Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' In the ongoing debate about health care costs, this legislation is a targeted and responsible move toward fixing one significant part of the system that is broken the skyrocketing insurance premiums for medical malpractice. For too long, doctors and hospitals have endured dramatic increases in the cost of their malpractice insurance. I doubt there is a single Senator who has not heard repeatedly from beleaguered physicians back home. Rising insurance rates are reportedly forcing some doctors to abandon their practices. Some of my colleagues in the other body seem content to echo the refrains of the insurance industry and heap blame for the problem of rising insurance premiums rates on trial lawyers and the victims of medical malpractice themselves. I have opposed arbitrary caps on damages because they will inflict additional harm on the most vulnerable victims of medical malpractice. Many of us have questioned the insurance industry's claim that lawsuits are causing the rise in premium costs since doctors in States that have imposed damages caps have not seen a reduction in their medical malpractice insurance premiums. A newly released report provides shows that our questions were well- founded. This report provides real evidence rather than anecdotal stories routinely trotted out by the insurance industry advocates. This study was prepared by a former State Insurance Commissioner and uses the insurance industry's own numbers to debunk the myths being advanced by the insurance industry. The study entitled, ``Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry,'' suggests that malpractice insurers have been overcharging, even gouging, physicians unconscionably. I expect a number of Senators will be surprised to learn that the malpractice claims payments actually went down, in real terms, over the past five years. In addition, even the insurers' own projections of future losses are declining. Despite these downward trends, year in and year out, these insurers are burdening doctors with increased premium costs and shifting the blame for their increases on to lawyers and victims. In the past five years, premiums have more than doubled even though claims payments have been stable. In 2004, malpractice insurers' total premiums were three times higher than their payouts. During the years 2000 to 2004, net premiums increased by 120 percent, while net claims payments increased by less than 6 percent. I urge Senators to read this report. It is based entirely on data from annual statements filed under oath with State insurance departments by the Nation's 15 largest malpractice insurers. The statements contain each insurer's estimate of how much it will pay out in malpractice claims, as well as data showing how much it actually paid out in claims and took in premiums. Claims and projected losses are down. It is only premiums that are rising, not claims. What this boils down to is an insurance industry problem, not a problem with the legal system. No wonder that the State attorneys general of Connecticut and Missouri have reacted to the study by attacking industry practices and calling for an aggressive regulatory response. As this study makes clear, high malpractice insurance premiums are not the result of malpractice lawsuit verdicts. They are the result of investment decisions by the insurance companies and of business models geared toward ever-increasing profits. I hope that this study once and for all shines light on the real culprit in rising malpractice insurance rates and informs the Senate with solid evidence of the best way to assist the good doctors who commit their professional lives to caring for others. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the study be printed in the Record. To be sure, different States have different experiences with medical malpractice insurance, and insurance remains a largely State-regulated industry. Each State should endeavor to develop its own solution to rising medical malpractice rates because each state has its own unique problems. Some States--such as my own, Vermont--while experiencing problems, do not face as great a crisis as others. But another fact of the insurance industry's business model requires a Federal legislative correction its blanket exemption from federal anti-trust laws. Insurers have for years enjoyed a special benefit in our marketplace. The McCarran-Ferguson Act permits insurance companies to operate without being subject to most of the Federal antitrust laws, and our Nation's physicians and their patients are suffering from this special treatment. Using their exemption, insurers can collude to set rates, resulting in higher premiums than true competition would achieve and because of this exemption, enforcement officials cannot investigate any such collusion. If Congress is serious about controlling rising premiums, we must revoke this blanket exemption created in the McCarran-Ferguson Act. That is why today I introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski, Obama, Rockefeller, and Salazar for cosponsoring this essential legislation. Our bill modifies the McCarran-Ferguson Act for the most pernicious anti-trust offenses: price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. I am hard-pressed to imagine that anyone could object to a prohibition on insurance carriers' fixing prices or dividing territories for anticompetitive purposes. After all, the rest of our Nation's industries manage either to abide by these laws or pay the consequences. Many State insurance commissioners police the industry well within the power they are accorded in their own laws, and some States have antitrust laws of their own that could cover some anticompetitive activities in the insurance industry. Our legislation would not affect regulation of insurance by State insurance commissioners and other State regulators. There is no reason to continue a system in which the Federal enforcers are precluded from prosecuting the most harmful antitrust violations just because they are committed by insurance companies. This legislation is a carefully tailored solution to one critical aspect of the problem of excessive medical malpractice insurance premiums. I hope that quick action by the Judiciary Committee and then by the full Senate, will ensure that this real solution is adopted before more damage is done to the physicians of this country and to the patients that they serve. Only professional baseball has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption comparable to that created for the insurance industry by the McCarran- Ferguson Act. Senator Hatch and I have joined forces several times in recent years to scale back that exemption for baseball, and in the Curt Flood Act of 1998 we successfully eliminated the exemption as it applied to employment relations. I hope we can work together again to create more competition in the insurance industry, just as we did with baseball. If Congress is serious about helping to control rising medical malpractice insurance premiums, then we must limit the insurance industry's broad exemption to Federal antitrust law and promote real competition in the insurance marketplace.