Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the end of last year, Marcelle and I attended an event at Georgetown University where Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was awarded a honorary degree. Everyone present at this ceremony was captured by the remarks that the archbishop gave in accepting the degree. He artfully wove us through three ``stories'' to demonstrate the importance of a Catholic university in the Jesuit tradition. So that all of my colleagues have an opportunity to review the remarks of Cardinal McCarrick, and because of the admiration I have for him, I ask that his acceptance speech at the award of his honorary degree from Georgetown University be printed in the Record. The material follows: Remarks by Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, D.D., Ph.D., Archbishop of Washington, on the Occasion of His Receiving a Honorary Degree, Georgetown University, December 1, 2004 As Father Brian [McDermott] was reading those wonderful words and as the president repeated them, I thought of the wonderful Jewish expression, ``From your mouth to God's ears.'' I just hope the Lord doesn't get mad that you said all those nice things about me. Dr. President, Dr. Villani, Chairman of the Board, members of the board, Your Excellency, The Apostolic Nuncio [Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo] and my brother bishops, my--I guess I should say my Georgetown family now--and I say that with great joy. I want to begin by telling you sincerely how honored I am in receiving this degree from Georgetown. I've long regarded this institution as one of the finest educational institutions in the United States. During my four years in Washington, I've always felt part of it in a very special way. To receive its degree now is a very special joy for me, and I want you all to know how much I do appreciate it. I have tremendous respect for your president, Dr. DeGioia. I was privileged to be present at his inauguration, and to prophesy at that time that he would lead this institution to greater heights of excellence and to a continuing growth in the realization of its mission as a Catholic university in the Jesuit tradition. My prophecy is coming true every day. My respect for the Society of Jesus goes back to my early years of high school when I admired the Jesuits so much that I found myself going to two of their high schools, not at the same time, but one after the other until I finally got it right and received my diploma. My own education in high school and college has been much enhanced by the excellence of the ratio studiorum and by its challenges. It has been an education for which I am so very grateful, and through which I have been so very blessed. As a matter of fact, since the rector of Georgetown is my personal theologian, I'm still learning from the Society and appreciating that wisdom and insight so very much. My relationship to Georgetown, as I began to intermit a moment ago, is not of a visitor in a Catholic institution. The local bishop is always part of any enterprise which is related to the Church. A university such as ours is clearly one of the great boasts and glories of our Catholic community here in Washington. I have been here many times during the last four years. I've enjoyed that privilege. I've been here for academic celebrations, for lectures, for interfaith moments of prayer, at times of national crisis, for meetings with students, and often for Mass in your chapels. In the beginning, I was happy to be welcomed by all of you at the University. Now I no longer see myself just as a welcomed visitor, but as part of the family. It is therefore always a joy when I hear someone say instead of ``Welcome to the University,'' ``It's nice to have you back.'' Georgetown University, in its stated mission, sees itself truly and essentially as a Catholic institution in the Jesuit tradition. That fact opens its life to many wonderful challenges and many great opportunities. It is a place where Catholic scholars may freely exercise a faithful witness to what the Church teaches. It is a place where non-Catholic scholars and professors, who add so much to the life of this institution, can pursue their own fields of study with the assurance that truth is the master here, and that its pursuit is always welcome. Their understanding of the mission of this institution adds so much to society's understanding of what Georgetown is all about. I pray that those who are not Catholic, both in the faculty and the student body, will always find inspiration an example from the Catholics who teach here, both cleric and lay, as well as a deeper understanding of what we're all about, and what our mission is--not just in the Church but in society and in the world at large. The preparation of Catholic leaders for the future of our nation is a noble role. The preparation of those who are not Catholic in their own burgeoning opportunity to play roles of leadership in our country, has an equal importance because it enables the leaders of tomorrow to learn about us, about the Church, and to appreciate our own Catholic mission in this complex society. This has always been one of the great roles of the Society of Jesus, and I pray it will continue always to be so here at Georgetown. May those of the immediate family always be challenged to holiness, and those of the wider family allowed to see what our life in the Lord and in His church is all about. In the religious life of the students and faculty at Georgetown, may there always be this quest for holiness since this has to be the role within any Catholic institution. The example of the Jesuits, according to the rule of the great Ignatius, must always be a challenge, not just to holiness of life, but to priests in religious vocations both for the Society and for the Diocesan in priesthood, and for religious life as well. I always rejoice in a special way to find graduates of Georgetown hearing the Lord's call to service in priestly and religious ministry. This, too, is a measure of our Catholic life and of our deep Jesuit tradition. I want to speak briefly tonight about the global importance or the international aspect of a Catholic university in the Jesuit tradition. Basically, there are three points I want to make. First is that the mark of every great university is caring. The mark of every great Catholic university is wonder. The mark of every great Catholic university in the Jesuit tradition is adventure. The first, caring, demands that there be a background of authentic humanism in the very nature and mission of every university, a sense of caring. A great university such as Georgetown is called to manifest this in a world that tends so much