Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection. Some of us have a luncheon to go to. I don't want to go beyond 12:30. Of course, I will not object to the request of my friend from Iowa.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to bring attention to the appalling human rights abuses against women in Pakistan and to express my dismay with the recent comments of President Pervez Musharraf that rape in Pakistan has become an opportunity for women of his country to make money and emigrate. Victims of rape and domestic violence in Pakistan and around the world are offended by these irresponsible remarks. On September 13 President Musharraf stated the following in an interview with the Washington Post: ``You must understand the environment in Pakistan . . . This has become a money-making concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa to Canada for citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.'' President Musharraf subsequently denied making these remarks, but the paper posted an audio link of the interview on its website, confirming that he had in fact been accurately quoted. These comments are completely unacceptable. They are especially so considering the fact that rape and other acts of violence against women in Pakistan are a longstanding problem. The U.S. State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2004 reported that one out of every two Pakistani women last year was the victim of mental or physical violence. That is an astounding number. Additionally, the report states that husbands frequently beat and even occasionally kill their wives and that many females are disfigured by intentional burnings or attacks with acid. So called ``honor killings,'' when husbands murder their wives for alleged infidelity or other acts deemed to impugn the man's honor, also continue to be a problem in Pakistan. Yet the perpetrators of these crimes often escape punishment. Pakistani human rights organizations documented 1,458 cases of honor killings last year, and many more likely went unreported. A study by Human Rights Watch estimates that a woman in Pakistan is raped every 2 hours and that approximately 70-90 percent of women suffer from some form of domestic violence. The terrible stories of two Pakistani rape victims have been vividly portrayed in moving editorials by New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof. From Kristof we first learned about Mukhtar Mai, who was gang- raped in 2002 on the orders of a council of tribal elders, and also about Dr. Shazia Khalid, a Pakistani physician who was raped in January 2005 by a military officer in her place of employment. These stories are tragic. But equally troubling is the cruel reality that many rape victims in Pakistan are pressured to drop charges by the authorities, as was the case for Dr. Khalid. Many who courageously decide to press forward are ostracized, beaten or even jailed on charges of adultery or fornication. What we are witnessing is an archaic and twisted judicial system where too often the victims are punished and the culprits go free. This practice of blaming and then abusing the victim is a disgrace. At a time when the Bush administration is embracing President Musharraf and giving Pakistan huge amounts of aid on account of his support for the administration's policies in Afghanistan, it should use its influence to press Musharraf to act immediately to address the rampant abuse of Pakistani women. This includes abolishing the Hudood Ordinances, a harsh penal code introduced in 1979 by then-dictator General Zia ul-Haq to Islamize the legal system. Unfortunately, President Musharraf has taken few concrete steps to protect women from this discriminatory and backward legal system. As we consider the plight of women in Pakistan and the tremendous obstacles they must surmount, the U.S. must take a hard look at the consistency of our own policies, especially with respect to advancing human rights around the globe. I was troubled to hear that the State Department declined to react to Musharraf's comments. When asked about the interview by a member of the press, a Government spokesman skirted the issue by stating that ``The United States Government speaks out very clearly that violence against women, wherever it may occur, is unacceptable. And around the world, where this is a problem, we make a point of speaking out against it.'' Unfortunately, the administration is not practicing what it preaches. The administration missed an important opportunity to speak out against a reprehensible allegation that women are using rape in order to make money and emigrate. In his inaugural address last year, the President stated that ``all who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.'' I urge President Bush to live up to his promise to promote democracy and advance human rights and to not ignore the women of Pakistan.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever time remains to me in the hour allowed under cloture be transferred to the time of the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah and I are here to talk about something where somebody's schedule has been terribly changed, the schedule of his whole family. I am talking about Shawn Bentley and how all of us who knew him are offering our deepest sympathy for him. Certain people on the Senate Judiciary Committee are like family, and Shawn had most Senators and staff among his many friends. He was extremely well liked on both sides of the aisle, both for who he was and for what he did. In his decade as a senior intellectual property counsel to my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, he touched every significant piece of legislation that we undertook: The Satellite Home Viewer Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. Those were the significant ones. There are a lot of others, important ones, that he was intimately involved with. But he touched us not only with his skill as a lawyer, his devotion as a public servant, his generosity as a colleague, but especially just his innate decency as a human being. I know that he was a loving and devoted husband, father, and son. Leaving behind a young family makes it even more tragic. I hope his family, his young daughters who did not begin to get enough time to know their father, will know that those of us in the Senate mourn his loss. It is a tragic one. My wife Marcelle and I will keep him and his loved ones in our prayers. