Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am advised these amendments are cleared by all the parties with interest on this side of the aisle.

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

Mr. LEAHY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky said earlier, we are on the Foreign Operations, State Department bill. We have virtually completed our work. There is a pending amendment. We are going to be ready very soon to go to third reading. We have had a number of Members say they might have an amendment, and I am delighted to hear that, but if they ``might,'' they might want to do it while the bill is still on the floor because it is going to be gone. Some of these amendments are very well thought out. Some Members have their press releases already written. But if Members want the press release released--as well as the well-thought-out amendment--one might want to do it while the bill is on the floor. I have no desire to hold up this piece of legislation. Senator McConnell has no desire to hold up this legislation. We spent several hours of quorum calls Friday and today. If Members are serious about an amendment, bring it to the floor. Otherwise, from this Senator's point of view, as soon as there is not an amendment pending, I will have no objection to moving to third reading. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am advised these amendments are cleared by all the parties with interest on this side of the aisle.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I totally concur with the senior Senator from Kentucky. Friday, both he and I were here in a rather lonely Chamber, I might say. We would have been happy to have gone to third reading on Friday. We were advised Members on both sides of the aisle had matters to come before this committee. Of course, extending the normal courtesy managers do on such bills, we did not go to third reading so we could accommodate those Members. We are fast approaching that time. Frankly, if we reach a time tomorrow where we are ready to wrap up this bill, I will join with the Senator from Kentucky in doing that. I note to all Members that the bill is different than it has been in past years. We have both the operations of the State Department as well as what we normally consider the foreign aid bill. There are a number of items in the bill strongly supported by both Democrats and Republicans and a number of items sought by the President as part of his efforts in foreign policy. We have crafted what, by anybody's measure, has to be considered a bipartisan piece of legislation, one that should get overwhelming support by this body. We have taken into consideration those items the White House needs in the normal conduct of foreign affairs, as well as those items the State Department needs in their normal operations. But we still have to pass the bill. The bill, if it was brought to a vote right now, would pass overwhelmingly. But it still has to pass. I have never served as either leader of the Senate, but I sympathize with them. The leaders of this Senate--majority leaders Senator Mansfield, Senator Byrd, Senator Baker, Senator Dole, Senator Mitchell, Senator Lott, Senator Frist, as well as their counterparts--Senator Scott, Senator Griffin, and some of the same Senators I mentioned served as both minority and majority leaders, and Senator Reid. It is not an easy job to schedule the Senate. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is the deputy Republican leader. He knows that. We are trying to accommodate him. We have done everything Senator Frist or Senator Reid have asked us to do in moving this bill forward. With a little cooperation from everybody else, we can wrap up this bill and get on to other matters because we still have to go to conference, which I would like to get to very quickly so we can get a final package before the Senate. I say that hoping someone will hear and know what the heck we are talking about, other than Supreme Court Justices. We really do want to get this bill wrapped up. Please do because once we reach a point with the amendments, we are going to vote them up or down and finish the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), I have submitted a petition to discharge the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works from consideration of S.J. Res. 20, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the rule relating to the delisting of coal and oil-direct utility units from the source category list under the Clean Air Act, submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under chapter 8 title 5, United States Code, the Congressional Review Act. Discharge Petition We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with Chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, hereby direct that the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 20, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relating to the delisting of coal and oil-direct utility units from the source category list under the Clean Air Act, and further, that the resolution be placed upon the Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Patrick Leahy, Jim Jeffords, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Tom Carper, Jon S. Corzine, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, John F. Kerry, Maria Cantwell, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Dayton, Harry Reid, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Russell D. Feingold, Tom Harkin, Herb Kohl, Frank R. Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, Patty Murray, Paul Sarbanes, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Carl Levin, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jack Reed, Charles Schumer, Ron Wyden, Daniel K. Akaka.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Eric Williams, an intern in my office, be given floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill today or any other day it may extend.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with what the chairman has said. There is no reason we cannot move very quickly on this bill. In fact, I encourage anybody who has an amendment to come to the floor because if we reach any point where there is not an amendment pending, I am going to be very happy to go to third reading. It has been a long time since we acted on a Foreign Operations appropriations bill this early in the year. I thank both Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd for that. Again, I say there is no reason we could not pass this bill by tonight or Monday afternoon at the latest. I repeat and emphasize that I want those watching, if they have an amendment, to come forward. Both Senator McConnell and I have worked very hard to accommodate amendments that both Republicans and Democrats had in this bill. Thanks to the budget allocations we had, we were able to accommodate most of the requests we received from Members and do it in a totally bipartisan way. Senator McConnell deserves a great deal of credit for producing a well-crafted bipartisan bill. I praise him for that. This may not help him back home--to get this kind of praise from a Democrat--but he deserves it. I don't agree with everything in the bill, but neither does Senator McConnell. That is why this process works. It is a bill that should receive broad support. We have tried to take into consideration the concerns of Republicans and Democrats. So I thank him and his very capable staff for the way they have worked with me and my staff. If I might digress for a moment, we read a lot in the press about the partisanship in the Congress and how that affects getting our work done. I note that appropriations bills seem to go through the subcommittees, the full committee, and the Senate floor. I think that is because the Appropriations Committee, by its nature, has attracted many of the senior members of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, and we are used to working together with each other. Without sounding like those who reminisce a little bit too much about the good old days, I came here 31 years ago. Senator Mike Mansfield was the Democratic leader, and Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania was the Republican leader. Senior Members of the Senate of both parties worked to get things done. That is what we do in the Appropriations Committee. We work together. The country benefits by it. I am not going to talk about all the provisions in the bill. The chairman has touched on several of the key accounts. He focused new resources on democracy programs, most of which I agree with. He funded most of the President's priorities. We have restored cuts in the international health and development programs that Members strongly support. We were not able to fund the Millennium Challenge Corporation at the level the President wanted. I discussed this with the White House. It will be interesting to see; if it picks up steam and shows positive results, I suspect we are going to provide the funds it needs. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has much in its goals with which we all agree. I think it is fair to say Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about how slowly it began. There seems to be more effort putting the bureaucracy in place than getting the program out. I know the President has had similar concerns, and the leadership has now changed. I think that is good. It was a concern to many of us that it only was operating in a couple of very small places. Now it may go to others. I was in Morocco with several other Senators recently. We saw some of the areas where it might well work. I would like to see it pick up steam and show positive results. In the meantime, however, until it does, there is no need to set aside huge amounts of money if it is not going to be used and there are other programs that desperately need money. The bill, for the first time, contains funds for the State Department's operations. This used to be under a different subcommittee. Now we have it. We provide the President and Secretary of State with much of what they asked--most of what they asked, in fact. For educational and cultural exchanges, which are popular with Republicans and Democrats, we provide even more in the request. Let me mention a few other items. We provide $900 million for refugees, a substantial increase over last year. We felt strongly we should do considerably more for the world's neediest people. One has only to go to some of these refugee camps or hear about them to realize how terrible it is. Unfortunately, we will see them briefly on the news, almost as though this is a filler for the evening news in between celebrity trials in this country. Then we do not see it again, and we tend to think the suffering has gone away. In some