Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator has always been protective of the rights of Members of both sides.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I will take some of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today, I am partnering with Senator Cornyn in another of our bipartisan efforts to improve the lives of Americans through effective and efficient government. The bill we are introducing, the ``Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005,'' will strengthen our ability to combat the escalating problem of counterfeiting worldwide. In order to effectively fight intellectual property theft, we need stiff penalties for counterfeiters and those who are caught with counterfeit goods with the intent to traffic their false wares. Ours is a short bill--indeed, it is only four pages long--but it will have global implications in the fight against piracy. Counterfeiting is a growing problem that costs our economy hundreds of billions of dollars every year and has been linked to organized crime, including terrorist organizations. According to the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition, counterfeit parts have been discovered in helicopters sold to NATO, in jet engines, bridge joints, brake pads, and fasteners in equipment designed to prevent nuclear reactor meltdowns. The World Health Organization estimates that the market for counterfeit drugs is about $32 billion each year. Several years ago, Senator Hatch joined me in sponsoring the ``Anti- counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996,'' which addressed counterfeiting by amending several sections of our criminal and tariff codes. That law made important changes, particularly by expanding RICO, the federal anti-racketeering law, to cover crimes involving counterfeiting and copyright and trademark infringement. Then, as now, trafficking in counterfeit goods hurts purchasers, state and federal governments, and economies at every level. Perhaps most disturbingly, the U.S. Customs Service reports that terrorists have used transnational counterfeiting operations to fund their activities: The sale of counterfeit and pirated music, movies, software, T-shirts, clothing, and fake drugs ``accounts for much of the money the international terrorist network depends on to feed its operations.'' Last year, as in years past, I worked with Senator Allen on an amendment to the Foreign Operations bill that provides the State Department with vital resources to combat piracy of U.S. goods abroad. The bill we ultimately passed included $3 million for this important purpose. Yet more work both at home and abroad remains. When you consider that the economic impact of tangible piracy in counterfeit goods is estimated to be roughly $350 billion a year and to constitute between 5 percent and 7 percent of worldwide trade, a few million dollars is a worthwhile investment. We have certainly seen how this form of theft touches the lives of hard-working Vermonters. Burton Snowboards is a small company, whose innovation has made it an industry leader in snowboarding equipment and apparel. Unfortunately, knock-off products carrying Burton's name have been found across the globe. Vanessa Price, a representative of Burton, testified about counterfeiting at the Judiciary Committee's March 23, 2004, hearing on this topic. In addition to learning about the economic costs of counterfeiting, I asked her after the hearing about the risks posed to consumers by these goods. Her answer was chilling: ``In the weeks since my Senate testimony, I discovered a shipment of counterfeit Burton boots for sale through a discount sports outfit . . . After examining the poor quality of the counterfeit boots, we determined that anyone using the boots for snowboarding risks injury due to a lack of reinforcement and support in the product's construction.'' Customers and businesses lose out to counterfeiters in other ways, too. SB Electronics in Barre, Vt. has seen its capacitors reverse engineered and its customers lost to inferior copycat models. Vermont Tubbs, a furniture manufacturer in Rutland, has seen its designs copied, produced offshore with inferior craftsmanship and materials, and then reimported, so that the company is competing against cheaper versions of its own products. And Hubbardton Forge in Castleton, Vt. has seen its beautiful and original lamps counterfeited and then sold within the United States at prices--and quality--far below their own. This is wrong. It is unfair to consumers who deserve the high quality goods they think they are paying for, and it is unfair to innovators who play by the rules and deserve to profit from their labor. The bill that I am introducing today with Senator Cornyn will help to combat this growing scourge. The bill will criminalize the possession of counterfeit goods with the intent to sell or traffic in those goods, and it expands the definition of ``traffic'' to include any distribution of counterfeits with the expectation of gaining something of value--criminals should not be able to skirt the law simply because they barter illegal goods and services in exchange for their illicit wares. Finally, the bill will criminalize the importation and exportation of counterfeit goods, as well as of bootleg copies of copyrighted works into and out of the United States. By tying off these loopholes and improving U.S. laws on counterfeiting, we will be sending a powerful message to the criminals who belong in jail, and to our innovators.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today, I am partnering with Senator Cornyn in another of our bipartisan efforts to improve the lives of Americans through effective and efficient government. The bill we are introducing, the ``Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005,'' will strengthen our ability to combat the escalating problem of counterfeiting worldwide. In order to effectively fight intellectual property theft, we need stiff penalties for counterfeiters and those who are caught with counterfeit goods with the intent to traffic their false wares. Ours is a short bill--indeed, it is only four pages long--but it will have global implications in the fight against piracy. Counterfeiting is a growing problem that costs our economy hundreds of billions of dollars every year and has been linked to organized crime, including terrorist organizations. According to the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition, counterfeit parts have been discovered in helicopters sold to NATO, in jet engines, bridge joints, brake pads, and fasteners in equipment designed to prevent nuclear reactor meltdowns. The World Health Organization estimates that the market for counterfeit drugs is about $32 billion each year. Several years ago, Senator Hatch joined me in sponsoring the ``Anti- counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996,'' which addressed counterfeiting by amending several sections of our criminal and tariff codes. That law made important changes, particularly by expanding RICO, the federal anti-racketeering law, to cover crimes involving counterfeiting and copyright and trademark infringement. Then, as now, trafficking in counterfeit goods hurts purchasers, state and federal governments, and economies at every level. Perhaps most disturbingly, the U.S. Customs Service reports that terrorists have used transnational counterfeiting operations to fund their activities: The sale of counterfeit and pirated music, movies, software, T-shirts, clothing, and fake drugs ``accounts for much of the money the international terrorist network depends on to feed its operations.'' Last year, as in years past, I worked with Senator Allen on an amendment to the Foreign Operations bill that provides the State Department with vital resources to combat piracy of U.S. goods abroad. The bill we ultimately passed included $3 million for this important purpose. Yet more work both at home and abroad remains. When you consider that the economic impact of tangible piracy in counterfeit goods is estimated to be roughly $350 billion a year and to constitute between 5 percent and 7 percent of worldwide trade, a few million dollars