Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I discussed this with the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. I yield 3 minutes, first, to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask the Senator from Maryland how much time does the Senator seek.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Vermont is seeking time? The Senator from Vermont yields such time to the Senator from Vermont as the Senator from Vermont might need.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is still available to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine, my friend and neighbor, for her statement. I see the other Senator from Maine on the floor. I believe she sought 4 minutes. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose there are Members who think we are in great shape, the air is clean, no problems whatsoever. The fact is, of course, we have significant mercury in the air that is created in the United States. It tends to occur disproportionately in one part of the United States, the Northeast, making the waters, fish, and air unsafe for children and for pregnant mothers. I will speak more on that as we go along. If this rule would actually help, I would be all for it. Let's be serious. If we ever wondered what a mercury pollution rule written by the polluters would look like, now we know. This is pretty much it. Some of this rule was copied verbatim, we now find out from some very brave people. It was copied verbatim from the sheets given by the companies most involved in the pollution. Most Americans have a great deal of trust in the Environmental Protection Agency since it was created during President Nixon's administration. It is very sad, very appalling to see how they have been captured by special interests. It is regrettable the American people and many of their representatives in Congress have been forced to the conclusion that mercury rules have been so mishandled and so co- opted by special interests that this rare effort to override is necessary. We have a simple choice on mercury pollution. Do we follow the administration and the well-funded special interests who are creating most of the mercury pollution and take several steps backward and thus force the American people to wait at least another decade before cleaning up the toxic mercury spewing out of old powerplants across this country? Do we allow this new rule to allow toxic mercury? So everyone understands what we are talking about, this does not just make the skies darker. This is a substance so harmful that it causes birth defects, IQ loss, and mental retardation. Do we continue to let it poison children and pregnant women, while costing taxpayers billions in health care costs? Shouldn't we heed the proliferation of warnings our States and the Federal Government have had to give to anglers and women, to the general public, about the consumption of fish--fish caught not from outside our country but in streams and lakes and rivers all across America? Shouldn't that be enough to shame our Government into action? Should we allow this rule to move forward, the Bush administration's own inspector general says it does not comply with EPA Executive order requirements. Their own inspector general says it does not comply. The Government Accountability Office has said there are major shortcomings in the economic analysis. Or should we uphold the bipartisan work of Republicans and Democrats alike that produced the Clean Air Act, thus protecting the health of pregnant women and children? The Clean Air Act requires EPA to control each powerplant emission by 2008 at the latest. That is the law of the land. Anything less is more pollution. Instead, the administration has turned the Clean Air Act on its head. And this notwithstanding the two previous administrations, Republican and Democrat, that sought to enforce it. Now they have revoked an earlier EPA finding that is necessary and appropriate to require these powerplants apply technology to reduce mercury emissions. By revoking the earlier EPA finding and deciding instead to coddle the biggest mercury polluters, the administration is saying it is no longer necessary or appropriate to adequately control mercury emissions. It is an audacious disregard for the health of the American people. Let's do the rule over. Let's get it right. Look what we have. EPA rules are in orange on the chart and do not meet the clean air requirements. The Clean Air Act is in blue on the chart. That shows how badly they miss it. This rule is going to allow more mercury into our environment than even the current law. If we leave the current law alone, there would be less mercury in our environment. Instead, the rule gives more pollution for longer than the Clean Air Act allows. The rule is all the more shameful because of the health damage. EPA's own estimate of the number of newborns at risk of elevated mercury exposure has doubled to 630,000. They also found that one in six pregnant women has mercury levels in her blood above the EPA-safe threshold. I love to have people stand up and say we are family friendly around here. Family friendly with 630,000 newborns at risk? One in six pregnant women at risk, that is family friendly? Also, mercury emissions contaminate 10 million acres of lakes and 400,000 miles of streams, which triggers advisories in 45 States warning America's 41 million recreational anglers the fish they catch may not be safe to eat. One reason the administration has such a lack of candor is the fact we discovered this rule has the polluting industries' fingerprints all over it. Their first proposal for these rules lifted exact text provided by the utility industry lobbyists. Of course, when the lobbyists are shut in and the public is shut out, when the scientific and economic analysis was manipulated and where the public's health was ignored, we get a rule like this. The Bush administration's own inspector general and the Government Accountability Office criticized almost every aspect of how EPA drafted this rule. Their recommendations to improve it were ignored. So were more than 680,000 public comments, a record for EPA. They produce a rule that will do nothing for at least a decade. They punted, and in the meantime, the grandfathered powerplants keep putting mercury into our water, into our fish, putting a generation of women at risk. We tell them their health is not important. We are told it is not a family value to put another generation of young kids at risk of learning disabilities. That is what the mercury rules do. People in the United States will watch what we do in the Senate, how we vote. Will we side with the American people or the big polluters? The administration's mercury rule is a danger to America's women and children. It is time to do it over and do it right. Listen to the Bush administration's own inspector general. Do it right. I hope we do go with the motion to proceed. The distinguished Senator from New Jersey is in the Senate and was seeking 2 minutes. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I am sorry, I withhold.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the Senator from Maine 8 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sally Hamlin, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of debate on S.J. Res. 20.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the devastation wrought by the Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans and the gulf coast is not yet fully known. As the fate of thousands of our fellow Americans remains uncertain and the lives of many have been uprooted and the livelihood of many others affected, we must do all we can to assist those still suffering. During this time of crisis, one thing we can do is ensure that the Federal courts in these afflicted regions continue to function. I worked with Senators Landrieu, Vitter, and Chairman Specter, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers to respond to a request from the Judicial Conference for additional authority to conduct court business outside the traditional territorial jurisdiction of a court. I thank them for including in this bill important reporting and accountability requirements. In implementing this legislation, I want to be sure that we work with the court, the Judicial Conference, and the Justice Department--but also with the local bar and others who will be most directly affected by the invocation of the authority this legislation would grant.