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' In the ongoing debate about health care costs, this legislation is a targeted and responsible move toward fixing one significant part of the system that is broken the skyrocketing insurance premiums for medical malpractice. For too long, doctors and hospitals have endured dramatic increases in the cost of their malpractice insurance. I doubt there is a single Senator who has not heard repeatedly from beleaguered physicians back home. Rising insurance rates are reportedly forcing some doctors to abandon their practices. Some of my colleagues in the other body seem content to echo the refrains of the insurance industry and heap blame for the problem of rising insurance premiums rates on trial lawyers and the victims of medical malpractice themselves. I have opposed arbitrary caps on damages because they will inflict additional harm on the most vulnerable victims of medical malpractice. Many of us have questioned the insurance industry's claim that lawsuits are causing the rise in premium costs since doctors in States that have imposed damages caps have not seen a reduction in their medical malpractice insurance premiums. A newly released report provides shows that our questions were well- founded. This report provides real evidence rather than anecdotal stories routinely trotted out by the insurance industry advocates. This study was prepared by a former State Insurance Commissioner and uses the insurance industry's own numbers to debunk the myths being advanced by the insurance industry. The study entitled, ``Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry,'' suggests that malpractice insurers have been overcharging, even gouging, physicians unconscionably. I expect a number of Senators will be surprised to learn that the malpractice claims payments actually went down, in real terms, over the past five years. In addition, even the insurers' own projections of future losses are declining. Despite these downward trends, year in and year out, these insurers are burdening doctors with increased premium costs and shifting the blame for their increases on to lawyers and victims. In the past five years, premiums have more than doubled even though claims payments have been stable. In 2004, malpractice insurers' total premiums were three times higher than their payouts. During the years 2000 to 2004, net premiums increased by 120 percent, while net claims payments increased by less than 6 percent. I urge Senators to read this report. It is based entirely on data from annual statements filed under oath with State insurance departments by the Nation's 15 largest malpractice insurers. The statements contain each insurer's estimate of how much it will pay out in malpractice claims, as well as data showing how much it actually paid out in claims and took in premiums. Claims and projected losses are down. It is only premiums that are rising, not claims. What this boils down to is an insurance industry problem, not a problem with the legal system. No wonder that the State attorneys general of Connecticut and Missouri have reacted to the study by attacking industry practices and calling for an aggressive regulatory response. As this study makes clear, high malpractice insurance premiums are not the result of malpractice lawsuit verdicts. They are the result of investment decisions by the insurance companies and of business models geared toward ever-increasing profits. I hope that this study once and for all shines light on the real culprit in rising malpractice insurance rates and informs the Senate with solid evidence of the best way to assist the good doctors who commit their professional lives to caring for others. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the study be printed in the Record. To be sure, different States have different experiences with medical malpractice insurance, and insurance remains a largely State-regulated industry. Each State should endeavor to develop its own solution to rising medical malpractice rates because each state has its own unique problems. Some States--such as my own, Vermont--while experiencing problems, do not face as great a crisis as others. But another fact of the insurance industry's business model requires a Federal legislative correction its blanket exemption from federal anti-trust laws. Insurers have for years enjoyed a special benefit in our marketplace. The McCarran-Ferguson Act permits insurance companies to operate without being subject to most of the Federal antitrust laws, and our Nation's physicians and their patients are suffering from this special treatment. Using their exemption, insurers can collude to set rates, resulting in higher premiums than true competition would achieve and because of this exemption, enforcement officials cannot investigate any such collusion. If Congress is serious about controlling rising premiums, we must revoke this blanket exemption created in the McCarran-Ferguson Act. That is why today I introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski, Obama, Rockefeller, and Salazar for cosponsoring this essential legislation. Our bill modifies the McCarran-Ferguson Act for the most pernicious anti-trust offenses: price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. I am hard-pressed to imagine that anyone could object to a prohibition on insurance carriers' fixing prices or dividing territories for anticompetitive purposes. After all, the rest of our Nation's industries manage either to abide by these laws or pay the consequences. Many State insurance commissioners police the industry well within the power they are accorded in their own laws, and some States have antitrust laws of their own that could cover some anticompetitive activities in the insurance industry. Our legislation would not affect regulation of insurance by State insurance commissioners and other State regulators. There is no reason to continue a system in which the Federal enforcers are precluded from prosecuting the most harmful antitrust violations just because they are committed by insurance companies. This legislation is a carefully tailored solution to one critical aspect of the problem of excessive medical malpractice insurance premiums. I hope that quick action by the Judiciary Committee and then by the full Senate, will ensure that this real solution is adopted before more damage is done to the physicians of this country and to the patients that they serve. Only professional baseball has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption comparable to that created for the insurance industry by the McCarran- Ferguson Act. Senator Hatch and I have joined forces several times in recent years to scale back that exemption for baseball, and in the Curt Flood Act of 1998 we successfully eliminated the exemption as it applied to employment relations. I hope we can work together again to create more competition in the insurance industry, just as we did with baseball. If Congress is serious about helping to control rising medical malpractice insurance premiums, then we must limit the insurance industry's broad exemption to Federal antitrust law and promote real competition in the insurance marketplace.