is a worthwhile investment. We have certainly seen how this form of theft touches the lives of hard-working Vermonters. Burton Snowboards is a small company, whose innovation has made it an industry leader in snowboarding equipment and apparel. Unfortunately, knock-off products carrying Burton's name have been found across the globe. Vanessa Price, a representative of Burton, testified about counterfeiting at the Judiciary Committee's March 23, 2004, hearing on this topic. In addition to learning about the economic costs of counterfeiting, I asked her after the hearing about the risks posed to consumers by these goods. Her answer was chilling: ``In the weeks since my Senate testimony, I discovered a shipment of counterfeit Burton boots for sale through a discount sports outfit . . . After examining the poor quality of the counterfeit boots, we determined that anyone using the boots for snowboarding risks injury due to a lack of reinforcement and support in the product's construction.'' Customers and businesses lose out to counterfeiters in other ways, too. SB Electronics in Barre, Vt. has seen its capacitors reverse engineered and its customers lost to inferior copycat models. Vermont Tubbs, a furniture manufacturer in Rutland, has seen its designs copied, produced offshore with inferior craftsmanship and materials, and then reimported, so that the company is competing against cheaper versions of its own products. And Hubbardton Forge in Castleton, Vt. has seen its beautiful and original lamps counterfeited and then sold within the United States at prices--and quality--far below their own. This is wrong. It is unfair to consumers who deserve the high quality goods they think they are paying for, and it is unfair to innovators who play by the rules and deserve to profit from their labor. The bill that I am introducing today with Senator Cornyn will help to combat this growing scourge. The bill will criminalize the possession of counterfeit goods with the intent to sell or traffic in those goods, and it expands the definition of ``traffic'' to include any distribution of counterfeits with the expectation of gaining something of value--criminals should not be able to skirt the law simply because they barter illegal goods and services in exchange for their illicit wares. Finally, the bill will criminalize the importation and exportation of counterfeit goods, as well as of bootleg copies of copyrighted works into and out of the United States. By tying off these loopholes and improving U.S. laws on counterfeiting, we will be sending a powerful message to the criminals who belong in jail, and to our innovators.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I absolutely agree with the Senator from Delaware. We have a lot of bipartisan legislation that is not even being looked at. The NOPEC bill is one, with Senator DeWine, Senator Kohl, myself, and others. We looked at the fact that gasoline prices have gone up nearly 50 percent in the last 5 years alone, and yet we have no constraints on artificial prices being set by the NOPEC countries here in the United States. It takes more than holding hands with Saudi princes to bring down prices. We have to ask for real efforts. This is legislation that could pass. This is legislation that could pass. Put some teeth in it. Instead of holding hands, we could hold court actions, and we would be somewhere ahead. That is just one area. The Senator from Delaware mentioned the asbestos bill. Senator Specter and I have worked on it on a totally bipartisan fashion with Senators on both sides of the aisle. We have a bill that could pass. It would take some effort on the floor. It would take a week or so, but it could pass. Victims of asbestosis would be helped. Companies would have some idea what their costs are. The economy would dramatically improve. That bill is going to die if the nuclear option goes through because we will lose the ability to move bipartisan legislation. We have law enforcement legislation at a time when most of the law enforcement grants, such as the COPS grants and whatnot, are being cut by the administration. A lot of Members on both sides of the aisle are trying to find a way to get that money back to our police officers, the money being cut. We cannot have a debate on it. This is going to take up--you confirmed 208 judges; blocked, actually, 5. I have been here 31 years. I don't believe anyone has had a record that good. Certainly no baseball team ever had a record that good. The President ought to declare victory on that, having done so much better than all but about three Presidents of recent memory, and let us get on with things. Bring down the price of gasoline, for one; that is affecting the American people.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator from Delaware yield?

Mr LEAHY

Mr LEAHY. Mr. President, today we continue to debate the Republican Leader's bid for one-party rule through his insistence to trigger the ``nuclear option.'' I spoke yesterday about this misguided effort to undercut the checks and balances that the Senate provides in our system of Government, and about the need to protect the rights of the American people, the independence and fairness of the Federal courts, and minority rights here in the Senate. I started my statement yesterday by commending the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today I want to add and thank a number of Senators who participated throughout the debate yesterday for their contributions: the Democratic leader; the assistant Democratic leader and senior Senator from Illinois; the senior Senator from Washington; both Senators from California; the senior Senator from New York; the senior Senator from Montana; the senior Senator from Minnesota, the senior Senator from Massachusetts and Senator Dorgan. I noted yesterday that this is a setting in which Democratic Senators alone will not be able to rescue the Senate and our system of checks and balances from the breaking of the Senate rules that the Republican leader is planning to demand. If the rights of the minority are to be preserved, if the Senate's unique role in our system of Government is to be preserved, it will take at least six Republicans standing up for fairness and for checks and balances. I believe that a number of Republican Senators know in their hearts that this nuclear option is the wrong way to go. I know that Republican Senators with whom I have been privileged to serve know better. I hope that more than six Republican Senators will withstand the political pressures being brought to bear upon them and do the right thing, the honorable thing. I have to believe that enough Republican Senators will put the Senate first, the Constitution first, and the American people first, and withstand those political pressures when they cast their votes. Today, as we continue this discussion, I note that the Senate remains fixated on a handful of the President's most extreme and divisive judicial nominees. The Democratic leader rightly said recently that the current tally is 208 to 5. The Senate has confirmed 208 of President Bush's judicial nominees, and we are resisting action on five. I included in the Record yesterday my statement laying out my reasons for opposing the nomination of Priscilla Owen. As we continue to debate a nomination that was rejected by the Judiciary Committee in 2002 and on which the Senate engaged in extensive debate in 2004, the Senate is neglecting other matters. That is the choice made by the Republican leadership, in insisting on this confrontation and upcoming conflict. The Democratic leader is right when he urges the Senate to ``put people over partisanship'' and to work to reduce gas prices, make health care more affordable, create new and better jobs and give our veterans and their families the support they need and deserve. Among the matters being neglected in order to engage in this political exercise is consideration and passage of the NOPEC bill, S. 555. This is bipartisan legislation. Our lead sponsors are Senator DeWine and Senator Kohl. With the increase of gasoline prices by almost 50 percent during the Bush Presidency, with Americans having to pay so much more each