of these refugee camps, children are being born in the morning and dying in the afternoon--mothers also. People are dying of diseases that would create no problem in this country because we would be immunized against them. They are dying of starvation, they are dying of mistreatment, and it goes on every single day. It is unfortunate that a celebrity trial will get significant coverage on the evening news; the suffering in places such as Darfur will not. We need to appeal to the conscience of this great and good Nation. Most Americans are appalled by what they see, but many Americans never get to see it because not enough attention is given. We have included $30 million for a new initiative to combat six debilitating diseases such as elephantiasis and intestinal parasites. These cause terrible inflictions for millions of people, many of them children. We never see these in our country because they are easily prevented. They can be cured with minuscule amounts of money, and they have been neglected for far too long. Many of these diseases, especially in Africa, will cause people to be almost condemned to debilitating diseases, children to horrible parasites, and yet for sometimes pennies, at the most a few dollars, it can be prevented and their life, their hell on Earth, could be prevented. We have included $105 million for antimalaria programs. A portion of that will be used to fund the President's new malaria initiative, which I strongly support. We provide another $10 million for USAID's Amazon basin and conservation strategy, and we maintain funding for other programs protecting the environment. Again, I urge this money be spent to actually do it, that it actually go into the conservation strategy. We know it needs to be done. We do not need to enlarge bureaucracies in Washington. We need to be on the ground doing the work. We include additional conditions on our assistance to Nepal on account of the Nepalese King's attempts to dismantle the fledgling democracy there. My key staff member on Foreign Operations, Tim Rieser, was recently in that country. We know the King's decision to dissolve the government, arrest political opponents, and restrict the press is making a solution to that conflict more elusive, isolating Nepal both politically and economically. We include conditions on funding for the demobilization of foreign terrorist organizations in Colombia. The framework that was recently approved by the Colombian Congress falls far short of what is minimally required to dismantle these horrible terrorist organizations. We restore the administration's proposed $11 million cut in our contribution to UNICEF. This saves millions of children's lives. When this country speaks of helping others, why would we be cutting money out of UNICEF? It would have been unthinkable to go along with that cut. There is a great deal more, and I again commend Senator McConnell for what I believe is one of the best foreign operations bills in recent years. We are going to have a difficult conference with the other body, but if we get the conference budget allocations we need, we should end up with a good result. I hope Senators who have amendments will make sure they belong on this bill; this is not an authorization bill, this is an appropriations bill--and bring the amendments as soon as they can. Mr. President, the chairman has stepped off the floor for a moment. I am about to suggest the absence of a quorum, but not quite yet. I repeat, if there are Senators who have amendments, come forward with them. I will be very happy to go to third reading--let's see, it is 20 minutes of 11. I would certainly be willing to wait 5 or 10 minutes to see if anybody has an amendment. I will be glad to do that. I don't think either side requires a rollcall vote. More seriously, Mr. President, America is the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth. It is a nation with a great moral core. We saw that during the terrible tsunami in recent months, when we poured out aid from this country, not only our Government but even greater amounts from individuals. I know in my church and most people's churches, their synagogues, their mosques, there were collections for money to help aid the tsunami victims. Civic groups, other groups, the Red Cross, Catholic Relief Services, and so many others raising money in the various service clubs--Lion's, Rotary, Kiwanis--it reflects the nature of Americans. We help our neighbors when they are in trouble. We help our neighbors even when they are on the other side of the globe. So much of what goes on we don't see. We don't see the millions of children who die each year. We don't see the horrible percentage of paternal deaths. We don't see these debilitating and crippling diseases that could so easily be cured. We don't see the need to provide, such as Senator Dole and Senator McGovern proposed, a school lunch program in many poor parts of the world so not only boys but girls would go to school, too, and thus bring about a positive change in society over the years. We spend well under 1 percent of our budget on help. Frankly, I feel we should do more. I think the American people put forward our best face, and we can do even more. As we eradicate disease, as we eradicate hunger, as we give people an opportunity to create their own businesses, sometimes a microenterprise, we are doing things with which most of the world will agree. In a time when we find so many in the world disagree with the United States--something I, as an American, find very disturbing--let's put forward this great face of America, a face I have known from my childhood on and all of us have known all our lives. Let's put forth this great reservoir of goodness and generosity of the American people. Let the rest of the world see it. I guarantee, we will find a lot of other countries will step up and join us because this is something that should unite us and not divide us from the rest of the world. Mr. President, I see the chairman is back on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct in understanding this is a 10- minute rollcall vote?

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I cannot in good conscience support the CAFTA agreement as proposed by the Administration. I reviewed this agreement carefully and evaluated the arguments of both sides. Exports play a central role in the economy of my home State of Vermont, where some of the finest specialized goods in the world are made, from computer chips to cheese. Free and fair trade benefits us as Vermonters, and it benefits the country. I have often voted in favor of various trade agreements, including NAFTA and recent bilateral trade accords with Jordan, Singapore, and Chile. I strongly believe free trade and the agreements that facilitate it will be critical to the well being of my State and our country in the years ahead. But we have a responsibility to ourselves and those we trade with to make sure these agreements are soundly predicated, are fair to both sides, are constructed to advance the interests of the many and not just a few, and that they will protect the environment upon which we all ultimately depend. I do not believe this trade agreement adequately meets these tests, and I cannot in good conscience vote for CAFTA. I have great respect for some of Central America's leaders who favor this agreement. I know they have the interests of their countries at heart. But I believe they overstate the positive effects this agreement would have and give too little weight to negative effects. The weak labor and environmental provisions of this agreement will do little to help the hardworking men and women of Latin America, and in fact may make their already difficult lives even harder and more dangerous. I also believe that this agreement is a diversion from the larger trade issues that will make a real difference for the long-term health of our own economy. This deal should be carefully and conscientiously re-negotiated to adequately address these pressing concerns. There has been a lot of ink spilled from the administration and from groups representing particular interests arguing that CAFTA will be a significant boost to the U.S. economy. When you are talking about Central American economies that have a combined gross domestic product of a medium-sized U.S. city, this argument just does not carry weight. Yes, U.S. consumers might be able to buy some Central American exports at a cheaper price. And, yes, U.S. manufacturers might gain greater access to these markets. But these countries are so small that the impact on the U.S. economy will be negligible. For instance, this agreement would help the dairy producers in my home State of Vermont only marginally, at the very best. We all know that when we talk about trade, what makes a real difference for the economy is trade with our larger trading partners-- Europe, the NAFTA countries of Canada and Mexico, several Far East Asian countries--but, above all, China. Yet we have an enormous trade deficit with China today that threatens interest rates and the strength of the dollar. China has maintained an artificially low exchange rate, removed voluntary export quotas, and continually infringed on international patents and copyrights. It does not seem that this administration has any strategy for dealing with these unfair trade practices, let alone with the fact that China's GDP is growing at almost 10 percent every year and will challenge us economically in the decades ahead. It is a wonder to me that the administration is seeking trade agreements that are not part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with this kind of continually escalating foreign competition. While this agreement will not make much difference for our economy, it is likely to have significant negative impacts on the countries of Central America, and we should be concerned for the people of those impoverished countries. Over the past several decades, dictatorships, civil wars and fierce class struggles have buffeted the region, particularly during the Cold War when the larger geopolitical struggle--in which we were a central player--exploited and heightened these local tensions. These countries have set out on a new, democratic path over the past year, and our foreign policy should encourage these favorable developments. Unfortunately, the weak labor and environmental laws of these countries and the complete failure of this agreement to elevate and strengthen those standards ensures that any growth that rises out of the agreement is unlikely to translate into significant real gains for everyday workers and the broader population. Under CAFTA, participating countries are only forced to abide by their own often weak and rarely enforced labor laws. Sadly, an oligarchic culture persists