to be mechanistic and ideological. Secondly, the role of a Catholic university demands a sense of wonder, of mystery, and appreciation that everything in this world is not able to be subjected to positivistic criteria. We believe that there is a reality beyond the mere material that calls for recognition of the spiritual, the wonderful. And finally, the Jesuit tradition of this institution calls for it to be adventurous, innovative, inventive in the deepest sense. I believe the young people of today would say with great solemnity, the ability to think outside the box. I would like briefly to develop these three points by three stories. They are stories which have made a difference in my life. They are perhaps three stories that have been my instruction in where I am today. The first, the one which we can call the humanistic, the caring, takes place in Africa, and challenges us to understand the deep relationship which each of us has with every other human being on the planet, reminding us that we are all brothers and sisters in God's one human family. The second which takes place in Asia, and which is the only one that I relate second hand, is a story that reminds us of the need for wonder in every Catholic life. And finally, the story of an extraordinary Catholic educator, who is a Jesuit, a story from Eastern Europe, will bring us out of the box. Let me tell you these three stories. Years ago when I was a young bishop, I was sent on a mission to the Sudan for Catholic Relief Services. I tell this story because I think it is a big moment in my own life and has made a change. I see in my growth what may affect the university and its life. I was fascinated by the Sudan. I had never been in that part of Africa. I met priests. I met bishops. I met Muslim leaders. I met the poor. One day, one of the priests said, ``If you have half a day, we'll go across the Nile and go beyond Umderman.'' (Umderman, if you used to go to the old movies is where Kitchener had that great battle and Lord Gordon was killed.) So I said, ``Sure.'' We went across the Nile, which itself is a great experience, got to the other side and said, ``What are we going to see?'' He said, ``No, we're not going to stop here.'' We went about 25 more miles west into the desert. There, after the city of Umderman had long since passed, we saw a huge city of tents. We went in to see some of the families, and translated, I heard several things. We're all members of God's one human family, but I never saw it more clearly than there. These were the people, probably some from Dafur, but this is 20 years ago, who when the drought came and there was no water, could not do any farming, could not take care of their flock. So they gathered up their families and went toward the river, the Nile, where water will always be. Now they couldn't get to the Nile. They had to stop 25 miles away because they were not allowed to go there. They would have overwhelmed, so the government said, the facilities. And so they stayed there, and every day they paid some entrepreneurs who drove little trucks to the Nile, filled them up with water, and then came back. Of course, they didn't come back for free. And gradually, these people paid all the money that they had with them until it was gone. And after the money was gone, they began to sell their furniture. And after their furniture was gone, they began to sell their animals. And after their animals were gone, they began to sell their children. Listening to the families, for whom the sacrifice of an older child had to be made so that younger children could survive, it is a story that is engrained in my heart because I think that it showed me that all life has to have caring in it. All life has to have a sense of who we are as God's people. A university has to have that, any university, because if we are training people without understanding that we are all related, that we're all one family, then we are training them for a world that does not exist. That's the first lesson. A university must be involved in caring and in showing people how to care. I think Georgetown is. The second story happened in East Timor. I had gone to East Timor for some other reason, and it was maybe three months after the elections, and two months or one month after the whole country had been in a state of terrible turmoil, and those who did not want East Timor to be free began to kill all the leaders. Anyone who taught in school, anyone who had a good job, anyone who had any kind of an education was a target for these militias. The Catholic Church had been very important to these people. Eighty-five percent of the people had been Catholic, surprisingly, in one of these small islands of Indonesia. A great bishop, Bishop Belo, who won the Nobel Prize, was guarding the flock and taking care of them all. One day I went to visit him. I went to visit him in the charred ruins of his house, and then they told me the story. About a week before, there had been marauding bands, always armed and always dangerous and violent. The people began to become afraid. The bishop's house was a place with a large lawn. The people came into the lawn trying to seek protection from him who was a leader and from being together. Maybe 1,000 people were gathered there in the lawn, and the bishop came out and began to talk to them. While they were there, suddenly a band of militia came in with their guns, pushing the people aside, pushing the bishop aside. We heard all kinds of different things that may have been said, but ultimately they lit a fire and threw it in the bishop's house. The bishop went to try to save it, but he was held back. The people were awed, and scared, and afraid to do anything. While the bishop was watching the destruction of his house, and while the people in desperate fear were just standing around, a young man came out of the crowd. It was dark except for the flames. He went to the bishop, tried to move him away from the flames. A soldier came up, pushed the young man away, and stuck his gun in the bishop's back, and got ready to pull the trigger. There was a hush, and almost a scream at the same time among the people. The young man came back and gently pushed the bishop forward and stood behind him, between the gun and the bishop and did not move. The man with the gun didn't know what to do, and there was silence. Where did this fellow come from, this young man? Nobody knew him. But somehow he found courage that nobody else had. Somehow he found an ability to, in a world full of violence and anger, he found a sense of wonder and mystery. The man with the gun became embarrassed because he didn't know what to do. So, he hit the young man, pulled his gun back, and walked