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment, on behalf of myself, my fellow Vermonters and Americans across this country, to express our heartfelt gratitude for the outpouring of generosity by more than 90 countries and international organizations that have offered assistance to the recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. The United States is coping with devastation and destruction on a scale not seen in our lifetimes. It has been shocking and sobering to see how woefully unprepared our Government was to help the victims of this disaster. The chaotic response has also raised serious concerns about the adequacy of our preparedness to respond to terrorist attacks, despite the many billions of dollars the Department of Homeland Security has spent since 9/11. Yet if there is a silver lining in such a disaster it is that it unites Americans and it unites the world in the common cause of alleviating suffering. A massive relief effort is underway, albeit belatedly, involving everyone from the Coast Guard to the Red Cross to private citizens who are rescuing people who were stranded and caring for those who lost their homes and possessions. Organizations such as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Food Program, World Health Organization, UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees have all contributed personnel and resources to help in the recovery. Canadian search and rescue teams from as far away as British Colombia were on the ground in some Louisiana communities as early as August 31, even before FEMA had mobilized American relief workers. It is not often that we, the world's only superpower, find ourselves on the receiving end of foreign aid. It is almost always the other way around, when Americans respond, as we do continuously, to the needs of people suffering from famine, conflict and natural disasters overseas. It is notable that our own disaster relief specialists in USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance are assisting in this domestic recovery effort. The outpouring of sympathy and the hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions by Americans to the victims of the South Asian tsunami earlier this year are today being reciprocated by some of those same countries, and by scores of others. From the wealthiest European countries and Japan, to the poorest, such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, generous offers of cash, water purification and communications equipment, and emergency and medical personnel have been extraordinarily gratifying. But while no offers have been expressly rejected by the U.S. Government, few have been accepted and received. It is regrettable that our Government's abysmal coordination in the early days of the recovery effort has prevented critical international aid from being delivered to our stricken citizens and communities in the affected Gulf states. One of many examples is Canada's offer to send three warships and a Coast Guard vessel. They were delayed for a week due to bureaucratic inertia. I know that in any major humanitarian crisis when unsolicited offers of aid pour in it is difficult to coordinate and use it immediately. Some is simply not usable, such as electric generators that require a voltage not readily available in this country. There are also problems of limited access to airfields and ground transportation, and the necessary personnel to handle and distribute it. But these obstacles should have been anticipated. Bureaucratic backlogs and bungling have kept foreign relief planes grounded for days, medical personnel on standby, and tons of supplies waiting to be delivered to the desperate people of Louisiana and Mississippi. The sluggish response has left foreign governments frustrated and baffled. I think it needs to be emphasized how much we welcome and appreciate their generous offers of help. It is unfortunate that our government was so unprepared to receive this aid in a timely manner, when lives could have been saved and suffering alleviated. Let us hope that the bottlenecks are being removed so the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and particularly FEMA, can speed the delivery of aid from our friends around the world without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee I am today introducing a bill with Senator Harkin, the ranking member on that committee, to provide additional emergency food assistance in response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, and the flooding in the aftermath of that massive storm. It is very similar to the efforts of Senator Landrieu and Leader Reid but it just focuses on food assistance. This legislation will provide USDA with additional funding and authorities to provide a strong and continuous response to the food needs of thousands of families adversely affected by Hurricane Katrina. While thousands may have perished in America's largest natural disaster, we must turn to the living to do what we can to help. I am especially troubled by the horror stories I have heard about the treatment of the elderly. It was almost impossible to watch the images on television. Another terrifying image was of children separated from their parents, trying to survive on their own. The most gruesome was the bodies floating in black water. In the Federal response to this national catastrophe there is a bright spot. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has done a good job. FEMA gets an ``F,'' in contrast. In fact, I heard today on NPR that the Navy was not given the go-ahead by FEMA to send ships with hospital facilities down to New Orleans and that senior naval officers were very frustrated that they could not help earlier. In contrast, USDA has quietly and efficiently assisted thousands of displaced persons. Secretary Johanns, Deputy Secretary Conner and Under Secretary Bost have done a great job within the limitations of their authority. They responded immediately. I also appreciate the work of the Food and Nutrition Service within USDA. I thank them. This bill provides USDA with additional funding to continue its efforts and gives USDA some additional authorities regarding the food stamp program and child nutrition programs. Our effort on this legislation should be taken as a supplement to what they are already doing, and an enhancement of their authority. USDA is not only helping in areas which will need to be rebuilt, but they are helping those families who have been displaced and been forced to move. There has been a huge outpouring of sympathy from every corner of every county in my home State of Vermont. In addition to the assistance already provided, Vermont stands ready to help the displaced families, the unemployed workers, the distraught children, and the destroyed communities. This bill was written to be referred to the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee where nutrition bills have always been handled in a bipartisan fashion. I look forward to working with all the Senators on that committee. Chairman Chambliss has tackled every issue the committee has faced this year in a direct and effective fashion and I look forward to working with him, and all members of the committee, on an emergency food assistance package that goes to the White House for signature. I know that he and his staff have been coordinating with USDA and that Senators on the Committee will, of course, work with Senators from all of the affected States on any advice or changes that are appropriate. Some of the provisions in the bill are modeled after ideas that worked well in responding to Hurricane Andrew where, once again, USDA was commended for handling the emergency very well. This bill is a starting point, not an end point. I know that, but I wanted to get the ball rolling to have language to run by my colleagues who represent areas demolished in this disaster. I want to thank Senator Reid and Senator Landrieu for coordinating with Senator Harkin and me on this matter. All the Senators in the affected areas have been working day and night on trying to get aid to those in need, whether from local, State, charitable, non-profit or Federal Government sources. I will continue to work with all of them. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of Hurricane response to food stamps and food assistance be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to speak of Chechnya, a remote part of the world where horrific crimes and suffering are occurring every day, that has faded from the newspapers and the minds of many of us here. Contrary to the myth perpetrated by the Russian Government that the conflict is over and life in Chechnya is returning to normal, the Russian military and the militias they support continue to use brutal, even barbaric tactics, including extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention, kidnappings, rape, and torture. Armed opposition forces are also terrifying innocent civilians with their indiscriminate attacks. There seems to be no end to this conflict or to the suffering of the Chechen people. The Bush administration has been conspicuously silent about what is happening. One can only hope that President Bush has expressed alarm about the atrocities being committed by Russian soldiers in Chechnya in his meetings or conversations with President Putin, but there is no indication that if he has it has had any effect. There is certainly no evidence that the administration has exerted any real pressure on President Putin to reign in the Russian military, presumably because it does not want to jeopardize Russia's support for U.S. operations in Iraq and combating international terrorism. But contrary to what the Russian Government and some in the Bush administration insist, the violence in Chechnya has far more to do with self-determination than with international terrorism. While acts of terrorism by all parties to the conflict remain common, most Chechen resistance fighters have taken up arms to seek revenge for the atrocities and impunity of Russian soldiers. In each of the last 6 years, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act has included a provision to withhold a portion of our assistance to the Russian Government unless the President certifies that international nongovernmental humanitarian organizations are provided full access to Chechnya. Every year, the Russian Government fails to comply. In the Senate-passed version of the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations bill, we included $5 million for humanitarian, conflict mitigation, relief and recovery assistance for Chechnya, Ingushetia, and elsewhere in the North Caucasus region. This funding, in addition to the $5 million for this purpose in the fiscal year 2005 supplemental, will provide much needed relief and development assistance for civilians caught in the midst of this conflict. But it is essential that this assistance be coupled with a strong message of concern and condemnation by the administration. The message should be loud and clear that war crimes by the Russian military, and by resistance fighters, must stop. It is obvious that despite President Putin's rosy portrayal of the situation, there is no military solution to the Chechnyan conflict. The only hope for resolving it is through a process of demilitarization and political dialogue, and I suspect that will require the active and sustained participation of a credible third party, such as the United Nations. This is what the United States should be pressing for. It is long past time for the White House to stop giving the Russian Government a free pass on Chechnya.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to speak about Guatemala, a country that receives too little attention by the Congress, where we have seen both progress and disturbing trends in recent years. Guatemala is struggling to emerge from more than three decades of civil war in which tens of thousands of civilians, mostly Mayan Indians, were disappeared, tortured and killed. The majority of those atrocities were committed by the army. A year and a half ago, Guatemala elected a new President, Oscar Berger, who pledged to support the implementation of the 1996 Peace Accords which his predecessors had largely ignored. President Berger's election offered hope for change, beginning with the downsizing of the military, his appointment of Nobel Peace Laureate Rigoberta Menchu as a Goodwill Ambassador, and his pursuit of corruption charges against former President Alfonso Portillo. I was among those who praised President Berger for those important and courageous initiatives. However, I am concerned that after a promising beginning, corruption, organized crime, and human rights violations are getting worse. In 2004, President Berger reduced the size of the Guatemalan military by 50 percent. However, to the consternation of many civil society organizations, the Interior Ministry announced that the Guatemalan military would continue to participate in joint law enforcement operations with the National Civil Police, in violation of the Peace Accords. This is also a concern because, according to the State Department, there are credible allegations of involvement by police officers in rapes, killings and kidnappings. Rather than prosecute these officers, they are often transferred to different parts of the country. Impunity remains a serious problem. Organized crime is thriving in Guatemala, and the government faces an uncertain future if it is perceived as powerless against these wealthy criminal networks. In one day this year, 17 people were reportedly murdered in Guatemala City. Our Ambassador is reportedly confident that organized crime has not infiltrated the Berger administration, and President Berger deserves credit for removing Attorney General Carlos de Leon who was suspected of corruption. But he also needs to crack down on these violent gangs. President Berger also deserves praise for his support of the proposed Commission for the Investigation of Illegal Armed Groups and Clandestine Security Organizations, CICIACS. His initial efforts ran into problems with the judiciary and continue to face opposition in the Guatemalan Congress. But the establishment of CICIACS would assist in the consolidation of democracy as well as in combating clandestine groups. Reports of intimidation, kidnappings, and death threats remain all too frequent. In January and February of this year alone, Amnesty International documented that 26 human rights activists were threatened or attacked in Guatemala. More recently, on July 7, Mario Antonio Godinez Lopez, head of the Association for the Promotion and Development of the Community, an organization that opposes CAFTA, received a death threat. The next day, Alvaro Juarez, a human rights leader who worked with Alliance for Life and Peace and with the Association of the Displaced of the Peten, was assassinated. On July 11, five journalists were attacked with machetes by ex-civil patrol members. Ileana Alamilla, the President of the Association of Journalists of Guatemala, has warned that journalists are in increasing danger and that the government needs to take steps to protect them. These are only a few examples of the types of incidents that are common in Guatemala today. A recent report indicates that the number of women murdered and sexually abused in Guatemala has also increased. As of mid-July, 326 women have been murdered this year in Guatemala, a country of only 