in these countries, whereby wealthy business and landowners rarely trickle down profits to the hardworking men and women who do the work. Without stronger labor provisions that provide increased benefits and protections to workers, CAFTA will do little to change that culture. A recent World Bank report on the agreement found that Central American countries will have to boost spending for schools and rural infrastructure to take full advantage of the agreement's benefits. Those investments are not realistically forthcoming, and this administration has not shown a serious commitment to supporting this type of development in those nations to make up the difference. This is a lost opportunity. At the same time, CAFTA will displace poor subsistence farmers who will abandon their land and follow in the footsteps of those who have come illegally to the United States in search of employment. And CAFTA will contribute to ongoing environmental problems associated with manufacturing and the pesticides used in large-scale agriculture. I urge the President to send his trade negotiating team back down to Central America to rework this deal. We need a better agreement that reaches the so-called Jordan Standard, including the strong labor and environmental provisions of the United States-Jordan Bilateral Free Trade Agreement that we ratified a few years ago. More importantly, I hope the President will deal with the mounting pile of economic and trade problems that really do have profound consequences to our economy and the living standards of the American people. Let's come up with a broader approach to trade that addresses unfair trading practices, that reduces our ballooning trade deficit, that boosts our economy, and that protects the environment and the rights of workers. I look forward to working with this or any other administration on these challenges. I cannot cast a vote for an agreement like this that over-promises and under-delivers to the workers of our own country and to the people of Central America.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at a Defense Department news briefing in December 2001, a reporter asked Secretary Rumsfeld why we should use Guantanamo Bay to hold detainees. Secretary Rumsfeld's answer was that he ``would characterize Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as the least worst place we could have selected.'' This was hardly a ringing endorsement. Now, 4\1/2\ years later, the administration and its defenders have been trying to change the subject from the legal morass that Guantanamo has become, and to argue that Guantanamo is like an island resort, with great food, top-notch medical care, and a view of the ocean. These arguments are distractions from the real issue, which is the needless way that the administration's unilateralism in its decisions about Guantanamo have compromised American principles and ideals and weakened our moral leadership in the world. If the administration has improved conditions at the prison, I am glad to know it. We may now run the most humane prison in the most scenic location in the world. But it is still a prison. Many prisoners have been kept in cells for more than 3 years without being charged and without a meaningful process to evaluate or challenge their detention. Regardless of how well the detainees are treated, it is not the American way to detain them indefinitely without an adequate hearing. These policies are not only beneath us, but they have radicalized an untold number of Muslims around the world. Even Secretary Rumsfeld had to admit last year that he did not know whether we were ``capturing, killing or dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us.'' This is important because it is the ideals of the American people and of our great and good country, and our longstanding commitment to the rule of law, that are being compromised. These are not the policies of a great nation like ours, and this is not the American system of justice that has been a beacon to the entire world. We need not trade away our values and the principles that have guided us in order to feel safer or to be safer. And if we do that, we give those who would harm us a victory they could not win on any battlefield, and we cede leverage to them that they will never deserve. Everyone in Congress agrees that we must capture and detain terrorist suspects, but it can and should be done in accordance with the laws of war and in a manner that upholds our commitment to the rule of law. In our recent hearing on detainees, Senator Graham, a former Air Force lawyer who still serves in the Reserves, said that once enemy combatant status has been conferred upon someone, ``it is almost impossible not to envision that some form of prosecution would follow.'' He continued, ``We can do this and be a rule of law nation. We can prove to the world that even among the worst people in the world, the rule of law is not an inconsistent concept.'' We know that some of the detainees have been wrongly detained. And many suspect there are others who have not yet been released, against whom the evidence is weak at best. In a January 8, 2005, New York Times article, a senior American official claimed ``that the vast majority of the 550 prisoners now held at the American detention center at Guantanamo no longer had any intelligence value and were no longer being regularly interrogated.'' The article also quotes a veteran interrogator at Guantanamo who told the New York Times that it ``became clear over time that most of the detainees had little useful to say and that they were just swept up during the Afghanistan war with little evidence they played any significant role.'' The administration says these detainees are the ``worst of the worst'' and pose a continuing threat to the safety of Americans. If that is true, there must be at least basic evidence to support it. No one advocates releasing terrorists. But it is the American way to provide a fair process to ensure that the detainees at Guantanamo really are a threat to our Nation. In a break with military tradition and regulations, the administration denied detainees even the limited process contemplated by Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, and established the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, CSRT, only after being rebuked by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush. The CSRT affirmed the ``enemy combatant'' status of the Guantanamo detainees based on secret evidence to which the detainees were denied access, raising serious questions about the fairness of the process. It is time for Congress to focus on the real issue, which is defending American ideals and our commitment to the rule of law. The chicken at Guantanamo may be wonderful, but this matters little to America's core values if we are imprisoning some people who may have been wrongly accused of supporting terrorism and who have no way to challenge their detention. The administration is trumpeting the humane treatment of detainees at Guantanamo as a diversion. Guantanamo is a symbol of the needless problems created by the unilateral ways this administration has chosen to proceed since 9/11. It is being used to deflect attention from this administration's deliberate rejection of the rule of law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week a number of Senators urged the President, if a vacancy were to arise on the Supreme Court, to consult with Senators from both parties. I commend, in particular, Senator Kennedy, a former Judiciary Committee chairman for his perspective on this and thank him for his diligence in helping make this essential point in his statements again this week. Forty-four Senators sent the President a joint letter urging consultation and a consensus nomination. In addition, I understand that Senators Nelson and Salazar have also urged consultation. Likewise the 14 Senators in the bipartisan group that averted the nuclear option included strong language in their agreement urging bipartisan consultation by the President. They wrote: We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate. We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold. I agree. Bipartisan consultation is consistent with the traditions of the Senate and would return us to practices that have served the country well. They are right to urge greater consultation on judicial nominations. Last week some on the other side of the aisle criticized me for offering to help the President should a Supreme Court vacancy arise. At the time, I said I stood ready to work with President Bush to help him select a nominee to the Supreme Court who can unite Americans. In spite of the unfair criticism, I reiterate today my willingness to help. I have urged consultation and cooperation for 4 our years and have continued to reach out over these last few weeks to the President. I hope that if a vacancy does arise the President will finally turn away from his past practices, consult with us and work with us. I am troubled by the divisive battle lines being drawn by some right- wing groups that have launched attack ads in recent weeks. They attack Democratic Senators generally and individually in advance of a vacancy or a nomination. The other side has established a new low by going ``negative'' in advance and being critical in anticipation of a fight that I and others here in the Senate are working to avoid. The partisan activists supporting the White House have boasted for weeks about their war chest of upwards of $20 million to be used to crush any opposition to this White House's selection. They have now chosen to fire a nasty preemptive strike in what they intend to make all-out partisan political warfare. If the White House intends to follow that plan, it will be most unfortunate, unwise and counterproductive. I have urged, Democrats have urged a better way. Although the landscape ahead is sown with the potential for controversy and contention should a vacancy arise on the Supreme Court, confrontation is unnecessary. Consensus should be our mutual goal. I hope the President's objective will not follow the path he has taken with so many divisive circuit court nominees and send the Senate a Supreme Court nominee so polarizing that confirmation is eked out in the narrowest of margins. This would come at a steep and gratuitous price that the entire Nation would have to pay in needless division. It would serve the country better to choose a qualified consensus candidate who can be broadly supported by the public and by the Senate. The process will begin with the President. He is the only participant in the process who can nominate candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies. If there is a vacancy, the decisions made in the White House will determine whether