back to the soldiers. The moment was enough to break the tension, so the militia left. The bishop turned around to thank the young man. He wasn't there anymore. He had disappeared into the crowd. I thought, there is a sense of wonder and mystery in your life when people find courage to do things that one would never expect, when people find the ability to stand up for something that they believe, even if it threatens their life or everything they have. A Catholic university has to prepare people for that. A Catholic university has to somehow enhance in every human being that sense of wonder, that sense of mystery, that sense that you can do what you never thought you could do. You can rise above yourself, and your spirit can be enflamed, and enhanced by the needs that you see in your brothers. A university that is truly Catholic, has to pass that lesson along. I think Georgetown does. The third and last story is a different kind of story. It's a story of a Jesuit; an extraordinary Jesuit. In Slovakia, at the time of the communist persecution, only a certain number of priests were allowed to be ordained. To ordain outside that number, the bishop would be thrown into prison and the priest as well. There was a young Jesuit who had commissioned to be a priest called Jan Chryzostom Korec. Korec was ordained at maybe 26 years-old, and began to serve as a priest. The Jesuit provincial of Slovakia who was living in disguise and living underground as so many were, came to see him one day. He said, ``Father Korec, Bishop Hnilica--who was an underground bishop--has permission to consecrate you a bishop. And we feel that you should accept.'' Well, this is a man now 27 years old, but unless somebody accepted this burden, the Church could disappear. So ultimately he said, ``Yes, I will do whatever you think is right.'' So, in the kitchen of a friend the next night, he was consecrated a bishop. Then he once again disappeared and continued to work as a priest. About six months later, the provincial came to him again and said, ``Korec, we have a man now who is ready to be ordained a priest, a man of the Society. Will you ordain him?'' He said, ``Okay.'' and he ordained the young man in a park at twilight. Unfortunately, the young man was not as careful as he should have been, and the authorities found out that he was a priest. They brought him in and they began to put him under all kinds of tortures and difficulties. Finally, he said, ``I was ordained a priest quietly, secretly.'' And they said, ``Who did it?'' After more torture, he said, ``Korec.'' So they went and called Korec in, and they said, ``Are you a bishop?'' Without going into any kind of Jesuitical subtleties, he said, ``Me, a bishop, that's the silliest thing I've ever heard!'' He kept saying that and they let him go. He didn't look like a bishop. Well, six months later, the provincial came back and he said, ``We have another man. Will you ordain him?'' Korec ordained him in somebody's living room. And this man, too, unfortunately, after some months was caught, brought in, tortured, revealed Korec, and so then they had him. They sent him away to prison in solitary confinement. He was there 18 years. And then finally in the Prague spring, they allowed him to come out and to work. They gave him a job working in a chemical factory, unpacking chemical things and spillage: a very dangerous job. He did it quietly. Now he no longer had the right to be a priest, so they gave him these other jobs. He's an interesting man, and gradually people looked for him. Gradually, he began quietly to be a priest again. They weren't sure of him, so the lamp in his one-room bedroom apartment was wired. They listened to all of his conversations. He has wonderful stories to tell about playing the radio so loud that the neighbors complained, but at least he could have conversations then. Gradually, he began to do things that no one else has been able to do. When the iron curtain fell, he was acknowledged as a bishop. He went down to see the Holy Father. The Holy Father told him that he was to be given given the Diocese of Nitra, which is the diocese of St. Methodius, of the great Sts. Cyril and Methodisum, one of those great wonderful sees. About two years after that I was in Slovakia and I was talking to one of the vice-presidents of the Slovak parliament who was a Catholic. We were talking about those tough days of the communist regime. And I said, ``How did you ever get your education?'' He said, ``I went to the university.'' I said, ``Which one?'' He said, ``I went to Korec University.'' I said, ``What do you mean?'' He said, ``Every Saturday when we had off--because they had to work on Sunday. Every Saturday which was our day off, we'd pack some salami and some beer and go up into the hills and Father Korec would come. All day long, we would sit, and he would teach us about the Church, about Catholic Social Thought, about philosophy, about theology.'' And this man said to me, ``I know more about these things than if I had gone to the university for four years because we never missed a Saturday. Dozens of us would go. He would write on pieces of paper what we had to know, and he would make 50 copies all in his own handwriting.'' I've seen them. To be adventurous. To be inventive. Not to let the world make it impossible for you to grow, and live, and enjoy. Always to listen to that other voice that says you can do it: find a way. I think that's the mark of a Jesuit tradition, and I think we find it here at Georgetown. I've kept you too long with these stories of mine, but I feel that a story, like a picture, is worth a thousand words. These stories, as I said at the beginning, have moved me, maybe hopefully a little further in my understanding of what education is. Maybe it will give us all an understanding of what I mean when I say a great Catholic university in the Jesuit tradition has to be. Every university should teach its students and its faculty and administration that we live in a world of brothers and sisters, not as strangers and enemies, but that we all share a common dignity, and that all lives are precious, everyone's life. Secondly, to be truly Catholic, we must be open to wonder, to mystery, the mysteries of our faith, the mysteries of love, the mysteries even of science which will always be searching for greater clarity. As Catholics, we must never be afraid of mystery, of that wonder that causes us to do things we never thought we could do. Our faith is built on mystery, and to be truly wise, and truly educated, we must be men and women who accept wonder as an essential element of our existence. And finally, in the story of Cardinal Korec (who ultimately became a cardinal), we are challenged to see what a university can also be when circumstances and the challenges of the world around us call us all to find in different ways the great things that are essential for our lives and vital for our growth and wisdom. I find these things here at Georgetown. I pray that they always will be here. I pray, too, that these elements of deep human concern of wonder and adventure, may be even more developed, more understood and embraced, under great leadership with great men and women in a brilliant future which will always be part mystery and even always part out of the box. Thank you very much.