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Utah for arranging the time for us to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the full Senate has finally taken up, considered and passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, S. 1197, bipartisan legislation that will further our goal of ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act over a decade ago marked an important national commitment to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. I am proud to join Senators Biden, Hatch, Specter, and others as an original cosponsor of this important measure, which currently has 58 cosponsors in total. I want to especially recognize Senator Biden for his commitment to ending violence against women and children. Earlier in my career as a prosecutor in Vermont, I witnessed the devastating effects of domestic violence. Violence and abuse affect people of all walks of life every day and regardless of gender, race, culture, age, class or sexuality. Such violence is a crime and it is always wrong, whether the abuser is a family member, someone the victim is dating, a current or past spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend, an acquaintance or a stranger. The National Crime Victimization Survey estimates there were 691,710 nonfatal, violent incidents committed against victims by current and former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends--also known as intimate partners--during 2001. Of those incidents, 85 percent were against women. The rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women has fallen steadily since 1993, when the rate was 9.8 incidents per 1,000 people. In 2001, the number fell to 5.0 incidents per 1,000 people, nearly a 50-percent reduction but still unacceptably high. Tragically, however, the survey found that 1,600 women were killed in 1976 by a current or former spouse or boyfriend, while in 2000 some 1,247 women were killed by their intimate partners. According to the annual Vermont Crime Report, the number of forcible rapes reported in Vermont increased in 2004 to the highest level in 7 years, while the amount of violent crime remained unchanged and overall crime fell by about 5 percent from 2003. Reported incidents of rape rose by 58 percent, from 117 in 2003 to 185 in 2004. The average age of the victim was 21, 47 percent of victims were younger than 18 years old, in 74 percent of the cases the perpetrator was an acquaintance of the victim, and in a quarter of the cases the defendant was a family member or intimate partner of the victim. In only 1 percent of the cases was the perpetrator a stranger. These figures cause me great concern because violent crime has declined nationwide during that same time period. Numbers like these are why reauthorizing VAWA is so vital. Our Nation has made remarkable progress over the past 25 years in recognizing that domestic violence and sexual assault are crimes. We have responded with better laws, social support, and coordinated community responses. Millions of women, men, children and families, however, continue to be traumatized by abuse, leading to increased rates of crime, violence and suffering. The Violence Against Women Act has provided aid to law enforcement officers and prosecutors, helped stem domestic violence and child abuse, established training programs for victim advocates and counselors, and trained probation and parole officers who work with released sex offenders. Now we on the Judiciary Committee and then the rest of our colleagues in Congress have the opportunity to reauthorize VAWA and make improvements to vital core programs, tighten criminal penalties against domestic abusers, and create new solutions to other crucial aspects of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is an opportunity to help treat children victims of violence, augment health care for rape victims, hold repeat offenders and Internet stalkers accountable, and help domestic violence victims keep their jobs. Included in VAWA 2005 are reauthorizations of two programs that I initially sponsored that are vital to helping rural communities battle domestic violence in a setting in which isolation can make it more difficult for both victims and law enforcement. In a small, rural State such as Vermont, our county and local law enforcement agencies rely heavily on cooperative, interagency efforts to combat and solve significant problems. That is why I sought to include the rural domestic violence and child victimization enforcement grant program as part of the original VAWA. This program helps make services available to rural victims and children by encouraging community involvement in developing a coordinated response to combat domestic violence, dating violence and child abuse. Adequate resources combined with sustained commitment will bring about significant improvements in rural areas to the lives of those victimized by domestic and sexual violence. The rural grants program section of VAWA 2005 reauthorizes and expands the existing education, training and services grant programs that address violence against women in rural areas. This provision renews the rural VAWA program, extends direct grants to State and local governments for services in rural areas and expands areas to include community collaboration projects in rural areas and the creation or expansion of additional victim services. This provision includes new language that expands the program coverage to sexual assault, child sexual assault and stalking. It also expands eligibility from rural States to rural communities, increasing access to rural sections of otherwise highly populated States. This section authorizes $55,000,000 annually for 2006 through 2010, which is an increase of $15 million per year. The second grant program initiative on which I have focused is the transitional housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. This program, which became law as part of the PROTECT Act of 2003, authorizes grants for transitional housing and related services for people fleeing domestic violence, sexual assault or stalkers. At a time when the availability of affordable housing has sunk to record lows, transitional housing for victims is especially needed. Today more than 50 percent of homeless individuals are women and children fleeing domestic violence. We have a clear problem that is in dire need of a solution. This program is part of the solution. Transitional housing allows women to bridge the gap between leaving violence in their homes and becoming self-sufficient. Our bill, VAWA 2005, amends the existing transitional housing program by expanding the current direct-assistance grants to include funds for operational, capital and renovation costs. Other changes include providing services to victims of dating violence, sexual assault and stalking; extending the length of time for receipt of benefits to match that used by Housing and Urban Development transitional housing programs; and updating the existing program to reflect the concerns of the service provision community. The provision would increase the authorized funding for the grant from $30,000,000 to $40,000,000. Regrettably, this