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. When we review the documents volunteered by the White House, obviously, we are going to be asking, Is this more of the old trick of flooding us with stacks of really unimportant materials in order to divert attention from those that matter the most? I hope the White House will begin to work with us instead of acting unilaterally. There is one very easy way. They could send up documents that make no sense. They could say, Here is 400 pages of something he had on his desk every day when he was working as a political appointee of the Justice Department, and send us the telephone book. That is 400 pages. It was on his desk. It is not very helpful. So the bottom line is this: The White House is eager to supply documents it selected and certainly provided with great fanfare, but we have yet to receive the documents we have, in fact, requested. It is an unfortunate pattern we have seen too often. Of course, the White House has available to it all the documents. The President has spoken about the designee's work in the Reagan White House and at the Bush Justice Department. But they have yet to share those materials with the Senate. Other nominations have run into trouble when this White House has decided to let the Senate see only what the White House wants the Senate to see. If the White House's midnight announcement on Monday that was reportedly embargoed to deny Democratic Senators an opportunity to comment is, contrary to appearances, actually intended to begin a dialog about documents, then I welcome it. Of course, if it is intended to unilaterally preempt a discussion about documents the Senate may need and is entitled to, then this is regrettable. Past administrations, Republican and Democratic, have been willing cooperatively to work with the Senate to accommodate its requests for documents. There are ample precedents in both parties documenting such cooperation. I believe the Senate is going to need the White House's full cooperation to expedite the scheduling of this process as the President has requested. Let us be serious. Now that the White House has gotten the stagecraft out of the way, let's go back to working on the substance of the Senate's work on this very important nomination. The President has, rightfully so, announced his choice. Now the Senate must rise to the challenge and do its work. To fulfill our constitutional duties, we need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as the American people deserve. A Supreme Court Justice is not there to represent either the Republican or Democratic Party; they are there to represent all 280 million Americans. The Senate is supposed to find, Is this the person the American people deserve, all 280 million of them? That takes time, it takes the cooperation of the nominee, and it takes the cooperation of the administration. It means that Republicans, as well as Democrats, have to take our constitutional obligations on behalf of the American people seriously. Let us remember this is not to see who scores political points. This is to determine how we protect the rights of all Americans--the ultimate check and balance for all Americans. This is somebody who could well serve until the year 2030 or beyond. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from Rhode Island. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to bring people up to date on where we are on the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court. It is now a little over a week since President Bush made a dramatic evening announcement of his intention to nominate John Roberts to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Senate, we haven't received this nomination. It has not come up yet. Nonetheless, we are well on the way to preparation for the Senate's process in considering the nomination. During the past weeks, some of us have met with Judge Roberts. We have urged him to be forthcoming at his upcoming hearing. The Judiciary Committee has already sent him a questionnaire seeking background information. Most importantly, Chairman Specter and I have already begun laying the groundwork for full and fair hearings which we are both committed to holding. I expect that we will soon be able to announce the Judiciary Committee's schedule for those hearings. Late yesterday, the White House provided some documents from Mr. Roberts' time when he served as special counsel to Attorney General William French Smith during the Reagan administration. None of us had requested these particular documents but, of course, we are always happy to receive anything they want to send. There are at least three categories of documents from Mr. Roberts' years in the executive branch that are relevant to this nomination. The second group relates to Mr. Roberts' work from 1982 to 1986 as an associate White House counsel under the supervision of White House Counsel Fred Fielding. These are apparently kept in the Reagan Library in California. Yesterday, in our continuing effort to expedite the process, we sent a letter to the White House asking that the files from those years be made available as quickly as possible, and to help speed it up, we identified by name the files we wished to be priorities. I hope the reported statements by White House officials over the last couple of days indicating they expect it will take 3 or 4 weeks to make these materials available are in error and, instead, they can be made available on a prompt basis, not a delayed basis. Otherwise, it would almost appear--I certainly wouldn't want to suggest the White House would do this--that they are trying to make sure the documents arrive after the hearings and not before them or arrive so close to the time of the hearings, there would be no time to review them. I trust there will be those at the White House who would understand this would be the wrong way to proceed and would actually in the long run end up adding more time to the process. The third category of files is from Mr. Roberts' work when he was a political appointee in the Justice Department's Office of the Solicitor General. He served as Kenneth Starr's principal deputy during the prior Bush administration. The reason I say these are important, the President said that his work at this time was one of the reasons he selected Judge Roberts as his nominee. Of course, the President has every right to consider whatever reasons for a Supreme Court nominee. Having said that, however, in carrying out our responsibilities, it is appropriate that the Senate also be entitled to the same kind of information that the White House weighed in making its decision about this nomination. In other words, if this work is one of the reasons they say he is qualified to be on the Supreme Court, all the more reason the 100 Members of the Senate should be able to see it and make up our own minds. Actually, it might be the most informative of the documents we are going to seek. We could get a practical sense of how, when, and why politics and the law intersect for him. I am not expecting to seek production of all the files and the hundreds of matters on which Mr. Roberts worked in those critical years. Nobody is asking for that. Rather, in our effort to cooperate and expedite the process, we are putting together a targeted catalog of documents. I hope we can work with Chairman Specter to send a reasonable bipartisan request for a selected group of those files. