Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask to set that aside and call up amendment No. 333.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is the Leahy-Thomas amendment. The Senate has rejected the last two amendments. This is the amendment that protects small and medium States. The Leahy-Thomas amendment would protect Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I am not suggesting people should vote from a parochial interest, but I want my colleagues to know the vast majority of States--small and medium--in this country would be protected by the Leahy-Thomas amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his help in connection with the confirmation of members to the Sentencing Commission. I am glad a cloture petition turned out not to be necessitated by anonymous Republican opposition and delay but regret that it has taken so long and so much attention to follow through on this matter. Last night, the Senate finally considered and confirmed the President's nomination of Beryl Howell to a second term on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. We also proceeded with the confirmation of the nomination of Dabney Friedrich, a former staffer of Senator Hatch and associate White House counsel. Last month, the President finally sent these nominations to the Senate to fill preexisting vacancies on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Both these nominees were serving on the Commission, having been recessed appointed by the President in the last month of the 109th Congress. Regrettably the White House had delayed for many months making the nominations last year. Had the President sent the Senate these nominations in a timely fashion, their recess appointments would not have been necessary and we could have confirmed both of these nominees in the last Congress. The nonpartisan nature of the Sentencing Commission is preserved by making sure its membership is balanced and includes experienced Commissioners who stick to the merits and command the respect of both Congress and the Judiciary. I look forward to the President nominating such a person on the recommendation of the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee so that the final vacancy may be appropriately filled. Commissioner Howell graduated from Bryn Mawr College and Columbia University School of Law, clerked for Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. She served with distinction as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York, earning a number of commendations for her work. She later served for almost 10 years as a member of the Senate Judiciary staff. She earned the respect of Senate and House Republicans and Democrats. Besides now serving as a member of the Sentencing Commission, she is also managing director and general counsel of the Washington, DC, office of Stroz Friedberg, LLC, one of the leading cybersecurity and forensic firms in the country. Commissioner Friedrich assumes her post having served in the White House counsel's office and having previously served on Senator Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee staff. I believe her husband is a political deputy in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. I wish her well in her new position. The Sentencing Commission has important work to do. Federal judges are still wrestling with the Booker decision, which made the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory, rather than mandatory, and the Commission is once again preparing a report to Congress on the unjust disparity of crack versus powder cocaine sentencing. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations last night.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on February 1, I went to the funeral mass for Robert F. Drinan, SJ. Rarely have I been so moved at such at a solemn occasion. This was a joyous celebration of a wonderful man's life. I knew Bob Drinan before he was a Member of Congress and was referred to as the ``conscience of the Congress.'' I was a young college student when he recruited me to go to Boston College Law School. To make it better, he even offered a scholarship, and as a student with absolutely no money, this was most appealing. I finally called Father Drinan and told him I was going to Georgetown Law School because I especially wanted to be in Washington. He chuckled and said he was giving me absolution, insofar as it was a Jesuit institution. Throughout the more than 40 years since then, he and I talked often and had some of the most wonderful visits. His interests in life, the United States, the Jesuit mission, and his friends never faded. The last time we saw each other was when I gave a speech in December at the Georgetown Law School, and he came by to hug and greet both Marcelle and me. I will not try to repeat all of the wonderful things said about him, but I do ask unanimous consent that a tribute to him by Colman McCarthy be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont is constantly made a better place by some of the extraordinary people who come there and add to the talents of our State. One such person is Claudia Becker. She has restored the Big Picture Theater in Waitsfield along with her husband Eugene Jarecki. The theater has become a center for the people of the Mad River Valley, and Claudia has shown a sense of conscience in films she has shown at Big Picture. Marcelle and I have been privileged to know Claudia for years and her husband Eugene for years before that. Marcelle, as an acting justice of the peace, even performed their marriage. We have enjoyed watching their home grow in Vermont, as well as the addition of two of the most beautiful children anyone could wish for. Recently, Seven Days in Vermont wrote an article about Claudia and what she has done with her film festival. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I had the great privilege of serving with Senator Frank Church of Idaho. Marcelle and I were also privileged to spend time with both Frank and his wonderful wife Bethine. The two of them were extraordinarily helpful to this 34-year-old Senator from Vermont. Frank Church was a Senator in the very best sense of the word. He thought of the Senate as a place where one should, first and foremost, stand for our country and make it a better place. Certainly his brilliance, conscience, and patriotism made his service here one that benefited not only the Senate, but the Nation. Last year, the Idaho Statesman published an article that so reflected Bethine Church that I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record so that those in the Senate who served with Senator Church and knew him and Bethine, as well as those who did not have the opportunity to know them, can have this glimpse into their lives.