14 million people. While the report suggests causes such as clandestine groups, ultimately it concludes that the lack of investigations and convictions, in other words, impunity, are at the root of the problem. The Guatemalan Government also needs to more effectively address the agrarian conflicts by seeking greater input from indigenous and campesino organizations. I have been concerned with the government's support for land evictions, and the national police's role in the destruction of crops and houses of members campesino organizations. This explosive issue may worsen if President Berger does not find more effective ways to address the legitimate needs of landless people. We should all be encouraged by the recent announcement that Anders Kompass will be heading the newly established office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Guatemala. Having gained wide respect for his work in OHCHR offices in Colombia and Mexico, Mr. Kompass brings a wealth of expertise to Guatemala. I would hope that the State Department provides funds to help support this office. Since 1990, the Congress has prohibited foreign military financing assistance for Guatemala because of the military's involvement in gross violations of human rights, and the lack of accountability for heinous crimes. The Senate continued that prohibition recently due to ongoing concerns with the inadequate pace of military reform. It is all too apparent that despite the downsizing of the military, the attitude that the military remains above the law has yet to change. However, we do provide the Guatemalan military with expanded international military education and training assistance. In addition, we continue to provide counter-narcotics assistance. And this year we released prior year military assistance funds to address urgent equipment needs for drug interdiction, such as spare parts for aircraft. Guatemala is at a crossroads. No one should be under any illusions about the difficulties of the many political, economic and social challenges it faces. Reform of Guatemala's corrupt and dysfunctional judicial system alone will take many years. But while President Berger has made progress, the culture of violence and impunity continues to thrive in Guatemala. And until there is clear evidence that he is more vigorously and effectively confronting the powerful interests that are responsible for these problems, it will be difficult if not impossible for the United States to support the Guatemalan Government as strongly as we would like to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I firmly believe our Nation needs a sound and balanced national energy plan, emphasizing a clean, reliable, sustainable, and affordable energy policy. Unfortunately, this bill fails to do that. The Senate sent a good energy bill to conference, and we got back a frog. This conference report fails to reduce our dependence on imported oil, fails to address the threat of global warming, fails to make much needed new investments in clean energy production and fails to provide any help to consumers that are suffering from record high gas prices. Specifically, this conference report does not include the Senate's mandatory oil savings clause, which would have reduced oil use by 1 million barrels per day. The bill also deletes the renewable energy standard that would have required utilities to obtain at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Increasing the production of electricity from renewable energy sources will help improve the quality of our country's water and air. Instead of supporting the advancement of renewable energy technologies to create jobs and reduce pollution, we have a bill that gives oil, gas, ethanol, and nuclear companies enormous subsidies. In addition, the bill does not include any provisions to address global warning. I believe we have a responsibility to act now to curb greenhouse gases; thus, I was pleased the Senate bill agreed on the need for mandatory programs to address greenhouse gases. Two major scientific reports released last fall warned that global warming is occurring more rapidly than previously known, and that the effects of such warming trends are widespread. In Vermont, we will also see ecological and economic consequences of these alarming trends. Vermonters working in our ski and maple syrup industries have already reported changes they have been forced to make in recent years to adjust to climate change. This bill's refusal to take any steps to combat global warming is not only disappointing, but dangerous to our future generations. One hundred years from now, it may turn out that global warming was the single most important problem that the United States almost totally ignored. At that stage I will not be able to say ``I told you so,'' but some academic scholars might note my timely warmings. Indeed, when I was chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, I included a provision on the impacts of global warming in U.S. food production in the 1990 farm bill--15 years ago. The bill also contains a number of anti-environmental provisions that were not included in the Senate's bill. It threatens drinking water by allowing the underground injection of diesel fuel and other chemicals during oil and gas development and exempts oil and gas construction activities from the Clean Water Act. It also includes a seismic inventory of oil and gas resources in sensitive Outer Continental Shelf areas. In addition, I am disappointed that this Energy Bill doesn't take a single concrete step to address the high and rising cost of gasoline for American consumers. The Senate unanimously adopted my amendment to allow the Federal Government to take legal action against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing and other anticompetitive activities. It is high time we say, ``no!'' to OPEC's illegal price fixing schemes. Yet, due to opposition from the Bush administration, under whose tenure the average price of gasoline has skyrocketed from $1.45 per gallon to more than $2.30 per gallon, this provision was deleted from the Energy bill conference report. This bill fails on almost every count. Yet, almost unbelievably, it could have gotten much worse. Under the leadership of my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, we were able to stop the House GOP leadership from letting MTBE polluters off the hook for contaminating our ground water and drinking water. I understand that the conferees came to an agreement which in no way impacts the rights of citizens and local governments to pursue all available State and Federal remedies where there is environmental harm and other injury that results from leakage of MTBE into the ground water. While I was concerned about any effort to alter the subject matter jurisdiction of these cases, I am relieved to learn that they did not do so in conference. I understand that nothing in the current language will alter the substantive law that courts currently apply in these cases and that they will apply to future claims. After a colloquy between conferees on the record, Representative Stupak did not offer his amendment clarifying their unanimous understanding of the relevant section. The amendment that he withheld would have simply added the phrase ``under applicable state or federal law'' to the permissive removal provision. I am told by Senator Bingaman that the conferees found this amendment unnecessary because it was clear to them, as it is to me, that the relevant language adopted does not change the substantive law that applies and it does not change the current law that applies in consideration of removal petitions. This administration and this Congress had a real opportunity to produce a bill that would lead the Nation towards balanced, sustainable, clean energy production. Instead, we have 1,700 pages worth of policies that will increase our dependence on fossil fuels, provide billions to wealthy energy corporations, and threaten environmental and public health. I do not see how my Republican colleagues can any longer justify their drastic cuts to vital social programs while pushing through this multibillion dollar legislation that does nothing to secure our energy future.