the nominee chosen will unite the Nation or will divide the Nation. The power to avoid political warfare with regard to the Supreme Court is in the hands of the President. Senate Democrats are not spoiling for a fight however much partisans on the other side may be. The person who will decide whether there will be a divisive or unifying process and nomination is the President. If consensus is a goal, bipartisan consultation will help achieve it. That is what the American people want and what they deserve. The Supreme Court should not be a wing of the Republican party, nor should it be an arm of the Democrat party. If the rightwing activists convince the President to choose a divisive nominee, they will not prevail without a difficult Senate battle. And if they do, what will they have wrought? The American people will be the losers: The legitimacy of the judiciary will have suffered a damaging blow from which it may not soon recover. Such a contest would itself confirm that the Supreme Court is just another setting for partisan contests and partisan outcomes. People will perceive the Federal courts as places in which ``the fix is in.'' I take the President at his word. He made a public commitment at a press conference several weeks ago to consult with Democratic as well as Republican Senators should a Supreme Court vacancy arise. If there were to be a vacancy, I look forward to consulting with the President. Our Constitution establishes an independent Federal judiciary to be a bulwark of individual liberty against incursions or expansions of power by the political branches. That independence is what makes our judiciary the model for others around the world. That independence is at grave risk when a President seeks to pack the courts with activists from either side of the political spectrum. We need fair judges, not sure votes for a partisan agenda. The American people will cheer if the President chooses someone who unifies the Nation. This is not the time and a vacancy on this Supreme Court is not the setting in which to accentuate the political and ideological division within our country. In our lifetimes, there has never been a greater need for a unifying pick for the Supreme Court. At a time when too many partisans seem fixated on devising strategies to force the Senate to confirm the most extreme candidate with the least number of votes possible, Democratic Senators are urging cooperation and consultation to bring the country together. There is no more important opportunity than this to lead the Nation in a direction of cooperation and unity. The independence of the Federal judiciary is critical to our American concept of justice for all. We all want Justices who exhibit the kind of fidelity to the law that we all respect. We want them to have a strong commitment to our shared constitutional values of individual liberties and equal protection. We expect them to have had a demonstrated record of commitment to equal rights. There are many conservatives who can meet these criteria and who are not rigid ideologues. This is a difficult time for our country and we face many challenges. The President addressed the Nation about the difficult situation in Iraq just this week. We need to confront the truth about the situation in Iraq and develop a concrete strategy rather than the swaggering rhetoric we hear so much of lately. We need to do more about the rising gas prices and health care costs that burden so many Americans. We need to improve the economic prospects of Americans. We need to work together to defend against real threats, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and disruption of critical food, water, energy and information services. It is my hope that we can work together on many issues important to the American people, including maintaining a fair and independent judiciary. I am confident that a smooth nomination and confirmation process can be developed on a bipartisan basis if we work together. The American people we represent and serve are entitled to no less. Justice Thomas remarked this past Tuesday on the ``winds of controversy swirling . . . about the imagined resignations'' from the Supreme Court. We were all reminded, again, this week of the humanity of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He concluded this year's term with dignity, humour and steadfastness. Despite the rampant speculation that continued this week, I know that the Chief Justice will retire when he decides that he should, not before. He has earned that right after serving on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years, the last 19 as the Chief Justice. I have great respect and affection for him and he is in our prayers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, along with Senator Collins and 28 of our colleagues, today I am introducing this resolution to halt the Bush administration's flawed and dangerous new rule on toxic mercury emissions. I am pleased that another leading cosponsor of this resolution is the ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Jeffords. The Bush administration's new rule will continue to allow mercury, a substance so toxic that it causes birth defects and IQ loss, to continue to poison children and pregnant women. This disastrous rule should not be allowed to stand as the law of the land. The bipartisan work that produced the Clean Air Act and the 1990 amendments established a process for us to begin cleaning up the toxic mercury spewing out of dirty power plants across the country. The 1990 amendments require the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to control each power plant's emissions of mercury and other toxics by 2008 at the latest. The act requires each plant to use the ``maximum achievable control technology'' on every generating unit. That is the law of the land. Anything less means more pollution. But instead of working to enforce and implement the Clean Air Act, as two previous administrations had, the Bush administration has turned the Clean Air Act on its head. With this rule the administration revokes a 2000 EPA finding that it is ``necessary and appropriate'' to require that each power plant apply technology to reduce mercury emissions. Let me repeat those plain, startling facts: 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. Although I am somewhat impressed that they can make this statement with straight faces, I am appalled at their audacious disregard for the health of the American people, and, like the scientific community, I am baffled by their gymnastic arguments. The plain and simple truth is that this rule will allow more mercury into our environment than does the current law. Hundreds of the oldest, dirtiest power plants will not even control mercury emissions for more than a decade. That is what this rule gives us: More pollution, for longer than the Clean Air Act allows. This rule is all the more shameful because the evidence of public health and environmental damage from mercury and other toxics is clear enough for action right now. We do not need to wait 10 or 20 years to know the facts about mercury's threats to human health. In fact EPA itself admits these threats. Look at EPA's own estimate of the number of newborns at risk of elevated mercury exposure, which has doubled to 630,000. EPA also found that 1 in 6 pregnant women has mercury levels in her blood above EPA's safe threshold. The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed scientific research showing that maternal consumption of unsafe levels of mercury in fish can cause neuro- developmental harm in children, resulting in learning disabilities, poor motor function, mental retardation, seizures and cerebral palsy. Yet it seems the majority in Congress and this administration want to avoid any public daylight on this flawed rule. The Environment and Public Works Committee has refused to even hold a single hearing on this rule. Their aim is to keep the public in the dark, and I would guess that most Americans in fact do not yet know what EPA and the big polluters have been up to with this rule. One reason for the administration's lack of candor clearly is the discovery that this rule has polluting industries' fingerprints all over it. EPA's first proposal for these rules lifted exact texts from memorandum provided by utility industry lobbyists. Another reason may be because the American people would find a process where the lobbyists are shut in and the public is shut out, where the scientific and economic analysis was manipulated, and where the public's health was ignored. But the administration's arrogance does not stop there. EPA's own inspector general and the Government Accountability Office criticized almost every aspect of how EPA drafted this rule. Unfortunately, their recommendations to improve it were also ignored. So were more than 680,000 public comments--a record for any EPA rule. So were the comments of many state environment departments, attorneys general, doctors, educators, sportsmen groups and EPA's own advisory committees. And, although it should not come as a surprise after 4 years working with this administration, the comments of 45 Senate and 184 House members were also ignored. Many of us in the Senate have spent the past 2 years--working with 3 different administrators--trying to make the administration follow the Clean Air Act and produce a rule that puts the public's health over the profits of special interests. A rule that heeds the science and encourages available technologies to solve this problem. They failed on all fronts, big time. Instead they produced a rule that will do nothing for at least a decade, despite years of analysis by EPA showing the need for quick action. According to EPA's own regulatory impact analysis, we will be lucky if 1 percent of power plant capacity will have mercury controls by 2015, and only 3 percent by 2020. As a Vermonter I know it is ``appropriate and necessary'' to limit the pollution plumes from grandfathered power plants. You cannot even see my state on EPA's maps showing mercury pollution because so much of it is being dumped on us from upwind power plants. Vermonters and New Englanders have been waiting for decades for EPA to take action so that our lakes can be cleaned up. For all their talk of family values, the administration has yet again put the value of corporate contributions--not families--first. It is not a family value to tell a whole generation of women that their health is not important. It is not a family value to put another generation of young kids at risk of learning disabilities. These mercury rules do just that. It is time to put people first, and to stop letting the big polluters and the special interests write the rules and run the show over at EPA. This resolution will ensure that the health and safety of U.S. citizens are fully considered, before EPA rescinds its commitment to protect public health from the dangers of mercury pollution. To leave mercury pollution from power plants as the only source of toxic air pollution that is allowed to avoid rigorous emissions standards under the Clean Air Act is a risk to the public's health that we need not, and should not, accept. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we introduce the Specter-Leahy Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. Reforms are urgently needed to protect Americans' privacy and to secure their personal data. There have been steady waves of security breaches over the past 6 months, with the latest involving a database containing 40 million credit card numbers at a company that most Americans never knew existed. These security breaches are a window on a broader, more challenging trend. Advanced technologies have improved our lives and can help make us safer. Private data about Americans has become a hot commodity. This personal and financial information about each of us suddenly is a treasure trove, valuable and vulnerable, but our privacy and security laws have not kept pace. The reality is that in the digital era, a robust market has developed for collecting and selling personal information. Today, all types of corporate and governmental entities routinely traffic in billions of digitized personal records about Americans. The data broker market has exploded in size to meet this demand. Insecure databases are now low-hanging fruit for hackers looking to steal identities and commit fraud. We are seeing a rise in organized rings that target personal data to sell in online, virtual bazaars. In this information-saturated age, the use of personal data has significant consequences for every American. People have lost jobs, mortgages and control over their credit and identities because personal information has been mishandled or listed incorrectly. This trend raises new threats to our personal security as well as to our privacy. In one disturbing case, a stalker purchased the Social Security number of a woman with whom he was obsessed, used that information to track her down. He killed her, and then shot himself. Americans everywhere are wondering, ``Why do all these companies have my personal information? What are they doing with it? Why aren't they protecting it better?'' And they are right to wonder. It is time for Congress to catch up with the data market and to show the American people that we are aware of these threats and will protect the privacy and security of their personal information. Chairman Specter and I have worked closely together over many months to craft comprehensive legislation to fix key vulnerabilities in our information economy. We thought through these issues carefully and took the time needed to develop well-balanced, focused legislation that provides strong protections where necessary. We also provide tough penalties and consequences for failing to protect Americans' most personal information. Reforms like these are long overdue. This issue and our legislation deserve to become a key part of this year's domestic agenda so that we can achieve some positive changes in areas that affect the everyday lives of Americans. First, our bill requires data brokers to let people know what information they have about them, and to allow people to correct inaccurate information. These principles have precedent from the credit report context, and we have adapted them in a way that makes sense for the data brokering industry. It's a simple matter of fairness. Second, we would require companies that have databases with personal information on Americans to establish and implement data privacy and security programs. Any company that wants to be trusted by the public in this day and age must vigilantly protect databases housing Americans' private data. They also have a responsibility in the next link in the security chain, to make sure that contractors hired to process data are on the up-and-up and secure. This is critical as Americans' personal information is increasingly processed overseas. Third, our bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The American people have a right to know when they are at risk because of corporate failures to protect their data, or when a criminal has infiltrated data systems. The notice rules in our bill were crafted carefully to ensure that the trigger for notice is tied to risk and to recognize important fraud prevention techniques that already exist. But our priority was making sure that victims have that critical information as a roadmap providing the assistance necessary to protect themselves, their families and their financial well-being. Fourth, our bill provides tough new protections for Social Security numbers, which are the keys to unlocking so much of our financial and personal lives. The use of Social Security numbers has expanded well beyond the intended purposes. Some uses provide important benefits, but others have made Americans vulnerable. Social Security numbers are for sale online for small fees. Earlier this year, it was reported that a payroll and benefits company put the Social Security numbers of 1,000 workers on postcards--on postcards--brazenly visible for anyone to see. Worse still, those postcards described in detail how those Social Security numbers could be used to access employee benefits online. This is unacceptable, and this bill would make that kind of disregard and sloppiness illegal. Finally, our bill addresses the government's use of personal data. We are living in a world where the government is increasingly looking to the private sector to get personal data that it could not legally collect on its own without oversight and appropriate protections. So ingrained has the data broker-government partnership become that a ChoicePoint executive stated, ``We do act as an intelligence agency, gathering data, applying analytics.'' While these relationships can help protect us, there must be oversight and appropriate protections. The recent decision to award ChoicePoint an IRS contract highlights this tension. It is especially galling right now to be rewarding firms that have been so careless with the public's confidential information. The dust has not yet settled and the investigations are incomplete on ChoicePoint's lax security practices. We should at least take a pause before rewarding such missteps with even more government contracts. This bill would place privacy and security front and center in evaluating whether data brokers can be trusted with government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people. It would require contract reviews that include these considerations, audits to ensure good practice, and contract penalties for failure to protect data privacy and security. The Specter-Leahy legislation meets other key goals. It provides tough monetary and criminal penalties for compromising personal data or failing to provide necessary protections. This creates an incentive for companies to protect personal information, especially when there is no commercial relationship between individuals and companies using their data. Our legislation also carefully balances the need for Federal uniformity and State leadership. States are often on the forefront of protecting privacy and spurring change. The California security breach law has been an important lesson. My State of Vermont was among the first--if not the first--to require individual consent before sharing financial information with third parties, and to require a person or business to obtain consent from individuals before reviewing their credit reports. The role of States is important, and our bill identifies areas that require uniformity while leaving the States free to act elsewhere as they see fit. We also would authorize an additional $100 million over 4 years to help state law enforcement fight misuse of personal information. This is a solid bill--a comprehensive bill--that not only deals with providing Americans notice when they have already been hurt, but also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability in dealing with their most personal and private information. I commend Senator Specter for his leadership on this emerging problem. A number of us have been working on these issues--Senator Feinstein, Senator Nelson, Senator Cantwell and Senator Schumer, among others. I appreciate and recognize their hard work and look forward to making progress together. I am pleased to work closely with Senator Specter on this and believe that we have a bill that significantly advances the ball in protecting Americans. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, along with Senator Collins and 28 of our colleagues, today I am introducing this resolution to halt the Bush administration's flawed and dangerous new rule on toxic mercury emissions. I am pleased that another leading cosponsor of this resolution is the ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Jeffords. The Bush administration's new rule will continue to allow mercury, a substance so toxic that it causes birth defects and IQ loss, to continue to poison children and pregnant women. This disastrous rule should not be allowed to stand as the law of the land. The bipartisan work that produced the Clean Air Act and the 1990 amendments established a process for us to begin cleaning up the toxic mercury spewing out of dirty power plants across the country. The 1990 amendments require the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to control each power plant's emissions of mercury and other toxics by 2008 at the latest. The act requires each plant to use the ``maximum achievable control technology'' on every generating unit. That is the law of the land. Anything less means more pollution. But instead of working to enforce and implement the Clean Air Act, as two previous administrations had, the Bush administration has turned the Clean Air Act on its head. With this rule the administration revokes a 2000 EPA finding that it is ``necessary and appropriate'' to require that each power plant apply technology to reduce mercury emissions. Let me repeat those plain, startling facts: 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. Although I am somewhat impressed that they can make this statement with straight faces, I am appalled at their audacious disregard for the health of the American people, and, like the scientific community, I am baffled by their gymnastic arguments. The plain and simple truth is that this rule will allow more mercury into our environment than does the current law. Hundreds of the oldest, dirtiest power plants will not even control mercury emissions for more than a decade. That is what this rule