Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud Senators Feingold and Brownback for proposing an amendment to correct a seriously flawed provision that remains in the immigration bill that we are likely to pass. Under section 227(c) of the bill, Federal courts of appeals would be prohibited from granting an asylum seeker a temporary stay of deportation unless the alien could prove by clear and convincing evidence that the order of deportation is unlawful. In many cases, this is the same or an even a higher standard than an alien would be required to meet in order to win his or her case on the merits. This result has been described by one Federal court as ``Kafkaesque.'' It is also fundamentally unfair. Judicial review is the failsafe that guarantees the rights of men and women when the law is interpreted incorrectly or when human emotion or bias overcomes impartiality. Judicial review helps define our constitutional democracy and is a value that is deeply embedded in our system of government. It would be a grave mistake for us to accept the provision in section 227(c) and to ignore the wisdom of the distinguished Federal judges who oppose this curtailment of their authority to decide these difficult cases with care and consistent with the traditional practices of the Federal judiciary. A number of Federal courts of appeal are in agreement that the standard contained in section 227(c) is inequitable and unworkable. The Second Circuit has said that requiring this standard ``would lead to the anomalous result that . . . an alien would have to make a more persuasive showing to obtain a stay than is required to prevail on the merits, thereby permitting the removal of some aliens with meritorious claims against removal.'' The Seventh Circuit has said that ``[t]he ability to come back to the United States would not be worth much if the alien has been maimed or murdered in the interim. Yet under the [clear and convincing evidence standard] an alien who is likely to prevail in this court, and likely to face serious injury or death if removed, is not entitled to remain in this nation while the court resolves the dispute.'' Some will argue that this provision will prevent aliens from abusing the system by filing frivolous appeals simply to gain the stay of deportation. But it is unwise for us to sweep aside decent and humanitarian treatment for many meritorious petitioners to prevent a few from abusing the system. I think we need to consider very carefully whether we want to mandate that our Federal courts get into the business of remanding even one potentially meritorious petitioner back to certain torture or death before his or her appeal is finally decided. I hope others share my faith in the integrity with which our Federal judges carry out their duties and that these men and women are eminently capable of identifying and rejecting fraudulent or abusive cases without the need for the restrictive provision contained in the bill. We cannot live up to our American values, which abhor torture and human rights abuses, and at the same time allow this provision to remain in this bill. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting the amendment Senators Feingold and Brownback propose.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill which can be the catalyst for saving the lives or improving the health of millions of families in impoverished nations. In far too many nations, thousands of children die needlessly each month. The concept of my bill--called the Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006--is easy to summarize. It allows U.S. companies to make low-cost generic versions of patented medicines for export to impoverished nations that face public health crises but cannot produce those life-saving medicines for themselves. This bill is based on World Trade Organization agreements permitting nations with pharmaceutical industries to help nations in need. That WTO agreement was labeled by U.S. Ambassador Portman as ``a landmark achievement that we hope will help developing countries devastated by HIV and AIDS and other public health crises.'' Apart from the pressing need for this step in humanitarian terms, passage of this bill could go a long way in improving U.S. relations with large segments of the world's population. On December 6, 2005, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that it ``welcomes'' efforts to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export life-saving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.'' I am concerned, however, that the administration has taken no steps whatsoever to begin to implement that agreement. No implementing legislation has been provided to the Hill. I was informed just today that the administration has ``no present plans'' to propose legislation to implement that international agreement. I am disappointed with that answer but am pleased that the administration expressed a willingness to work with me on this important effort. I will forward my bill to them later today. Indeed, the World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization have adopted resolutions urging all WTO member nations with a generic capability to adopt laws that implement that agreement. The World Bank recently issued a guide and model documents on how best to implement that international agreement. My bill follows their model. Like a generation ago, infectious and parasitic diseases remain the major killers of children in the developing world. Many of these diseases--measles, malaria, river blindness--we can prevent or cure. But those countries still lack the public health systems and the vital medicines. Every hour, more than 500 African mothers lose a child, mostly from diseases caused by contaminated water. In some sub-Saharan countries, HIV infection rates range as high as a third of the adult population, and for this reason 35 percent of African children are at higher risk of death than they were a decade ago. Despite these grim statistics, there is a brighter side. We are far more aware today of how much our own health depends on what takes place half a world away. Whether it is AIDS, SARS, West Nile Virus, the Avian Flu, or some as yet unknown infectious disease, we are all at risk, and only an airplane flight away, from wherever the outbreak may occur. Because of this new awareness, global health is finally recognized as an issue of national security. It may seem obvious today, but even ten