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter we sent to the White House yesterday be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize we are up against a time limit. I ask unanimous consent that my comments appear as though in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. In contrast, Judge Pryor's statements about section 5 reflect a long-discredited view of the Voting Rights Act. Since the enactment of the statute in 1965, every Supreme Court case to address the question has rejected the claim that section 5 is an ``affront'' to our system of federalism. Whether under Earl Warren, Warren Burger, or William Rehnquist, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote is essential to our democracy--no a ``burden'' that has ``outlived its usefulness.'' Indeed, Congressman Lewis sponsored a resolution, which is being considered on the floor of the House today, commemorating the passage of the Voting Rights Act 40 years ago this summer. The resolution recalls the struggle for the act's landmark protections--from the brutal suppression of marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, on ``Bloody Sunday'' in March 1965, to the passage of the bill by a bipartisan Congress months later--and reaffirms its importance. Forty years after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, Congressman Lewis and I remain committed to this essential piece of legislation. Exhibit 1 Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 14, 2005. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: During the Senate debate on the nomination of Judge William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Senator Saxby Chambliss quoted a few words of my testimony in the case of the State of Georgia v. John Ashcroft, and implied that I agree with Judge Pryor's assessment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. I take issue with Senator Chambliss's remarks and want to make clear that his reference to my remarks were taken out of context. I regret that my colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, would use my support of a Georgia redistricting plan to justify the confirmation of Justice William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. I strongly disagree with the views of Judge Pryor and do not think he is fit to serve. I further regret that Senator Chambliss would use my very general statements to suggest that I am not in favor of renewing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act must be renewed. There is a continued, proven need for the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which ensure that local and state jurisdictions do not develop laws that intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against groups who may have little or no voice in the establishment of those laws. We have come a long way in the last two decades, and certainly have come a long way since the 1960's, however, voting obstacles and disparities still exist for far too many minorities. In Florida in 2000, voters were confused by their ballots, polling equipment broke down, and polls did not open as scheduled. In Ohio in 2004, many people stood in what appeared to be unmovable lines for eight and nine hours trying to exercise their right to vote. There were an inadequate number of voting machines and in some instances, bogus officials were sent to polling stations and were found disseminating misinformation and questioning the choices of voters. As a result of these problems, many Americans were denied the right to vote. These truths continue to demonstrate the importance of the Voting Rights Act to prevent discrimination and to ensure that people are not denied the right to vote. The vote is the most powerful, nonviolent tool that our citizens have in a democratic society, and nothing but nothing should discourage, hamper or interfere with the right of every citizen to cast a vote for the person of their choice. The history of the right to vote in America is a history of conflict, of struggling for the right to vote. Many people died trying to protect that right. I was beaten, and jailed because I stood up for it. For millions like me, the struggle for the right to vote is not mere history; it is experience. The experience of the last two presidential elections tells us that the struggle is not over and that the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act are still necessary. We should not take a step backward, when there is still much to be done to ensure every vote and every voter counts. As we work toward reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we must move in a deliberative manner, conduct open and adequate hearings, and ensure that we create the appropriate legislative history and factual findings. I look forward to working with you to protect the voting rights of all Americans, by reauthorizing and strengthening the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Sincerely, John Lewis, Member of Congress.