gives us: More pollution, for longer than the Clean Air Act allows. This rule is all the more shameful because the evidence of public health and environmental damage from mercury and other toxics is clear enough for action right now. We do not need to wait 10 or 20 years to know the facts about mercury's threats to human health. In fact EPA itself admits these threats. Look at EPA's own estimate of the number of newborns at risk of elevated mercury exposure, which has doubled to 630,000. EPA also found that 1 in 6 pregnant women has mercury levels in her blood above EPA's safe threshold. The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed scientific research showing that maternal consumption of unsafe levels of mercury in fish can cause neuro- developmental harm in children, resulting in learning disabilities, poor motor function, mental retardation, seizures and cerebral palsy. Yet it seems the majority in Congress and this administration want to avoid any public daylight on this flawed rule. The Environment and Public Works Committee has refused to even hold a single hearing on this rule. Their aim is to keep the public in the dark, and I would guess that most Americans in fact do not yet know what EPA and the big polluters have been up to with this rule. One reason for the administration's lack of candor clearly is the discovery that this rule has polluting industries' fingerprints all over it. EPA's first proposal for these rules lifted exact texts from memorandum provided by utility industry lobbyists. Another reason may be because the American people would find a process where the lobbyists are shut in and the public is shut out, where the scientific and economic analysis was manipulated, and where the public's health was ignored. But the administration's arrogance does not stop there. EPA's own inspector general and the Government Accountability Office criticized almost every aspect of how EPA drafted this rule. Unfortunately, their recommendations to improve it were also ignored. So were more than 680,000 public comments--a record for any EPA rule. So were the comments of many state environment departments, attorneys general, doctors, educators, sportsmen groups and EPA's own advisory committees. And, although it should not come as a surprise after 4 years working with this administration, the comments of 45 Senate and 184 House members were also ignored. Many of us in the Senate have spent the past 2 years--working with 3 different administrators--trying to make the administration follow the Clean Air Act and produce a rule that puts the public's health over the profits of special interests. A rule that heeds the science and encourages available technologies to solve this problem. They failed on all fronts, big time. Instead they produced a rule that will do nothing for at least a decade, despite years of analysis by EPA showing the need for quick action. According to EPA's own regulatory impact analysis, we will be lucky if 1 percent of power plant capacity will have mercury controls by 2015, and only 3 percent by 2020. As a Vermonter I know it is ``appropriate and necessary'' to limit the pollution plumes from grandfathered power plants. You cannot even see my state on EPA's maps showing mercury pollution because so much of it is being dumped on us from upwind power plants. Vermonters and New Englanders have been waiting for decades for EPA to take action so that our lakes can be cleaned up. For all their talk of family values, the administration has yet again put the value of corporate contributions--not families--first. It is not a family value to tell a whole generation of women that their health is not important. It is not a family value to put another generation of young kids at risk of learning disabilities. These mercury rules do just that. It is time to put people first, and to stop letting the big polluters and the special interests write the rules and run the show over at EPA. This resolution will ensure that the health and safety of U.S. citizens are fully considered, before EPA rescinds its commitment to protect public health from the dangers of mercury pollution. To leave mercury pollution from power plants as the only source of toxic air pollution that is allowed to avoid rigorous emissions standards under the Clean Air Act is a risk to the public's health that we need not, and should not, accept. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we introduce the Specter-Leahy Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. Reforms are urgently needed to protect Americans' privacy and to secure their personal data. There have been steady waves of security breaches over the past 6 months, with the latest involving a database containing 40 million credit card numbers at a company that most Americans never knew existed. These security breaches are a window on a broader, more challenging trend. Advanced technologies have improved our lives and can help make us safer. Private data about Americans has become a hot commodity. This personal and financial information about each of us suddenly is a treasure trove, valuable and vulnerable, but our privacy and security laws have not kept pace. The reality is that in the digital era, a robust market has developed for collecting and selling personal information. Today, all types of corporate and governmental entities routinely traffic in billions of digitized personal records about Americans. The data broker market has exploded in size to meet this demand. Insecure databases are now low-hanging fruit for hackers looking to steal identities and commit fraud. We are seeing a rise in organized rings that target personal data to sell in online, virtual bazaars. In this information-saturated age, the use of personal data has significant consequences for every American. People have lost jobs, mortgages and control over their credit and identities because personal information has been mishandled or listed incorrectly. This trend raises new threats to our personal security as well as to our privacy. In one disturbing case, a stalker purchased the Social Security number of a woman with whom he was obsessed, used that information to track her down. He killed her, and then shot himself. Americans everywhere are wondering, ``Why do all these companies have my personal information? What are they doing with it? Why aren't they protecting it better?'' And they are right to wonder. It is time for Congress to catch up with the data market and to show the American people that we are aware of these threats and will protect the privacy and security of their personal information. Chairman Specter and I have worked closely together over many months to craft comprehensive legislation to fix key vulnerabilities in our information economy. We thought through these issues carefully and took the time needed to develop well-balanced, focused legislation that provides strong protections where necessary. We also provide tough penalties and consequences for failing to protect Americans' most personal information. Reforms like these are long overdue. This issue and our legislation deserve to become a key part of this year's domestic agenda so that we can achieve some positive changes in areas that affect the everyday lives of Americans. First, our bill requires data brokers to let people know what information they have about them, and to allow people to correct inaccurate information. These principles have precedent from the credit report context, and we have adapted them in a way that makes sense for the data brokering industry. It's a simple matter of fairness. Second, we would require companies that have databases with personal information on Americans to establish and implement data privacy and security programs. Any company that wants to be trusted by the public in this day and age must vigilantly protect databases housing Americans' private data. They also have a responsibility in the next link in the security chain, to make sure that contractors hired to process data are on the up-and-up and secure. This is critical as Americans' personal information is increasingly processed overseas. Third, our bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The American people have a right to know when they are at risk because of corporate failures to protect their data, or when a criminal has infiltrated data systems. The notice rules in our bill were crafted carefully to ensure that the trigger for notice is tied to risk and to recognize important fraud prevention techniques that already exist. But our priority was making sure that victims have that critical information as a roadmap providing the assistance necessary to protect themselves, their families and their financial well-being. Fourth, our bill provides tough new protections for Social Security numbers, which are the keys to unlocking so much of our financial and personal lives. The use of Social Security numbers has expanded well beyond the intended purposes. Some uses provide important benefits, but others have made Americans vulnerable. Social Security numbers are for sale online for small fees. Earlier this year, it was reported that a payroll and benefits company put the Social Security numbers of 1,000 workers on postcards--on postcards--brazenly visible for anyone to see. Worse still, those postcards described in detail how those Social Security numbers could be used to access employee benefits online. This is unacceptable, and this bill would make that kind of disregard and sloppiness illegal. Finally, our bill addresses the government's use of personal data. We are living in a world where the government is increasingly looking to the private sector to get personal data that it could not legally collect on its own without oversight and appropriate protections. So ingrained has the data broker-government partnership become that a ChoicePoint executive stated, ``We do act as an intelligence agency, gathering data, applying analytics.'' While these relationships can help protect us, there must be oversight and appropriate protections. The recent decision to award ChoicePoint an IRS contract highlights this tension. It is especially galling right now to be rewarding firms that have been so careless with the public's confidential information. The dust has not yet settled and the investigations are incomplete on ChoicePoint's lax security practices. We should at least take a pause before rewarding such missteps with even more government contracts. This bill would place privacy and security front and center in evaluating whether data brokers can be trusted with government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people. It would require contract reviews that include these considerations, audits to ensure good practice, and contract penalties