week to get to work, drive their kids to school and just to get around, the Republican leadership of the Senate is ignoring a substantial burden on American working families. This week, the national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was $2.18. In Vermont, gas is slightly less expensive, but still a hefty $2.15 per gallon. Just a year ago the price was $1.92. When President Bush took office it was $1.46 a gallon. The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, and it is especially tough on our hard-working Vermont farmers. Rising energy expenses can add thousands of dollars a year to the costs of operating a 100-head dairy operation, a price that could mean the difference between keeping the family business open for another generation or shutting it down. With summer coming, many families are going to find that OPEC has put an expensive crimp in their vacation plans. Some are likely to stay home; others will pay more to drive or to fly so that they can visit their families or take their well-deserved vacations. Americans deserve better, and if the White House will not act to abate this crisis, it is time for Congress to act. It is past the time to hold hands and exchange kisses with Saudi princes who artificially inflate the price of gasoline. The President's ``jawboning'' with his Saudi friends has proven unsuccessful. It is now time to act, and the Senate, under the Republican majority leader, is choosing instead to revisit a handful of extreme judicial nominations that have already been considered and rejected by this body. The production quotas set by OPEC continue to take a debilitating toll on our economy, our families, our businesses, our industry and our farmers. Last year and again last month, the Judiciary Committee voted to report favorably to the full Senate the bipartisan NOPEC bill. Our legislation would apply America's antitrust laws to OPEC's anticompetitive cartel. Why not give the Justice Department the clear authority to use our antitrust laws against the anti-competitive, anti- consumer conduct in which they have engaged? We should take up that bill, debate it and pass it without further delay. The many days of the Senate's time allocated to the provocative ``nuclear option'' comes at the expense of our taking up the NOPEC bill on behalf of the American people. Another consequence of this fixation on the effort to increase the White House's political power, and to aid this President's attempt to pack the Federal courts, is the loss in focus and sacrifice of progress we have been making on asbestos reform. For more than 3 years I have been working on asbestos reform to provide compensation to asbestos victims in a fair and more expedited fashion. Chairman Specter and I have worked closely on S. 852, the FAIR Act. It is pending before the Judiciary Committee. We are in the midst of our markup sessions. That effort was scheduled for yesterday and today, but the Chairman had to cancel our consideration yesterday in light of this debate and it had to be cut short today. That is most unfortunate. We have been working hard and in good faith to achieve bipartisan legislative progress on this issue. We have done so despite criticism from many quarters. That bipartisan effort is now being retarded by this continuing debate. There are many, many items that need prompt attention. I understand that the Armed Services Committee last week completed its work on the Department of Defense Authorization bill. Why the Republican leadership is delaying Senate consideration of the Defense Authorization bill I do not understand. At a time when we have young men and women in combat zones and when the home front is being affected by recently recommended base closings, I would have thought the Defense Authorization bill would be a priority. Let me mention just one other set of legislative issues. Last week was Police Week. On Sunday I was privileged to attend the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service commemorating the service and sacrifice of 154 public safety officers killed in the line of duty over the last year. I worked in a bipartisan way with Senators Specter, Biden, Hatch, Brownback, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kohl, Kyl, Schumer, Salazar and Collins to introduce and pass S. Res. 131, which recognized May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and called upon the entire Nation to join in honoring our law enforcement officers. The President spoke movingly at the ceremony held here on Capitol Hill on that day of remembrance. This week we should honor our law enforcement officers with supportive legislative action. In the past we have worked in a bipartisan way to improve the Public Safety Officers Benefit Program and to provide educational benefits for the families of State and Federal officers who have been killed in the line of duty. Sadly, the administration has not yet implemented the latest round of improvements to the Public Safety Officers Benefit Program that we enacted last year. I have urged a Judiciary Committee hearing on this delay, as well as on the general state of police officer safety. The Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Foundation and other law enforcement organizations are all interested in working with us to ensure that the Justice Department produces comprehensive regulations that effectively create a more user-friendly PSOB Program. In addition, we should be considering the Social Security Fairness Act, S. 619, the bill that Senators Collins, Boxer, Feinstein and a number of us have cosponsored over the years to protect the Social Security and retirement of police officers. Those on the front lines protecting all of us from crime and violence should not see their Social Security benefits reduced because they have historically participated in separate retirement benefit programs. That needs fixing and this week would be an appropriate one to take that Senate action. These are merely examples of some of the business matters the Republican majority of the Senate has laid aside.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Presiding Officer. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania did not use extra time?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished deputy Democratic leader in the Chamber and I will yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LEAHY. When it comes to the judiciary, the independent judiciary, the branch of Government always looked at with most favor and most respect by Americans, wouldn't it be good if the President, in making his nominations, would act as a uniter, not as a divider? Instead, the President has acted as a divider, not a uniter. He has sent the Senate divisive and controversial nominees. When the Senate debates them and withholds consent, he stubbornly renominates them over and over again. Rather than work with us to find consensus nominees, which usually pass this Senate 100 to nothing, he disparages us and exploits the issue as a partisan matter. Under our Constitution, the Senate has an important role in the selection of our judiciary. The brilliant design of our Founders established the first two branches of Government would work together to equip the third branch to serve as an independent arbiter of justice. As George Will once wrote: ``A proper constitution distributes power among legislative, executive and judicial institutions so that the will of the majority can be measured, expressed in policy and, for the protection of minorities, somewhat limited.'' The structure of our Constitution and our own Senate rules of self- governance are designed to protect minority rights and to encourage consensus. Despite the razor-thin margin of recent elections, the majority party is not acting in a measured way but in complete disregard for the traditions of bipartisanship that are the hallmark of the Senate. When these traditions are followed, I can tell my colleagues from 31 years of experience, the Senate works better, and the American people are better served. Instead, the current majority is seeking to ignore precedents and reinterpret longstanding rules to its advantage. The practice of ``might makes right'' is wrong. The Senate's rules should not be toyed with like a playground game of King of the Hill, to be changed at the whim of any current majority. The Senate majority leader seems intent on removing the one Senate protection left for the minority, the protection of debate in accordance with the longstanding tradition of the Senate and its standing rules. In order to remove the last remaining vestige of protection for the minority, the Republican majority is poised to break the Senate rules, violate the Senate rules, overturn the Senate rules, and end the filibuster by breaking those rules. They are intent on doing this--why?