years ago it was not. Health threats that once concerned only medical personnel, now receive the attention of the highest levels of governments. We are supporting policies and programs to help the poorest countries conduct better surveillance and respond more quickly to protect their own people, and to prevent the spread of disease. There is a great deal more we need to do. Today, 15 percent of the world's people consume 91 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals. The high price of many life-saving medicines--medicines that we take for granted in this country--is beyond reach for billions of the world's most vulnerable populations. President Franklin Roosevelt said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.'' Imagine if you, or a loved one, were dying and you knew the medicine to cure the disease exists and costs only a few dollars, but you have no way to get it or to pay for it. That is a reality for millions of people today. Reports by UNICEF, UNAIDS, and Doctors without Borders clearly show that the high price of many life-saving medicines is a significant barrier to their availability in many very low income areas of the world. Indeed, the 4th Global Report of UNAIDS notes the extremely low rate of treatment for HIV/AIDS in those areas by pointing out that of the 5 to 6 million urgently in need of antiretroviral medicines, only some 400,000 were receiving them. With respect to AIDS, a recent book by Philip Hilts called ``Prescription for Survival'' notes the importance of offering affordable medicines to populations of impoverished nations: ``It was said that the price of the drugs was killing tens of thousands . . .'' Under my bill, U.S. generic manufacturers would be allowed to make generic versions of patented drugs without the consent of the patent holders. Those patent holders would receive compensation in the form of a royalty payment under a so-called ``compulsory license'' and the generic companies would then be required to sell those less-expensive generic drugs only to least-developed or developing nations. Use of a compulsory license occurs when Congress determines that there is an important need which should be addressed. For example, most Americans do not realize that their network television programs received by satellite or by cable are provided under a compulsory license. The program owners receive a royalty for their programs under a formula. This way American families can watch network TV programming over satellite or cable just like it is made available over-the-air. This same compulsory license approach, except with respect to patented medicines, is employed in this bill. The WTO agreement contains language designed to protect the interests of the patent holders by focusing its benefits on areas of the world where these important medicines would not otherwise be available except for some of the wealthiest residents. Thus, implementation of the agreement would not take business away from the companies owning the patents, sometimes referred to as the ``brand-name'' companies, since their medicines are not purchased by low-income families in those impoverished nations. In addition, the patent holders will receive royalties from the generic companies under the bill. Third, generic versions of products sold under the agreement have to be clearly marked as not for resale to developed nations. This will mean that the bill should not result in undercutting the high-priced sales of those medicines by the brand-name companies in developed nations. Thus, the bill addresses both the urgent needs of millions of low- income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines. There have been significant voluntary efforts made by brand-name pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and non-profits who have donated life-saving medicines and have donated time, personnel and money to help in the fight against deadly diseases in other nations. I commend and greatly appreciate those efforts. Some funding mechanisms have been started including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and President Bush's Millennium Challenge Account. Nonetheless, much remains to be done. If this bill is enacted it would complement the above efforts and implement the WTO agreements and make low-cost life-saving pharmaceutical products, and other medicines, available to hundreds of thousands of persons without other access to those products. To provide a little history, I am very pleased that all the member nations of the World Trade Organization, WTO, agreed to this approach to assist people suffering from life-threatening diseases in least- developed or developing nations. Under this international agreement, nations such as the United States with pharmaceutical industries would be allowed to make and sell generic medicines to nations in need even if the patent owners of those medicines refused to authorize such manufacture and sale. As I said earlier, on December 6, 2005, the United States announced that it ``welcomes'' the WTO amendment to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export life-saving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.'' The amendment will go in effect, for those nations which adopt it, once \2/3\ of the member nations adopt it. The current waiver approach, allowing nations to implement it now, will remain in place until the permanent amendment is adopted. This permits the U.S. to move forward with this effort this year. Indeed, Canada has already passed implementing legislation. Participation by any nation which wants to export such generic products is voluntary. In order to participate, each country must pass legislation to implement the WTO agreement. The United States needs to act as soon as possible. This is a moral issue. I am working with a number of religious groups, humanitarian organizations, international assistance groups, and generic drug companies on this effort. I have also received input from some pharmaceutical brand-name companies and hope a few will step forward and be leaders in this effort. I will also reach out across the aisle to try to form a bipartisan coalition. Two recent World Health Organization annual reports, the World Health Reports for 2003 and 2004, demonstrate the enormous scope of the need for supplying these medicines to needy countries. The ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006'' that I am introducing today would allow the U.S. generic