Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield for one, but I would prefer--

Mr. LEAHY. I was about to refer to that. So I now do refer to the fact that the Senator from Utah said people should not be demonized as being against people of faith if they oppose somebody. I appreciate it. It is the first time I have heard that said on his side of the aisle. Unfortunately, many others have been saying just the opposite. That is why I wish the majority leader would not act in support of such a campaign this weekend. The upcoming telecast to incite congregants with the false charge that those who oppose judicial activists are anti-Christian or anti- faith is wrong. It is divisive and it is destructive. That Republican officials will lend support to that effort through their silence, rather than denounce it, is disturbing and disappointing. I appreciate the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, finally speaking out, or having a voice finally speak out from that side of the aisle denouncing it. To divide the American people along religious lines is wrong. It has always been wrong. Smearing political opponents as anti-faith is despicable. Apparently, some will stop at nothing and stoop to any level. No scurrilous charge is too coarse; no baseless accusation is too outlandish. When a few of us had the honor of attending the funeral of Pope John Paul II in Rome as part of the official Senate delegation recently, guess what happened. Democrats, but not Republicans, were castigated for not being present in Washington. There were, of course, seven Republicans and seven Democrats. The same people who make these charges castigated the Democrats for being in Rome. When we explain in public session the basis on which we have decided to oppose a nomination of somebody we believe does not merit a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench, the judicial activism we detail is ignored and we are smeared as anti this or anti that. So I thank the many religious leaders who have come forward this week to uphold America's great traditions of respecting faith, honoring faith, and ensuring that the constitutional prohibition against any religious test for public office be strictly observed. Christian leaders from a variety of denominations, Muslim leaders, and Jewish leaders, have joined to reject these disgraceful efforts of a few partisans injecting religion into the discussion of judicial nominations. They have publicly denounced the efforts of the religious demagogues making slanderous charges in a win-at-all-costs bid to rile the passions and to further divide Americans one from another. I am grateful for the voices of these religious leaders. We need less division, not more. We need to work together more, not less. We need to unite, not divide. I share the disappointment of the more than 400 religious leaders who have written to Majority Leader Frist urging him to ``repudiate those who misuse religion for political purposes and who impugn the faith of any who disagree with them.'' All of us need to repudiate the message of divisiveness and religious manipulation. The Reverend Dr. Weldon Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, recently wrote to Senator Frist to warn against transforming ``religion by baptizing it as a disciple of partisan politics.'' Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, reminded Senator Frist: Religious liberty has flourished in our nation precisely because Americans have been steadfast in their commitment against sowing religious discord as a means to achieve political success. My Irish and my Italian grandparents, like so many others, came to this country seeking a better life for their families, not just a better job but the freedoms that have always been so much a part of America's great attraction. But it has taken time and pain for us to realize as a nation that dream of religious freedom and tolerance. I remember my parents talking about days I thought were long past, when Irish Catholics were greeted with signs that told them they need not apply for jobs. Italian Catholics were told that they and their religious ways were not wanted. That is what my grandparents experienced and my parents saw. The smears we are seeing today mock the pain and injustice that so many American Catholics endured. We have come too far to turn back to the darkness of intolerance. Partisans these days are seeking to rekindle the flames of bigotry for short-term political gain. That is more than just wrong, it is despicable. To raise the specter of religious intolerance in order to try to turn our strong, independent Federal courts into an arm of a political party is an outrage. It is shocking that some would cavalierly destroy the independence of our Federal courts and with it the best protection Americans have of our freedoms. This tactical shift follows on the rhetorical attacks on judges over the past few weeks in which Federal judges were likened to the KKK and ``the focus of evil.'' At an event attended by Members of Congress, we have heard calls for Stalinist solutions to problems; the Stalinist solution being, of course, if you have somebody you don't agree with, you kill them. Stalin said: No man, no problem. We have heard the calls for mass impeachments. Last week the Senate Democratic leadership called upon the President and the Republican leadership of Congress to denounce the inflammatory statements against judges. This week I renew my call to all Senators--and in particular to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans--to denounce the religious McCarthyism that is again pervading this debate. I am sad to see so many Senators stay silent when they should disavow these abuses. Why Republicans do not heed the clarion call that our former colleague, Senator John Danforth, an Episcopalian priest, sounded a few weeks ago, I don't know. The demagoguery and divisive politics being so cynically used by supporters of the President's most extreme judicial nominees needs to stop. These smears are lies and, like all lies, depend on the silence of others to live and to gain root. It is time for the silence to end. The Bush administration has to accept responsibility for the smear campaign. They have to end it. This kind of religious smear campaign doesn't just hurt Democrats, it hurts the whole country. It hurts Christians and it hurts non-Christians. It hurts all of us because the Constitution requires judges to apply the law, not their personal views. Remember that all of us, no matter what our faith--and I am proud of mine--are able to practice our religion as we choose or not to practice a religion. The beauty of the first amendment is we can practice any religion we wish or none if we wish. It is a fundamental guarantee of our Constitution. The Constitution's prohibition against a religious test in Article VI is consistent with that fundamental freedom. All Americans should understand the Constitution is there to protect all of us. It is the protection of the Constitution that has allowed this country to evolve into a tolerant Nation. It was not always a tolerant Nation; it has evolved into one. But the Constitution has protected that evolution. Those who would try to drag us back into religious intolerance for short-term political gains subvert the Constitution and damage the country. There are those who say that we are against people of faith if we have opposed a handful of the President's nominees. By their false logic, the 205 judicial nominees nominated by President Bush whom Democratic Senators have helped to confirm would seem not to be people of faith, if that is our litmus test. Of course, that is as false and ridiculous on its face as are the slurs being insinuated against those who have opposed the few other nominees who have not been confirmed. Those who hurl these false charges never mention that the same Senators they are slandering have supported hundreds of nominees who are people of faith. They never hesitate to stoke the flames of bigotry and to encourage their supporters to continue the smear in cyberspace or the pages of the newspapers or through direct mail or radio ads. Maybe this slander is the only thing that tests well in their political polls so that even though untrue, it is the one thing they can agree upon. Sort of the equivalent of the weapons of mass destruction, the justification for attacking Iraq: it turned out it wasn't true, but it was certainly convenient. Not only must this bogus religious test end, but Senators should denounce the launching of the so-called nuclear option, the Republicans' precedent-shattering proposal to destroy the Senate in one stroke while shifting more power over the Senate to the White House, to destroy the kind of checks and balances the Senate has historically had. I would like to keep the Senate safe and secure and in a ``nuclear- free'' zone. The partisan power play Senate Republicans are now likely to employ will undermine the checks and balances established by the Founders in the Constitution. One of the beauties of this country is we have always had checks and balances. That is how the most powerful Nation on Earth remains a democracy, and it does not have the temptation to become a dictatorship, something that none of us, Republicans or Democrats, would want. If you remove the checks and balances so that you can nominate judges who will be basically an arm of one element of the Republican Party, then you have taken a giant leap toward an unfettered executive controlling all three branches of the Federal Government--a Republican- controlled House, Republican-controlled Senate, the Presidency, and now the Federal judiciary, the one part that should be above politics. It will not only demean the Senate--a Senate I have been proud to serve in for 31 years--but it will destroy the comity on which it depends. It also will undermine the strong independent Federal judiciary that has protected the rights and liberties of all Americans against the overreaching of the political branches, whether the