important bill was saddled in committee with an extraneous and ill-considered amendment, offered by Senator Kyl, relating to the national DNA database. Current law permits States to collect DNA samples from arrested individuals and to include arrestee information in State DNA databases. In addition, States may use arrestee information to search the national DNA database for a possible ``hit.'' The only thing that States may not do is upload arrestee information into the national database before a person has been formally charged with a crime. Under the Kyl amendment, arrestee information can go into the national database immediately upon arrest, before formal charges are filed, and even if no charges are ever brought. This adds little or no value for law enforcement, while intruding on the privacy rights of people who are, in our system, presumed innocent. It could also provide an incentive for pretextual and race-based stops and arrests for the purpose of DNA sampling. Congress rejected this very proposal less than a year ago, after extended negotiations and consultation with the Department of Justice. The Kyl amendment would also make it harder for innocent people to have their DNA expunged from a state database. Under current law, if a State chooses to enter a person's DNA profile into its database before the person is convicted of a crime, then the State must automatically expunge that information in the event that no conviction is obtained. Under the new language, even a person who is arrested in error and released without charge would need to obtain a court order before his DNA information could be removed from the database. Databases are important tools to solving crime, but there are limits to what should be included in databases. The Kyl amendment raises serious privacy concerns that cannot be justified by any legitimate law enforcement need. I opposed it in committee, I continue to oppose it in its current form, and I will press for its exclusion in conference. VAWA 2005 is an important part of our efforts to increase awareness of the problem of violence, to save the lives of battered women, rape victims, and children who grow up with violence and to continue progress against the devastating tragedy of domestic violence. I look forward to working with Senators Specter and Biden, Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Conyers and other members of the upcoming conference to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and thus strengthen the prevention of violence against women and children and its devastating costs and consequences.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator McCain's amendment to provide clear guidance for the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. This administration has steadfastly refused to address the black mark on our Nation caused by its interrogation policies and the resulting abuse of detainees. Congress needs to take action. Our credibility and reputation as a world leader in human rights suffers from our unwillingness to openly address the flaws in our system. More importantly, the failure to provide clear guidance on the treatment of detainees puts our own troops at risk and undermines their efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I commend my colleagues across the aisle who are attempting to address this problem, despite resistance from members of their own party and the strong opposition of the White House. The President has threatened to veto any legislation that would regulate the treatment of detainees, claiming that it would impinge on his Commander-in-Chief authority. I fail to see how a bill requiring the humane treatment of detainees--the same treatment the President claims they now receive--would impinge on his authority in any way. It is Congress's right under the Constitution to issue regulations governing the armed forces. This was something I asked Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearings, and he agreed ``that Congress can make rules that may impinge upon the President's command functions.'' He answered, ``Certainly . . . the Constitution vests pertinent authority in [this] area in both branches. The President is the Commander-in-Chief . . . On the other hand; Congress has the authority to issue regulations governing the armed forces, another express provision in the Constitution.'' Senator Graham said on the floor this morning that, ``Congress has been AWOL when it comes to the war on terror in terms of interrogation, detention and prosecution, and we've done it in a way to weaken our Nation.'' I agree with my friend, the Senator from South Carolina. Without congressional action, the problem of prisoner abuse will continue to fester. We continue to learn of abuses from press reports and the court- ordered release of government documents in response to Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, litigation. Documents that were recently made public by the FOIA case demonstrate why Senator McCain's amendment is necessary. These documents reveal a troubling pattern of abuses that occurred because soldiers did not know what was acceptable under this administration's vague detention and interrogation policies. Several of the documents are transcriptions of interviews of military personnel in Iraq that show a systematic failure of the Pentagon to properly train soldiers on how to treat detainees. One report describes soldiers who, because of a lack of guidance and training from their command, engaged in ``interrogations using techniques they literally remembered from movies.'' Another document describes the shooting of an Iraqi detainee in U.S. custody. The report concludes that ``this incident could have been prevented if [the soldier] had better training.'' Another report, released last week by Human Rights Watch and based on firsthand accounts of soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division, details the widespread abuse of Iraqi detainees by soldiers at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base near Falluja, Iraq. The report states that detainees were severely beaten and mistreated from 2003 through 2004, even after the photos from Abu Ghraib became public. The witnesses claim that detainees were abused at the request of military intelligence personnel as part of the interrogation process, but also claim that the abuse occurred simply as a way for troops to ``relieve stress.'' One soldier allegedly broke a detainee's leg with a baseball bat. In another incident, detainees were stacked into human pyramids and denied food and water. It is time for this administration to finally acknowledge that such incidents were not the isolated acts of a few bad apples. These horrific acts were not isolated incidents on the night shift at Abu Ghraib. Unfortunately, similar acts occurred at locations throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. A group of 28 senior military officers, including General John Shalikashvili, recently wrote to Senator McCain in support of his amendments addressing detainee treatment. That letter stated, ``The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S. servicemembers who might be captured by the enemy, and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations. Our servicemembers were denied clear guidance, and left to take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better than that.'' I hope the President will consider these words before he vetoes a bill that contains Senator McCain's amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if the senior Senator from Nevada will yield to me. I wish to make a comment. I know he still has a couple of minutes left.