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Alan Charles Sadoski, a loving husband, father, and friend whose lasting memory is continually celebrated by everyone who knew and loved him. Alan's life was filled with family, friends, excitement, and laughter. He was one of what quickly became seven brothers and sisters growing up in Salem, MA. Everyone who knew him will tell you that his siblings were not only his best friends but also his biggest fans. He graduated from high school in 1967 and went on to become a standout soccer player at Salem State College, while at the same time serving in the Massachusetts National Guard. After odd jobs throughout the summers in and around Salem, Alan took a job working as a teller for the Essex Bank. Little did he know at the time, but that job changed Alan's life. Not only did Alan find a career, but he also fell in love with a fellow teller, Claire McGuire. The two married and began their life together, ultimately moving to Washington, DC where Claire pursued her legal career and Alan took a job with the National Bank of Washington. Everyone who knew Alan can remember him on his way to work, the banker in his three piece suit. On December 29, 1981 Claire and Alan had a son named Nicholas Alan. Shortly thereafter the family moved into their first home where Alan's love of fatherhood blossomed. Alan converted the boxes from their new appliances into little homes for Nick and the two of them spent countless hours playing together. When Nick had trouble sleeping at night, Alan would drive him around the neighborhood until he fell asleep. He even brought Nick back to Salem for his first haircut at the barbershop just down the street from his own childhood home. Everyone could see how much Alan enjoyed being a father. Although Alan fought hard, his spirit and courage in the face of adversity never showing the effects of his illness, he sadly succumbed to his battle with cancer on August 12, 1985. He was troubled by the idea of leaving his wife and son behind, but he knew they would be taken care of and supported by both his family and the legion of friends he made over the years. Each of them made a special promise to Alan that in their own way they would always make sure Claire and Nick were okay. It is now 20 years later and Alan's friends and family have never let the two of them down. Over the years the people closest to Alan have kept his spirit alive by thinking about him often and sharing their memories of him with others. His friends remember his tolerant and understanding nature. They remember his love of camping and how much he had hoped to take his son and nephews out on a true wilderness adventure. They talk about his fabled flapjacks, and how everyone would watch the pancake impresario perform his tricks. They remember how much fun it was to be around Alan; how he was always at the center of the crowd, telling some of his famous stories, somehow making the gathering better just by being there. Even the pharmacists at the local drugstore, who saw Alan during some of the worst days of his illness, thought the world of him and even made a donation to the American Cancer Society in his honor. He truly touched everyone he met. Since then the family has remained close and they talk about Alan often. He has nieces and nephews now that he never had a chance to meet, but they have heard all about ``Uncle Al, the Kiddies' Pal.'' Alan would be happy to know that the people who meant the most to him in his life still gather and share their memories of him after his death. He would love to know that Claire and Nick are the best of friends. He would love to know that Nick enjoys hearing stories about his dad, and perhaps more than anything else, loves to hear people say, ``Your dad would be proud of you.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of Senators the troubling reality in Iraq that is described in two recent Government reports, one by the Government Accountability Office and the other by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Documented in these reports are assessments of the precarious and deteriorating security situation on the ground, which has dramatically slowed the pace of reconstruction and resulted in significant additional costs. This picture is in stark contrast to the rhetoric coming from the administration that we are in the last throes of the insurgency and that reconstruction is moving forward at a rapid pace. The reality is that because of the security problems in Iraq, the results of reconstruction are falling far short of what the administration optimistically predicted and what we were told to expect. While there has been important progress in building schools and hospitals and providing clean drinking water in some areas, exorbitant security costs are forcing the scale back or cancellation of reconstruction projects. Unfortunately, there is little reason to be optimistic that the situation will improve in the short term. According to today's Washington Post, the GAO reported that ``in March, the U.S. Agency for International Development canceled two electric power generation programs to provide $15 million in additional security elsewhere. On another project to rehabilitate electric substations, the Army Corps of Engineers decided that securing 14 of the 23 facilities would be too expensive and limited the entire project to nine stations. And in February, USAID added $33 million to cover higher security costs on one project, which left it short of money to pay for construction oversight, quality assurance and administrative costs.'' Furthermore, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that after reviewing several reconstruction contracts, it determined that more money was going to Government contractors involved in the rebuilding process than was necessary. The formula used for disbursing special monetary awards, which are above and beyond basic fees, was producing excessively high awards. In some instances, contractors were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars despite not winning a contract or delivering a single service. Once again, these reports shed light on the lack of oversight and accountability given to contracts in Iraq. Given the enormous amount of money the United States is spending in Iraq, the many reports of waste and profiteering by unscrupulous contractors, and the President's request for additional hundreds of millions of dollars for Iraq reconstruction in the fiscal year 2006 budget, it is incumbent on the administration to respond to these reports in a forthright manner so that Congress can make informed decisions about the use of these funds.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. He and I have spent, I believe, more time with each other than we have with our families in the past couple weeks. I am not sure if that is to the detriment of our families or ourselves or to the benefit of our families or ourselves. In any event, it is a fact we spent an enormous amount of time. As the distinguished chairman has talked about--and I will in a moment submit this as a joint statement from the two of us--we have agreed to the following: The hearings will start on Tuesday, September 6. The Judiciary Committee members will waive their right to hold over the nomination for 1 week, when first placed on the Judiciary Committee executive agenda. The vote, of course, then could occur any time after Monday, September 12. The chairman intends to set that vote on the executive agenda on Thursday, September 15. Senators--and this will require all 100 Senators--will waive their right to invoke the 2-hour rule to terminate Judiciary Committee hearings 2 hours after the Senate comes into session during the time of the nomination hearings on Judge Roberts. All written questions will be submitted within 24 hours of the conclusion of the hearing, and answers will be provided in a timely fashion. And we recognize that nothing in the Senate or Judiciary Committee rules precludes the Senate from considering the nomination on the floor without a committee report. As we know--and I see two of the distinguished leaders of the Senate on the floor and others will be joining us--I served several times in the majority, several times in the minority, and I have handled many bills on the floor--you can work out every single possible contingency, but there is always something that comes up, and that is why we have chairmen and ranking members. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Specter. He has always been straightforward with me. He has always kept his word to me, as I have to him. We think we have covered all the contingencies. Anything can happen. I suspect the two of us can handle that. I think of some of the contingencies in the last few years. I remember an important hearing scheduled and we had the disaster of September 11. Obviously, nobody plans or hopes for such events. We have the ability to work out those kinds of situations. Long before the Supreme Court vacancy, long before this nomination, the chairman and I worked cooperatively to lay the groundwork for full hearings to prepare that committee for when that day will arrive. We have now announced the schedule for the hearings to begin. I know we will continue to work with each other in good faith as the process unfolds, but when we look at this beginning the first week the Senate returns to session after Labor Day, it is a brisk schedule. To meet the schedule, we need the cooperation of the administration. The Senate only today, Friday, received the President's official nomination of Judge Roberts. The Senate has not received basic background information on the nominee in answer to the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire. The Senate only today received updated background check materials from the FBI. All of these, of course, we need. In advance of receiving the nomination, Chairman Specter and I joined together earlier this week in setting forth additional requests for the information through the Judiciary Committee questionnaire, something worked out by the two of us. The Democratic members of the committee sent the White House a letter on Tuesday, with a priority of the documents for the nominee's years of work in the Reagan White House with White House counsel Fred Fielding from among the documents the administration had indicated it was making arrangements to provide to the Senate. Yesterday I shared with the chairman a suggested request for materials in connection with only 16 priority cases from the hundreds considered during the years during which the nominee was Kenneth Starr's political deputy at the Department of Justice. That request has also been expedited and sent to the administration this week, even before the President sent the nomination to the Senate. The President said he hopes the new Justice can be confirmed by the start of the Court's next session on the first Monday in October. The Senate has already cooperated in achieving this goal. At this point, there is no reason to believe the goal cannot be met, but we need the full cooperation of the administration. The administration has weighed in heavily with demands regarding the Senate's schedule. What we need more than the White House telling us how and when to do our job is a White House willing to help us expedite our consideration by making relevant materials available without delay so we can meet the chairman's aggressive schedule. The President has extolled the nominee's credentials, including his years of work in three senior executive branch posts during the Presidencies of his father and President Reagan. We are seeking a very small number of the documents evidencing his work in those policy positions. In order for us to fulfill our responsibilities to examine this nomination and report it to the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee should be provided these materials without delay so we can perform our due diligence. The White House this week said the Senate will have wide access to the documents from the Reagan administration, but only after an elaborate screening process. Based on the White House's own statement about the length of time it will take to screen these documents, that will be 4 weeks from now, maybe even longer. The date the chairman is setting for the beginning of the hearings emphasizes the ability to review the materials before the hearings requires quicker action from the administration than that. One only need glance at the calendar to see 4 weeks from today is only a few days before the hearings, and that includes Labor Day weekend. This is a nominee who, if confirmed, could be serving on the Supreme Court until 2030 or beyond, well past the term of the President who appointed him and well past the terms or even the lifetimes of Members of the Senate who may make this decision. This is a decision that not only affects every American alive today but also our children and grandchildren. The Constitution gives the Senate, and only the Senate, the responsibility of considering a President's nominations to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The Constitution gives us the duty to make this decision as well as we can, not as fast as we can. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to draw attention to the widespread problem of human trafficking. It is the world's fastest growing criminal enterprise. It is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are forced, defrauded or coerced into sexual or labor exploitation. Annually, nearly 1 million people, mostly women and children, are trafficked worldwide, including nearly 18,000 persons into the United States. The fact is that the violent subjugation and exploitation of women and girls is ongoing and not enough is being done by governments to address it. Take, for example, reports that in a marketplace in Skopje, Macedonia, women are forced to walk around a stage naked while brothel owners point their fingers to make a selection. Women are bought and sold like cattle and treated like slaves. In Krong Koh Kong, Cambodia, 14-year-old girls stand outside a row of shacks where they charge the equivalent of $2 or $3 for sex, half of which goes to their pimps. These girls, many of whom have AIDS, are discarded when they become too sick to continue working. Even in the United States, we are not immune to the scourge of human trafficking. Earlier this month, Federal agents raided brothels and businesses in San Francisco and arrested two dozen people allegedly operating an international sex-trafficking ring. Nearly 100 South Korean women were lured to illegally enter the United States; whereupon, they were held captive and forced to work as prostitutes. Around the world, women and girls are sold as slaves and forced to engage in unprotected sex because clients offer more money for such acts. These women have no control over their lives, their health or their futures. Trafficking victims in the sex industry are exposed to HIV/AIDS at much higher rates than the general population, with no access to medical care. The fear of infection of AIDS among customers has driven traffickers to recruit younger girls, erroneously perceived to be too young to have been infected. Last month, the State Department issued its fifth annual Trafficking in Persons report, which ranks the efforts of 150 countries to combat human trafficking. Some have observed that the United States has been soft on certain Asian countries thought to be lax on trafficking, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, India, and Thailand. Because these countries are vital allies in fighting terrorism, they may have been treated with greater leniency. On the other hand, this year, the State Department identified four Middle Eastern allies--Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates--as being among the worst offenders of human trafficking and whose governments are doing little to control it. Despite the fact that these countries have been important partners of the United States, their inadequate efforts on human trafficking demand a call to action by the United States. Mr. President, this report is merely one first step in combating a growing international problem. We must call upon governments around the world to renew their efforts against this form of modern-day slavery. We must rededicate our efforts to the prevention of human trafficking, protection of victims, and prosecution of traffickers. Nowhere on Earth should it be acceptable to deceive, abuse, and force a person into a life of enslavement. To deny a person their right to freedom, is an affront to the ideals established nearly 57 years ago in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We can and must do better.