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to inform my colleagues that for the second consecutive year, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters of Waterbury, VT, has been named the top overall firm on Corporate Responsibility Officers Magazine's annual list of 100 Best Corporate Citizens. This is the first time any company has been awarded this prestigious title 2 years in a row. Green Mountain Coffee's award is rooted in the leading role the company plays in the specialty coffee and fair trade industries. By constantly striving to lead the company to exemplary corporate citizenship, Bob Stiller, Green Mountain Coffee's president and CEO, has molded the company into a socially responsible and environmentally conscious business that makes Vermonters proud. I congratulate Bob and all of the employees at Green Mountain Coffee for this well-deserved recognition. Mr. President, they make great coffee, they do business well, and they do great business--and these accomplishments, I believe, are related. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the following article from the Rutland Herald be printed in the Record so that all Senators can read about the success and admirable business practices of this visionary company.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 7 minutes of my time be yielded to the Senator from New York--does the Senator want more than that?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we consider nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, including Judge Norman Randy Smith to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Smith was nominated to a seat on the Ninth Circuit designated a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Judge Smith's nomination easily could have been confirmed in the last Congress--and the emergency addressed many months ago--had the Bush administration chosen the common-sense approach it has now followed of nominating Judge Smith--who is from Idaho--to Idaho's seat on the Ninth Circuit. Instead, the President picked a fight by insisting on nominating Judge Smith to a California seat on the Ninth Circuit. Judge Smith had been nominated to fill the seat last occupied by Judge Stephen Trott, an appointee from California who made a personal decision to move to Idaho. I know of no precedent for shifting a circuit seat based on a judge's personal decision to change his or her personal residence. That generated opposition from the California Senators and created an impasse. I supported the California Senators, as I had Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski in a similar circumstance when this President sought to fill a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit with someone from Virginia. I have tried for some time to get the President to redesignate the Smith nomination and nominate him to fill the Idaho vacancy. At long last, the President has done the right thing. The White House finally changed course and the President nominated Judge Smith for the Idaho seat on the Ninth Circuit. I thank the President for finally doing the right thing. With the cooperation of the Senators from California and the other Members of the Judiciary Committee, we were able to avoid having a hearing on Judge Smith's nomination in this Congress and to expedite his consideration, now that he has been designated for the Idaho vacancy. We were able to report Judge Smith's nomination last Thursday. Today, at long last, Senator Craig and Senator Crapo and the people of Idaho will have a judge on this important court from their home State. We have worked hard since convening this Congress to make significant progress in our consideration of judicial nominations. At our first executive business meeting, the Judiciary Committee reported out five judicial nominations little more than 2 weeks after they were sent to us. Three of these were for vacancies determined by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to be judicial emergencies. All five were among those returned to the President without Senate action at the end of last year when Republican Senators objected to proceeding with certain of the President's judicial nominees in September and December last year. All five were confirmed only 3 weeks after they were nominated. Last week, we reported another five nominations, including the nominations we consider today. We reported nominees from the home States of Senator Specter and Senator Grassley and I want to thank Senator Casey and Senator Brown for expediting their consideration of nominees from their home States and approving them so quickly after taking office. I have worked cooperatively with Members from both sides of the aisle on our Committee, and in the Senate, to consider quickly and report 10 judicial nominations so far this year, allowing us to fill vacancies and improve the administration of justice in our Nation's Federal courts. With the five confirmations last week we have confirmed more of President Bush's nominations in the 18 months I have served as Judiciary Committee Chairman than in the more than two years when Senator Hatch chaired the Committee with a Republican Senate majority or during the entire last Congress with a Republican Senate majority. With Judge Smith's confirmation today, we will have confirmed a nomination to one of the Nation's important circuit courts little more than a month after the Republicans agreed to resolution allowing the Senate to organize. That is more than the total of President Clinton's nominations to circuit court vacancies confirmed by the Republican- controlled Senate during the entire 1996 session. Today, with this one confirmation we will surpass the Republican total for an entire session of the Congress. Last week, we also held the first judicial nominations hearing of the new Congress and considered three more nominees, two of whom are nominated to fill judicial emergency vacancies. We held that hearing on February 6. When a Republican chaired the Committee in 1999 and there was a Democratic President, the first hearing on a judicial nominee was not held until June 16. We could have postponed this hearing because it was at the same time as the Senators briefing on the new National Intelligence Estimate about the deteriorating situation in Iraq. As I did after 9/11, and after the Senate buildings were shut down by the anthrax letters, I chose to go forward with the nominations hearing. I know some on the other side of the aisle have tried to raise a scare since I, again, became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They rant as if the sky is falling and as if we would not proceed on any judicial nominations. On the contrary, we have proceeded promptly and efficiently. I have long urged the President to fill vacancies with consensus nominees. After this week's confirmations, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts there will be 51 judicial vacancies, 24 of which have been deemed to be judicial emergencies. Of those 24 judicial emergency vacancies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 17 of them. That means two-thirds of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee from the President. We will continue moving forward efficiently as long as the President sends us qualified, consensus nominees. iraq

Mr. LEAHY. I did not hear the request.

Mr. LEAHY. At the conclusion of the third vote?