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as we come to the conclusion of these confirmation proceedings, I commend Senators on both sides of the aisle for taking the time and making the effort to actively participate in this process. Few duties and few votes are as enduring and as consequential as deciding on a nomination for the premier jurist of the United States in our Federal court system. We have had 43 Presidents in our Nation's history. We have only had 16 Chief Justices of the United States. In fact, only slightly under two dozen Members of the Senate have ever voted on the question of a Chief Justice. We have had full and fair hearings. We have had a constructive debate. This process has been a credit to the Senate and to the Judiciary Committee. I commend especially Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, our chairman, and all of the members of the committee on both sides and their staffs for the detailed, sometimes grueling, preparation that evaluating a Supreme Court nomination requires. I am sure people understand when I refer to the committee's Democratic staff. They worked for 2 months. They labored dutifully. They gave up their weekends and their evenings, and with professionalism they helped Senators in our review of this important nomination. I particularly thank Bruce Cohen, Edward Pagano, Andrew Mason, Chris Matthias, Daniel Fine, Daniel Triggs, David Carle, Ed Barron, Elizabeth Martin, Erica Chabot, Erica Santo Pietro, Helaine Greenfeld, Jennie Pasquarella, Jeremy Paris, Jessica Bashford, Joe Sexton, Joshu Harris, Julia Franklin, Julie Katzman, Kathryn Neal, Katy Hutchison, Kristine Lucius, Kyra Harris, Lisa Anderson, Margaret Gage, Marit DeLozier, Mary Kate Meyer, Matt Nelson, Matt Oresman, Matt Virkstis, Nate Burris, Noah Bookbinder, Sam Schneider, Sripriya Narasimhan, Susan Davies, Tara Magner, Tracy Schmaler, Valerie Frias and William Bittinger. And their experience was duplicated by the hard-working Republican staff. As a member of the minority party, I speak about our vital role in our system that is often less visible, but is crucial just the same. The minority sharpens the Senate's and the public's focus on issues that come before the Senate or sometimes on unattended issues that deserve the Senate's attention. In these proceedings, we have helped sharpen the Senate's focus on issues that matter most in the decision before us, that of confirming a new Chief Justice of the United States. I especially commend my fellow Democrats for taking this responsibility so dutifully. They waited to hear the evidence and to learn the particulars about this nomination. They did not rush to judgment. They did not speak out until after the hearings. Individual Senators now have weighed the evidence, and they have come to their individual conclusions. On this side of the aisle, there will not be a lockstep vote. I appreciate the thoughtful remarks by those who decided to vote in favor of confirmation and by those who decide to vote against the nomination. I respect the decisions of Senators who have come to different conclusions on this nomination. I know for many, including myself, it was a difficult decision. I have said that each Senator must carefully weigh this matter and decide for herself or himself. We are, each of us, 1 vote out of 100, but those 100 votes are entrusted with protecting the rights of 280 million of our fellow citizens. We stand in the shoes of 280 million Americans in this Chamber. What a somber and humbling responsibility we have in casting this vote. I was glad to hear the Republican leader say earlier this week that a judge must jettison politics in order to be a fair jurist. He is right. I thought the remarks of the senior Senator from Maine were especially meaningful, and I appreciated that she was careful to include judicial philosophy among the criteria she considered on this nomination. And of course she is right. As the Senate considers the nomination, it is important to have more information, rather than less, about a nominee's approach to the law and about his or her judicial philosophy. For the American people whose lives will be directly and indirectly affected by the decisions of a nominee, it is equally important that the Senate's review process be fair, that it be transparent, and that it be thorough. The hearings we conduct and the debates we hold are the best and only opportunity for the American people to hear from and learn about the persons who could have significant influence over their constitutional protections and freedoms. We owe the people we represent a vigorous and open review, including forthright answers to questions. My Vermont roots, which go back three centuries, have always told me to go with my conscience, and that is what I have done in this decision. Judge Roberts is a man of integrity. For me, a vote to confirm requires faith that the words he spoke to the Judiciary Committee in the hearings and to me in our meetings have meaning. I have taken him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda, that he will be his own man as Chief Justice. I take him at his word that he will steer the Court so it will serve as an appropriate check on potential abuses of Presidential power, not just today but tomorrow. I hope that he will, and I trust that he will. As we close the debate on this nomination and move to a vote, we do so knowing we will soon be considering another Supreme Court nominee in the Senate. Last week, Chairman Specter and I, along with the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate, met with the President. I urged him to follow through with meaningful consultation. I urged him to share with us his intentions and seek our advice on the next nomination before he acts. There could and should have been consultation with the Senate on the nomination of someone to serve as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. I am sorry