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, the Committee on the Judiciary did something that the administration has been urging us to do all year--we reported a bill that reauthorizes every expiring provision of the USA PATRIOT Act. This achievement was particularly notable for its bipartisanship. Following months of intense negotiations involving members from both sides of the aisle, we produced a consensus bill that won the support of every member of the committee. I commend Chairman Specter and all members of the committee for their work on this important legislation. We made possible something that many of us would have thought impossible just a few weeks ago: a PATRIOT Act improvement and reauthorization package approved by every Member of the U.S. Senate. The bill we pass today--S. 1389, as reported--has three key elements. First, the bill protects the privacy interests of Americans. It requires the Government to convince a judge that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their library records, medical records or other sensitive personal information. It also requires the Government to notify the target of a ``sneak and peek'' search within 7 days, instead of the undefined delay that is currently permitted by the PATRIOT Act. Second, the bill enhances judicial oversight and protects free speech rights. It gives the recipient of an order for sensitive personal information the right to challenge the order in court on the same grounds as they could challenge a grand jury subpoena. It also provides a right to challenge the gag order that currently prevents people who receive a request for records from speaking out even if they feel the Government is violating their rights. Third, the bill increases transparency and ensures accountability. One of my principal objectives in this reauthorization process has been to introduce more sunshine into the PATRIOT Act. The reported bill requires increased reporting by the Department of Justice on its use of several PATRIOT Act powers, including roving wiretaps, business record orders, and ``sneak and peak'' search warrants. It also sets a 4-year ``sunset'' on three domestic surveillance powers with great potential to affect civil liberties. Like the PATRIOT Act itself, S. 1389 is not the bill that I, or any Member, would have written if compromise were unnecessary. I would have liked the bill to include additional checks and balances on certain Government surveillance powers granted or expanded by the PATRIOT Act. I would have liked the bill to include more sunshine provisions, as well as additional sunsets. I regret that the bill repeals a sunset provision that Congress enacted last year and that is not due to expire until the end of 2006. While far from perfect, S. 1389 is a good bill, which moves the law in what I believe is the right direction. The bill is also substantially better, from a civil liberties perspective, than either the House bill, H.R. 3199, or the bill reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, S. 1266. And as the product of true bipartisanship--an 18-to-0 vote is something you do not see every day in the Senate Judiciary Committee--it is a bill in which the American people can and should have confidence. I hope that the bipartisan effort that got us to this point will carry over to the conference and speed this bill to final passage.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the situation in Nepal, which has received too little attention by the Congress. I will not take the time to discuss in detail the history of this tiny country wedged between China and India. Suffice it to say that not only is Nepal among the world's least developed countries, it is also facing a ruthless Maoist insurgency and a political crisis instigated by King Gyanendra which together threaten to turn Nepal into a failed state. Last year, after receiving disturbing reports of widespread human rights violations by the Royal Nepalese Army, including arrests, disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings of civilians, the Congress imposed a number of conditions on our military aid to Nepal. Those conditions required the Nepalese Government to (1) comply with habeas corpus orders issued by the Supreme Court of Nepal; (2) cooperate with the National Human Rights Commission to identify and resolve all security related cases of individuals in government custody; (3) grant the National Human Rights Commission unimpeded access to all places of detention; and (4) take effective steps to end torture by security forces and prosecute members of such forces who are responsible for gross violations of human rights. Unfortunately, not only have those conditions not been met, the situation was made significantly worse on February 1 when King Gyanendra, with the backing of the security forces, dissolved the multiparty government, arrested and jailed political opponents, human rights activists and journalists, and declared a state of emergency. The state of emergency has since been lifted, but civil liberties, including freedom of the press and association, remain restricted, the former Prime Minister has been jailed for corruption by an extrajudicial, politically motivated anticorruption commission, and arrests of journalists and democracy activists continue. Speaking with one voice, the United States, Great Britain, and India condemned the King's actions as a setback for democracy. They said it would make it more difficult to resolve the Maoist problem, and each country imposed varying types of restrictions on military aid. Since then, however, the American Embassy has adopted a more nuanced approach, sending mixed messages that have been widely interpreted as giving equal consideration and validity to the views and actions of the King and the political parties. Unfortunately, the impression today of Nepalese pro-democracy and human rights activists is that the United States is not fully behind them. The army insists it is complying with habeas corpus orders of the supreme court. This is deceiving, however, because the security forces, often in plain clothes, have been re-arresting people who the court has ordered released. In some instances they have waited at the courthouse steps to take people back into custody immediately after they are set free by the court. Since these arrests are often made without charges, the whereabouts and treatment of these people is often unknown. In April, the term of the National Human Rights Commission expired and the Government reconstituted the Commission in a manner that was incompatible with the 1990 Nepalese Constitution. The membership of the Commission has also changed, with the exception of the chairman. Not surprisingly, none of the current members, appointed by the palace, expressed publicly any disagreement with the King's February 1 actions, including the arrests and curtailing of civil liberties. The chairman of the Commission even