branch is controlled by Democrats or by Republicans. Our Senate Parliamentarian, who steps away from politics and simply tells us what the rules are, and the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have both said the so- called nuclear option would violate Senate precedent. I would ask my friends on the Republican side, do you really want to blatantly break the rules just for some short-term political gain? Do you really want to turn the Senate, this unique Chamber, into a place where the parliamentary equivalent of brute force is what prevails? The recently constituted Iraqi National Assembly was elected in January. In April it acted pursuant to its governing law to select a presidency council by the required vote of two-thirds of the Assembly. It required two-thirds, a supermajority. That same governing law says it can only be amended by a three-quarters vote of the National Assembly. The use of the nuclear option in the Senate would be akin to the Iraqis in the majority political party of the Assembly saying they have decided to change the law to allow them to pick only members of their party for the government, and to do so by a simple majority vote. That is certainly different than what our own President has praised it for in requiring that supermajority. They might feel justified in acting contrary to law because the Kurds and the Sunni were driving a hard bargain and because governing through consensus is not as easy as ruling unilaterally. Governing by consensus is not supposed to be. That is why our system of government is the world's example. If Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds can cooperate in their new government to make democratic decisions, I would think it would be a lot easier for Republicans and Democrats to do so in the Senate. If the Iraqi law and Assembly can protect minority rights and participation, so can the rules in the Senate. That has been the defining characteristic of the Senate. It is one of the principal ways in which it was designed to be so distinct from the House of Representatives. This week, the Senate debated an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The justification for these billions of dollars being spent every single week--billions of dollars in American taxpayers' money--is that we are seeking to establish democracies. How ironic that at the same time we are undertaking these efforts at great cost to so many American families, some are seeking to undermine the protection of minority rights and the checks and balances represented by the Senate through our own history. This week the Secretary of State said in Moscow that ``the centralization of the state power in the presidency at the expense of countervailing institutions like the Duma or an independent judiciary is clearly very wrong.'' Just as those developments undercut democracy in Russia, so, too, our American democracy is undercut by the concentration of power in the Executive, removing checks and balances and undermining the independence of the Federal judiciary. It is ironic given that the President and Secretary of State speak so eloquently about the fundamental requirements of a democratic society--and I applaud them for doing that. They do it when they meet with President Putin of Russia. At the same time, the Bush administration and Senate Republicans are intent to employ the nuclear option to consolidate power in this Presidency in this country. The President has, in his own words, acknowledged that democracy relies on the sharing of power. I publicly applauded his inaugural speech when he talked about this issue. He acknowledged that democracy relies on the sharing of power, on checks and balances, on the independent court system, the protection of minority rights, and on safeguarding human rights and dignity. But the so-called nuclear option is in direct contradiction to maintaining those values and those components of our democracy. Just as Abu Ghraib and other abuses make it more difficult for our country effectively to condemn torture and abuse when we speak to the rest of the world, the nuclear option used as a partisan effort to consolidate power in a single political party and institution would make all the lectures on democracy we give to leaders of other countries ring hollow. I spoke to a group of Russian Parliamentarians--if I might tell a short story--who came to see me shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed. They wanted to talk about our Federal judiciary. Like other representatives I heard in other emerging democracies, they asked: ``Is it true that the U.S. Government might be a party in a lawsuit, but then the Government could lose?'' I said: Absolutely right. They said: You mean people would dare to sue the Government? I said: It happens all the time. We have an independent judiciary. Yes, they could. They said: Well, if the Government actually lost, don't you fire the judge? I said: No, they are an independent judiciary. I have argued cases on behalf of the Government where it might have been nice to fire the judge, but that is not the way we do things. It amazes people in other parts of the world. They are amazed that people have disagreed with their Government and could actually go to court, bring a challenge, and seek redress, even if it meant the Government would have to lose to get that redress. Chief Justice Rehnquist is right to refer to our independent judiciary as the crown jewel of our democracy. It is more than a crown jewel, it is a dazzling jewel, a light to the rest of the world, especially those parts of the world that want to become democratic nations. Judicial fairness and independence is also essential if we are to maintain our freedoms. I would say to the majority leader of the other body, Mr. DeLay, and others, stop slamming the Federal judiciary. We don't have to agree with every one of their opinions. And we don't on either side. Let us respect their independence. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Presidential election in 2000, I thought that the 5-to-4 majority--a very close majority, a one- vote majority--engaged in an incredible and overreaching act of judicial activism. But I went on the floor of the body and before the television cameras and I called for Americans to respect the opinion of the Court, even though I disagreed with it. On the Judiciary Committee at the time, I attended the argument of Bush v. Gore, side by side with my Republican counterpart. We wanted to show the country that we had to get along and work together. Democrats didn't ask to impeach Justice Scalia when we wholeheartedly disagreed with his action. Instead we took to the floor of this body and the other body and to the airwaves and said the Supreme Court has spoken. We must uphold the decision of the Court. Part of upholding the Constitution is upholding the independence of the third branch of Government. One political party or the other will control the Presidency, as they have for over 200 years. One party or the other will control Congress. In my 30 years here, I have been in the majority several times and in the minority several times. These things go back and forth. No political party should control the judiciary. It has to be independent of all political parties. Think of it, that was the genius of the Founders of this country: one branch of Government, totally independent of the other, independent of political parties. That genius has protected our liberties and rights for well over 200 years. It is a genius of this country that will continue to protect us, unless we allow some to destroy it for short-term political gain. It would be a terrible diminution of our rights if we were to remove the independence of our Federal judiciary. We are liable to do something that no army that marched against us have ever been able to do to this most wonderful of democracies. If you take away the independence of our Federal judiciary, then our whole Constitutional fabric unravels. And that bright promise that brought my ancestors here from Italy and Ireland would be diminished--the bright promise that I hope continues for my children and grandchildren. Mr. President, I have spoken long and I appreciate the courtesy of my colleague from Utah. I close by asking unanimous consent that copies of letters sent by hundreds of religious leaders to Senator Frist, the letter from the Interfaith Alliance to Senator Frist, the statement by the National Council of Churches, the letter from the Anti-Defamation League to Senator Frist, and a statement from Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in light of the speech of my distinguished colleague from Utah, I have a few comments I think I will make about this issue.

Mr. LEAHY. What is the parliamentary situation, Mr. President? Are we in morning business?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I would say to the Senator from Illinois that, earlier this year, the World Health Organization convened a conference on this issue. The WHO concluded that the international community does not possess sufficient plans and resources to effectively respond to an outbreak of the avian flu and that additional resources and attention to this issue are urgently needed. The WHO called for $100 million in new resources from the international community to prevent, and if necessary, respond to an outbreak of the avian flu.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, the Senator is correct. When the Appropriations Committee was putting together the Supplemental, the Majority and Minority, working together, included $25 million to prevent and respond to an outbreak of the avian flu, because of the urgent nature of the situation in southeast Asia. I would also add that $25 million is one-fourth of the WHO appeal, and as we know, the traditional U.S. share of such multilateral efforts is one-fourth of the total cost. I would also point out that this is the amount that has been authorized in S. 600, the Foreign Assistance Authorization bill that was debated in the Senate last week.