--to force through the Senate this President's most controversial and divisive judicial nominees. As the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his famous Letter From A Birmingham Jail: Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Fair process is a fundamental component of the American system of law. If we cannot have a fair process in these halls or in our courts, how will the resulting decisions be viewed? If the rule of law is to mean anything, it must mean that it applies to all equally. The rule of law must apply the same to Republicans and Democrats. The rule of law must apply the same to all Americans. And certainly the rule of law must apply on the floor of the U.S. Senate. No man and no party should be above the law. That has been one of the strengths of our democracy. Our country was born in reaction to the autocracy and corruption of King George, and we must not forget our roots as a nation of both law and liberty. The best guarantee of liberty is the rule of law, meaning that the decisions of government are not arbitrary and that rules are not discretionary or enforced to help one side and then ignored to aid another. Mr. President, nothing I will ever do in my life will equal the opportunity, the honor, the privilege to be one of the 100 serving in this Senate. But not one of this 100--who are privileged to serve at any given time to represent 280 million Americans--none of us owns the Senate. The Senate will be here once we leave. It is our responsibility to leave the Senate as strong as it was when we came in. It is our responsibility, our sworn responsibility, to leave the Senate the body that has always been a check and balance. How can any Senator look himself or herself in the mirror if they weaken the Senate, if they allow the Senate to no longer be the check and balance it should be? Why would anyone want to serve here if they come to this body with that in mind? James Madison, one of the Framers of our Constitution, warned in Federalist Number 47 of the very danger that is threatening our great Nation, a threat to our freedoms from within: [The] accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. That is what they are trying to do, put all the power into one hand. All of us should know enough of history to know we should not do that. George Washington, our great first President, reiterated the danger in his famous Farewell Address to the American People: The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. Now, our freedoms as Americans are the fruit of too much sacrifice to have the rules broken in the Senate, especially to break them in collusion with the executive branch. What ever happened to the concept of separation of powers? We all give great speeches on the separation of powers. Don't just give the speeches, do not just talk the talk, let's walk the walk. The effort to appoint loyalists to courts in the hope that they will reinterpret precedents and overturn the very laws that have protected our most fundamental rights as Americans is base and wrong. The American people deserve better than what we have seen with the destruction of rule after rule by a majority willing to sacrifice the role of the Senate as a check and balance in order to aid a President determined to pack the Federal courts. It is the courts themselves that serve as the check on the political branches. Their independence is critical and must be preserved. Look at what we are talking about, Mr. President. We have confirmed 208 judges. We are saying no to five. Is this a judicial crisis that should allow the majority to destroy the Senate? The record of 208 confirmations and reduction of judicial vacancies to an historic low provide no basis on which to break the rules of the Senate. The Democratic leader's efforts to make additional progress demonstrate there is no reason for the majority to take the drastic and irreversible step of ending protection of the minority through the tradition of extended debate in the Senate. The White House and Senate Republican leadership's campaign for the nuclear option seeks to end the role of the Senate serving as a check on the executive. That is so shortsighted. It is so wrong. It is so unjustified. We fought a revolution in this country to have a Constitution that is designed to have the Senate provide balance and act as a check. I will have more to say about these important matters and about the nomination that the Judiciary Committee previously rejected and that the Senate has previously debated as we proceed over the next several days. There is one other aspect of this matter I need to mention. I will say this in my individual capacity as a Senator from Vermont, as a man of faith, as a man who cares deeply about this institution, our country, our Constitution, our first amendment and our constitutional provision that does not allow a religious test for those who serve. Supporters of a power-hungry executive have gone so far as to seek to inject an unconstitutional religious test into the debate. All Americans should fear this. They have characterized those who oppose the most extreme of the President's nominees as being against faith, against people of faith. They have called for mass impeachment of judges and other measures to intimidate the judiciary, to remove the independence of the judiciary. I commend the President for personally rejecting at least that demagoguery at a recent press conference. I wish he would go further and tell those making these charges and inflammatory claims to stop. A Republican clergyman, Pat Robertson, said he believes Federal judges are ``a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the September 11 terrorists'' and ``more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings'' and ``the worst threat America has faced in 400 years--worse than Nazi Germany, Japan, and the Civil War.'' For shame. For shame. This is the sort of incendiary rhetoric that is paving the way to the nuclear option. It is wrong. It is destructive. Further, injecting religion into politics to claim a monopoly on piety and political truth by demonizing those you disagree with is not the American way. As Abraham Lincoln has said: I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right, but it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side. He was so right. We all would do well spending a little more time wondering whether we are on God's side and less time declaring infallibly that He is on ours. Those driving the nuclear option engage in a dangerous and corrosive game of religious McCarthyism in which anyone daring to oppose one of this President's nominees is being branded as anti-Christian or anti- Catholic or against people of faith. Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family said of me, ``I do not know if he hates God but he hates God's people.'' I wonder every Sunday when I am at mass, what planet is this person from? When Senator Hatch was attacked during his Presidential campaign on his religion, I came to his defense. When Senator Lott was under attack, Senators Jeffords and Specter spoke in his defense. When they charge us with being against people of faith for opposing nominees, what are they saying about the 208 Bush judicial nominees whom Democrats have voted for and helped confirm? Are they saying the five we oppose are people of faith but the 208 we voted for are not? Are they by definition people without faith? These kinds of charges, this virulent religious McCarthyism, is fraudulent on its face. It is contemptible. It is contemptible. Chief Justice Rehnquist is right to refer to the Federal judiciary as the crown jewel of our system of government. It is an essential check and balance, a critical source of protection of the rights of all Americans, including our religious freedom. Just this morning the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania and the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois conducted a hearing in the Judiciary Committee where they heard the testimony of Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago. She is the Federal judge whose mother and husband were murdered in their home. The hearts of all of us go out to her. She asked that we repudiate the gratuitous attacks on the judiciary, and I do so, again, here today. I ask those members of Congress who are so quick to take the floor and say let's impeach judges or let's condemn judges or specific judges, to stop it. Listen to what Judge Lefkow said: In this age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous. Fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge, or on the fringe, to exact revenge on a judge who ruled against them. We should stop those kinds of speeches, whether it is on this floor or the other body. They are beneath, us, all of us. I remember Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made a similar observation. I recently spoke with her and told her how much I appreciated that. The Senator from Pennsylvania spoke about Benjamin Franklin. Let me reiterate. In September 1787, as the Constitutional Convention drew to a close, someone came up to Benjamin Franklin to ask whether all of the arduous work of drafting the Constitution produced a republic or a monarchy. Benjamin Franklin told them, ``A Republic, if you can keep it.'' We have fought world wars, a civil war, we have gone through elections, assassinations, changes in Government, we have gone through all these traumas, the Great Depression, and attacks on our soil. In all of it we have joined together to keep this Republic. We have kept our freedoms through checks and balances, checks and balances woven through our constitutional system so brilliantly by our Founders. Those checks and balances can easily be unthreaded and unwoven by the abuse of power. Let us hope that never happens. Remember, it can happen not just through big steps, it can happen through small steps. This action that is being proposed to the Senate, the nuclear option, is a large step, a large abuse of power, a step with consequences we can only begin to imagine. It would be a vote for confrontation over consensus. I hope each of us will reflect on its consequences, and then, in the end, such a travesty will never befall the Senate. Mr. President, how much time is remaining to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. We suffered through 3 years during which Republican staff stole Democratic files off the Judiciary computer servers. It is as though those currently in power believe they are above our constitutional checks and balances and they can reinterpret any treaty, law, rule, custom, or practice. If they don't like it or they find it inconvenient, they set it aside. It was tragic that the committee that judges the judges did not follow its own rules but broke them to achieve a predetermined result. It was through these means that divisive and controversial judicial nominees were repeatedly brought before the Senate in the last Congress. It was through these abuses that the majority acted as handmaidens to the administration to create confrontation after confrontation over controversial nominees. They dragged the judiciary, which should be above politics, into the political thicket and did so for partisan gain. I applaud the Senator from Pennsylvania who has worked to bring us back in the Senate Judiciary Committee to following our rules in the comity that makes it work. I regret that filibusters have been necessary in the past 2 years. I wish Republicans would not have followed their years of secret holds and pocket filibusters of more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees, judicial nominees, and more than 200 of his executive nominees. I wish they would not have flipped the script once a Republican became President and dismembered the rules and traditions of the Judiciary Committee. I have urged consultation and cooperation over the last 4 years. I had the privilege of chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee for 17 months with President Bush in the White House, and we confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees, including a number of controversial nominees, including some I was opposed to. I voted against them, but I made sure they got hearings. The President and his enablers in the Senate cannot seem to take ``yes'' for an answer. The Senate has confirmed 208 of his judicial nominees and we are withholding consent on 5. He rejects our advice, but he demands our consent. That is wrong, and that goes against the Constitution. The Constitution speaks of advice and consent, not order and rubberstamp. What the White House ignores is that President Bush completed his first term with the third highest total of confirmed judges in our history--in our history--and more Federal judges on the courts than at any time in our history. The truth is, Senate Democrats have cooperated extensively in confirming more than 95 percent of this President's judicial nominees--208 of them. George Washington, the most popular and powerful President in our history, was not successful in all of his judicial nominations. The Senate rejected President Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. For example. And certainly I would hope that the current President would not assume he stands higher in our history books than George Washington. The truth is, in President Bush's first term, the 204 judges confirmed were more than were confirmed in either of President Clinton's two terms, more than during the term of this President's father, and more than Ronald Reagan's first term when he had a Republican majority in the Senate. By last December, we had reduced judicial vacancies from the 110 vacancies I inherited in the summer of 2001 to its lowest level, lowest rate, and lowest number in decades, since President Ronald Reagan was in office. Unfortunately, this President has chosen confrontation over cooperation. In fact, it is mid-May, and he has only sent one new nomination to the Senate all year. Im connection with that nomination, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have written to the Chairman urging a prompt hearing. With the support of the nominee's home-state Senators, one a Democrat and one a Republican, the nomination of Brian Sandoval will be added to the long list of judicial confirmations. But that leave 30 judicial vacancies without nominations. Back on April 11, the Democratic leader and I wrote to the President urging him to work with Senators of both parties to identify nominees for these 30 vacancies. To date, he has not responded. Instead he, his Vice President, his Chief of Staff and his spokesperson continue to prod the Senate toward triggering the nuclear option. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the suggestion the Senator from Pennsylvania made was a good one. Whatever time he uses beyond the 40 minutes, we get an equal amount of time here. That way we would also know where we stand. The distinguished Senator from Nevada--