expressed support for the King's actions. This has caused legitimate concerns about the Commission's independence. There is conflicting information about the Government's cooperation with the National Human Rights Commission in resolving security related cases of persons in custody. According to human rights groups, the situation has not improved. The Commission has said it is getting better access to places of detention, but it is not clear how meaningful this access is. We know there are large numbers of people who have disappeared, yet we are informed that when members of the Commission visit army barracks they have seen few detainees, are led around by army escorts, and that some barracks where detainees were reported to be held were completely empty. There is a concern that the army is summarily executing prisoners. Meanwhile, the International Red Cross has suspended its visits to prisoners because of the army's failure to provide the access it requires. The issue of ending torture and prosecuting members of the security forces who commit gross violations of human rights is also difficult to assess. According to human rights groups, torture is routinely practiced and impunity remains the norm. The army claims it disciplines its members who violate human rights, but many of the cases it cites do not involve human rights violations. According to the army officer who heads the army's human rights cell, complaints about human rights violations by the army are ``much ado about nothing.'' Those words speak volumes. Under our law, the Secretary of State is to determine whether the conditions have been met. As a sponsor of the law, I would expect that prior to making any determination she would consult with representatives of reputable human rights groups, including the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as with the British and Indian Governments. It is important that we and they be seen as united on these issues. In that regard, I would hope that she would consider the implications of such a determination in the context of the larger political crisis. We do not want to do anything that could be seen as further evidence that the United States supports the King when he is using the army and police to crush the forces of democracy. Last week, the Senate revisited the conditions on our military aid for Nepal. Since those conditions were enacted prior to February 1, they have in large measure been eclipsed by subsequent events. The Senate determined that modifications were needed, and those changes were adopted unanimously on July 20, 2005, in an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 State-Foreign Operations-appropriations bill. Nepal is a breathtakingly beautiful country facing immense challenges. The majority of its people are illiterate, subsistence farmers who are caught between the Maoists, who extort money and food, forcibly recruit their children, and commit atrocities, and the army which mistreats and often shoots those suspected of sympathizing with the Maoists. The King, while professing to support democracy, seems determined to take the country back to the pre-1990 feudal days. This is not the first time he has dismissed the Prime Minister, and since February 1 he has surrounded himself with elderly advisers from the Panchayat era. He has ignored repeated urgings by our ambassador, and other governments, to sit down with representatives of the political parties to develop a plan for the prompt restoration of multiparty democracy. As in any country where multiparty democracy has existed for only a decade and a half, Nepal's fledgling political parties suffer from internal divisions and are struggling to establish their credibility with the Nepalese people. This should surprise no one. Democracy is never perfect, and that is particularly true in an impoverished, isolated kingdom whose people have been ruled by a monarchy that ignored their needs for centuries. Yet, despite these obstacles, Nepalese journalists, political activists and civil society continue to speak out. What is the alternative? A Maoist ``people's republic'' that could plunge Nepal into darkness? A return to an active monarchy that is accountable to no one? Nepal is at an historic juncture. The Maoists have made steady gains over the past decade. Once a minor irritant, today they are a national menace. Even since 2001, when King Gyanendra ascended the throne and became commander in chief of the army, the Maoists have grown stronger. Although they are unable to hold territory or to seize power in Katmandu, they pose an increasing threat to the security and livelihoods of Nepal's people. The King has made a tragic blunder, and the Nepalese people are paying a heavy price. Former Prime Minister Deuba is in prison, which the State Department has rightly called a setback for democracy. This week there were new arrests. On July 25, several dozen journalists and civil society leaders were arrested and detained for over 24 hours during a peaceful protest. On July 27, a pro-democracy student leader, Gagan Thapa, was arrested while attempting to visit fellow detained student leaders. Mr. Thapa is reportedly being held on suspicion of sedition. His arrest is a threat to all democracy activists and should be strongly condemned by the State Department. The King's strongest card is the army, but it lacks an effective counterinsurgency capability, it cannot defeat the Maoists in territory as rugged and isolated as parts of Afghanistan, and it has abused and alienated the very people it is supposed to protect. The army needs to demonstrate that it is worthy, if it wants U.S. support. Earlier this year, in order to avoid criticism at the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the King agreed to permit the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to open an office in Nepal and deploy human rights monitors. This is a welcome development, which the U.S. should strongly support. If the UN monitors are provided with unimpeded access, they should be able to determine if the Maoists are prepared to stop attacking civilians and recruiting children, and if the army is serious about respecting international humanitarian law. Recently, the U.N. Secretary General's Special Adviser traveled to Nepal to assess the situation. He concluded that a solution to the crisis rests on three elements: ``a return to constitutional order and multiparty democracy, an end to hostilities, and inclusive national dialogue towards a negotiated solution to the underlying causes of conflict.'' The U.N. has a long history in Nepal, and it could play a key facilitating role on each of these elements. I would hope that the State Department would publicly support this. No one should minimize the challenges. The Maoists have yet to demonstrate that they are ready to abide by a ceasefire, which should be a prerequisite for negotiations on their political demands. But our policy should be unambiguous. Democracy is the only viable alternative, and we should make clear that we unequivocally reject the King's imperial ambitions, that the days of an active monarchy are over, and that we support the political parties. Whether that means the restoration of the 1999 Parliament or the formation of a new constituent assembly, is for the Nepalese people to decide, but there should be no doubt that we support a political process that is open, transparent, inclusive and accountable to the people. Democracy and dialogue are the key to peace in Nepal, and we should do everything possible to reaffirm our willingness to work with the political parties, with Nepalese civil society, the Indian Government, the British Government, other key countries, and with the United Nations, towards that end. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, which if agreed to by the Senate-House conference committee will apply to U.S. military aid for Nepal for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2005, be printed in the Record.