusably slow to deal with this problem. Thousands of refugees and hundreds of asylum seekers have been in limbo as a result. We now face the additional problem of Iraqi refugees, 7,000 of whom the President says should be admitted to the United States, being barred from admission unless we fix the law. After considerable prodding, the administration has moved in the right direction. Two weeks ago, it took another welcome step, although we have not yet seen the results of this reported change of policy. The number of refugees admitted to the United States would not be increased or decreased by this provision. That is determined by the numerical limit set by the President each year and by the amount we appropriate for refugee admissions. Numerous editorials have described the horrific consequences for refugees who have been victimized by current law. Just the titles of these editorials tell the story: ``Shutting Out Terrorism's Victims,'' ``Doctors Without Refuge,'' ``Anti-terror laws keeping out old Vietnam allies,'' ``Punishing the Persecuted,'' ``U.S. denies refuge to friends, the abused,'' ``The Refugee Mess,'' ``Excluding Friends,'' and finally, ``Fix This Law.'' I will ask that just three of these editorials be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. This provision is a compromise that would get our law back in sync with our values, but now the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has raised a rule XVI point of order against this provision and had it stricken from the bill. It is regrettable that one Senator, for whatever reason, has decided to torpedo this bipartisan effort. We have worked with the administration. We have worked with refugee organizations that know the hardship current law is causing for thousands of innocent people, legitimate refugees and asylum seekers, who have been denied admission. We have worked to find a reasonable middle ground. But that isn't good enough for the Senator from Arizona, so we are back to square one. Individuals who fought alongside the United States in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere will continue to be barred under current law. Our provision would have fixed this illogical, unfair result, but now that provision has been stricken so those former allies--the Hmong, the Montagnards and others--will remain excluded. Innocent victims of the material support bar will continue to wait for the Federal bureaucracy to address their cases--a wait that is well into its third year. Victims of terrorist groups like the FARC in Colombia or the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda get no help from the Congress. I regret this action by the Senator from Arizona. By striking this provision he ensures the perpetuation of a policy that is contrary to our values, to our morals, and to our national traditions. I wish to thank all Senators who have joined in this effort but particularly Senator Brownback, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, Senator Coleman, and Senator Feingold. I also wish to thank representatives of the humanitarian and other groups who have provided helpful information and advice, as well as officials in the administration who have made a sincere effort to work with us. While the Senator from Arizona has singlehandedly prevented us from moving forward at this time, we will continue to work together to fix the law in a manner that reaffirms our commitment to the words that are carved in the Statue of Liberty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am sorry I even have to be on the floor, but I know the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, offered an amendment to strike a $2 million provision in the supplemental designated for the James M. Jeffords Institute. That is something, incidentally, that is already 100 percent paid for. It is not like the $1 trillion the Senator from Oklahoma supports for a needless war in Iraq. The money, the $2 million identified to fund this center, is not designated as emergency or new. It is funded through a rescission to already existing dollars for the current fiscal year. It was going to be appropriated last year, but we never finished our appropriations bills and had to go to a continuing resolution. These funds were included because Senator Jeffords championed policy initiatives and investments that focused on the long-term well-being and educational needs of all Americans. It was put in in a bipartisan way by Senators from both parties reflecting that. Along with the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, I felt this would be a fitting way to honor Senator Jeffords' service to our country while there is still time. Clearly, Senator Coburn does not feel that way. Sadly, that is not going to happen today. I think it is a disgrace. Mr. President, as I said, I am disheartened that I need to come to the Senate floor to debate an amendment this afternoon that would strike a $2 million provision in the supplemental designated for the James M. Jeffords Institute that is 100 percent paid for already. The U.S. Senate has many important issues to deal with right now. And this is just not one of them. The Senator from Oklahoma has every right to offer this amendment. It is interesting, however, that he does not find it a priority to question the $1 trillion that our country has spent to fight the war in Iraq. I can comfortably conclude, and this will be no surprise to the Senator from Oklahoma, that we share a different view about what the U.S. Senate should take time to debate on the floor. The fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriations bill includes $2 million to further the establishment of the James M. Jeffords Institute, a center for educational excellence at the University of Vermont. This is an effort to acknowledge the long and distinguished service to Vermont and our Nation of our former colleague and friend, Senator Jim Jeffords, in promoting educational and policy excellence in the fields of education, environment, health, and agriculture. As a tribute to Senator Jeffords for his 32 years of service in both the House and