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, America's antitrust laws play a vital role in protecting consumers and ensuring a competitive marketplace for business. The vigorous enforcement of these laws also helps promote and maintain the efficiency of our markets by promoting competition, innovation, and technological development. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Kohl and Senator DeWine in introducing the Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, legislation that will provide the Department of Justice with long overdue authority in investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust violations. Congress acted in 1890 with passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act to prohibit abusive monopolization and anticompetitive practices. Since that time, the Department of Justice's enforcement efforts have benefited consumers in terms of lower prices, greater variety, and higher quality of products and services. Despite the value and impact of criminal antitrust cases, however, criminal antitrust investigations do not currently qualify for judicially approved wiretaps. While the Justice Department may engage in court-authorized searches of business records, it may only monitor phone calls of informants or the conversations of consenting parties. The Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005 will add criminal price fixing and bid rigging to the many crimes that are already ``predicate offenses'' for wiretap purposes. More than 150 ``predicate offenses'' are currently included in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, including crimes of lesser impact and significance than criminal antitrust violations. In light of the seriousness of economic harms caused by violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the inability of the Justice Department to obtain wiretaps when investigating criminal antitrust violations makes little sense. Moreover, the evidence that can be acquired through wiretaps is precisely the type of evidence that is essential for the successful prosecution and prevention of serious antitrust violations. This bill equips the Department of Justice investigators and prosecutors to enforce zealously the criminal antitrust laws of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, America's antitrust laws play a vital role in protecting consumers and ensuring a competitive marketplace for business. The vigorous enforcement of these laws also helps promote and maintain the efficiency of our markets by promoting competition, innovation, and technological development. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Kohl and Senator DeWine in introducing the Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, legislation that will provide the Department of Justice with long overdue authority in investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust violations. Congress acted in 1890 with passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act to prohibit abusive monopolization and anticompetitive practices. Since that time, the Department of Justice's enforcement efforts have benefited consumers in terms of lower prices, greater variety, and higher quality of products and services. Despite the value and impact of criminal antitrust cases, however, criminal antitrust investigations do not currently qualify for judicially approved wiretaps. While the Justice Department may engage in court-authorized searches of business records, it may only monitor phone calls of informants or the conversations of consenting parties. The Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005 will add criminal price fixing and bid rigging to the many crimes that are already ``predicate offenses'' for wiretap purposes. More than 150 ``predicate offenses'' are currently included in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, including crimes of lesser impact and significance than criminal antitrust violations. In light of the seriousness of economic harms caused by violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the inability of the Justice Department to obtain wiretaps when investigating criminal antitrust violations makes little sense. Moreover, the evidence that can be acquired through wiretaps is precisely the type of evidence that is essential for the successful prosecution and prevention of serious antitrust violations. This bill equips the Department of Justice investigators and prosecutors to enforce zealously the criminal antitrust laws of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a partner with the Senator from Texas in introducing the OPEN Government Act of 2005. I have devoted a considerable portion of my work in the Senate to improving Government oversight, Government openness and citizen ``right-to-know'' laws to make Government work better for the American people, and at times it has been a lonely battle. Finding dedicated allies on the other side of the aisle has proven difficult. That is why I am delighted to have a partner in John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn has a distinguished record of supporting open government dating back to his days as Attorney General of Texas. In fact, some of the provisions in the bill we introduce today are modeled after sections of the Texas Public Information Act. I believe that we both see this effort as the first of many bipartisan steps we can take together in the new Congress. Senator Cornyn and I began to forge a partnership on improving public access to Government information well over a year ago when, during the 108th Congress, we worked with several other Senators and with the Library of Congress to improve the publicly accessible congressional information website, THOMAS. He and I also cooperated last fall in a successful effort to ensure that ``government information,'' including the application of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, be subject to the jurisdiction of both the Judiciary Committee and the newly constituted Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The bill we