for failure to protect data privacy and security. The Specter-Leahy legislation meets other key goals. It provides tough monetary and criminal penalties for compromising personal data or failing to provide necessary protections. This creates an incentive for companies to protect personal information, especially when there is no commercial relationship between individuals and companies using their data. Our legislation also carefully balances the need for Federal uniformity and State leadership. States are often on the forefront of protecting privacy and spurring change. The California security breach law has been an important lesson. My State of Vermont was among the first--if not the first--to require individual consent before sharing financial information with third parties, and to require a person or business to obtain consent from individuals before reviewing their credit reports. The role of States is important, and our bill identifies areas that require uniformity while leaving the States free to act elsewhere as they see fit. We also would authorize an additional $100 million over 4 years to help state law enforcement fight misuse of personal information. This is a solid bill--a comprehensive bill--that not only deals with providing Americans notice when they have already been hurt, but also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability in dealing with their most personal and private information. I commend Senator Specter for his leadership on this emerging problem. A number of us have been working on these issues--Senator Feinstein, Senator Nelson, Senator Cantwell and Senator Schumer, among others. I appreciate and recognize their hard work and look forward to making progress together. I am pleased to work closely with Senator Specter on this and believe that we have a bill that significantly advances the ball in protecting Americans. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the introduction of the ANTI-Gang Act with my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Durbin, Kennedy and Feingold. The American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative-Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs Act of 2005 is a bill carefully crafted to target violent criminal street gangs whose activities extend beyond the neighborhood and have a substantial impact on Federal interests. As a former county prosecutor, I have long expressed concern about making Federal crimes out of every offense that comes to the attention of Congress. I know that States have competent and able police departments, county sheriffs' offices, prosecutors and judges. Gangs are, more often than not, locally-based, geographically-oriented criminal associations, and our local communities are on the front lines of the fight against gang violence. We should be supplementing the work of our State and local law enforcement officers, not usurping them. This is why this bill specifically targets only those gangs where there is a provable Federal interest. This is why this bill requires consultation with our State and local counterparts before embarking on a Federal prosecution of historically State crimes. And this is why major provisions of the bill are directed toward helping State and local law enforcement officers prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes in their own neighborhoods. There are four major sections of the bill: first, the bill gives State and local prosecutors financial resources to guard against neighborhood gangs by authorizing $62.5 million for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes; $50 million for grants to develop gang prevention, research, and intervention services; and $60 million for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. Federal funds are provided for hiring new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to fund technology, equipment and training grants to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate state and federal coordination. The first defense in protecting our youth against gang influence is a good offense. I have long thought that programs aimed at combating gang activity must incorporate gang prevention and education--programs that would examine why our youth choose to associate in gangs and prey on others--to be effective. When Senator Hatch appropriately targeted gang violence as a subject for a full Judiciary Committee hearing in 2003, all agreed that we should be doing more to deter our youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill heeds that call. Another unifying theme of the expert witnesses at the Committee's hearing was the serious need for Federal assistance in protecting witnesses who will provide information about and testify against gangs from intimidation. Our bill not only provides funding to help protect witnesses, it also makes it a Federal crime to intimidate witnesses in certain State prosecutions involving gang activity. Second, the bill defines a Federal criminal street gang by using well-established legal principles and providing recognizable limits. Rather than create yet another cumbersome and broad-reaching Federal crime that overlaps with numerous existing Federal statutes, this bill actually targets the problem that needs to be addressed: violent criminal street gangs. It recognizes that gangs are ongoing entities whose members commit crimes more easily simply because of their association with one another. Gangs prove the old adage: there is safety in numbers. Gang members can be sheep-like in their loyalty and allegiance to the gang. In this regard, the bill also explicitly and evenhandedly addresses the evidentiary significance of gang symbolism in gang prosecutions In addition to witness intimidation, other important crimes established by this bill include: 1. participation in criminal street gangs by any act that is intended to effect the criminal activities of the gang; 2. participation by committing a crime in furtherance of or for the benefit of the gang, and 3. recruitment and retention of gang members. There are increased penalties for those who target minors for recruitment in a criminal street gang. Third, the bill requires a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States, and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house additional prisoners, so that Congress can make an informed decision about whether or not to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders. Some have suggested that the Federal Government has been unable to proceed effectively against gang crime because of Federal law's protections for juvenile offenders. I have not seen sufficient evidence to support this claim, but I think that Congressional consideration of this issue would benefit greatly from a comprehensive General Accounting Office study on this topic. We need to know both whether justice would be served by increasing the Federal role, and whether the Federal system--including both our prosecutors and the Bureau of Prisons--is prepared for such a step. Fourth, the bill promotes the recruitment and retention of highly- qualified State and local prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for Federal employees. We have worked very hard in crafting this legislation not to further blur the lines between Federal and State law enforcement responsibilities or to add more burdens to the FBI as the primary Federal investigative agency. Federal law enforcement has been faced with a unique challenge since the September 11 attacks. The FBI is no longer just an enforcement agency, but also has a critical terrorism prevention mission. This mission is a daunting one, and our Federal law enforcement resources are not limitless. I, for one, do not want the FBI or U.S. Attorneys to focus these limited resources on cases that are best handled at the local level. Combating gang violence should not be a partisan battle. The tragedy of gang violence affects too many. No community can afford to lose a single youth to the arms of a waiting gang. No gang should be allowed to flourish without consequence in our communities. I urge the Senate's support for this important bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the introduction of the ANTI-Gang Act with my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Durbin, Kennedy and Feingold. The American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative-Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs Act of 2005 is a bill carefully crafted to target violent criminal street gangs whose activities extend beyond the neighborhood and have a substantial impact on Federal interests. As a former county prosecutor, I have long expressed concern about making Federal crimes out of every offense that comes to the attention of Congress. I know that States have competent and able police departments, county sheriffs' offices, prosecutors and judges. Gangs are, more often than not, locally-based, geographically-oriented criminal associations, and our local communities are on the front lines of the fight against gang violence. We should be supplementing the work of our State and local law enforcement officers, not usurping them. This is why this bill specifically targets only those gangs where there is a provable Federal interest. This is why this bill requires consultation with our State and local counterparts before embarking on a Federal prosecution of historically State crimes. And this is why major provisions of the bill are directed toward helping State and local law enforcement officers prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes in their own neighborhoods. There are four major sections of the bill: first, the bill gives State and local prosecutors financial resources to guard against neighborhood gangs by authorizing $62.5 million for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes; $50 million for grants to develop gang prevention, research, and intervention services; and $60 million for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. Federal funds are provided for hiring new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to fund technology, equipment and training grants to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate state and federal coordination. The first defense in protecting our youth against gang influence is a good offense. I have long thought that programs aimed at combating gang activity must incorporate gang prevention and education--programs that would examine why our youth choose to associate in gangs and prey on others--to be effective. When Senator Hatch appropriately targeted gang violence as a subject for a full Judiciary Committee hearing in 2003, all agreed that we should be doing more to deter our youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill heeds