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, the debate over the nomination of Judge William Pryor to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals included a discussion of Judge Pryor's call to repeal section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--the centerpiece of that landmark statute--because, as he asserted in congressional testimony, it ``is an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness.'' His testimony demonstrated that Judge Pryor is more concerned with preventing an ``affront'' to the States' dignity than with guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote. In the Republican defense of Judge Pryor, it was suggested that Congressman John Lewis, a stalwart leader of the civil rights movement, somehow agreed with Judge Pryor's opposition to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because of a statement Congressman Lewis had made about a specific redistricting plan. Congressman Lewis has made clear many times, most recently in a July 14 letter to me, his disagreement with the views of Judge Pryor and his strong support for the Voting Rights Act--and particularly section 5. Congressman Lewis wrote: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act must be renewed. There is a continued, proven need for the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which ensure that local and state jurisdiction do not develop laws that intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against groups who may have little or no voice in the establishment of those laws. His statements of support for one particular redistricting plan in no way diminish his commitment to the Voting Rights Act. Congressman Lewis believes, as do I, that the Voting Rights Act is our most important protection guaranteeing that no individuals or groups are without a voice in this democracy. As he so eloquently noted: The history of the right to vote in America is a history of conflict, of struggling for the right to vote. Many people died trying to protect that right. I was beaten and jailed because I stood up for it. For millions like me, the struggle for the right to vote is not mere history; it is experience. The experience of the last two presidential elections tells us that the struggle is not over and that the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act are still necessary. I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Lewis's letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the Howrigan family of Fairfield, VT, who recently celebrated their annual family reunion. The Howrigan family is a bedrock of Franklin County and Vermont agriculture, and has done much to carry on our State's agricultural stewardship tradition. I have known many members of the Howrigan family for years and have come to appreciate the sound counsel on dairy issues and other aspects of farm policy. Mr. President, I thank the Howrigan family for their service to Vermont agriculture and their communities, for they represent the finest tradition of our rural State. I ask unanimous consent that a July 24, 2005, Burlington Free Press article featuring and honoring this wonderful Vermont family be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate J.J. Hamilton on his retirement as Director of Aviation at the Burlington International Airport. J.J. and I have been friends since our days together at St. Michael's College, and it has been a great pleasure working with him over the years on aviation, expansion, and economic development issues at the airport in Burlington. J.J. has been with the airport for 21 years, serving for the past 15 as its top manager. Under his direction, the Burlington airport has been transformed from a sleepy, one-gate operation into an award- winning, 10-gate facility that is a wonderful gateway to our great State of Vermont. The airport has grown to become an important engine in our State's economy. Perhaps the best words to describe J.J.'s leadership in Burlington are ``measured and responsible.'' As head of Vermont's largest airport, and one that is municipally owned, he has had to delicately balance the urge for large-scale expansion with his financial responsibility to the citizens of Burlington. When opportunities have arisen to attract new air service, J.J. has been careful to make sure that it is sustainable and that the airport grows appropriately to meet the new demand. And when the airport has sought to expand its business offerings, he has worked cooperatively with the neighbors, the National Guard, and the businesses that are based at the airport or that rely on the airport to outline the significance of the development. I am proud to have worked with J.J. and others to bring the innovative, low-cost air service to Burlington that has fueled record passenger growth at the airport. From JetBlue and Independence Air to the parking expansions to the new gates, J.J. has diligently moved forward not just to compete with the Albanys and Manchesters of the world for passengers, but to make Burlington a destination unto itself. I ask unanimous consent that a May 11, 2005, Burlington Free Press editorial on J.J.'s accomplishments in Burlington be included at this point in the Record. There being no objection,the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. LEAHY. Again, Mr. President, I want to thank J.J. for his many years of dedicated service to the City of Burlington and its airport. Marcelle and I wish him and Janet all the best in retirement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Senator Specter, in submitting this bipartisan resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign, which is managed by the National Crime Prevention Council. I applaud all individuals and organizations involved in the Campaign for their efforts to advance the principles and practice of effective crime prevention throughout the United States. We have all been urged over the years by McGruff the Crime Dog, the Campaign's icon, to ``Take A Bite Out Of Crime'' a simple and effective slogan to help begin to educate and make the public aware of the importance of crime prevention. Through their leadership, the Campaign and McGruff have played vital roles in reducing crime and making our communities safer. The Campaign was the first public education program on crime prevention in the country. It is designed to stimulate community involvement, generate confidence in comprehensive crime prevention activities and provide a national focus and resource for crime prevention programs nationwide. When it was formally launched in 1979, most Americans viewed crime as inevitable and its prevention as the job of the police. Today, three out of four Americans believe that they can personally take actions to reduce crime and that their neighborhoods and communities can act to prevent crime. A major force behind this shift to a more positive attitude is the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign. Crime prevention is central to maintaining a sound criminal justice system at the national, State, and local levels, and to ensuring safer and more secure communities. Making prevention a priority through the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign is a collective effort. This alliance of national, State and Federal organizations works with businesses, civic groups, individuals and law enforcement to generate crime prevention awareness and action throughout the country through a variety of mechanisms. The National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign has inspired and directed millions of citizens to take action, individually and collectively, to reduce crime, drug abuse and the fear of crime. I look forward to another 25 years and beyond of McGruff and the Campaign, under the skilled leadership of its President and CEO, Al Lenhardt, who is the former Sergeant At Arms of the U.S. Senate, continuing