Mr. LEAHY. That is correct. The administration urgently needs this money and it will be well spent if appropriated. In fact, the money will be used to address the avian flu and build lasting mechanisms and networks to address other viruses that will undoubtedly arise in southeast Asia. The $25 million to combat the avian flu is important for Southeast Asia and the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, so far this year the Senate Republican leadership has called up one judicial nomination. That is right, despite the fact that other nominations are on the Senate Executive Calendar and ready to be confirmed, it is the Republican leadership of the Senate that is delaying action on judicial nominations. When the Senate finally turned to the nomination of Paul Crotty to be a U.S. district court judge for the Southern District of New York on April 11, that nomination was confirmed 95 to 0. All Democrats present voted in favor of confirmation. Indeed, Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton came to the floor to speak in favor of the nominee. That is the only judicial nomination Senate Republicans have been willing to consider all year. There has been no filibuster of judicial nominees. Instead, it is the Senate Republican leadership that, through its deliberate inaction, is keeping judgeships unnecessarily vacant for months. With the Crotty nomination, I was the one asking for months for the nomination to be considered, debated, voted on and confirmed. At the time, I noted that another noncontroversial nomination was ready for Senate action. More than a week ago, I called upon the Republican leadership to proceed to the confirmation of Michael Seabright to the District Court of Hawaii. I renew that plea. All Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have been prepared to vote favorably on this nomination for some time. We were prepared to report the nomination last year but it was not listed by the then-chairman on a committee agenda. I thank Chairman Specter for including Mr. Seabright at our meeting on March 17. The nomination was unanimously reported and has been on the Senate Executive Calendar for more than a month. It is Senate Republicans who are resisting a vote on this judicial nominee, not Democrats. I understand that Mr. Seabright has the support of both of his home State Senators, both distinguished and highly respected Democratic Senators. Once confirmed, Mr. Seabright will be the 206th of 216 nominees brought before the full Senate for a vote to be confirmed. That means that 830 of the 875 authorized judgeships in the Federal judiciary, or 95 percent, will be filled. As late as it is in the year, we would still be back on pace with that set by the Republican majority in 1999, when President Clinton was in the White House. That year, the Senate Republican leadership did not allow the Senate to consider the first judicial nominee until April 15. Two judges were confirmed in April and the third was not confirmed until June. Of the 46 judicial vacancies now existing, President Bush has not even sent nominees for 28 of those vacancies, more than half. I have been encouraging the Bush administration to work with Senators to identify qualified and consensus judicial nominees and do so, again, today. The Democratic leader and I sent the President a letter in this regard on April 5, but have received no response. It is now the third week in April, we are more than one-quarter through the year and so far the President has sent only one new nominee for a Federal court vacancy all year--only one. Instead of sending back divisive nominees, would it not be better for the country, the courts, the American people, the Senate and the administration if the White House would work with us to identify, and for the President to nominate, more consensus nominees like Michael Seabright who can be confirmed quickly with strong, bipartisan votes? I commend the Senators from Hawaii for their efforts to work cooperatively to fill judicial vacancies. I only wish Republicans had treated President Clinton's nominees to vacancies in Hawaii with similar courtesy. Had they, there would not have been the vacancies on the Ninth Circuit and on the district court. The work of the Senators from Hawaii is indicative of the type of bipartisan efforts Senate Democrats have made with this President and remain willing to make. We can work together to fill judicial vacancies with qualified, consensus nominees. The vast majority of the more than 200 judges confirmed during the last 3\1/2\ years were confirmed with bipartisan support. The truth is that 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 in Ronald Reagan's first term when he was being assisted by 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 the lowest level, lowest rate and lowest number in decades, since Ronald Reagan was in office. The Hawaii judgeship at issue here has been vacant for more than 4 years, since December of 2000 when Judge Alan Kay took senior status. President Clinton made a nomination to that seat in advance of the vacancy, but the Republicans in control of the Senate refused to act on it. They preserved the vacancy for a Republican President. In 2002, President Bush nominated James Rohlfing to the vacancy. That nomination failed, however, because in the view of his home State Senators and the American Bar Association, he was not qualified for the position. It took the White House more than two additional years to agree. Finally, in May 2004 that nomination was withdrawn by President Bush. The administration finally got it right after consultation with the Hawaii Senators. The President sent Michael Seabright's name to the Senate last September. An outstanding attorney who has experience in private practice as well as a sterling reputation as an assistant U.S. attorney, Mr. Seabright merited consideration and swift confirmation. Despite his reputation as a law-and-order Republican, Republicans would not move on Mr. Seabright's nomination last Congress. The President took his time renominating Mr. Seabright and even then it took repeated requests to get his nomination included on the agenda of the committee. When he was considered on March 17 he was reported with unanimous support. Senate Democrats have long supported and requested action on this nomination. I have been urging this President and Senate Republicans for years to work with all Senators and engage in genuine, bipartisan consultation. That process leads to the nomination, confirmation and appointment of consensus nominees with reputations for fairness. The Seabright nomination, the bipartisan support of his home State Senators, and the committee's action by a unaimous, bipartisan vote is a perfect example of what I have been urging. I have noted that there are currently 28 judicial vacancies for which the President has delayed sending a nominee. In fact, he has sent the Senate only one new judicial nominee all year. I wish he would work with all Senators to fill those remaining vacancies rather than through his inaction and unnecessarily confrontational approach manufacture longstanding vacancies. It is as if the President and his most partisan supporters want to create a crisis. Over the last weeks we have heard some extremists call for mass impeachments of judges, court-stripping and punishing judges by reducing court budgets. Now we are seeing an effort at religious McCarthyism by which Republican partisans inject religion into these matters. Rather than promote crisis and confrontation, I urge this President to disavow the divisive campaign and do what most others have and work with us to identify outstanding consensus nominees. It ill serves the country, the courts and most importantly the American people for this administration and the Senate Republican leadership to continue down the road to conflict. The Seabright nomination shows how unnecessary that conflict really is. Let us join together to debate and confirm these consensus nominees to these important lifetime posts on the federal judiciary. It is the Federal judiciary that is called upon to rein in the political branches when their actions contravene the Constitution's limits on governmental authority and restrict individual rights. It is the Federal judiciary that has stood up to the overreaching of this administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. It is more and more the Federal judiciary that is being called upon to protect Americans' rights and liberties, our environment and to uphold the rule of law as the political branches under the control of one party have overreached. Federal judges should protect the rights of all Americans, not be selected to advance a partisan or personal agenda. Once the judiciary is filled with partisans beholden to the administration and willing to reinterpret the Constitution in line with the administration's demands, who will be left to protect American values and the rights of the American people? The Constitution establishes the Senate as a check and a balance on the choices of a powerful President who might seek to make the Federal judiciary an extension of his administration or a wholly owned subsidiary of any political party. Today, Republicans are threatening to take away one of the few remaining checks on the power of the executive branch by their use of what has become known as the nuclear option. This assault on our tradition of checks and balances and on the protection of minority rights in the Senate and in our democracy should be abandoned. Eliminating the filibuster by the nuclear option would destroy the Constitution's design of the Senate as an effective check on the Executive. The elimination of the filibuster would reduce any incentive for a President to consult with home State Senators or seek the advice of the Senate on lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary. It is a leap not only toward one-party rule but to an unchecked Executive. Rather than blowing up the Senate, let us honor the constitutional design of our system of checks and balances and work together to fill judicial vacancies with consensus nominees. The nuclear option is unnecessary. What is needed is a return to consultation and for the White House to recognize and respect the role of the Senate appointments process. The American people have begun to see this threatened partisan power grab for what it is and to realize that the threat and the potential harm are aimed at our democracy, at an independent and strong Federal judiciary and, ultimately, at their rights and freedoms.