Mr. LEAHY. I have an hour reserved after the third vote anyway. Certainly, if the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to take his 10 minutes ahead of that hour, I have no objection.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Again, we are using time that I--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be extended by 6 minutes, and that I be allowed to yield that 6 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Mississippi, and I am proud to be joining with him on this. He and I have discussed this several times over the past several months. I told him last fall I would join with him on such legislation, and I am proud to do so.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. How much time does the Senator from Pennsylvania want? Because this is coming out of time I had set aside for something else.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Mississippi on the floor and the Senator from Pennsylvania. If they are seeking time, I would ask how much time they need.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, so people understand. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has spoken briefly about this and had remarks on it printed in the Record. Our Nation's competition laws are powerful tools to ensure that consumer welfare is the benchmark of fair and accountable industry practices. These competition laws are what make businesses work in America. The vast majority of the companies doing business in the United States are subject to our antitrust laws. Consumers benefit from lower prices, more choices, better services. There are only a few industries that operate outside the Federal antitrust laws. The bipartisan measure I have introduced would end the insurance industry's exemption from the requirement of those laws. I am joined in this effort, as I said before, by the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Specter has a strong record of supporting effective competition in every industry through our antitrust laws. Of course, as I have also said, I am joined by the majority leader and by Senator Lott, who is the deputy Republican leader. Senator Lott probably wishes he was not in this position, but he represents many of the gulf coast residents who can speak personally and painfully to the abuses that insurers can wreak on their policyholders. The insurance industry's practices affect us all. Perhaps nowhere has the industry and its practices come under as much scrutiny as along the gulf coast in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Insurers have been too often denying claims and delaying payments to residents along the gulf coast instead of honoring their contractual commitments. The behavior of insurers in Mississippi has been so outrageous that the State's attorney general recently convened a grand jury to investigate some of the practices. It seems to me, insurance companies are very eager to collect premiums when times are good but reluctant to compensate policyholders when tragedy strikes. Senator Lott knows all too well the difficulties his constituents have had with insurers. His State was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina. I commend the Senator from Mississippi for his tireless efforts in trying to ensure resources are in place to rebuild. I know he is joined in that effort by his colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. I have worked with others to support efforts to rebuild the Gulf Coast. Most recently, I was pleased to assist Senator Landrieu in her successful efforts to convince the Attorney General to dispatch additional law enforcement to the New Orleans region. People in the gulf coast are Americans. They are our fellow citizens. They have been utterly failed by a woefully unprepared Government, and they should not also be bullied and neglected by insurance companies in their time of need. The insurance industry has operated largely beyond the reach of Federal antitrust laws for more than six decades. Assuming there ever was a justification to exempt insurers from Federal Government oversight, I find it hard to believe there is still a reason to exempt them--not in the age of instant communication, the age of the Internet, or the ability to compare not only risks but payments. In fact, we need real oversight, which can be brought about by removing them from the antitrust exemption. We deserve confidence that the industry is not engaging in the most egregious forms of anticompetitive conduct, such as price-fixing, agreements not to pay, or market allocation. Antitrust laws are the beacon of good competition policy. Insurers may object to being subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else, but why shouldn't they be subject to the same laws as every other company in this country? If they are operating in an honest and appropriate and open way, they have nothing to fear. I have more on this, but I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which will create new and better tools to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in government contracting. I commend our chief sponsor, Senator Byron Dorgan, for his leadership on this. Waste, fraud, and abuse in the name of defense is destructive and offensive, and it should never be tolerated. It saps critical resources needed by our troops, and it plays the taxpayers for fools, all the while hiding under the cover of national defense. Within the last few weeks, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has reported that the problems of waste, fraud, and abuse continue to plague our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and billions of dollars are unaccounted for, and possibly lost, to fraud and waste. So far, the Inspector General has initiated more than 100 investigations into this fraud and abuse, but to date the Department of Justice has prosecuted just a few individuals for wrongdoing. The Department has yet to prosecute any of the contracting companies or their senior officials for fraud. This legislative reform package establishes new criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who, for ill-gotten gain, would exploit the chaos of war. I recently introduced the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, and I am pleased that Senator Dorgan has included this legislation in the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act. This legislation also promotes openness and fairness in contracting, and it includes safeguards to end cronyism and eliminate conflicts of interest in contracting decisions. It also strengthens the Federal protections afforded to whistleblowers who alert the public to contract fraud and misconduct. We have introduced antiwar profiteering legislation in the past, but the Republican-led Congress has repeatedly refused to pass it. While Congress has waited to act, we have learned that private contractors have stolen and defrauded, by some estimates, hundreds of millions of dollars from money that should have supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The time to stop these shameful acts is now, and Congress should act swiftly to enact this vital legislation. I will continue my efforts on this issue as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In particular, I plan to hold a hearing next month on the war profiteering bill. Every penny of our taxpayers' money must be protected from waste, and Federal contracts--which are paid for with taxpayer funds--should be open and transparent. This is an accountability bill, and taxpayers deserve this to be one of our highest priorities.