to be national leaders in improving the quality of life in every community through crime prevention. I have no doubt that together they will continue to promote individual and collective action, in collaboration with law enforcement and other supporting agencies, to reduce crime and build safer communities throughout the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the GAO study commission exposed and confirmed these glaring deficiencies. In this GAO study, I said it appears to me we are sending our Guard and Reserve out to fight alongside our regular forces, but they are doing it without the health insurance protection our regular forces have. Well, the GAO study said exactly what I thought was happening was happening. So it has been heartening to work with my fellow Senators in remedying these problems. I will continue to press forward until a full TRICARE program for the Guard and Reserve is in place. I will close with this. We are going to ask our Guard and Reserve to do the same duties, face the same dangers, stand in harm's way in the same way as our regular forces, and they ought to be treated the same when it comes to medical care. It is a matter of readiness, it is a matter of honesty, but most importantly it is a matter of simple justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind words. I do rise in support of the Graham-Clinton-DeWine-Leahy amendment. We have said it makes all members of the National Guard and Reserve eligible to participate in the military's TRICARE program on a cost- share basis. Basically, we are saying if the Guard and Reserve is out there doing the work of the regular Army--and they are, as we all know, increasingly, all the time--then they should have some of the same benefits, especially medical benefits. Our amendment goes to the readiness of our Reserve Forces. It is certainly an important recruiting tool. Few issues we are going to debate during consideration of this bill-- when we talked about readiness--could be as important as this issue. The National Guard is making a spectacular contribution to the Nation's defense. Everybody would acknowledge that it would be impossible to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without the National Guard. Our military reserves are carrying out all kinds of tasks, from combat support to aerial convoy escort missions. When I talk with the commanders in the field they tell me they don't know which ones are the Guard, which ones are the regular forces. They are all doing the same thing. One difference is the National Guard has to also continue to provide a ready force in case of natural disasters or another attack here at home. In the war on terrorism, the National Guard and Reserve are a 21st century fighting force. But they are doing it with the last century's health insurance. We want to bring it up to date. We want to make sure that those who are fighting our wars, those who are defending our Nation, are treated alike. That is all it is. We just want to make sure they are treated the same. Many members of our Guard and Reserve did not have access to affordable health insurance when they were on civilian status, and then in a moment's notice they may be called to answer the time-honored call to duty. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, reported in 2002 that at least 20 percent of the members of the Guard and Reserve did not have health insurance--20 percent of the members of the Guard and Reserve did not have health insurance. That means that there are members of the Guard and Reserve who potentially are not as healthy as we want them to be when we ask them to deploy. Last year, we enacted a partial version of this amendment. It became known as the TRICARE Reserve Select Program. The program ties eligibility for gaining access to TRICARE--on a cost-share basis--to service on active duty in a contingency. That was a step forward. TRICARE was an important step forward, but it doesn't address the health insurance needs before deployment. It doesn't address the broader question of readiness of the force. This amendment opens eligibility to any member of the Select Reserve. As long as a reservist stands ready for deployment, he or she will be able to participate in the program. It offers real, practical, meaningful health to citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It also is going to provide a meaningful recruitment incentive for the Guard and Reserve. As we all know, they are struggling to meet recruiting goals. I am honored to be the cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus. As cochair, I believe that few defense personnel reforms are as needed, as demonstrably needed and overdue as this health insurance initiative for Guard and Reserve. It has been a high priority of each of the members of our bipartisan coalition. Republicans and Democrats alike agree the Guard and Reserve deserve to have available health insurance the same as all others. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes from the time allotted to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, capping days of public speculation that maybe the President would appoint Judge Edith Clement or Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez or any number of other people, the President made a dramatic evening announcement of his intention to nominate Judge John Roberts to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. The President called Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Senator Specter, and myself last night before this announcement to discuss it. I appreciated his call and the reasons he gave for the nomination. As I said to him last night, he has done his part of the equation, a very important part as President. He nominates the Justice. It is interesting that, in a nation of 280 million Americans, only 101 of us get a chance to actually have a say in who is going to serve on the Supreme Court, a person who is there to protect the rights of all Americans on the one body that is to be the ultimate check and balance in our Government. Of the 101, first, of course, is the President making the nomination. But then the 100 men and women in the Senate have an awesome responsibility to the rest of the Nation in how we vote. That is our job. The Senate has to fulfill its constitutionally mandated duty to ensure those who receive lifetime appointments to our highest Court will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans-- not those of just one political party or the other but of all Americans--that they will uphold our Constitution and our laws and that they will be impartial in their judicial approach. As I said, the President has announced his choice. Now we in the Senate have to rise to the challenge and get to work. To fulfill our constitutional duties, we need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as the American people expect and deserve. That is going to take time. It will take