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is with sadness and appreciation I come to the floor today to speak about the announcement my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, just made this afternoon in Burlington. He announced he will retire from the Senate at the end of his current term. Not surprisingly, Senator Jeffords went back to his native State, our native State, of Vermont to make the announcement. When I called him this morning to talk with him, I said, ``Jim, how are you doing?'' He said, ``The air is so clear and so nice here in Vermont.'' He was speaking about the fact, of course, that he felt so much at peace. I know that is the case because Jim and I have known each other and we have worked with each other since the days, long ago, when he was the attorney general of Vermont and I was prosecuting criminals as State's Attorney of Chittenden County. Our wives, Liz Jeffords and Marcelle Leahy, knew each other even before that from their high school days in Burlington. When Jim and I speak of our wives, we have to admit, we both married way above ourselves. We both chose extremely well. Our thoughts and thanks today are also with Liz and their children, Leonard and Laura. Jim Jeffords is beloved by the people of Vermont, as well as by millions of Americans nationwide who have come to know him through the courage and independence he showed in making the difficult decision to become an Independent. Since then, Jim has had a national following. He has never had more public support and popularity in Vermont than he does today. Though many Americans outside of Vermont only came to know of his independence in recent years, the truth is that, throughout his public service, Jim Jeffords has shown that same streak of Vermont independence. It is deep, it is wide, and it is genuine--from his days as a State senator from Rutland County, to being Attorney General, to being a Member of the House of Representatives, to being a Senator. Jim has ably continued the Vermont legacy of national leadership on the environment in the tradition of Senator Bob Stafford of Vermont, from Jim's early days in the other body, to his chairmanship and now being ranking member in the Environment and Public Works Committee in this body. Vermonters, no matter what their political affiliation, are good stewards of the gorgeous land that surrounds us. With our pristine mountains and lush valleys, we have sometimes said we have air so clean it has never been breathed. That is the air Jim Jeffords was enjoying this morning in Vermont. So we consider the pollution that creeps across our borders from dirty powerplants upwind of our State to be an offense not only against our health but against the natural environment we want to enjoy and pass on to our children and grandchildren. Jim Jeffords has been a stalwart national leader in that fight. Jim Jeffords also feels passionately about improving education in America and his imprint can be found on innumerable laws and initiatives over the years in pursuit of that goal. Children with disabilities, they especially have had a champion in Senator Jeffords. Senator Jeffords of Vermont and I have also been partners in defending the hard-working dairy farmers of our States and--I might say--of a lot of other States. Vermonters and I will miss the seniority that he has gained in this body, which has been put to so many good purposes not only for our States but for our Nation. When the time comes for him to carve his initials in his desk and retire from the Senate, Jim Jeffords will leave with a legacy of principled public service of which he and Vermonters can be proud. I know that, for the Senator from Vermont, nothing compares to the scarce and precious days he has been able to spend on his farm in Shrewsbury. We are both native Vermonters and we feel that tug of the land. Our colleagues may remember the time years ago when he broke his leg doing farm chores. He was doing them instead of hiring somebody else because it felt good. He believed it brought him closer to his native State. Down the road I am sure that my good friend looks forward to a time when those precious days at home will be a little less scarce. So with fondness and with appreciation, I will conclude with a phrase that was often heard from Vermonters, even seen on bumper stickers during his last reelection campaign: Thanks, Jim. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are many Members on both sides of the aisle with strong objections to the REAL ID Act, which the House included in its version of the emergency supplemental and which Senator Isakson has offered as an amendment. I oppose the REAL ID Act because I value our Nation's historic commitment to asylum, and do not want to see severe restrictions placed on the ability of asylum seekers to obtain refuge here. I oppose it because I value States rights, and side with the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the Council of State Governments in objecting to the imposition of unworkable Federal mandates on State drivers license policies. And I oppose the REAL ID Act because I support environmental protection and the rule of law, both of which the act would subvert by requiring the DHS Secretary to waive all laws, environmental or otherwise, that may get in the way of the construction of border fences or barriers, and by forbidding judicial review of the Secretary's actions. Although I oppose the REAL ID Act, I respect Senator Isakson's desire to debate it in the Senate. The Senate should have a debate and vote on his amendment, and state clearly where we stand. I fear that if we do not, the Senate's silence will be treated as acquiescence by the Republican conferees from both Chambers. As a result, we will see this highly objectionable legislation included in an unamendable conference report. Such a backdoor approach may be the preferred course of action for the Senate's Republican leadership, but it is no way for us to conduct our business. In addition to my substantive objections to the Isakson amendment, I oppose it because it would deprive the Judiciary Committee of the opportunity to consider and review these wide-ranging provisions. If the majority party believes this is good legislation, it should schedule committee consideration and move it through the regular order. The majority leader has indicated in recent weeks that the Senate will be considering immigration reform this year. The provisions in the REAL ID Act should be considered at that time and in conjunction with a broader debate about immigration. We should consider the Isakson amendment and we should vote it down.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. The bipartisan efforts of the last 2 years have been productive. With the help of Judge Edward Becker, the primary stakeholders have worked diligently and as a result we have reached a compromise agreement on a national trust fund that will fairly compensate victims of asbestos exposure. With the Chairman's leadership, the disparate interests have reached consensus on many issues such as overall funding of $140 billion and a streamlined administrative process within the Department of Labor. Compensation will be awarded and paid outside of the court system through a simplified administrative claims process. There is no need to prove liability or identify a particular defendant. There is, instead, a claims process wherein all those who exhibit certain medical symptoms and evidence of disease are compensated. Last Congress I was disappointed by the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee and by the partisan bill, S. 2290, that was subsequently introduced as a substitute for that legislation. As compared to those efforts, our bipartisan bill includes significant and necessary improvements: Our bill provides higher compensation awards for victims, with $1.1 million for victims of mesothelioma, $300,000 to $1.1 million for lung cancer victims, $200,000 for victims of other cancers caused by asbestos, $100,000 to $850,000 for asbestosis, and $25,000 for what we call ``mixed disease cases.'' All likely asbestos victims are eligible for medical monitoring, and unlike last year's bills, this bill provides for medical screening for high-risk workers, a relatively low-cost way to help make sure that those most likely to be harmed are diagnosed. Another essential improvement is the important provision ensuring that victims' awards under the new trust fund will not be subject to subrogation by insurance companies. This means that victims will not have to give up any of their much-deserved compensation just because they received workers' compensation or other insurance benefits in the past. The initial funding of this trust is both more realistic and more substantial than the partisan bill from the last Congress, providing for almost $43 billion of the total $140 billion in the first five years. And unlike the earlier bill, this bill ensures that the contributors into the fund will be a matter of public record, as are their obligations to the fund. Our bill also guarantees that court cases that are well under way, and certainly those that have reached judgment, will not be upset by the new trust fund. Similarly, last year's bill would also have overridden all civil settlements that had any remaining conduct outstanding. Our bipartisan asbestos bill protects those settlements between named defendants and named victims, and also protects settlements that provide for health insurance or health care. There are other improvements to the trust fund plan over last year's effort. The previous legislation provided no incentive for the fund to start processing claims. The Specter-Leahy-Feinstein bill creates an incentive for the fund to begin processing claims quickly: If it is not operational within 9 months, the sickest victims will be able to return to the tort system. If the fund is not operational within 24 months, all victims can return to the tort system. In improving the way the asbestos legislation handles exigent claims--those victims who are sickest and may not have long to live-- Senator Feinstein was instrumental in developing a creative solution. I thank the senior Senator from California for her tireless efforts on behalf of sick and dying asbestos victims. These victims should not be forced to wait a year while this new trust fund gets organized and ready to process claims. Under Senator Feinstein's approach, which we adopted, exigent cases would receive an immediate lump-sum payment, and, as I noted earlier, if the fund is not operational in nine months, these sickest victims will be able to continue their cases in court. As part of this compromise legislation, a particular class of lung cancer sufferers, those who have had significant asbestos exposure but no markings of asbestos-related disease, are not treated as compensable victims for purposes of the asbestos trust fund. Because of the absence of markings, it is not possible to establish asbestos as the cause of their disease. If they develop markings, however, they will become eligible for compensation from the asbestos trust fund. As with many other administrative claims processes, this bill sets a limit on attorneys' fee. In connection with this asbestos fund, the limit is set at 5 percent on victims' awards within the fund. In addition, in order to prevent victims of asbestos exposure from retooling their complaints to circumvent the asbestos trust fund, the bill also imposes a higher burden of proof within the tort system for plaintiffs seeking damages resulting from exposure to silica. The problems we are addressing are complex, this bill necessarily reflects these complexities, and its drafting was not easy. The compromises we had to make were difficult but necessary to ensure that we created a trust fund that would provide adequate compensation to the thousands of workers who have suffered, and continue to suffer, the devastating health effect of asbestos. The history of asbestos use in our country must come to an end. Under a provision authored by Senator Murray that we have included, which was accepted during the last Congress by the Judiciary Committee, this bill will ban its use. We must halt the harm asbestos creates, and ameliorate the harm it has already caused. The industrial and insurer participants in the trust fund will gain the benefits of financial certainty and relief from the stresses of litigation in the tort system, and the victims will have a quicker and more efficient path to recovery. I thank Chairman Specter, Senator Feinstein and others for working so hard with me on this bipartisan legislation. I urge Senators to support this compromise legislation to, at long last, help solve the asbestos problem by providing fair compensation to victims of asbestos exposure. I think of the staffs who have worked so diligently on this. On my staff, I single out Ed Pagano, who was a lead counsel of the Democrats, along with Kristine Lucius on our side. On Senator Specter's side, we were helped so much by Seema Singh.