there was not, but there could and should be meaningful consultation on the person to be named to succeed Justice O'Connor, who has so often been the decisive vote of the Supreme Court. The stakes for all Americans and for the Nation's well-being are high as the President contemplates his second pick for a Justice on the Nation's highest Court, a choice that will fill a swing vote and could steer the Court's direction long after the President is gone and long after most of us are gone. The President does have this opportunity to work with us to unite the country, to be a uniter, to unite us around a nominee to succeed Justice O'Connor. Now more than ever, with Americans fighting and dying in Iraq every day, with hundreds of thousands of Americans displaced by disasters at home, it is a time to unite rather than divide. The Supreme Court belongs to all Americans, not to any faction. So for the sake of the Nation, I urge the President to live up to his original promise, to be a uniter and not a divider. If I might speak just personally to Judge John Roberts who will soon be Chief Justice John Roberts: Be there for all Americans. And whoever comes before you as Chief Justice, it should make no difference if their name is Patrick Leahy or Patrick Jones, George Bush or George Smith. No matter what their issue is, be there for all of us because what you do will affect our children and our grandchildren. And, Judge Roberts, it will affect your two lovely children. It will affect all Americans. We are a great and a good country, but we are a diverse country. Any nation the size of ours, a nation built on immigrants--such as my Italian grandparents or my Irish great grandparents--has to be diverse. But we are diverse in all ways. Protect that diversity. Protect that diversity because it is that diversity that makes us strong as a nation, far more than our military might if we protect our diversity--a diversity of thought, a diversity of religion, a diversity of race, a diversity of politics. Judge Roberts, soon to be Chief Justice Roberts, be there for all 280 million Americans. That is what I have tried to do in putting myself in the shoes of those 280 million Americans. I will cast my vote with hope and faith, but you, Judge Roberts, show the same hope and faith for this great country that you love and I love and all the other 99 Members of the Senate love. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to compliment the senior Senator from Nevada, the Democratic leader. I supported him for assistant leader, and I supported him for leader, and I have never regretted, nor doubted, that support. I have been here 31 years. He is a fine leader. I have been here for 12 nominations to the Supreme Court, 2 of them for Chief Justice. I am one of only a handful of Senators who can say that. I know, throughout all this process, the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, dealt with us evenhandedly and fairly. Never at any time did he try to twist any arms on this side of the aisle. Throughout it all he said: Keep your powder dry--his expression which I picked up--until the hearings were over. That is the sort of thing we should do. Hear the evidence first. Hear the evidence, and then reach a verdict. I am extremely proud of him. We have reached different conclusions on this, but we remain friends and respectful to each other throughout. His praise of Senator Specter and of myself means so much to me. But I think, more importantly, what he has done means so much to the Senate. Senator Reid has worked with both sides of the aisle to make sure that we were going to have a hearing for the Chief Justice of the United States that reflected what was best in this country. When I finished my speech, I spoke directly to Judge John Roberts, and I will do so again: Please, remember there are 280 million Americans. Be a Chief Justice for all of us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I discussed this with the distinguished floor managers. First, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Harkin amendment now the pending business?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, so Members will know, this amendment adds $1.3 billion in emergency funding for National Guard equipment to the supplemental portion of the fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations bill. The funding is set aside for the National Guard to buy much needed items for homeland security and natural disaster response. Hurricane Katrina exposed glaring deficiencies in the equipment available for the National Guard to respond to such disasters. After Hurricane Katrina, we had barely sufficient levels of trucks, tractors, communication, and miscellaneous equipment that is necessary to respond to the overwhelming scale of this storm. If we have another hurricane or, God forbid, a large-scale terrorist attack, our National Guard is not going to have the basic level of resources to do the job right. As we know, in every one of our 50 States, we have seen in our career times where the National Guard was called upon to help. The National Guard Chief, LTG Steven Blum, recently noted that the Guard has only about 35 percent of what is officially required to respond to hurricanes, natural disasters, or possible terrorist attacks at home. Yesterday, in an appearance in the House of Representatives, General Blum noted that Guard members responded to this disaster with insufficient and outdated communications. General Blum noted we are going to need at least--a staggering amount--$7 billion to procure the communications, trucks, medical supplies, and machinery necessary to respond to future disasters. We knew, even before that hearing, that without any doubt there is an immediate need for at least $1.3 billion. We have to procure essential equipment such as a family of medium tractor vehicles, new SINCGARS radios, night-vision goggles, and other equipment. I ask unanimous consent that a recent report from the National Guard on these critical needs be printed in the Record. Executive Summary National Guard units that deployed to combat since September 11th have been the best trained and equipped force in American History. $4.3 billion has been invested to provide those units with the very best, state-of-the-art equipment available in the world today. This is an unprecedented demonstration of the DoD commitment to ensure that no soldier or aiman, regardless of component (Active, Guard, or Reserve), goes to war ill- equipped or untrained. With the help of the US Congress, this was accomplished over a two-year period. It is a reality for National Guard overseas combat deployments. Now, the senior leadership of the DoD is extending the same level of commitment to the National Guard, the nation's first military responders in time of domestic need. The DoD has a comprehensive reset plan that recognizes the National Guard's critical role in Homeland Defense and support to Homeland Security operations. This will take time and resources. I am confident that a real sense of urgency exists to make this a reality for America. Communications equipment, tactical vehicles and trucks and engineer equipment are the National Guard's highest equipment priorities. H. Steven Blum, LTG, USA, Chief, National Guard Bureau.