industry to respond to these urgent international needs and could save millions of lives in impoverished nations. Canada, Norway and the Netherlands have already enacted such legislation or rule changes. However, aspects of the Canadian law have been an impediment to the willingness of generic companies to participate. For example, that law allows Canadian generic companies to provide such medicines for at most only 4 years. The Canadian version permits dilatory and needless litigation, omits important medicines from a complex list of covered drugs, and creates unnecessary bureaucratic hoops. I have received input from generic companies and my bill addresses all of those concerns. For example, it would provide that a participating generic manufacturer could provide such medicines for up to 14 years which makes it much more likely that U.S. generic companies would make the investments needed to make low-cost medicines for export to impoverished areas. Under my bill, U.S. generic manufacturers would be allowed to make generic versions of patented drugs without the consent of the patent holders. Those patent holders would receive compensation, a royalty payment, under a so-called ``compulsory license'' and the generic companies would then be required to sell those less-expensive generic drugs only to least-developed or developing nations. The WTO agreement contains language designed to protect the interests of the patent holders by focusing its provisions on areas of the world where these important medicines would not otherwise be available except for some of the wealthiest residents. Thus, implementation of the agreement would not take business away from the companies owning the patents, sometimes referred to as the ``brand-name patent holders since their medicines are not purchased by low-income families in those impoverished nations. There may be de minimis losses of profits for brand-name patent holders but certainly the humanitarian and self- interest benefits provided by the bill would massively outweigh those concerns. In addition, the patent holders will receive royalties from the generic companies under the bill. Third, generic versions of products sold under the agreement have to be clearly marked as not for resale to developed nations. This should mean that the bill will not result in undercutting the high-priced sales of the patented medicines in developed nations. Re-exporting of these generic products is prohibited unless it is part of a regional trade alliance among impoverished nations as permitted under the WTO agreements. Thus, the bill addresses both the urgent needs of millions of low- income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines and will hopefully help enhance America's image in the world. For those only interested in self-interest rather than humanitarian aid, note that because of the globalization of travel our Nation is at risk from failure to contain diseases in other nations. America has a strong self-interest in combating diseases in foreign nations. A surprising number of new diseases have emerged in recent years. Some of these new diseases are variations of existing diseases. The volume of people and cargo going to and from distant nations is astounding. According to ``Rx for Survival'' by Philip Hilts, if you count only travel between nations with a heavy burden of disease and those with less disease, more than a million people a week are making the trip. The more viruses and bacteria mutant inside animals and people, and the more people and goods travel throughout the world, the more residents living in the United States are at risk of being harmed by dangerous diseases. The National Intelligence Estimate of January 2000, published by the CIA and the National Intelligence Council noted that: ``New and emerging infectious diseases will pose a rising global health threat, and will complicate U.S. and global security over the next 20 years. These diseases will endanger U.S. citizens at home and abroad, threaten United States armed forces deployed overseas and exacerbate social and political instability in key countries and regions.'' I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort. Here is my section-by-section summary of the bill. Section 1: Sets forth the name of the Act as the ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006.'' Section 2: States that the purpose of the Act is to promote public health under World Trade Organization agreements by permitting the export of generic versions of life-saving patented pharmaceutical products and other medicines including diagnostic tools and vaccines needed to prevent or treat potentially life threatening diseases to residents of impoverished countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity to make the medicines. The findings set forth determinations by the World Health Organization concerning the millions of low-income persons without regular access to medicines in lesser- developed or developing nations. Section 3: This section requires the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue a compulsory license (permission to make and sell a patented product under this new Act) to permit generic companies to make and export medicines under the terms of WTO international agreements under several conditions. The recipient country must be a least-developed nation, as defined by the United Nations, or a developing nation without the ability to manufacture the medicine in question. The recipient country, called an ``eligible country'' in the bill, must notify the WTO of its interest in participating in this program. Efforts must have been made by the generic company to buy the right to make and sell the medicine under normal business arrangements with the patent holders. The medical product exported under this Act must be for life- threatening public health problems and can only be used in least- developed or developing nations, and is not for re-export except in identified circumstances relating to regional trade alliances. Special labeling and packaging must be used to make clear that the product is sold under the authority of the WTO agreement only for use as allowed under agreement and this bill. The permission to make and sell the product, the license, can not exceed 7 years, except that the license may be extended once. The holder of the compulsory license shall pay a royalty to the patent holder, as determined by the Director of the PTO within a limited