introduce today is a collection of commonsense modifications designed to update FOIA and improve the timely processing of FOIA requests by Federal agencies. It was drafted after a long and thoughtful process of consultation with individuals and organizations that rely on FOIA to obtain information and share it with the public, including the news media, librarians, and public interest organizations representing all facets of the political spectrum. The OPEN Government Act reaffirms the fundamental premise of FOIA: Government information belongs to all Americans and should be subject to a presumption in favor of disclosure. James Madison said that ``a popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or perhaps both.'' His caution rings just as true today. The public's right to know what its government is doing promotes accountability, imbues trust and contributes to our system of checks and balances. First enacted in 1966, FOIA represents the foundation of our modern open Government laws. In 1996, I was the principal author of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, which updated FOIA for the internet age. The bill we introduce today is the next step: a practical set of important modifications that respond to common complaints and limitations in the current system that we have heard, whether from frequent FOIA requestors, such as representatives of the press, or individual citizens who may only occasionally rely on FOIA, but who nonetheless deserve timely and comprehensive responses to their requests. Chief among the problems with FOIA implementation is agency delay. Following the successful model of the Texas Public Information Act, this legislation imposes penalties on agencies that miss statutory deadlines to release documents and strengthens reporting requirements on FOIA compliance. The OPEN Government Act responds to some confusion over the applicability of FOIA to agency records that are held by outside private contractors. It does this by clarifying that such records are subject to FOIA wherever they are located. Our legislation establishes an ombudsman to mediate FOIA disputes between agencies and requestors, a step that many FOIA requestors believe will help to ameliorate the need for FOIA litigation in the Federal courts. We hope that this mechanism will work to the benefit of all parties. However, where mediation fails to resolve disputes, our bill preserves the rights of requestors to litigate under FOIA. Our bill responds to recent Federal jurisprudence by explicitly providing for recovery of attorneys' fees under the so-called ``catalyst theory.'' That is, where a FOIA lawsuit was the catalyst for an agency determination to release documents prior to a court's entry of judgment, the plaintiff may recover attorneys' fees. Finally, the bill requires reports on a controversial law, the Critical Infrastructure Information Act, enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and it protects fee-waiver status for journalists under FOIA. Letters of support for the OPEN Government Act have been submitted by the American Association of Law Libraries, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Associated Press Managing Editors, Association of Health Care Journalists, Center for Democracy & Technology, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, Committee of Concerned Journalists, Education Writers Association, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Federation of American Scientists/Project on Government Secrecy, Free Congress Foundation/Center for Privacy & Technology Policy, Freedom of Information Center/University of Missouri, The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, The Heritage Foundation/Center for Media and Public Policy, Information Trust, National Conference of Editorial Writers, National Freedom of Information Coalition, National Newspaper Association, National Security Archive/George Washington University, Newspaper Association of America, People for the American Way, Project on Government Oversight, Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Society of Environmental Journalists. The Freedom of Information Act is an invigorating mechanism that helps keep our government more open and effective and closer to the American people. FOIA has had serious setbacks in recent years that endanger its effectiveness. This legislation is a rare chance to advance the public's right to know. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Texas, for the time and effort he has devoted to protecting the public's right to know, and I urge all members of the Senate to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a partner with the Senator from Texas in introducing the OPEN Government Act of 2005. I have devoted a considerable portion of my work in the Senate to improving Government oversight, Government openness and citizen ``right-to-know'' laws to make Government work better for the American people, and at times it has been a lonely battle. Finding dedicated allies on the other side of the aisle has proven difficult. That is why I am delighted to have a partner in John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn has a distinguished record of supporting open government dating back to his days as Attorney General of Texas. In fact, some of the provisions in the bill we introduce today are modeled after sections of the Texas Public Information Act. I believe that we both see this effort as the first of many bipartisan steps we can take together in the new Congress. Senator Cornyn and I began to forge a partnership on improving public access to Government information well over a year ago when, during the 108th Congress, we worked with several other Senators and with the Library of Congress to improve the publicly accessible congressional information website, THOMAS. He and I also cooperated last fall in a successful effort to ensure that ``government information,'' including the application of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, be subject to the jurisdiction of both the Judiciary Committee and the newly constituted Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The bill we introduce today is a collection of commonsense modifications designed to update FOIA and improve the timely processing of FOIA requests by Federal agencies. It was drafted after a long and thoughtful process of consultation with individuals and organizations that rely on FOIA to obtain information and share it with the public, including the news media, librarians, and public interest organizations representing all facets of the political spectrum. The OPEN Government Act reaffirms the fundamental premise of FOIA: Government information