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this day has been a long time in coming, and I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, and others in sponsoring bipartisan legislation to address the serious problem of asbestos-related disease. It is the product of years of difficult and conscientious craftsmanship and negotiation. Building on the Committee's work under Chairman Hatch, we have striven to bring a fair and efficient plan to the Congress, a plan that will ensure adequate compensation to the thousands of victims of asbestos exposure, but that also will give due consideration to the industries and the insurers that should, and will, provide that compensation. Our bipartisan legislation does that. Asbestos exposure has created a maze of arduous problems, and we have worked hard to produce a balanced bill that offers fair solutions. Senator Specter, with whom I have worked so hard on this legislation, rightly calls this one of the most complex issues we have ever tackled. It is not the bill that I would have written, were I alone responsible for its drafting, nor is it the bill that Senator Specter might have produced. Nor should anyone be surprised to hear that the interested groups--the labor organizations, the industrial participants in the trust fund, their insurers, the trial bar--are each less than pleased with some portion of the bill or another. That is the essence of legislative compromise: We have kept the ultimate goal of fair compensation to victims as the lodestar of our efforts, and we have all had to make sacrifices on a variety of subsidiary issues as we worked together to resolve this emergency. What we have achieved is important and a significant step toward a better, more efficient method to compensate asbestos victims. Asbestos is among the most lethal substances ever to be widely used in the workplace. Between 1940 and 1980, more than 27.5 million workers were exposed to asbestos on the job, and nearly 19 million of them had high levels of exposure over long periods of time. We even know of family members who have suffered asbestos-related disease from washing the clothes of loved ones. The ravages of disease caused by asbestos have affected tens of thousands of American families. We need better health screening and swifter compensation for those affected. In light of the devastating damage it has wreaked, it is hard to believe that asbestos is still being used today, yet it is. This bill will change that as well, protect against yet another generation of victims. The economic harm caused by asbestos is also real, and the bankruptcies that have resulted are a different kind of tragedy for everyone--for workers and retirees, for shareholders, and for the families that built these companies. In my home State of Vermont, the Rutland Fire and Clay Company is among the more than 70 companies to have declared bankruptcy. As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted several years ago, ``the elephantine mass of asbestos cases cries out for a legislative solution.'' Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 865 1999). In another Supreme Court opinion, Justice Ginsburg declared that ``a nationwide administrative claims processing regime would provide the most secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure.'' Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 628-29, 1997). I agree, the Chairman agrees, Senator Feinstein agrees, and we hope that many others in the Senate will agree. Weare encouraged by the favorable reception that this bill has already generated from a wide array of interested parties. In the past week, I have received letters of support from the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, VFW, the Asbestos Study Group, and others. The UAW notes in its April 13th letter, ``[The Specter-Leahy Proposal] will provide more equitable, timely and certain compensation to the victims of asbestos-related disease.'' The VFW letter of April 14 declares: ``The national trust fund that you are proposing offers our members who are sick and dying the opportunity to secure timely and fair compensation for the injury they suffered in the course of serving their country.'' The National Association of Manufacturers also released a statement expressing their hope that this legislation will engender broad support. These statements in many ways tell the story of what we have already accomplished: We have drafted a bill that has garnered a favorable response from labor, manufacturers, and companies with considerable asbestos liabilities. We have worked on this legislation for several years now, and I can assure you that garnering this level of consensus has been no small feat. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. The bipartisan efforts of the last 2 years have been productive. With the help of Judge Edward Becker, the primary stakeholders have worked diligently and as a result we have reached a compromise agreement on a national trust fund that will fairly compensate victims of asbestos exposure. With the Chairman's leadership, the disparate interests have reached consensus on many issues such as overall funding of $140 billion and a streamlined administrative process within the Department of Labor. Compensation will be awarded and paid outside of the court system through a simplified administrative claims process. There is no need to prove liability or identify a particular defendant. There is, instead, a claims process wherein all those who exhibit certain medical symptoms and evidence of disease are compensated. Last Congress I was disappointed by the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee and by the partisan bill, S. 2290, that was subsequently introduced as a substitute for that legislation. As compared to those efforts, our bipartisan bill includes significant and necessary improvements: Our bill provides higher compensation awards for victims, with $1.1 million for victims of mesothelioma, $300,000 to $1.1 million for lung cancer victims, $200,000 for victims of other cancers caused by asbestos, $100,000 to $850,000 for asbestosis, and $25,000 for what we call ``mixed disease cases.'' All likely asbestos victims are eligible for medical monitoring, and unlike last year's bills, this bill provides for medical screening for high-risk workers, a relatively low-cost way to help make sure that those most likely to be harmed are diagnosed. Another essential improvement is the important provision ensuring that victims' awards under the new trust fund will not be subject to subrogation by insurance companies. This means that victims will not have to give up any of their much-deserved compensation just because they received workers' compensation or other insurance benefits in the past. The initial funding of this trust is both more realistic and more substantial than the partisan bill from the last Congress, providing for almost $43 billion of the total $140 billion in the first five years. And unlike the earlier bill, this bill ensures that the contributors into the fund will be a matter of public record, as are their obligations to the fund. Our bill also guarantees that court cases that are well under way, and certainly those that have reached judgment, will not be upset by the new trust fund. Similarly, last year's bill would also have overridden all civil settlements that had any remaining conduct outstanding. Our bipartisan asbestos bill protects those settlements between named defendants and named victims, and also protects settlements that provide for health insurance or health care. There are other improvements to the trust fund plan over last year's effort. The previous legislation provided no incentive for the fund to start processing claims. The Specter-Leahy-Feinstein bill creates an incentive for the fund to begin processing claims quickly: If it is not operational within 9 months, the sickest victims will be able to return to the tort system. If the fund is not operational within 24 months, all victims can return to the tort system. In improving the way the asbestos legislation handles exigent claims--those victims who are sickest and may not have long to live-- Senator Feinstein was instrumental in developing a creative solution. I thank the senior Senator from California for her tireless efforts on behalf of sick and dying asbestos victims. These victims should not be forced to wait a year while this new trust fund gets organized and ready to process claims. Under Senator Feinstein's approach, which we adopted, exigent cases would receive an immediate lump-sum payment, and, as I noted earlier, if the fund is not operational in nine months, these sickest victims will be able to continue their cases in court. As part of this compromise legislation, a particular class of lung cancer sufferers, those who have had significant asbestos exposure but no markings of asbestos-related disease, are not treated as compensable victims for purposes of the asbestos trust fund. Because of the absence of markings, it is not possible to establish asbestos as the cause of their disease. If they develop markings, however, they will become eligible for compensation from the asbestos trust fund. As with many other administrative claims processes, this bill sets a limit on attorneys' fee. In connection with this asbestos fund, the limit is set at 5 percent on victims' awards within the fund. In addition, in order to prevent victims of asbestos exposure from retooling their complaints to circumvent the asbestos trust fund, the bill also imposes a higher burden of proof within the tort system for plaintiffs seeking damages resulting from exposure to silica. The problems we are addressing are complex, this bill necessarily reflects these complexities, and its drafting was not easy. The compromises we had to make were difficult but necessary to ensure that we created a trust fund that would provide adequate compensation to the thousands of workers who have suffered, and continue to suffer, the devastating health effect of asbestos. The history of asbestos use in our country must come to an end. Under a provision authored by Senator Murray that we have included, which was accepted during the last Congress by the Judiciary Committee, this bill will ban its use. We must halt the harm asbestos creates, and ameliorate the harm it has already caused. The industrial and insurer participants in the trust fund will gain the benefits of financial certainty and relief from the stresses of litigation in the tort system, and the victims will have a quicker and more efficient path to recovery. I thank Chairman Specter, Senator Feinstein and others for working so hard with me on this bipartisan legislation. I urge Senators to support this compromise legislation to, at long last, help solve the asbestos problem by providing fair compensation to victims of asbestos exposure. I think of the staffs who have worked so diligently on this. On my staff, I single out Ed Pagano, who was a lead counsel of the Democrats, along with Kristine Lucius on our side. On Senator Specter's side, we were helped so much by Seema Singh.