the cooperation of the nominee and the administration. It will require Republicans, as well as Democrats, to take seriously our constitutional obligations on behalf of all the American people, not just a select few. I will say similar things to Judge Roberts when I meet with him later today. Justice O'Connor serves as a model Justice. She is widely respected by America as a jurist with common sense and practical values who brought no agenda from the far left or the far right. She did not prejudge cases. She cast the critical deciding vote in a number of significant cases. Her legacy of fairness is one that all Americans should want to see preserved. For 24 years on the Supreme Court, she has tried to decide cases fairly and with an open mind. I thank her for her service to the country and her graciousness in agreeing to serve until her successor is considered and confirmed by the Senate and appointed by the President. I regret that some on the extreme right have been so critical of her and so adamantly opposed to a successor who shares her judicial philosophy and qualities. Their criticism reflects their own narrowmindedness and biased agenda. I regret that they have taken out ads and gone on the news trying to tarnish her record. Frankly, the American people know better, and nothing will tarnish the record of the first woman Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I have noted that our neighbor to the north, Canada, a country that is only an hour's drive from my home in Vermont, also has a supreme court with nine members, but four of them are women, including the Canadian chief justice. I look forward to the time when the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court is more reflective of America as Canada's supreme court is more reflective of that country. I know Hispanics across the country are disappointed the President has missed this extraordinary historic opportunity to pick a candidate who will make the Court more diverse. I hope he will consider that in future nominations. There was no dearth of highly qualified individuals who could have served as unifying nominees while adding to the diversity of the Supreme Court. Reports last week mentioned Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the Second Circuit and Judge Edward Prado of the Fifth Circuit. Certainly these are the kind of candidates worthy of consideration. Judge Sotomayor was first appointed to the Federal court by President George H.W. Bush, the President's father. Judge Prado was first appointed by President Reagan and elevated to the circuit by the current President Bush. They are among the people who should be considered. There are many outstanding Hispanic judges and African- American judges who could have added to the diversity of the Supreme Court and made it more representative of all Americans. Last week, Chairman Specter and I spoke about our interests in having the President consider nominees from outside what I call the ``judicial monastery.'' I believe their life experience is important and that the Supreme Court could have benefited from someone with experiences that were not limited to those of a circuit judge. Certainly, this is a consideration the President should make if he has further nominees. I wish he had done so with this nomination. So now, however, the nomination has been made. The President has spent several weeks in determining who he wants. He has made his selection. Now it is the Senate's turn to decide what we will do. Above all, we in the Senate need to ensure that the Supreme Court remains protective of all Americans' rights and liberties from government intrusion and that the Supreme Court understands the role of Congress in passing legislation to protect ordinary Americans from abuse by powerful special interests. No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, whether nominated by a Democrat or by a Republican. And there are far different considerations for the Supreme Court than there are for circuit courts. How the nominee views precedent, what the nominee regards as settled law, how the nominee will exercise the incredible power of a Supreme Court Justice to be the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution--all of these raise very different considerations than those for a lower court nominee. In addition, a nominee coming from the appellate bench will have a record there in votes and opinions and performance that will provide important additional insights into his likely tenure as a Supreme Court Justice. We have to take the time to evaluate this nominee for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. After all, if confirmed, Judge Roberts could be expected to serve to the year 2030 or 2040. So we have to have time to perform due diligence on Judge Roberts' record and judicial philosophy. The Senators on the committee have to have time to prepare for fair and thorough hearings. I ask all Senators to be mindful of the Senate's fundamental role in this process. The Americans put us all here to do an important job, and it is critical that we treat that responsibility with the seriousness and respect it deserves. I start, as I always have, from the premise that the Supreme Court should not be a wing of the Republican Party or a wing of the Democratic Party. It has that responsibility not only to all 280 million Americans but also to millions and millions of future Americans. The independence of the Federal judiciary is critical to our American concept of justice for all. The Supreme Court provides a fundamental check in our system of government. We have to ensure that it serves as a bulwark of individual liberty against incursions or expansions of power by the executive branch. We also have to ensure that the Supreme Court respects the role of Congress when it acts to protect Americans from those with great power, to improve their lives with environmental laws, and by reining in powerful special interests. We know that the current Supreme Court is the most activist Supreme Court in my lifetime. Time and time again, they have set aside congressional laws, some of long standing, and basically written new laws of their own. There was a time when my friends on the other side of the aisle were very opposed to the idea of an activist Supreme Court. Now we find that two of the heroes of the right are the most activist members of the current Supreme Court, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. Ours is a nation based on the rule of law. The test of a good judge is his or her ability to apply the law fairly. As I evaluate candidates for lifetime appointments that often span not merely years but decades, I want to make sure that everybody who comes before the Court can look at that Justice and say: I can be treated fairly no matter who I am, no matter what political party I belong to, no matter what my station in life. They are going to be there a long time. Justice O'Connor served for 24 