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I recommend all the Republicans and Democrats listen to the speech given by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I said to him earlier this morning if it were he and I who were allowed to work this out, we could work it out probably in less than an hour. I said the same thing to the President and to our two leaders. Hopefully everyone understands the significance of this debate and what the Republican leader, the majority leader is doing. He has decided to trigger the nuclear option. That is what it is. This nuclear option is something any Senate majority could have done any time over the past 50 years. It boils down to the Republican Senate leader declaring the Senate rules governing filibusters are out of order. The nonpartisan Senate Parliamentarian has indicated that would violate the Senate rules. It would. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has studied this and concluded it is unprecedented. Why? Because it amounts to breaking the rules. We are talking about judging whether nominees will be fair and impartial judges who will follow the law and the majority is willing to break the rules to do that. When you have a slim majority and are willing to use parliamentary brute force, if you want to break the rules, you can. It does not make it right. It makes it wrong, but you can do it. The American people ought to recognize this for what it is, an abuse of power to advance a power grab. It is an effort by the White House and the Republican Senate majority to undercut the checks and balances of the Senate. They intend to use majority power to override the rights of the minority. Actually, it is not an isolated effort. It is part of a sustained effort by this administration and partisan operatives in the Congress to consolidate power in one branch, the executive branch, and ignore our constitutional history of three separate branches acting as checks and balances on each other. It is an effort at one-party rule. It undercuts the rights of the minority in the Senate, it undermines the role of the Senate as a check on the executive, and it leads to a Republican rubberstamp on a less independent judiciary. The constitutional protections of the American people are at stake in this debate, not just someone's political future, the constitutional protections of the American people. At stake are the protections provided for the American people by the judicial branch against overreaching by the political branches; by the Senate against an aggressive executive branch, and by the minority against the tyranny of the majority. As this debate begins, I urge the American people to be involved because it is their rights that are at stake. It is the independence, fairness, and nonpartisan protection of the judiciary that protects their rights that is being threatened. It is a constitutional check that the Senate was intended by the Founders to keep the executive from acting like a king, that is being threatened by curtailing the rights of the minority. This is an exercise in breaking the rules to change the rules. Note that as this debate begins, it begins in accordance with the Senate rules, including rule XXII, the longstanding rule the Republican majority intends to override by the end of this process by parliamentary brute force. The Senate is now being threatened with a fundamental change through a self-inflicted wound. ``Master of the Senate'' author Robert Caro recalled an important chapter in the Senate and the Nation's history. Consider this and contrast it with what is happening here today. When Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas left the Senate, he was the most powerful majority leader in the history of this country. When he was elected Vice President with President Kennedy and he was preparing to leave the Senate, he told his protege and successor, Senate Mansfield of Montana, that he, Johnson, would keep attending the Democratic luncheons and help his successor as majority leader in running the Senate. Senator Mansfield said no, Vice President Johnson was no longer a Member of the Senate, but an officer of the executive branch and by means of that office was accorded the privilege of presiding over the Senate. What a contrast Senator Mike Mansfield's respect for the separation of powers and checks and balances is from those in power today. I say that as one who was privileged to serve here with Senator Mansfield. Instead, this White House took an active role in naming the present Senate leadership and this White House regularly sends Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove to Republican caucus luncheons to give the Republican majority its marching orders. What a difference from the days of Mike Mansfield and Lyndon Johnson. The current Republican majority leader, who is my friend, announced that he intends to leave the Senate next year. He made no secret of his intent to run for the Republican nomination for President. With that in mind, he is apparently prepared to become the first majority leader in the history of the Senate whose legacy would be a significantly weakened Senate. Every other majority leader has left the Senate stronger than it was or at least as strong as it was, as a check and balance against an executive. This would be the first time it would be left weaker. Many, unfortunately, on the other side--many but not all--are apparently ready to sacrifice the Senate's role in our constitutional system of checks and balances. It is my hope that our system of checks and balances will be preserved with a handful of Republican Senators voting their conscience and standing up to the White House and its pressure. I know the zealotry of the narrow special interest leaders who are demanding this mutilation of the Senate's character. I am one of many who have been the target of their brutal and spurious personal attacks. My hope is that a number of the fine women and men of both parties with whom I am privileged to serve as a custodian of our Nation's liberties will act in the finest traditions of the Senate. One of their number has come to this floor in recent days to remind all Senators of senatorial profiles in courage. Sadly, it is that courage that will be necessary to avert the overreaching power grab now underway. There have been other recent threats to our system of government. Republican partisans in the House, in a standoff with President Clinton, shut down the Government in 1995. A few years later, they impeached a popularly-elected President for the first time in our history. Fortunately, the Senate stood up and functioned as it was intended during that trial and rejected those efforts. I was privileged to be one of those who worked with both sides to make sure that trial ended the way it did. In 2000, a divided nation saw an election decided by the successful litigation of the Republican Party and the intervention of a narrow activist decision of the Supreme Court to stop vote counting in Florida. Then we witnessed Senator Jeffords virtually driven out of the Republican caucus. We have seen an aggressive executive branch that has been aided by a compliant congressional majority. If the Senate's role in our system of coequal branches of the Federal Government is to be honored, it is going to take Republican Senators joining others in standing up for the American people's rights, the independence of the judiciary, the rules of the Senate, and the rights of the minority. During the last several days, we have seen the Democratic leader make offer after offer to head off this showdown. We have heard stirring speeches from Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Baucus, Senator Murray, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and others, who have come to this floor to set the record straight. But this is a setting in which Democratic Senators alone will not be able to rescue the Senate and our system of checks and balances from the breaking of the Senate rules being planned. If the rights of the minority are to be preserved, if the Senate is to be preserved as the greatest of parliamentary bodies, it will take at least six Republicans standing up for fairness and for checks and balances. Now I know from my own conversations that a number of Republican Senators know in their hearts this nuclear option is the wrong way to go. I know Republican Senators, with whom I have had the privilege to serve for anywhere from 2 years to more than 30 years, know better. I hope more than six of them will withstand the political pressures being brought upon them and do the right thing and the honorable thing, and that they will put the Senate first, the Constitution first, but especially the American people first. History and those who follow us will carefully scrutinize these moments and these votes. Those voting to protect the rights of the minority will be on the right side of history. Like