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this day has been a long time in coming, and I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, and others in sponsoring bipartisan legislation to address the serious problem of asbestos-related disease. It is the product of years of difficult and conscientious craftsmanship and negotiation. Building on the Committee's work under Chairman Hatch, we have striven to bring a fair and efficient plan to the Congress, a plan that will ensure adequate compensation to the thousands of victims of asbestos exposure, but that also will give due consideration to the industries and the insurers that should, and will, provide that compensation. Our bipartisan legislation does that. Asbestos exposure has created a maze of arduous problems, and we have worked hard to produce a balanced bill that offers fair solutions. Senator Specter, with whom I have worked so hard on this legislation, rightly calls this one of the most complex issues we have ever tackled. It is not the bill that I would have written, were I alone responsible for its drafting, nor is it the bill that Senator Specter might have produced. Nor should anyone be surprised to hear that the interested groups--the labor organizations, the industrial participants in the trust fund, their insurers, the trial bar--are each less than pleased with some portion of the bill or another. That is the essence of legislative compromise: We have kept the ultimate goal of fair compensation to victims as the lodestar of our efforts, and we have all had to make sacrifices on a variety of subsidiary issues as we worked together to resolve this emergency. What we have achieved is important and a significant step toward a better, more efficient method to compensate asbestos victims. Asbestos is among the most lethal substances ever to be widely used in the workplace. Between 1940 and 1980, more than 27.5 million workers were exposed to asbestos on the job, and nearly 19 million of them had high levels of exposure over long periods of time. We even know of family members who have suffered asbestos-related disease from washing the clothes of loved ones. The ravages of disease caused by asbestos have affected tens of thousands of American families. We need better health screening and swifter compensation for those affected. In light of the devastating damage it has wreaked, it is hard to believe that asbestos is still being used today, yet it is. This bill will change that as well, protect against yet another generation of victims. The economic harm caused by asbestos is also real, and the bankruptcies that have resulted are a different kind of tragedy for everyone--for workers and retirees, for shareholders, and for the families that built these companies. In my home State of Vermont, the Rutland Fire and Clay Company is among the more than 70 companies to have declared bankruptcy. As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted several years ago, ``the elephantine mass of asbestos cases cries out for a legislative solution.'' Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 865 1999). In another Supreme Court opinion, Justice Ginsburg declared that ``a nationwide administrative claims processing regime would provide the most secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure.'' Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 628-29, 1997). I agree, the Chairman agrees, Senator Feinstein agrees, and we hope that many others in the Senate will agree. Weare encouraged by the favorable reception that this bill has already generated from a wide array of interested parties. In the past week, I have received letters of support from the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, VFW, the Asbestos Study Group, and others. The UAW notes in its April 13th letter, ``[The Specter-Leahy Proposal] will provide more equitable, timely and certain compensation to the victims of asbestos-related disease.'' The VFW letter of April 14 declares: ``The national trust fund that you are proposing offers our members who are sick and dying the opportunity to secure timely and fair compensation for the injury they suffered in the course of serving their country.'' The National Association of Manufacturers also released a statement expressing their hope that this legislation will engender broad support. These statements in many ways tell the story of what we have already accomplished: We have drafted a bill that has garnered a favorable response from labor, manufacturers, and companies with considerable asbestos liabilities. We have worked on this legislation for several years now, and I can assure you that garnering this level of consensus has been no small feat. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the AgJOBS bill, which will do a world of good for farmers and farmworkers in Vermont and around our Nation. First, this amendment would reform the H2A program for temporary agricultural labor. As it currently exists, this program is cumbersome and deeply unpopular with farmers. As a result, it is underused and promotes the widespread use of illegal labor on our Nation's farms. Indeed, experts estimate that more than half of our Nation's farmworkers are here illegally. Second, this amendment would provide an opportunity for that illegal workforce to come out of the shadows and obtain legal permanent residency in return for the contributions they have made and will make to American agriculture, both before and after enactment. It would allow undocumented aliens who can demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture for 100 or more days in a 12-month period during the last 18 months to apply for legal status. Eligible applicants would be granted temporary resident status. If the farmworker then works at least 360 days in agriculture during the next 6 years, he or she may apply for permanent resident status. Workers would be free to choose from any employer. These provisions would create a substantially larger legal, stable workforce from which farmers around the country could hire. And without these provisions, it is difficult to see why farmworkers currently here illegally would come forward and announce their presence. The AgJOBS bill is supported by a broad coalition of the agriculture industry and farmworker union and advocacy groups. It has broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and I urge all Senators to vote for cloture.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the House has voted to pass the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, clearing the way for the President to sign this important bill into law. That signature will mark the completion of our unfinished intellectual property business from last year. As we work to enact an equally ambitious intellectual property agenda in this new Congress, we have started off on the right foot. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act will help protect the rights of our innovators and support efforts at preserving America's cultural heritage. Title I of the bill, the ``Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act,'' will criminalize a growing scourge: the use of camcorders to surreptitiously swipe movies from the big screen. Theft of intellectual property does not involve stealing something tangible, but the economic impact is very real. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, our film industries lose $3 billion annually due to piracy. We already know of high profile examples of movies showing up in other parts of the world on DVD while still in theaters in the United States. Theft of intellectual property is a global problem, and we need to ensure that our own IP house is in order even as we continue efforts at stronger international enforcement. I have long been an enthusiastic proponent of the Library of Congress's efforts at protecting and promoting our nation's rich and diverse film heritage. Thus, I am particularly pleased that the bill passed today also contains the National Film Preservation Act, legislation that I sponsored in the last Congress to continue support for this extraordinary project. It reauthorizes a Library of Congress program dedicated to preserving precisely those types of films most in need of archival preservation: ``orphaned'' works that do not enjoy the protection of the major studios. The movies saved include culturally significant silent-era films, ethnic films, newsreels, and avant-garde works. The Act will allow the Library of Congress to continue its important work, and to provide assistance to libraries, museums, and archives in preserving films and in making these works available to researchers and the public. We know that more than 50 percent of the works made before 1950 have disintegrated and that only 10 percent of films made before 1929 still exist. Once these works are gone, they are lost to history forever. The Librarian of Congress, James Billington, has referred to our film heritage as ``America's living past.'' The National Film Preservation Act will help ensure that this past is accessible in order to entertain and enlighten future generations. I am also glad that a small but significant component of the bill is the Preservation of Orphan Works Act, which corrects a drafting error in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Correction of this error will allow libraries to create copies of orphan works, copyrighted materials that are in the last 20 years of their copyright term, are no longer commercially exploited, and are not available at a reasonable price. The last provision in the bill is the Family Movie Act, which ensures that in-home viewing of movies can be done as families see fit. I noted when this bill was introduced that while I might well have drafted specific components of this package differently, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act was built around collegiality and compromise, both across the aisle and between chambers. As a result, we have produced good law worthy of the broad support it has enjoyed. I thank the bill's Senate cosponsors, Senators Hatch, Cornyn, Feinstein, and Alexander, for all of their hard work. I also wish to thank in particular Chairmen Sensenbrenner, Congressman Conyers, Congressman Smith, and Congressman Berman, without whose efforts this bill could not become law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 399

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 560

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 561

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 562

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 am pleased that the Senate is going to pass S. 289, a bill to reauthorize the Mental Health Court Program and provide $10 million in grant funding annually for mental health courts through fiscal year 2011. I am the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill, and cosponsored similar legislation in the last Congress. Senator DeWine and I have worked together on a number of mental health issues. Last year, we worked together to enact the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, which authorizes $50 million annually for a range of State and local projects designed to reduce the number of crimes committed by mentally ill individuals. We are now working together to obtain appropriations to fund the new law. As former prosecutors, Senator DeWine and I both realize the tremendous impact of mental illness on our criminal justice system. We need to stop the ``revolving door'' whereby mentally ill offenders cycle in and out of the criminal justice system for relatively minor offenses, taking up the time and resources of law enforcement officers, judges, and the community as a whole. My State of Vermont has benefited from funding under the Mental Health Court Program, and I know firsthand the good that mental health courts can do. I hope the House will take up this bipartisan and uncontroversial legislation promptly and ensure that Federal support for mental health courts will continue.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to speak on another matter. We have learned that those who are intent on forcing confrontation, breaking the Senate rules, and undercutting our democratic checks and balances plan to take their previous outrageous allegations of religious McCarthyism one step further and accuse Democrats of being ``against people of faith'' because we object to seven--seven--of the President's more than 200 judicial nominations. If you followed the sick logic of this venom being spewed by some of the leaders in this Chamber, we would have to say that 205 judicial nominees forwarded by the President, whom the Democratic Senators have helped to confirm, would seem not to be people of faith, even though that is as false and ridiculous on its face as is the charge leveled at Democratic Senators. This disgusting spectacle, this smear of good men and women as ``against faith'' is expected to happen, in of all places, a house of worship, according to a front-page article last week in the New York Times. It will involve twisting history, as well as religion, because according to the report, those involved will claim that Democratic Senators are using the filibuster rule to keep people of faith off of the Federal bench. This slander is so laden with falsehoods, so permeated by the smoke and mirrors of partisan politics, and so intertwined with one man's personal political aspirations that it should collapse of its own weight. But too many who should speak out against it remain violent. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee began blatantly to invoke obscene accusations like this one earlier in the Bush administration. They hurled false charges against Senators saying they were anti-Hispanic or anti-African American, anti-woman, anti-religion, anti-Catholic, and anti-Christian for opposing certain judicial nominees. They never bothered to mention the same Senators who were making these slanderous statements had blocked, themselves, many, many, many-- over 60--Hispanics, women, certainly people of faith. And they never bothered to say the Senators they were slandering had supported hundreds of nominees, including Hispanics, African Americans, women, and people of faith--Catholic, Christian, and Jewish. They never hesitated to stoke the flames of bigotry, and to encourage their supporters to continue the smear in cyberspace or on the pages of newspapers or through direct mail. Actually, to the contrary, they seemed to like the way it sounded. Maybe it tested well in their political polls. Now they have decided to up the ante on such ``religious McCarthyism,'' as a way to help them tear down the Senate and do away with the last bastion against this President's most extreme judicial nominees. It is crass demagoguery, and it is fueled by the arrogance of power. They now seek to make a connection between the dark days of the struggle for civil rights, when some used the filibuster to try to defeat equal rights laws, and the situation we find ourselves in today when the voice of the minority struggles to be heard above the cacophony of daily lies and misrepresentations. This tactical shift follows on the rhetorical attacks aimed at the judiciary over the past few weeks in which Federal judges were likened to the KKK and ``the focus of evil.'' In the last few weeks, we have heard that, at an event attended by Republican Members of the Congress, people called for Stalinist solutions to problems, referring to Joseph Stalin's reference to killing people he disagreed with, and calling for mass impeachments. Wouldn't you think the Members of Congress, who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, would speak up or at least leave with their heads bowed in shame, instead of, apparently, enjoying it? Last week, the Senate Democratic leadership called upon the President and the Republican leadership of Congress to denounce these inflammatory statements against judges. This week, I renew my call to the Republican leader and, in particular, to Republican moderates, to denounce the religious McCarthyism that is again pervading their side of this debate. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to follow the brave example of one of Vermont's greatest Senators, Republican Ralph Flanders. Senator Flanders recognized a ruthless political opportunist when he saw one. He knew Senator Joseph McCarthy had exploited his position of power in the Senate to smear hundreds of innocent people and win headlines and followers, and campaign contributions, with his false charges and innuendo, without regard to facts or rules or human decency. Senator Flanders spoke out during this dark chapter in the history of this great institution. He offered a resolution of censure condemning the conduct of Senator McCarthy. Now, in our time, a line has again been crossed by some seeking to influence this body. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to follow Senator Flanders' lead in condemning the crossing of that line. I have served with many fair-minded Republican Senators. I am saddened to see Republican Senators stay silent when they are invited to disavow these abuses. Where are the voices of reason? Will the Republicans not heed the clarion call that Republican Senator John Danforth sounded a few weeks ago? And he is an ordained Episcopal priest. What has silenced these Senators who otherwise have taken moderate and independent stands in the past? Why are they allowing this religious McCarthyism to take place unchallenged? The demagoguery that is so cynically and corrosively being used by supporters of the President's most extreme judicial nominees needs to stop. Not only must this bogus religious test end, but Senators should denounce the launching of the nuclear option, the Republicans' precedent-shattering proposal to destroy the Senate in one stroke, while shifting the checks and balances of the Senate to the White House. I would like to keep the Senate safe and secure and in a ``nuclear free'' zone. Even our current Parliamentarian's office and our Congressional Research Service has said the so-called nuclear option would go against Senate precedent and require the Chair to overrule the Parliamentarian. Is this how we want to govern the Senate? Do Republicans want to blatantly break the rules for some kind of a short-term political gain? Just as the Constitution provides in Article V for a method of amendment, so, too, the Senate Rules provide for their own amendment. Sadly, the current crop of zealot partisans who are seeking to limit debate and minority rights in the Senate have no respect for the Senate, its role in our government as a check on the executive or its Rules. Republicans are in the majority in the Senate and chair all of its Committees, including the Rules Committee. If Republicans have a serious proposal to change the Senate Rules, they should introduce it. The Rules Committee should hold serious hearings on it and consider it and create a full and fair record so that the Senate itself would be in position to consider it. That is what we used to call ``regular order.'' That is how the Senate is intended to operate, through deliberative processes and with all points of view being protected and being able to be heard. That is not how the ``nuclear option'' will work. It is intended to work outside established precedents and procedures as explained by the Congressional Research Service report from last month. Use of the ``nuclear option'' in the Senate is akin to amending the Constitution not by following the procedures required by Article V but by proclaiming that 51 Republican Senators have determined that every copy of the Constitution shall contain a new section or different words--or not contain some of those troublesome amendments that Americans like to call the Bill of Rights. That is wrong. It is a kind of lawlessness that each of us should oppose. It is rule by the parliamentary equivalent of brute force. The recently constituted Iraqi National Assembly was elected in January. In April it acted pursuant to its governing law to select a presidency council by the required vote of two-thirds of the Assembly, a supermajority. That same governing law says that it can only be amended by a three-quarters vote of the National Assembly. Use of the ``nuclear option'' in the Senate is akin to Iraqis in the majority political party of the Assembly saying that they have decided to change the law to allow them to pick only members of their party for the government and to do so by a simple majority vote. They might feel justified in acting contrary to law because the Kurds and the Sunni were driving a hard bargain and because governing through consensus is not as easy as ruling unilaterally. It is not supposed to be, that is why our system of government is the world's example. If Iraqi Shiites, Sunni and Kurds can cooperate in their new government to make democratic decisions, so can Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate. If the Iraqi law and Assembly can protect minority rights and participation, so can the rules and United States Senate. That has been the defining characteristic of the Senate and one of the principal ways in which it was designed to be distinct from the House or Representatives. This week, the Senate is debating an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The justification for these billions of dollars being spent each week is that we are seeking to establish democracies. How ironic that at the same time we are undertaking these efforts at great cost to so many American families, some are seeking to undermine the protection of minority rights and checks and balances represented by the Senate through our own history. Yet that is what I see happening. President Bush emphasized in his discussions earlier this year with President Putin of Russia that the essentials of a democracy include protecting minority rights and an independent judiciary. The Republican ``nuclear option'' will undermine our values here at the same time we are preaching our values to others abroad. I urge Senate Republicans to listen carefully to what their leaders are saying, here in the Senate, and out across the country to their most extreme supporters. Consider what it is they are about to do and the language they use to justify it. Both are wrong. It would steer the Senate and the country away from democracy, away from the protections of the minority and away from the checks and balances that ensure the freedoms of all Americans. I would also like to talk for a moment about the independence of the judiciary. I have expressed my concern that members of Congress have suggested judges be impeached if they disagree with the judges' decisions. Republicans rushed through legislation telling federal judges what to do in the Schiavo case, and then criticized the judges when they acted independently, judges appointed by President Reagan, by former President Bush, and by President Clinton. They were all criticized for that, although there are still those who are saying we should impeach the judges, or as I mentioned earlier in my speech, one speaker at a recent conference, to the cheers of some suggested Joseph Stalin's famous ``No man. No problem'' solution, because he killed those who disagreed. I remember a group of Russian parliamentarians came to see me to talk about federal judiciary, and they asked, ``Is it true that in the United States the government might be a party in a lawsuit and that the government could lose?'' I said, ``Absolutely right.'' They said, ``People would dare to sue the government?'' I said, ``We have an independent judiciary, yes, they could.'' They said, ``Well, if the government lost, you fire the judges, of course?'' I said, ``No, they are an independent judiciary.'' And I remember the discussion around the conference room in my office. This was the most amazing thing to them, that the people who disagreed with the government could actually go to a federal court or a state court, bring a suit there and seek redress even if it meant the government lost. Sometimes it wins, sometimes it loses. I was a government prosecutor. I know how that works. I think they finally understood that the reason we are such a great democracy is that we have an independent judiciary. I would call out to my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop slamming the federal judiciary. We don't have to agree with every one of their opinions but let's respect their independence. Let's not say things that are going to bring about further threats against our judges. We've had a lot more judges killed than we've had U.S. Senators killed for carrying out their duties. We ought to be protecting them and their integrity. If we disagree with what they've done in a case where we can pass a law and we feel we should, then pass a law and change it. Don't take the pot shots that put all judges in danger and that attack the very independence of our federal judiciary. We remember our own oath of office. Part of upholding the Constitution is upholding the independence of the third branch of government. One party or the other will control the presidency. One party or the other will control each House of Congress. No political party should control the judiciary. It should be independent of all political parties. That was the genius of the founders of this country. It is the genius that has protected our liberties and our rights for well over 200 years. It is the genius of this country that will