that call. Another unifying theme of the expert witnesses at the Committee's hearing was the serious need for Federal assistance in protecting witnesses who will provide information about and testify against gangs from intimidation. Our bill not only provides funding to help protect witnesses, it also makes it a Federal crime to intimidate witnesses in certain State prosecutions involving gang activity. Second, the bill defines a Federal criminal street gang by using well-established legal principles and providing recognizable limits. Rather than create yet another cumbersome and broad-reaching Federal crime that overlaps with numerous existing Federal statutes, this bill actually targets the problem that needs to be addressed: violent criminal street gangs. It recognizes that gangs are ongoing entities whose members commit crimes more easily simply because of their association with one another. Gangs prove the old adage: there is safety in numbers. Gang members can be sheep-like in their loyalty and allegiance to the gang. In this regard, the bill also explicitly and evenhandedly addresses the evidentiary significance of gang symbolism in gang prosecutions In addition to witness intimidation, other important crimes established by this bill include: 1. participation in criminal street gangs by any act that is intended to effect the criminal activities of the gang; 2. participation by committing a crime in furtherance of or for the benefit of the gang, and 3. recruitment and retention of gang members. There are increased penalties for those who target minors for recruitment in a criminal street gang. Third, the bill requires a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States, and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house additional prisoners, so that Congress can make an informed decision about whether or not to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders. Some have suggested that the Federal Government has been unable to proceed effectively against gang crime because of Federal law's protections for juvenile offenders. I have not seen sufficient evidence to support this claim, but I think that Congressional consideration of this issue would benefit greatly from a comprehensive General Accounting Office study on this topic. We need to know both whether justice would be served by increasing the Federal role, and whether the Federal system--including both our prosecutors and the Bureau of Prisons--is prepared for such a step. Fourth, the bill promotes the recruitment and retention of highly- qualified State and local prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for Federal employees. We have worked very hard in crafting this legislation not to further blur the lines between Federal and State law enforcement responsibilities or to add more burdens to the FBI as the primary Federal investigative agency. Federal law enforcement has been faced with a unique challenge since the September 11 attacks. The FBI is no longer just an enforcement agency, but also has a critical terrorism prevention mission. This mission is a daunting one, and our Federal law enforcement resources are not limitless. I, for one, do not want the FBI or U.S. Attorneys to focus these limited resources on cases that are best handled at the local level. Combating gang violence should not be a partisan battle. The tragedy of gang violence affects too many. No community can afford to lose a single youth to the arms of a waiting gang. No gang should be allowed to flourish without consequence in our communities. I urge the Senate's support for this important bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are voting on the Energy bill, which provides Congress with a historic opportunity. We should seize this opportunity and ensure that as this legislation goes to conference, the NOPEC bill, S. 555, remains an essential part of the underlying legislation. America's fuel crisis continues to take hard-earned money from our families, farmers, and businesses. When President Bush took office, the price of 1 gallon of regular gasoline was about $1.45. Today, that same gallon will cost an American at the pump more than $2.20. And yesterday, our financial markets closed with the ominous and unprecedented news that a barrel of crude oil now sells for more than $60 per barrel. We know that these prices have a real impact--a major shipping carrier announced disappointing earnings last week in part due to the high price of fuel--and yet the administration has done nothing to address the situation. In the face of continued inaction from the White House, it is time for Congress to substitute action for talk. It is time for us to finally pass NOPEC as part of the larger Energy bill. We should have considered and passed this bill, S. 555, on its own. This bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee for a second time with overwhelming support earlier this year. I have repeatedly called for its consideration by the Senate over the last several months. It is long past time for the Congress to hold OPEC accountable for its anticompetitive behavior. This amendment will release the United States from being at the mercy of the OPEC cartel by making them subject to our antitrust laws. It will allow the Federal Government to take legal action against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing and other anticompetitive activities in this regard. The President's solution to high gasoline prices this summer is to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, pristine wilderness area, to oil drilling. But drilling in ANWR will not provide any new oil for at least 7 to 12 years and will take an environmental toll. ANWR drilling will do absolutely nothing to help working Americans who have sticker shock at the gas pump or who will be facing record-high home heating prices in a few months. The Bush administration admits that its energy policies include no immediate help for gas prices and no short-term solutions. The NOPEC bill is a unique element of this legislation. It can do something immediately to help relieve the situation we face every time we fill-up at the pump. We should insist that it be retained, enacted, and implemented. I hope that Republican leadership does not demand this provision be removed but that if it does, the Senate stands firm on behalf of the American people. We should not squander this opportunity to address the real concerns of the American public.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Eric Boehm, in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor throughout the session today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr President. Earlier this month, Senator Cornyn and I introduced a simple and straightforward bill to strengthen open Government and the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. It was the third commonsense proposal on Government openness we have offered to the Senate this year. The Senator from Texas has a long record of promoting open government, most significantly during his tenure as attorney general of Texas. He and I have forged a productive partnership in this Congress to support and strengthen FOIA. We introduced two bills earlier this year and held a hearing on our bill, S. 394, the Open Government Act, during Sunshine Week in March. The bill we pass today simply requires that when Congress sees fit to provide a statutory exemption to FOIA, it must state its intention to do so explicitly. The language of this bill was previously introduced as section 8 of the Open Government Act. No one argues with the notion that some Government information is appropriately kept from public view. FOIA contains a number of exemptions for national security, law enforcement, confidential business information, personal privacy, and other matters. One provision of FOIA, commonly known as the (b)(3) exemption, states that records that are specifically exempted by statute may be withheld from disclosure. Many bills that are introduced contain statutory exemptions or contain language that is ambiguous and might be interpreted as such by the courts. In recent years, we have seen more and more such exemptions offered in legislation. A 2003 Justice Department report stated that Congress has been ``increasingly active in enacting such statutory provisions.'' A June 3, 2005, article by the Cox News Service titled, ``Congress Cloaks More Information in Secrecy,'' pointed to 140 instances ``where congressional lawmakers have inserted such exemptions'' into proposed legislation. Our shared principles of open government lead us to believe that individual statutory exemptions should be vigorously debated before lawmakers vote in favor of them. Sometimes such proposed exemptions are clearly delineated in proposed legislation, but other times they amount to a few lines within a highly complex and lengthy bill. These are difficult to locate and analyze in a timely manner, even for those of us who stand watch. As a result, such exemptions are often enacted with little scrutiny, and as soon as one is granted, others are requested. The private sector has sought many exemptions in exchange for agreeing to share information with the Government. One example of great concern to me is the statutory exemption for critical infrastructure information that was enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the law that created the Department of Homeland Security. In this case, a reasonable compromise--approved by the White House--to balance the protection of sensitive information with the public's right to know was pulled out of the bill in conference. It was then replaced with text providing an overly broad statutory exemption that undermines Federal and State sunshine laws. I have introduced separate legislation, called the Restoration of Freedom of Information Act, to revert to that reasonable compromise language. Not every statutory exemption is inappropriate, but every proposal deserves scrutiny. Congress must be diligent in reviewing new exemptions to prevent possible abuses. Focusing more sunshine on this process is an antidote to exemption creep. The American people deserve our ongoing diligence in limiting undue exemptions that only serve to clog the plumbing and limit the public's right to know. When we introduced the Open Government Act in February, we addressed this matter with a provision that would require Congress to identify proposed statutory exemptions in newly introduced legislation in a uniform manner. Today, we pass that single section as a new bill. I urge the House to take action quickly and the President to sign this bill into law. I want to thank the Senator from Texas for his personal dedication to these issues, and I thank all Senators for their support of this bill.