years. Chief Justice Rehnquist has served for 34 years. Since 1970, the average term has been 25 years. So we are considering a nomination not just for the period remaining in the Bush administration, which is going to end in 2008, but for our children's and grandchildren's futures, 2030 and beyond. This nomination fills the seat that Justice O'Connor occupied while serving as the ``swing'' or decisive vote in so many cases, and if her successor does not share her judicial philosophy, that replacement could radically change the Court in the way our Constitution is interpreted. It is critical we not prejudge a nominee and that the Judiciary Committee be accorded the time to develop a full record on which Senators can base an informed judgment. I was disappointed to hear somebody say last night: Why can't we move immediately to the hearings? Come on, the American people would justly feel on something such as this that their rights have been shortchanged. I look forward to working out agreements with Chairman Specter on procedures to allow the kind of thorough consideration that a nominee to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court deserves, and I know Chairman Specter feels the same way. A preliminary review of Judge Roberts' record suggests areas of significant concern that need exploration. We have to consider his service on the circuit court, even though that is quite limited. We need to understand how he will exercise judicial power. An independent study--and I referred to this earlier--demonstrated that the Rehnquist Court has been the most activist Court in my lifetime in overturning congressional enactments and restricting legislative authority--actually the most activist since before the New Deal. The most activist members, of course, as I said earlier, are Judge Thomas and Judge Scalia. We need to know what kind of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts would be. When I talked with the President, I said I hoped that they would cooperate so that all relevant matters can be constructively explored as we begin this important process. When I meet with Judge Roberts today, I will ask for his cooperation. After all, the Constitution speaks of advise and consent. It does not speak about nominate and rubberstamp. That, incidentally, is a position I have taken whether it has been a Democrat or a Republican on the Supreme Court. I look forward to hearings that will inform the Senate and the American people in making the Senate's confirmation decision. I have been here for hearings and to vote on all nine members of the Supreme Court and for one other who did not make it. Presidents come and go. Senators come and go. The Supreme Court Justices tend to be there a lot longer than all of us. I want to make sure we do our job the right way. Mr. President, I know there are other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who wish to speak. In fact, I see the member of the committee who has either presided over or been present for more Supreme Court nominations than any Member now serving in the Senate. I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, in light of the additional 5 minutes on the other side, 5 minutes also be added to the time on this side.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am worried about that hearing. Let's do this. I want to accommodate my colleague. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to continue for 5 minutes, but that the time not come from the time reserved for the Democratic side.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from the State of New Jersey, the Senators from the State of North Carolina, and the Senator from Nebraska. This program sounds important. Unfortunately, the subcommittee does not earmark funds for specific organizations.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1252, as Modified

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1301

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from New Jersey, North Carolina, and Nebraska, and I thank them for bringing this project to my attention. This sounds like a worthwhile project for USAID to consider. Rwanda HIV/AIDS Program

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am just wondering if perhaps the Senator from Kentucky, who has dual responsibilities as chairman of this subcommittee and as the Republican whip--maybe we should talk in our respective cloakrooms--we have a number of people we know who want to offer amendments--that we get perhaps a unanimous consent agreement, and the time we can work out, sequencing each of those amendments. I don't know about time at the moment. I am trying to think of some way-- we have been on this bill since Friday. A lot of us have other matters to attend to, including meetings with the President's nominee to the Supreme Court. Senator McConnell and I have sat here through hours of quorum calls. I think it is time to fish or cut bait. I say this to our cloakrooms, this may soon turn into a unanimous consent agreement and will require each of these amendments to come up and either be voted on or withdrawn. I don't know how else we get it done. We have been several hours in quorum calls so far, and some of us have other things to do. I have no problem with somebody getting a vote. Vote for it or against it, but let's get it done.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1255, as Modified

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I certainly want to extradict or bring back to America people who have committed crimes here. But I understand and I agree with the Bush administration, which is strongly opposed to this amendment. The administration letter says, in part, for example, Israel, in some cases, has refused to extradict its nationals. Jordan, with whom we have a treaty, has a court ruling that the treaty is not in force. The amendment does not take into account that the Government does not have treaties in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere. Under this amendment, for example, a few years ago when a young man committed a heinous murder in Maryland--he had dual citizenship with Israel and fled to Israel--Israel would not send him back; in that case, we would have had to cut off all aid to Israel. That may be what Senators want to do. I point that out. That is why the administration so strongly opposes the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would concur completely with the Senator from Kentucky on the people he has praised. He has left out one, himself. I praise the work he has done. We worked very closely together on this. I know that Tim Rieser on my side worked so closely with Paul Grove, and I appreciate the bipartisan nature of that. I thank Kate Eltrich; the newest member on our side, Jennifer Park; of course, Paul Grove, Tom Hawkins, Harry Christy, and LaShawnda Smith on the chairman's side. It has been very good. I think we could probably go on to final passage.