range of possible rates set forth in the bill, taking into account such factors as humanitarian needs, the economic value to the importing nation, and the need for low-cost pharmaceutical products by persons in the importing nation. The maximum royalty for any shipment shall not exceed 4 percent times the commercial value of the pharmaceutical products to be exported under this Act under that supply agreement. An alternative royalty payment approach, modeled after the approach enacted into law by Canada, would also be permitted with the same 4 percent maximum. In addition, the Director may accept combined applications from multiple eligible countries. Note that in emergency situations the Director may waive provisions of the bill in a manner consistent with the WTO agreements. Section 4: This section makes clear that compulsory licenses issued under this Act shall not be considered an infringement of a patent. Section 5: This section creates a diverse advisory board of academic, patent, trade, medical, international aid, and industry experts to advise the Director, and to report to the Congress, on ways to improve implementation of the bill to achieve its purposes. Mandatory funding for the board is provided out of the general fund of the U.S. at $1.5 million in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, with modestly declining amounts provided in subsequent years through 2011. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Gregg amendment No. 4054 would undermine this tradition by significantly reducing the number of visas that are available under the Diversity Visa Program. Diversity visas were created in 1990 to ensure that America would always welcome immigrants from all parts of the globe, in the tradition of our forefathers. Diversity visas are available through a lottery system to applicants from nations that are underrepresented in other immigration programs. In order to apply, an individual must be from a country that has sent less than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the preceding 5 years. This special visa program allows immigrants from nations in Africa and from a number of developing nations to have a chance to apply to emigrate to the U.S. In 2004, diversity immigrants were just 5 percent all admissions of legal permanent residents, but diversity visas were 33 percent of all legal permanent resident admissions from Africa. For this reason, the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP oppose the Gregg amendment. In addition to African nations like Ethiopia and Nigeria, immigrants from Ireland, Albania, Poland, and Ukraine have benefited from the program. Diversity visa immigrants are not given a free pass to cross our borders and make a new life in American. Successful applicants must have at least a high school diploma and at least 2 years of work experience so that when they arrive in the U.S. they can contribute to the nation's economic health. They are not exempt from the tough security checks that all immigrants undergo. Applicants must complete consular processing overseas and pass Department of Homeland Security inspection. Fraud is prevented through fingerprinting and the use of digital photographs. Applications are screened and run through Homeland Security databases to ensure that an individual cannot game the system by filing multiple applications. The Gregg amendment would take two-thirds of the 55,000 diversity visas that are available each year and redirect them to applicants with advanced degrees in science, math, and engineering. I support bringing more high-skilled immigrants to the U.S., but there are already a large number of such visa slots in the bill before us today. The bill raises the cap on H-1B visas from 65,000 per year to 115,000 per year. In addition, it adds an escalation clause so that in future years, if that new cap of 115,000 is met, the cap will be raised by 120 percent the following year. I think that this is a significant increase in high skilled worker visas. We can always revisit the issue in future years if the new levels do not provide an adequate number of visas for immigrants who bring science and technological skills to our Nation. We need not and should not undercut the Diversity Visa Program. The diversity visa program honors the hopes and aspirations of hard working and industrious individuals who want a chance to achieve the American dream.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4101

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope that Republicans will not succeed in derailing comprehensive immigration reform through procedural gamesmanship. I hope the bipartisan coalition is strong enough to withstand this ploy. With respect to funding, I find it ironic that the Senator who added a billion dollars to the bill is now complaining that it is too expensive and that so many in the Republican majority who have failed to enact a budget and have violated the requirements of the law by their failure are considering using budget rules to defeat this measure. We are long past the time when individual Americans dutifully file their taxes and the Congress is required to enact a Federal budget. That date, April 15, has both those legal requirements. But unlike filing tax returns and paying our income taxes, there is no provision in the law that allows the Republican-controlled Congress to call a timeout or obtain an extension. Although Republicans remain in charge of the White House, the Senate, and the House, they have utterly failed to enact a Federal budget. With respect to the budget, they have succeeded in turning the largest budget surplus in our history into the largest deficit. They have run unprecedented annual budget deficits for year after year of $300 billion to more than $400 billion. They have turned a $5 trillion surplus into a $9 trillion deficit. For Republicans to attempt to take advantage of technical budget rules in these circumstances is simply astonishing. I trust that the only affect will be to remind the American people of their gross budgetary mismanagement. This bill is expensive to be sure. The enforcement provisions it contains and those that have been added will come at significant costs. When the Senate was considering the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama for $1 billion in fencing, I raised the question of how he intended to pay for these measures. I still await an answer. The billions this bill will cost now