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we got into this situation for two reasons: First, unfortunately, with all the other needs of this country, we have traditionally underfunded the National Guard's equipment level. Second, much of the equipment the Guard does have is being used in the ongoing war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in our needs across the Middle East and Central Asia. We all know there is no prospect that we are going to see it again back in the United States any time soon. The distinguished senior Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, and I cochair the Senate National Guard Caucus. On September 13, the two of us wrote the President to urge that the administration deal with this problem immediately. We want to demonstrate by our letter that this is not a partisan issue, it is a national issue. We asked the President include the $1.3 billion in the next supplemental spending bill to deal with Hurricane Katrina. But we can't wait for the President to request the funding. We have to act now. The date this next supplemental spending bill will be submitted is still uncertain. We don't know when it is going to be submitted. But with this Defense appropriations bill, we have billions of dollars in emergency funding. Much of that emergency funding, rightly so, will go toward ensuring that our men and women abroad have the right tools to do their jobs. We should do that. But it is just as reasonable and necessary that we add emergency funding to deal with the equipment needs of our troops at home. Certainly in the last couple of months, we have seen probably at no other time how much that equipment is needed, and we know there will be other occasions. I praise Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for including so much equipment money for the Guard in supplemental baseline bills. While most of that new equipment will go toward the Guard's overseas warfighting needs, our Guard and Reserve have a greater percentage and a greater activity than at any time in decades, and they need the help. The funding we are now asking for takes a big step forward. I have worked with them closely. Of course, I want to see the amendment accepted. I will, of course, ask for a vote, if we can't reach such agreement. I know the distinguished Senator from Alaska and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii have spent even more years in this body than I have, and they worked closely to help our National Guard. Senator Bond and I have done our best to fashion a reasonable and necessary piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I was going to suggest that if the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii want to accept the amendment, we could actually get some significant business done right here. While they are thinking about this, I must say there are few people in this Senate more senior than I, but certainly the Senator from Hawaii is much more senior, the Senator from Alaska is much more senior. They are only two of five people senior to me, and they want a quorum. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to set aside that amendment so the distinguished Senator from Missouri and I could offer an amendment, and that upon the completion of action or the setting aside, whichever transpires first, it be in order to return to the Harkin amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we reintroduce the Specter-Leahy Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. Earlier this year, Senator Specter and I introduced a comprehensive bill to bring urgently needed reforms to protect Americans' privacy and to secure their personal data. Chairman Specter has shown great leadership on this issue, and I appreciate his dedication to solving these challenging problems through his willingness to work together to enhance this legislation as we have deemed appropriate. Since initial introduction of our bill, we have worked with Senator Feinstein and other members of the Judiciary Committee to address areas of concern and to perfect the bill. We have also worked closely with a wide variety of stakeholders and experts in these issues, which has also improved the bill. I especially thank Senator Feinstein for her dedication and resolve to address these difficult data security and privacy concerns. I commend her input and leadership, and I am pleased that she is joining as an original cosponsor of this revised bill. I also thank Senator Feingold for his commitment to ensuring that the government also acts responsibly in its use of our personal information and appreciate his support as an original cosponsor. This is a good bill--carefully calibrated to help remedy the problems we set out to address--and I look forward to continuing our efforts to pass effective legislation. We have teamed together and applied our collective wisdom to sort through these issues with care and precision. We took the time needed to develop well-balanced, focused legislation that provides strong protections where necessary, and that offers strong penalties and consequences as disincentives for those who fail to protect Americans' most personal information. Reforms like these are long overdue. As we look toward the end of the year, these necessary reforms should be included in our domestic priorities so that we can achieve some positive changes in areas that affect the everyday lives of Americans. First our bill requires data brokers to let people know what sensitive personal information they have about them, and to allow people to correct inaccurate information. These principles have precedent from the credit report context, and we have adapted them in a way that makes sense for the data brokering industry. This is a simple matter of fairness. Second, we would require companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans to establish and implement data privacy and security programs. In the digital age, any company that wants to be trusted by the public must earn that trust by vigilantly protecting the databases they use and maintain which contain Americans' private data. They also have a responsibility in the next link in the security chain, to make sure that contractors hired to process data are adequately vetted to keep the personal information in these databases secure. This is