continue to protect them if we allow it to. It would be a terrible diminution of our rights and it would be one of the most threatening things to our whole democracy if we were to remove the independence of our federal judiciary. That would do things that no armies marched against us have ever been able to do. None of the turmoil, the wars, all that we've gone through in this country has ever been able to do. If you take away the independence of our federal judiciary, then our whole constitutional fabric unravels. I will close with one little story. One day, years ago, on the floor of this Senate, there was an attempt, in a court-stripping bill, to remove jurisdiction of the Federal courts because one Senator did not like a decision they came down with. It was decided if there had not been a vote by 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon, we would not vote on it. So three Senators took the floor to talk against it--myself, former Republican Senator, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, and one other. We spoke for several hours, and the bill was drawn down. Now, I do not remember what the decision was of the Federal court. I may have agreed with it. I may have disagreed. I did not want to see us making the Senate into some kind of a supreme court that would overturn any decision we didn't like. On the way out, the third Senator came up to Lowell Weicker and myself and linked his arm in ours, and he said: We are the only true conservatives on this floor because we want to protect the Constitution and not make these changes. I turned to him and I said: Senator Goldwater, you are absolutely right. I was glad Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, and I stood up for the Constitution, stood up for the independence of the Federal judiciary. It probably was unpopular to do so, but I think Senator Goldwater, Senator Weicker, and I all agreed it was the right thing to do. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join my good friend, the Senator from California, in paying tribute to a remarkable young woman from Lakeport, CA, Marla Ruzicka. There are times when we are called upon to give speeches such as this on the floor. They are never easy. Sometimes they are speeches given about somebody at the end of a long and full life. Here we are speaking about a young woman at the beginning of a life already full but with promise for decades to come. Marla was the founder of a humanitarian organization called Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict which is devoted to helping the families of Afghan and Iraqi citizens who have been killed or suffered other losses, such as their homes destroyed, businesses destroyed, as a result of U.S. military operations. We know such suffering occurs no matter how careful the military may be. But Saturday, Marla died in Baghdad. She died from a car bomb, a car bomb not directed at her but directed at a convoy. She was doing the work she loved and which so many people around the world admired her for. She was on her way to help somebody else. It was the case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. But it was not unusual because she had risked her life so many times in Afghanistan and Iraq. I met Marla 3 years ago when she first came to Washington. She was barely 26 years old. She had been in Afghanistan. She had seen the effects of the U.S. bombing mistakes that destroyed the homes and lives of innocent Afghan citizens. In one or two incidents, wedding parties had been bombed. In others, the bombs missed their targets and instead destroyed homes and neighborhoods. I remember one incident she spoke of where every member of a family-- 16 people--was killed except a young child and that child's grandfather. These were the cases Marla spoke about. She spoke about them passionately because she felt passionately that the United States should help those families put their lives back together. She met with me. She met in my office with Tim Rieser, who works on appropriations for me in the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. It did not take her long to convince either Tim or myself that she was so obviously right. We knew we not only had a moral responsibility to those people who had suffered because of the mistakes of the United States, we also had an interest in mitigating the hatred, the resentment toward Americans that those incidents had caused. It was Marla's initiative--going to Afghanistan, meeting those families, getting the media's attention, coming back here and meeting with me and Tim and others--that led to the creation of a program that has contributed more than $8 million for medical assistance, or to rebuild homes, provide loans to start businesses, and provide other aid to innocent Afghan victims of the military operations. From Afghanistan, Marla went to Iraq. She arrived, as I recall, a day or two after Saddam's statue fell. She and her Iraqi colleague, Faiez Ali Salem, who died at the same time, the same place as Marla, organized dozens of Iraqi volunteers to conduct surveys around the country of civilian casualties. Then she returned to Washington and again her efforts--I have to emphasize, her efforts, her personal efforts, her pounding on doors, her going person to person with her irrepressible energy--led to the creation of a program now known as the Civilian Assistance Program which has provided $10 million to the families and communities of Iraqi citizens killed by the U.S. and other coalition forces--another $10 million was allocated for this program last week--all by this happy, young woman you see depicted here, sitting with the people she helped. To my knowledge, this is the first time we have ever provided this type of assistance to civilian victims of U.S. military operations. It would never have happened without the initiative, the courage, the incomparable force of character of Marla Ruzicka. In my 31 years as a Senator, I have met a lot of interesting, accomplished people from all over the world, as all of us do--Nobel Prize recipients, heads of State, people who have achieved remarkable and even heroic things in their lives. I have never met anyone like Marla. She made sure we knew what she was doing and how we could help. Tim Rieser received an e-mail from her within an hour of the time she was killed. He sent it on to me during the middle of the night, Saturday night, with the photographs of Marla and the little girl she had helped. I know how both my wife Marcelle and I felt, looking at those pictures, knowing we would never see another. There are so many stories about her, and some of them are being recounted now in the hundreds of press articles that have appeared in just the past 48 hours. One story I remember the day after Marla arrived in Washington from Kabul. She had heard there was a hearing in the Senate where Secretary Rumsfeld and General Franks were going to testify. Thinking, perhaps a bit naively, that they might talk about the problem of civilian casualties, she decided to go hear what they would say. After the hearing was over, obviously disappointed that the issue she cared so deeply about hadn't even been mentioned, Marla walked straight up to Secretary Rumsfeld at the witness table and started talking to him. He heads down the hallway; she heads down the hallway with him. I can imagine what the security people felt. She followed him right outside to his car, and she did not stop talking to him about the families of civilians she had met who had been killed and injured and the need to do something to help them. Anybody who knew Marla can see that. Secretary of Defense? Secretary of State, Senator, it didn't make any difference. She had a story to tell and, by golly, you were going to hear that story. You could run down the hall, you could go to the elevator, but you were going to hear her story. She was not someone who was easy to say no to. Not easy? It was almost impossible to say no to her. That was not simply because she was insistent. We all have insistent people who come to our offices. We have all developed ways to say no. But in her case, she was not just insistent, she was credible. She had been there. She knew what the war was about. She had seen the tragic results, and she was not about blaming anyone. She wasn't there to blame others. She just said: Look, there are people who need help. I want to help in whatever way I can. That is what made it different. She saw her work as part of the best of what this country is about. It was the face of a compassionate America she believed in. She wanted the people of Afghanistan and Iraq to see the face of the America she believed in, a compassionate, humanitarian face. It took time for some of us to realize she was not just a blond bundle of energy and charisma, which she was, but she was also a person of great intellect and courage who realized she wanted to help more victims. It wasn't enough to protest; that you can do easily. She needed to work with people who could help her do it. Of course, that meant the Congress, the U.S. military, the U.S. Embassy, the press, everybody else involved. She understood that. So she put aside politics and focused on the victims. But she made sure the Congress, the U.S. military, the U.S. Embassy and the press and everybody else heard from her. It didn't take long before the U.S. military saw the importance of what she was doing and they started to help. There were several civil affairs officers with whom Marla worked as a team. She would find the cases. They would arrange for the plane to airlift a wounded child to a hospital or some other type of assistance. She became one of our most beloved ambassadors because she was doing what our ambassadors want to do--put the good face, the humanitarian face, the loving and caring face of America first and foremost. I think one of the reasons so many people around the world feel Marla's loss so deeply is because we saw how important her work was, and that meant taking risks the rest of us are unwilling take. In a way, she was not only helping the families of Iraqi war victims; she was also helping us, until she finally became an innocent victim of war herself. Yesterday, my phone rang so many times, people calling from Baghdad, calling me at home. Every one of them had a different story of something she had done, some way in which she had made somebody's life different. She has been called many things: an angel of mercy, a ray of sunshine in an often dangerous and dark world. One person who knew her well described Marla as being as close to a living saint as they come. I suspect that is how many of us feel. She probably didn't feel that way herself. Many of us feel that way. I don't think I have ever met, and I probably will never meet again, someone so young who gave so much of herself to so many people and who made such a difference doing it. Our hearts go out to her parents, Cliff and Nancy. I talked to her father yesterday. I said: Think how much she did in her short lifetime, more than most of us will get to do in a lifetime. But I thanked them for having the courage to let her be the person she wanted to be--not that I suspected anybody could have stopped her from being what she wanted to be. One of the articles talks about her going to a checkpoint and the guard stopping her and she didn't have the proper papers. She stuck her head forward and pulled back the scarf. They saw the blond hair. She started talking to them about why she had to go here and there. Next thing you know, she is being sent on her way. So our job is really to carry on the work Marla started not just in memory of a wonderful and heroic young woman, although that should be enough reason, but because the work is so important. That is what I am committed to. I know I will work with my friend from California to honor Marla in that way. I think it would be safe to say to my friend from California, I suspect there will be others in this Chamber who will do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will withhold my recognition so he can do that.