have not been accounted for and are not budgeted. Paying for the National Guard is requiring the diversion of funds that had been intended for capital accounts and technological improvements. We heard last week from the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee about his frustrations and the difficulties of funding these measures. I trust that the bipartisan coalition working for improved border security as part of comprehensive immigration reform will hold together to overcome procedural, technical, and budgetary objections. I have already suggested ways to pay for these costly enforcement and security measures. I did so last week in connection with the $1 billion fencing amendment of the Senator from Alabama. After noting the irony of the President signing into law an extension of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, I suggested that we end the millionaires' tax breaks and direct those revenues to border security. If we want to return to pay-as-you-go budgeting, that is an obvious way to do it.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator McConnell has proposed an amendment to the immigration bill to modify the Help America Vote Act of 2002, ``HAVA'', by mandating that all States require government-issued photo identification from voters at polling places. Senator McConnell's amendment raises serious concerns by putting the policy ahead of the groundwork necessary to determine how and whether such a step should be taken. I do not see his justification for attaching that proposal to this measure or to get ahead of the implementation of the REAL ID Act or recommendations by the Carter-Baker commission. The REAL ID Act has given us a great many problems, and there are a number of aspects that need to be adjusted or fixed. If the Rules Committee wants to take a comprehensive look at it and if Senator Dodd supports that effort, I will be very interested in what they have to say. I do not think it is wise to expand the purpose of the REAL ID Act without due deliberation. This is not the right time, nor is this bill the right place, to make hasty changes to Federal voting laws without the careful consideration such modifications deserve. The Senate is currently considering the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and is doing so in a deliberate, considered, and bipartisan manner. We should take the same approach to any enhancement of HAVA, which should include the considered input from the States, their election officials and citizens. HAVA expressly provides for State involvement in carrying out the improvements in the law. Senator McConnell's amendment would seem to undermine HAVA by preventing the States from performing their legislative role in devising voter identification procedures. The States play an integral role in carrying out the improvements in the Act, and we should let them perform this function without the undue interference. Any proposal for federally standardized identification cards should be subject to hearings and debate beyond the constrained environment of the amendment process for the immigration bill. Before we vote on proposals for the use of a national identification card in our voting system, we must undertake a national debate about the technology, implementation, and the implications for the privacy rights of American citizens and the risks that required forms of voter identification have sometimes been used to intimidate minority voters or suppress their participation.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope that this morning we will begin to draw to a close the Republican filibuster against comprehensive immigration reform. I have been encouraged that since our return to this legislation this month, the President has spoken out in favor of comprehensive immigration reform with an essential component being a realistic path to earned citizenship for those who work hard, pay their taxes, and contribute so much to our American way of life. When Republicans filibustered against two cloture votes last month, including one on a motion by the Republican Leader, I was disappointed. I had hoped we would recognize the lawful, heartfelt protests of millions against the harsh House-passed criminalization measures. While they waved American flags, some of those fueling anti-immigrant feelings burned flags of other countries. I hope that through this debate we have been able to convince enough Senate Republicans to join us in our efforts and to appreciate the contributions of immigrants to our economy and our Nation. This bill is not all that it should be. Yesterday we short-circuited efforts to make it more flexible for those persecuted around the world. This country has had a history of being welcoming to refugees and those seeking asylum from persecution. Yesterday the Senate turned its back on that history by refusing to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility needed after restrictive language was added by the REAL ID Act to our laws. I hope Senators will reconsider these issues with more open minds and hearts and a fully understanding of the lives being affected. Sadly too, many were spooked by false arguments. I have made no secret that I preferred the better outline of the Judiciary Committee bill. The bill the Senate is now considering is a further compromise. Debate and amendments have added some improvements and some significant steps in the wrong direction. Besides the failures yesterday to readjust its asylum provisions to take into account the realities of oppressive forces in many parts of the world, I was most disappointed that the Senate appeared to be so anti-Hispanic in its adoption of the Inhofe English amendment. Yesterday Senator Salazar and I wrote to the President following up on this provision and the comments of the Attorney General last week and weekend. We asked whether the President will continue to implement the language outreach policies of President Clinton's Executive Order 13166. A prompt and straightforward affirmative answer can go a long way toward rendering the Inhofe English amendment a symbolic stain rather than a serious impediment to immigrants and Americans for whom English is a second language. I ask consent that a copy of our letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that of the time available to the Senator from Vermont, 4 minutes be reserved for the distinguished Presiding Officer and he be allowed to use that time.