belongs to all Americans and should be subject to a presumption in favor of disclosure. James Madison said that ``a popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or perhaps both.'' His caution rings just as true today. The public's right to know what its government is doing promotes accountability, imbues trust and contributes to our system of checks and balances. First enacted in 1966, FOIA represents the foundation of our modern open Government laws. In 1996, I was the principal author of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, which updated FOIA for the internet age. The bill we introduce today is the next step: a practical set of important modifications that respond to common complaints and limitations in the current system that we have heard, whether from frequent FOIA requestors, such as representatives of the press, or individual citizens who may only occasionally rely on FOIA, but who nonetheless deserve timely and comprehensive responses to their requests. Chief among the problems with FOIA implementation is agency delay. Following the successful model of the Texas Public Information Act, this legislation imposes penalties on agencies that miss statutory deadlines to release documents and strengthens reporting requirements on FOIA compliance. The OPEN Government Act responds to some confusion over the applicability of FOIA to agency records that are held by outside private contractors. It does this by clarifying that such records are subject to FOIA wherever they are located. Our legislation establishes an ombudsman to mediate FOIA disputes between agencies and requestors, a step that many FOIA requestors believe will help to ameliorate the need for FOIA litigation in the Federal courts. We hope that this mechanism will work to the benefit of all parties. However, where mediation fails to resolve disputes, our bill preserves the rights of requestors to litigate under FOIA. Our bill responds to recent Federal jurisprudence by explicitly providing for recovery of attorneys' fees under the so-called ``catalyst theory.'' That is, where a FOIA lawsuit was the catalyst for an agency determination to release documents prior to a court's entry of judgment, the plaintiff may recover attorneys' fees. Finally, the bill requires reports on a controversial law, the Critical Infrastructure Information Act, enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and it protects fee-waiver status for journalists under FOIA. Letters of support for the OPEN Government Act have been submitted by the American Association of Law Libraries, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Associated Press Managing Editors, Association of Health Care Journalists, Center for Democracy & Technology, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, Committee of Concerned Journalists, Education Writers Association, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Federation of American Scientists/Project on Government Secrecy, Free Congress Foundation/Center for Privacy & Technology Policy, Freedom of Information Center/University of Missouri, The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, The Heritage Foundation/Center for Media and Public Policy, Information Trust, National Conference of Editorial Writers, National Freedom of Information Coalition, National Newspaper Association, National Security Archive/George Washington University, Newspaper Association of America, People for the American Way, Project on Government Oversight, Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Society of Environmental Journalists. The Freedom of Information Act is an invigorating mechanism that helps keep our government more open and effective and closer to the American people. FOIA has had serious setbacks in recent years that endanger its effectiveness. This legislation is a rare chance to advance the public's right to know. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Texas, for the time and effort he has devoted to protecting the public's right to know, and I urge all members of the Senate to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of this bill, and I am pleased to again work with Senator DeWine to help ensure that our government discloses what it knows about Nazi war criminals and their counterparts in the Japanese Imperial Government. We passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act in 1998, and I had the opportunity to work on the bill in the Judiciary Committee. The act required U.S. Government agencies to disclose documents in its possession that related to Nazi war criminals and was later expanded to cover the Japanese Government. Congress took care to respect legitimate national security concerns, including exemptions to allow agencies to withhold documents under a variety of circumstances, provided they reported such withholding promptly to the relevant committees. The act also established the Interagency Working Group, IWG, to study and report on the documents held by government agencies. Through no fault of its own, the IWG has not been able to complete its work, and the legislation before us today would extend its life for an additional 2 years. President Clinton instructed agencies to comply fully and rapidly with the act. Most have done so. The Central Intelligence Agency, however, has until recently insisted on a cramped interpretation of the statute that did not accord with congressional intent. The CIA's approach if left unquestioned would have denied researchers and the American people a complete accounting of U.S. Government information about Nazi war criminals. The plain reading of the act says that if the CIA, or any other agency, possesses documents relating to war criminals, all such documents must be disclosed unless a specific statutory exemption applies. I understand that the FBI, the Army, and other agencies covered by the law adopted that interpretation. The CIA, however, took the position that it must disclose only those documents directly relating to the individual's criminality. In recent weeks, however, under the continued prodding of Senator DeWine and the public members of the IWG, the CIA has agreed to revise its interpretation of the law and provide the IWG with the additional documentation it has sought. Richard Ben- Veniste, Elizabeth Holtzman, and Tom Baer, the public members, deserve our thanks for their persistent efforts to uncover the whole truth about the criminals of World War II that is contained in U.S. Government files. In addition to providing additional information, the CIA must also comply with its obligation under the act to report to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Government Reform Committee whenever