increasingly important as Americans' personal information more and more is outsourced for processing overseas and beyond U.S. laws. Third, our bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The American people have a right to know when they are at risk because of corporate failures to protect their data, or when a criminal has infiltrated data systems. The notice rules in our bill were carefully crafted to ensure that the trigger for notice is tied to ``significant risk of harm'' with appropriate checks-and- balances, in order to make sure that companies do not underreport. We also recognize important fraud prevention techniques that already exist. But our priority has been to make sure that victims have critical information as a roadmap that offers the assistance necessary to protect themselves, their families and their financial well-being. Finally, our bill addresses the government's use of personal data. We are living in a world in which our government increasingly is turning to the private sector to get personal data the government could not legally collect on its own without oversight and appropriate protections. This bill would place privacy and security front and center in evaluating whether data brokers can be trusted with government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people. It would require contract reviews that include these considerations, audits to ensure good practice, and contract penalties for failure to protect data privacy and security. This legislation meets other key goals. It provides tough monetary and criminal penalties for compromising personal data or failing to provide necessary protections. This creates an incentive for companies to protect personal information, especially when there is no commercial relationship between individuals and companies using their data. We also would authorize an additional $100 million over four years to help state law enforcement agencies fight misuse of personal information. This is a solid bill--a comprehensive bill--that not only deals with the need to provide Americans notice when they have already been hurt, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability in dealing with the public's most personal and private information. I commend Senator Specter for his leadership on this emerging problem. Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold have long recognized the importance of data privacy and security, and I appreciate their support in this effort and on this bill. Other members on the Commerce Committee, such as Senator Nelson and Senator Cantwell, and on the Banking Committee, have also taken great strides in these areas as well, and we look forward to working closely with them to pass legislation this year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we reintroduce the Specter-Leahy Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. Earlier this year, Senator Specter and I introduced a comprehensive bill to bring urgently needed reforms to protect Americans' privacy and to secure their personal data. Chairman Specter has shown great leadership on this issue, and I appreciate his dedication to solving these challenging problems through his willingness to work together to enhance this legislation as we have deemed appropriate. Since initial introduction of our bill, we have worked with Senator Feinstein and other members of the Judiciary Committee to address areas of concern and to perfect the bill. We have also worked closely with a wide variety of stakeholders and experts in these issues, which has also improved the bill. I especially thank Senator Feinstein for her dedication and resolve to address these difficult data security and privacy concerns. I commend her input and leadership, and I am pleased that she is joining as an original cosponsor of this revised bill. I also thank Senator Feingold for his commitment to ensuring that the government also acts responsibly in its use of our personal information and appreciate his support as an original cosponsor. This is a good bill--carefully calibrated to help remedy the problems we set out to address--and I look forward to continuing our efforts to pass effective legislation. We have teamed together and applied our collective wisdom to sort through these issues with care and precision. We took the time needed to develop well-balanced, focused legislation that provides strong protections where necessary, and that offers strong penalties and consequences as disincentives for those who fail to protect Americans' most personal information. Reforms like these are long overdue. As we look toward the end of the year, these necessary reforms should be included in our domestic priorities so that we can achieve some positive changes in areas that affect the everyday lives of Americans. First our bill requires data brokers to let people know what sensitive personal information they have about them, and to allow people to correct inaccurate information. These principles have precedent from the credit report context, and we have adapted them in a way that makes sense for the data brokering industry. This is a simple matter of fairness. Second, we would require companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans to establish and implement data privacy and security programs. In the digital age, any company that wants to be trusted by the public must earn that trust by vigilantly protecting the databases they use and maintain which contain Americans' private data. They also have a responsibility in the next link in the security chain, to make sure that contractors hired to process data are adequately vetted to keep the personal information in these databases secure. This is increasingly important as Americans' personal information more and more is outsourced for processing overseas and beyond U.S. laws. Third, our bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The American people have a right to know when they are at risk because of corporate failures to protect their data, or when a criminal has infiltrated data systems. The notice rules in our bill were carefully crafted to ensure that the trigger for notice is tied to ``significant risk of harm'' with appropriate checks-and- balances, in order to make sure that companies do not underreport. We also recognize important fraud prevention techniques that already exist. But our priority has been to make sure that victims have critical information as a roadmap that offers the assistance necessary to protect themselves, their families and their financial well-being. Finally, our bill addresses the government's use of personal data. We are living in a world in which our government increasingly is turning to the private sector to get personal data the government could not legally collect on its own without oversight