Mr. LEAHY. We should be able to finish in 40 or 45 minutes?

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry: Are these 10-minute rollcall votes now?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is going to speak to correct one part of the record, but both Senator Coleman and I want to make sure the record is correct and Senators know what they are voting on. Some Senators, in speaking in opposition to the Leahy-Coleman amendment, suggested that members of Hamas, the Kurdish PKK, or the Basque separatist group might obtain refugee status in the U.S. because those terrorists organizations do not specifically target the United States. That is totally incorrect. They are not allowed in with this. Hamas, the Basque separatists, the Kurdish PKK are already listed as terrorist organizations by our government. Members of the Taliban are also barred. These individuals could not obtain entry with this amendment. It was wrong to misrepresent the amendment that way. It is inflammatory to say the Leahy-Coleman amendment would aid members and supporters of designated terrorist organizations. It does not. It does not. It does not. This amendment in no way changes current law as suggested, but it would do something for those people who have been raped, tortured, or forced into helping terrorist organizations.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, no one has any intention or desire to permit terrorists into this country. It is setting up a straw man to say something would let the Taliban in here. This amendment is not about the Taliban, incidentally. Our government supported them very strongly through our CIA and others, as the press has reported, during the Soviet Union days. But this amendment is not about terrorists. It is about genuine refugees who have been victims of the very brutality that is now preventing them from receiving asylum in this country. I will give a practical example. We trained and supported the Vietnamese Montagnards. We trained and equipped them. We asked them to fight with us. Now we deny them asylum because they risked their lives to do what we asked them to do. The Burmese, who are fighting a brutal regime, our government supports them. Many are refugees. But even though they have not been designated a foreign terrorist organization and our government supports them, they are inadmissible. There are cases of women and children threatened with torture and death and forced to provide food, shelter or become the sex slaves of members of terrorist groups. Our law bars them from asylum. We are giving them discretion. I cannot believe that President Bush or Secretary Rice is going to misuse this discretion to allow in terrorists.

Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record editorials from the New York Times and the Washington Post, and an op-ed from the Los Angeles Times in support of this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope Senators will support this amendment. It has strong bipartisan support. It speaks to the moral goodness of our Nation. It ensures that the waiver in current law is available to asylum seekers who were forced to join terrorist groups or to provide material support against their will. Completely innocent victims of ethnic and other forms of violence and repression are being denied asylum for engaging in the very activity they were forced to engage in, even though they pose no threat to U.S. security--child soldiers, sex slaves of people who were among the worst violators of human rights. Those victims are being excluded by our great, good Nation. They deserve our compassion. Let us bring our laws back in line with our values. I hope we will adopt this amendment. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Minnesota on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, the Senator is referring to the Leahy-Coleman-Kennedy-Sununu-Lieberman-Chafee amendment. He had not mentioned a motion to table. He has a right to make a motion to table at any time. On the Leahy-Coleman-Sununu-Chafee-et al. amendment, I hope the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee would at least listen to this debate, of our efforts to protect these child soldiers before the Senator moves to table.

Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection to that. I just want to make my point. We are trying to protect these women who have been raped and mutilated and these children forced into involuntary servitude and others who have stood up when the United States has asked them to help defend us.

Mr. LEAHY. That is when I reserved my right to object.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I won't make a unanimous consent request. I will rely on the expertise and long experience of the chairman of the committee to get that vote in before 5:30.

Mr. LEAHY. I am not making a unanimous consent request. I am saying I am relying on the representations of the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withhold the remainder of our time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Illinois, with the understanding that 1 minute be retained to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains to this side, to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. I was going to say, if the chairman will yield, that if we move to table now, we would have to vote now. I would have no objection if the chairman would give me some idea when those votes might be.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would note to the distinguished chairman, one of the reasons I agreed to this schedule, to come here and do this debate now, was that there would be a vote now. I am going to be off the Hill for a period of time around dinnertime, and I would like to be here to vote on my own amendment. Could we agree on a time certain, like 5:30, for the tabling motion on the Leahy-Coleman-Sununu amendment?