it invokes an exemption to avoid disclosing documents. Seven years after enactment, we have yet to receive any such report from the CIA, even as it declined to disclose a number of documents sought by the IWG. The enactment of this law was an important victory for openness in government, and it is critical that all agencies offer full compliance. I have been a strong supporter of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, throughout my service in the Senate, and in fact worked to ensure that the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act would not inadvertently reduce agencies' ordinary obligations under FOIA. The actions of this body today are a welcome departure from our sometimes complacent attitude toward secrecy. Indeed, I believe this Congress has been all too willing to accept the secretive ways of the Bush administration. The Bush White House has conducted its policymaking behind closed doors to an unprecedented degree, from the energy task force to the construction of the legal regime that would govern the war on terror. When we have sought to exercise our oversight responsibilities, we have frequently been stonewalled. This stonewalling is most apparent in the administration's refusal to disclose information about the abuse of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. Nearly 10 months after the world learned of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, those of us in the Congress who strongly believe that oversight and accountability are paramount to restoring America's reputation as a human rights leader remain stymied in our efforts to learn the full truth about how this administration's policies trickled down from offices in Washington to cellblocks in Abu Ghraib. We know that the CIA is reluctant to provide documents related to Nazi war criminals that are 50 years old and older. How can we expect the same agency to willingly disclose information that might implicate its own agents for recent violations of international law? The administration contends that the prisoner abuse scandal has been fully investigated, yet we continue to learn about new abuses in the press. Several reports, including a recent article by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker, detail the CIA's use of extraordinary rendition to transfer terrorism suspects in U.S. custody to the custody of countries where they are likely to be tortured, a practice expressly prohibited by international law. Other recent reports describe how female interrogators at Guantanamo repeatedly used sexually suggestive tactics to try to humiliate Muslim prisoners. To fully understand this sad chapter in our Nation's history, there needs to be an independent investigation of the actions of those involved, from the people who committed abuses to the officials who set these policies in motion. Even without an independent investigation, we know the genesis of this scandal began in Washington, not Abu Ghraib. Based on flawed legal reasoning that was contrary to the advice of the State Department and military lawyers, the President determined more than 3 years ago that suspected members of al-Qaida were not entitled to any protections under the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, this decision traveled down the chain of command and led to the abuses we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. The President's decision to deny suspected terrorists Geneva Conventions protections is particularly relevant as we discuss the Nazi War Crimes Act. It was in August 1949, in response to the Nazi atrocities committed during World War II, that the international community adopted the Geneva Convention on Rules of War. The United States and most other nations of the world ratified the Conventions to ensure that, even in times of war, all nations would be bound by the rule of law. More than fifty years later, we must now investigate our Nation's failure to remain committed to these laws. Finally, as we discuss the commission of war crimes from the World War II era, I would like to note the passage in December of the Anti- Atrocity Alien Deportation Act, which was included in the National Intelligence Reform Act. This law, which has already been employed to bring removal proceedings against a former Ethiopian government official who has been convicted of torture there, expands the grounds under which we can deport or deny entry to those who have engaged in war crimes and other serious violations of human rights abroad. I began introducing this bill in 1999, but it was only in 2004 that we were finally able to overcome the opposition of some House Judiciary Committee Republicans, with the great help of the lead sponsor of the House companion bill, Representative Mark Foley of Florida. I support the extension and full compliance with the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will complete the consideration of the nomination of Michael Chertoff to head the Department of Homeland Security. Judge Chertoff currently serves as a Federal judge on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This is a lifetime appointment that he has held for a relatively short time and that he will be abandoning to return to executive branch service. I helped expedite and voted in favor of Judge Chertoff when his nomination to the third circuit came to the Senate in 2003. Before that he was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. I helped expedite and voted in favor of that nomination in 2001. I have worked with Mike Chertoff and appreciate his background as a prosecutor. He is very capable. He works hard. What one sees when you consider his career is that much of the time he acts as a consummate professional in our best tradition. Although there have been times when he has shown partisanship in an apparent effort to ``earn his spurs'' with those on the extreme right, it is my hope and expectation that he will bring his better angels with him as he embarks on his new role as Secretary of the Office of Homeland Security. That is not a position that needs or deserves even a hint of partisanship. Indeed, one of the moments that marred Secretary Ridge's tenure was when he stepped out of character to make a blatantly partisan pitch during the run-up to the recent presidential election. I was astonished when President Bush announced that he had chosen Bernie Kerik to replace Secretary Ridge. When newspapers and news magazines began looking at that nomination, it became apparent that the vetting of that nomination was shoddy and that Mr. Kerik was an unacceptable choice on a number of grounds. That misadventure cost us time and led to Judge Chertoff's nomination being made later than