Senate, $3 million was included in the fiscal year 2007 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill to support the UVM Education in Excellence program. However, because the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills were left uncompleted by the last Congress, and due to the need to wrap up the process with a continuing resolution, this program, which had been the work of Senator Jeffords, was not funded. Senator Jeffords did not seek reelection last fall so he could spend more time with his family and to address ongoing health issues. I am sad to note that these health issues continue. In light of these developments with his health, I have worked with the chairmen of the Appropriations Committee and Labor-HHS Subcommittee and Senate leadership to include funding for the Jeffords Institute in the bill we now consider. I will note that the $2 million identified to fund the center is not designated emergency or new. The project is funded through a rescission to already existing dollars for the current fiscal year and therefore does not increase the overall spending level of this bill or existing fiscal year 2007 spending levels. Throughout his life in public service, Senator Jeffords championed policy initiatives and investments that focus on and enhance the overall well-being and educational success of individuals from early childhood through later years. He championed legislation to strengthen our Nation's education system and increase the opportunities for individuals with disabilities. In 1975, he entered the House of Representatives as a new Member wearing a neck brace--as Jim was fond of saying, he was the walking wounded from a tough election--and went on to coauthor what would later be known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. That landmark legislation has provided equal access to education for millions of students with disabilities, students who otherwise would have been shunted aside and this country would not have had the value of their achievements. As chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, he continued to work tirelessly on education, job training, and disability legislation. The Jeffords Institute continues those efforts by identifying and developing research and best practices that inform educational and social policies on early childhood, literacy, and youth development. A major focus of the institute will include collaboration with and preparation of teachers, administrators, and policymakers in the development and implementation of programs, policies, and practices that lead to positive, demonstrable outcomes in education and policy practices. Beyond the initial focus, which Senator Jeffords has been instrumental in shaping, the institute will expand its efforts to address policy and practice in the fields of environmental, health, and agriculture and their interrelationship with one another, with education being the overarching mission. Senator Coburn's amendment to strike this provision from the supplemental appropriations bill is ill-considered. I think my colleagues will agree that Senator Jim Jeffords served Vermont well and, just as importantly, he served the House, Senate, and our Nation well. Were circumstances different, I would say that we could wait and find regular appropriations vehicles through which to fund this project. I, along with the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate, believe this would be a fitting way to honor Senator Jeffords' service to our country while there is still time. Clearly, Senator Coburn does not feel that way. Sadly, that will not happen today. But I expect that the Senate will in due time give proper recognition to Senator Jeffords who we are so proud of in Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I have joined together to offer amendment No. 755 the supplemental appropriations bill to authorize a cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for the salaries of Justices and judges of the United States for fiscal year 2007. I thank my friend, Senator Specter, for his leadership on this issue. I also thank the chairman of the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Durbin, and the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, for working with us on the modifications made to this amendment. This is a step I supported taking--and that we should have taken--in the last Congress. As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have worked diligently to preserve the independence of our Federal judiciary and to treat its members fairly. At the beginning of this Congress, Senator Specter and I introduced legislation, S. 197, to authorize this COLA. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent and now awaits consideration by the House. That bipartisan effort--designed to protect and strengthen the integrity and independence of our coequal branch of government--is a modest step towards addressing the issues raised by Chief Justice Roberts in his ``Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary.'' In 1975, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, intended to give judges, Members of Congress and other high-ranking executive branch officials automatic COLAs as accorded other Federal employees unless specifically rejected by Congress. In 1981, Congress enacted section 140 of Public Law 97-92, mandating specific congressional action to give COLAs to judges. During the 21 years of section 140's existence, Congress has always accorded to the Federal judiciary co-equal respect by suspending section 140 whenever Congress has granted to itself and other Federal employees a COLA. The modified bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Specter and I today authorizes a COLA for Federal judges consistent with the law and with fairness. The fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution approved by Congress and signed into law by the President earlier this year increased the Judiciary budget by $250 million over fiscal year 2006 levels. It did not, however, suspend section 140, thus ensuring that no COLA would be provided for Federal