and appropriate protections. This bill would place privacy and security front and center in evaluating whether data brokers can be trusted with government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people. It would require contract reviews that include these considerations, audits to ensure good practice, and contract penalties for failure to protect data privacy and security. This legislation meets other key goals. It provides tough monetary and criminal penalties for compromising personal data or failing to provide necessary protections. This creates an incentive for companies to protect personal information, especially when there is no commercial relationship between individuals and companies using their data. We also would authorize an additional $100 million over four years to help state law enforcement agencies fight misuse of personal information. This is a solid bill--a comprehensive bill--that not only deals with the need to provide Americans notice when they have already been hurt, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability in dealing with the public's most personal and private information. I commend Senator Specter for his leadership on this emerging problem. Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold have long recognized the importance of data privacy and security, and I appreciate their support in this effort and on this bill. Other members on the Commerce Committee, such as Senator Nelson and Senator Cantwell, and on the Banking Committee, have also taken great strides in these areas as well, and we look forward to working closely with them to pass legislation this year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Cornyn and I have already worked together on significant Freedom of Information Act legislation and on counterfeiting legislation during the first session of this Congress. Today, we are introducing another bill and taking our partnership to the high seas, or at least to our Nation's boat manufacturing industry, with the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2005. Designs of boat vessel hulls are often the result of a great deal of time, effort, and financial investment. They are afforded intellectual property protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that Congress passed in 1998. This law exists for the same reason that other works enjoy intellectual property rights: to encourage continued innovation, to protect the works that emerge from the creative process, and to reward the creators. Recent courtroom experience has made it clear that the protections Congress. passed seven years ago need some statutory refinement to ensure they meet the purposes we envisioned. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments shore up the law, making an important clarification about the scope of the protections available to boat designs. We continue to be fascinated with, and in so many ways dependent on, bodies of water, both for recreation and commerce. More than fifty percent of Americans live on or near the coastline in this country. We seem always to be drawn to the water, whether it is the beautiful Lake Champlain in my home State of Vermont or the world's large oceans. And as anyone who has visited our seaports can attest, much of our commerce involves sea travel. I would like to thank Senators Kohl and Hatch for cosponsoring this legislation. Protecting boat designs and encouraging innovation in those designs are worthy aims, and I hope we can move quickly to pass this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Cornyn and I have already worked together on significant Freedom of Information Act legislation and on counterfeiting legislation during the first session of this Congress. Today, we are introducing another bill and taking our partnership to the high seas, or at least to our Nation's boat manufacturing industry, with the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2005. Designs of boat vessel hulls are often the result of a great deal of time, effort, and financial investment. They are afforded intellectual property protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that Congress passed in 1998. This law exists for the same reason that other works enjoy intellectual property rights: to encourage continued innovation, to protect the works that emerge from the creative process, and to reward the creators. Recent courtroom experience has made it clear that the protections Congress. passed seven years ago need some statutory refinement to ensure they meet the purposes we envisioned. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments shore up the law, making an important clarification about the scope of the protections available to boat designs. We continue to be fascinated with, and in so many ways dependent on, bodies of water, both for recreation and commerce. More than fifty percent of Americans live on or near the coastline in this country. We seem always to be drawn to the water, whether it is the beautiful Lake Champlain in my home State of Vermont or the world's large oceans. And as anyone who has visited our seaports can attest, much of our commerce involves sea travel. I would like to thank Senators Kohl and Hatch for cosponsoring this legislation. Protecting boat designs and encouraging innovation in those designs are worthy aims, and I hope we can move quickly to pass this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have had several people on the Senate floor this morning speaking of the Roberts nomination. I understand that we have several Senators on this side of the aisle who are going to speak in a few minutes, and I will yield the floor when they arrive. I hope the American people will listen to this discussion. The outcome is sort of foreordained because we know the number of people who are going to vote for Judge Roberts, as am I. The reason it is important to hear all the different voices is that we are a nation of 280 million Americans. But for the Chief Justice of the United States, only 101 people have a say in who is going to be there and, of course, they are the President, first and foremost, with the nomination, and the 100 men and women in this Senate. We have to stand in the shoes of all 280 million Americans. Can we be absolutely sure in our vote of exactly who the Chief Justice might be as a person, somebody who will probably serve long after most of us are gone, certainly long after the President is gone and actually long after several Presidents will be gone? No. We have to make our best judgment. I have announced how I am going to vote. With me, it is a matter of conscience. I see the distinguished Senator from Colorado. I know he wishes to speak, and I will be speaking later about this issue. I will yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.