the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, I remember President Kennedy's publication of ``Profiles in Courage.'' Along with so many Americans, I remember reading about those Senators who stood up to their party to vote against the conviction of President Andrew Johnson. More recently, I witnessed the strength it took for my friend, Senator Mark Hatfield, a distinguished Republican, to cast a vote of conscience against amending the Constitution. He did it under intense and unfair pressures. I believe we are now seeing the current Senate leadership taking the Senate to another precipice. It will take the votes of independent and conscientious Republican Senators, such as Senator Hatfield, to prevent the fall. The Framers of the Constitution warned against the dangers of factionalism undermining our structural separation of powers. Some in the Senate have been willing to sacrifice the historic role of the Senate as a check on the President in the area of nominations. Under pressure from the White House, over the last 2 years we saw the former Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee lead Senate Republicans in breaking with longstanding precedent, in breaking the rules, even committee rule IV, which was put in there at the request of Republicans to protect minorities. But when the Republicans took the majority, they violated the rules, longstanding precedent and Senate tradition. With the Senate and the White House under control of the same political party, we have witnesses committee rules broken or misinterpreted away. The broken committee rules and precedent include the way that home-state Senators were treated, the way hearings were scheduled, the way the committee questionnaire was unilaterally altered, and the way the Judiciary Committee's own historic protection of the minority by rule IV was repeatedly violated. In the last Congress, the Republican majority of the Judiciary Committee destroyed virtually every custom and courtesy that used to help create and enforce cooperation and civility in the confirmation process. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a recent article from the Wall Street Journal noting some of these developments.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, but I would also remind everybody that the distinguished Democratic leader has said he had no objection to going to--this is a court of appeals judge--Thomas Griffith, of Utah, to be U.S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia circuit. While Mr. Griffith is one I would vote against, for reasons I have already stated, from the nose count I have, he would easily be confirmed. I would also note that I have total agreement with the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada, who said he would be willing to do this in a relatively short time. I just mention that because I would not want anybody to think this is a person being held up, even though some of us object to him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to praise an extraordinary man, Paul Peck. I had the honor of meeting Mr. Peck through our mutual interest in the Smithsonian Institution. Mr. Peck has been an effective proponent of the civic process. In 2002, Mr. Peck generously donated $2 million to enhance the National Portrait Gallery's presidential programs, allowing for educational resources related to the presidency. In the same year, the Portrait Gallery founded The Paul Peck Presidential Awards, the only awards in the United States to honor achievement in presidential service and portrayal. Last year, at the Third Annual Paul Peck Presidential Awards Ceremony, Mr. Peck gave a heartfelt and thought-provoking speech about the need for an increased awareness of American history and an increased level of civil participation in our country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Peck's remarks be printed in the Congressional Record. The Smithsonian is truly fortunate to have benefited from the dedication and intelligence of Mr. Peck.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe under the order the Senator from Vermont has some time reserved.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am dismayed that nearly all of the provisions of the REAL ID Act have been included in this conference report after closed-door negotiations between House and Senate Republicans. Democratic conferees were excluded from these negotiations. Indeed, my staff specifically asked the conferees for the majority to be included in negotiations on these far-reaching provisions--which have never received Judiciary Committee consideration--but our request was ignored. I oppose the inclusion of these provisions for a number of reasons. First and foremost, this is not the way we should be legislating comprehensive changes to our immigration laws. The Judiciary Committee never considered them. The Senate never voted on them when the supplemental appropriations bill was being debated. Indeed, Senator Isakson offered an amendment that included the text of REAL ID but then withdrew it, reportedly under pressure from his own leadership. Many of us believed the Senate would vote down the Isakson amendment, especially considering that six Republican Senators had joined six Democratic Senators in writing to the majority leader to oppose including REAL ID in the supplemental appropriations bill. Second, I am concerned that the REAL ID Act will cause great hardship for asylum seekers. In the guise of preventing terrorists from obtaining asylum--which is forbidden under current law--this conference report raises the standard of proof for all asylum seekers. The REAL ID Act's asylum provisions are opposed by a wide variety of religious organizations from across the political spectrum, as well as advocates for refugees and asylees. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has said that the asylum provisions in REAL ID would ``eviscerate the protection of asylum, thus preventing victims of persecution from receiving safe haven in the United States.'' Third, this conference report includes the REAL ID Act's breathtaking waiver of Federal law. The Secretary of Homeland Security will now be empowered to waive any and all laws that may get in the way of the construction of fences or barriers at any United States border. The Secretary already has broad authority in this area, and to further increase it demonstrates a lack of concern both with environmental protection and the rule of law. Fourth, the conference report repeals the minimum Federal standards for driver's licenses that Congress passed only last December in the intelligence reform bill, in response to the recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission. The Bush administration said that it preferred the approach taken in the conference report to the approach favored by the House, which is contained in the REAL ID Act. The House approach, now included in this conference report, replaces the newly enacted minimum standards with Federal mandates that I fear will be unworkable. The administration and the States have already devoted substantial energy to implementing the existing standards, and this conference report may represent a step backwards in our security. These new provisions will endanger the lives of victims of domestic violence, including U.S. citizens. Many States currently allow victims of abuse--who frequently are hiding from their abusers--to obtain driver's licenses that do not list their address. This conference report will require all licenses to bear the recipient's address; unfortunately, it contains no exception for victims of domestic abuse or stalking. If a victim of domestic abuse or stalking is forced to disclose her physical residence in order to get a Federally-approved driver's license, she risks the possibility that she and her children will be tracked down by their abuser. For women and children fleeing domestic abuse or stalking, the option to use an alternate address is not a matter of convenience or preference; it can be a matter of life or death. We must fix this residential address requirement when we reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act later this