judges during the current fiscal year unless other action is taken. Our amendment will rectify that situation. I thank my colleagues for agreeing to this amendment to authorize the annual judicial COLA in fiscal year 2007. With it, we take another step toward preserving the judicial independence critical for upholding our system of government and protecting the rights of all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. If I have any further time, I yield it back and I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is true Ms. Goodling's attorney has said that she will take the fifth amendment. Now, as both a former defense attorney and a former prosecutor, I respect the right under our Constitution for anybody to take the fifth so they won't say something that might incriminate them and bring about criminal charges against them from their own statements. But it is a little bit odd that in a letter from Ms. Goodling's attorney, he speaks that she does not want to face the fate of Mr. Libby, or words to that effect. Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury. He was convicted of obstruction of justice. While I realize many believe he is going to be pardoned, those are the reasons he was convicted. I would have assumed that Ms. Goodling--who has been a very high- ranking member of the Department of Justice, would come in and tell the truth. If she takes the fifth amendment, that's a more difficult thing. We won't hear from her. If she feels that what she has to tell us would subject her to criminal prosecution, well, that raises some serious questions. We hope that others will testify and that they will testify honestly. We'll continue to ask people. But it is very, very difficult to get the facts when you have key members of the Bush-Cheney administration taking the fifth. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with this confirmation--and I expect Mr. Wu will be confirmed--we will have confirmed 14 lifetime appointments to the Federal bench so far this year. This is March. I mention that because, when President Clinton was in office and the Republicans controlled the Senate, there were only 17 confirmations during the entire 1996 session of the Senate. For those who think there is partisanship in the confirmation of judges, yes, there has been. Fortunately, it has been my friends on the other side. Today the Senate continues, as we have since the beginning of this Congress, to make progress on judicial nominations. The Senate will consider and, I believe, confirm the nomination of George H. Wu to be a United States District Judge for the Central District of California. With this confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 14 lifetime appointments to the Federal bench so far this year. There were only 17 confirmations during the entire 1996 session of the Senate. I have worked cooperatively with Members from both sides of the aisle on our committee and in the Senate to move quickly to consider and confirm these judicial nominations so that we can fill vacancies and improve the administration of justice in our Nation's Federal courts. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 48 remaining judicial vacancies, yet the President has sent us only 27 nominations for these vacancies. Twenty-one of these vacancies--almost half--have no nominee. Of the 20 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 10 of them. That means half of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee. Judge Wu's nomination has the support of his home State Senators, and I thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their support of this nomination. Judge Wu has an extensive record of public service as a State trial judge, a Federal prosecutor, and a law professor. In his 14 years on the State trial bench, Judge Wu has served in the Los Angeles Municipal Court and in the Los Angeles Superior Court, handling an array of criminal and civil cases. Previously, Judge Wu worked on complex commercial matters in private practice for two Los Angeles law firms. Judge Wu has also served as a law professor at the University of Tennessee School of Law, and as an assistant U.S. attorney and later assistant division chief in the civil division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California. I am pleased that the nominee before us is an Asian-Pacific American. I have urged, and will continue to urge, the President to nominate men and women to the Federal bench who reflect the diversity of America. Racial and cultural diversity remains a pillar of strength for our country and one of our greatest natural resources. Diversity on the bench helps ensure that the words ``equal justice under law,'' inscribed in Vermont marble over the entrance to the Supreme Court, are a reality and that justice is rendered fairly and impartially. Judicial decisions should reflect insight and experiences as varied as America's citizenry. A more representative judiciary helps cultivate public confidence in the judiciary which strengthens the independence of our Federal courts. There is still much work to be done. Out of the 875 seats on the Federal judiciary, there are only 5 active Asian-Pacific American judges on the Federal bench, less than 1 percent of all Federal judges. President Bush has nominated only two Asian-Pacific American candidates during his 6 years in office, neither to a seat on a Federal circuit court. With outstanding lawyers like Dean Harold Koh of Yale, Professor Goodwin Liu of Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, or attorneys Karen Narasaki, John Yang and Debra Yang, it is not as if there is a dearth of qualified candidates who would be universally endorsed. Our Nation has highly qualified individuals of diverse heritages who would help to unify our Nation while adding to the diversity of our courts. I hope the President will send us more consensus nominees that reflect the rich diversity of our Nation. I congratulate Judge Wu, and his family, on his confirmations today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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