year by creating an exemption for victims of domestic abuse or stalking. Fifth, the conference report would eliminate habeas corpus review for aliens who have received removal orders. We have not taken such a step in this country for more than a century, but we are taking it now, without the Senate even considering the measure. Overall, the REAL ID provisions in this conference report need a much wider airing and consideration before enactment. Unfortunately, Republican conferees agreed to exclude the Democrats from consideration of these proposals and a group of Senate and House appropriators have agreed to change our immigration laws in profound ways. On a much more favorable note, I am pleased that the conference report included, with minor modifications, the Senate-passed provision to provide relief to the small and seasonal businesses across our nation that rely on temporary foreign workers who come here on H-2B visas. I cosponsored the Senate amendment, offered by Senator Mikulski, to make additional visas available for aliens who wish to perform seasonal work in the United States. For the second year in a row, the statutory cap on such H-2B visas was met before businesses that need additional summer employees were even eligible to apply for visas. This has hurt businesses across the country, and this amendment will provide needed relief. In Vermont, the main users of these visas are hotels, inns and resorts that have a busy summer season. I have heard from dozens of businesses in Vermont over the past year that have struggled mightily to manage without temporary foreign labor. I know that the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce, the Vermont Lodging & Restaurant Association and many small businesses in Vermont are vitally concerned and expect that similar associations and businesses in other States are, as well. Indeed, a wide range of industries use these visas in other States. I imagine that nearly all Senators have heard from a constituent who has been harmed by the sudden shortage of H-2B visas, and fear that they will go out of business if Congress does not act to make more visas available. The conference report does not raise the cap on the program, but rather allows those who had entered the U.S. in previous years through the H-2B program to return. These are, by definition, people who came to the U.S. legally and returned to their own countries as the law requires. The amendment also addresses the concerns some members have expressed about fraud. I have been working to solve this crisis for more than a year. I joined last year with a substantial bipartisan coalition in introducing S.2252, the Save Summer Act of 2004. Senator Kennedy was the lead sponsor of the bill, which had 18 cosponsors, including 8 Republicans. The bill would have added 40,000 visas for the current fiscal year, providing relief to those summer-oriented businesses that had never even had the opportunity to apply for visas. Unfortunately, that bill was opposed by a number of Republican Senators and never received a vote. Our constituents suffered the consequences, and I am gratified that we are prepared to provide relief.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. I will use part of it. I am voting for the supplemental, but I have grave misgivings about the President's policy in Iraq, the enormous strain it is putting on our Armed Forces, the horrific toll of the insurgency on innocent Iraqis, but especially the lack of a credible exit strategy. We tried to get legislative language considered that would link the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces to the phased withdrawal of our troops. That made sense. As we train them and they are able to take over responsibility for security, we should withdraw our troops. The White House would not even consider this. I suspect had the White House asked our troops in the field or the American people, they would say that is what they want. It is also what most Iraqis want. I am voting for the supplemental because I am concerned about our troops, many who were sent to fight and some of whom have died--as we understand from the press, even though we could not get this from the administration--without the proper armor. I opposed their deployment to Iraq, and I want to see them return home as quickly as possible, but in the meantime, I want them to have the best protection and equipment. They were sent into harm's way by the order of the Commander in Chief, and they should be protected as well as they can be. There are other reasons I am voting for the supplemental, but I want to mention one in particular. There is a provision which I sponsored and Senators Boxer and Feinstein of California cosponsored which designates the program to assist innocent Iraqi victims of the military operations as the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund. This program, and one like it in Afghanistan, was inspired by Marla Ruzicka of Lakeport, CA. She died on April 16, 2005, at the age of only 28, from a car bomb in Baghdad. Marla's colleague and friend, Faiz Ali Salem, also died in that attack, both were on a mission of mercy. I first met Marla 3 years ago. She worked closely with me and my staff, especially Tim Rieser of my Appropriations Committee staff, from the day after she arrived in Washington in 2002 until the day she died. In fact, Tim received e-mails and photographs of her holding a child she had helped that came in just hours before she was killed. She was an extraordinarily courageous, determined young woman. She brought hope and cheer to everyone she met, from our military to people who were suffering from the ravages of the war. But she did it especially for the families of Afghan and Iraqi civilians who were killed or wounded as a result of the military operations. She felt passionately that part of being an American is to acknowledge those who have suffered and help their families piece their lives back together. Who would not agree with that? By showing them a compassionate face of America, she not only gave them hope, she helped overcome some of the anger and resentment many felt toward our great country. Over 90 percent of the casualties of World War I were soldiers. That changed in World War II. And since then, it is overwhelmingly civilians who suffer the casualties. Rosters are kept of the fallen soldiers, as they should be, but no official record is kept or made public of the civilians who died. That is wrong. It denies those victims the dignity of being counted, the respect of being honored, and it also prevents their families from receiving the help they need. In her young life, Marla forced us to face the consequences of our actions in ways that few others have. Even more importantly, she made us do something about it. She brought both parties in this Chamber together to help. What she did in Afghanistan and Iraq by the time she was 28, the end of her short life, was an achievement of a lifetime, far more than most people do in a much longer life. This Saturday, from 2 to 4 in the afternoon, I am going to host a gathering in the Senate caucus room in the Russell Building so that anyone who is interested can learn more about Marla's work and the U.S. Government programs she inspired. I hope we can discuss ways for all of us to continue the campaign on behalf of innocent victims of conflict. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting naming this program after her. I want the work she started to continue. I doubt that we will see another person quite so remarkable as Marla, but I have to think there are a lot of other Americans who would want help if we give them the support they need. I see the distinguished Senator from Connecticut in the Chamber. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor to him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Oregon wishes to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Is it my understanding, Mr. President, the distinguished Democratic leader is saying he is prepared to ask consent to move forward on the nomination of Tom Griffith to the DC Circuit?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished leader through the Chair----