it should have been by the administration. The Senate has expedited consideration of this nomination. In what I hope is a sign of better days to come and of increased responsiveness, I note that this nominee has responded in kind by seeking to answer in one day's time a letter I sent to him. I appreciate that kind of responsiveness. In light of his effort, I will excuse his missing the point in failing to respond directly to my first question. I raised with the nominee an aspect of his conversations with representatives of the intelligence community while he was serving as a principal law enforcer charged with prosecutions under the anti-torture law. My question to Judge Chertoff was an opportunity for him to reflect on the inappropriateness of the chief prosecutor advising lawyers for possible investigatory targets regarding how he would apply the law and what might provide a safe harbor when it came to torture. I commend Senator Levin for trying to get to the substance of those conversations during confirmation hearings. Sadly but all too characteristically, the Bush administration has refused to provide him or the Senate with the relevant materials in this regard. I am, likewise, concerned that Mr. Chertoff was not more assertive during discussions with the Office of Legal Counsel as it headed down the wrong road in trying artificially to narrow the definition of torture to provide latitude that contributed to widespread international scandals in our wrongful treatment of prisoners. I wish someone within the Bush administration at the time had stood up for the rule of law and had succeeded in derailing the search directed by Judge Gonzales to create loopholes in our law. I appreciate that Judge Chertoff has committed to implementing the recommendations of the inspector general with respect to preserving the civil rights of those detained by the Government in his answer to my second question. That inquiry derived from his testimony to the Judiciary Committee in November 2001. Finally, I asked a series of questions about the so-called ``wall'' between law enforcement investigations and intelligence. The 9/11 Commission report went a long way toward dismantling the myth that former Attorney General Ashcroft had tried to perpetuate. I recall when even President Bush upbraided Attorney General Ashcroft following his assault upon Commissioner Gorelick at the 9/11 Commission hearings. I pointed out that during the Clinton administration almost one year before September 11, 2001, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel had issued an official memorandum noting the Government's position on ``Sharing Title III Electronic Surveillance Material with the Intelligence Community,'' which concluded that law enforcement officials may share surveillance information with the intelligence community to obtain assistance in preventing, investigating or prosecuting a crime, or where the information was of overriding importance to national security or foreign relations. As Judge Chertoff recalls, it was Attorney General Ashcroft who adopted measures on January 21, 2000, and it was the memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General Thompson on August 6, 2001, that governed information sharing in the days leading to the disaster that was September 11. Indeed, Judge Chertoff notes: ``When it was deemed to be appropriate, additional procedures were put in place in specific cases, or in sets of related cases.'' He proceeds to concede that without any change in the law, in the time between September 11 and enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act: ``With court approval, some of these procedures were modified between 9/11 and October 26, 2001, the effective date of the USA PATRIOT Act.'' The 9/11 Commission established during its investigation that in the days and months before September 11, 2001, information sharing requirements and procedures were misunderstood and misapplied at the Department of Justice. I appreciated Judge Chertoff's offering a glimpse into the inner workings of the Ashcroft Justice Department in the days that led up to 9/11 when he noted that there was a ``vigorous internal debate about the appropriate procedures for sharing information collected in foreign intelligence and counterterrorism investigations with criminal agents and prosecutors.'' That ``internal debate'' was unresolved on September 11, 2001, when terrorists struck in New York and at the Pentagon and were thwarted in the sky over Pennsylvania. When the Justice Department came forward to work with the Senate in the weeks following the attacks, I worked with Mr. Chertoff to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence efforts were better coordinated, and I urged him, the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI to change the culture that had led to destructive and dysfunctional hoarding of essential security information. I ask unanimous consent that copies of my letter to Judge Chertoff and his response be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Heading the Department of Homeland Security is a position that may be one of the more difficult assignments in Washington and in Government. The work of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, is crucial to the safety and security of the American people. There remain many problems in integrating the elements of the Department and in making them as effective as we need them to be. I remain concerned with a number of issues in need of greater attention at DHS and much more significant support from the highest levels of the Bush administration. Working with Secretary Chertoff, maybe we will be able to get that attention and support. The Bush administration has failed to provide the necessary assistance for first responders throughout our Nation. As the costs borne by law enforcement agencies across the country continue to rise, we need to increase the partnership help offered to our nation's first responders. Instead, in the President's new budget, he has proposed cutting overall funding for first responders by $670 million. These cuts target vital emergency services affecting every State, regardless of size or population. The President also proposed cutting the all- State minimum for first-responder grants from 0.75 percent to 0.25 percent. That new formula would result in the loss of funds to police, firefighters and emergency rescue squads in dozens of states from coast to coast. In Vermont, this would mean a loss of at least $10 million dollars in fiscal year 2006--grant funds that are used to provide security services along thousands of miles of our border with three states. Vermont's border with Canada spans approximately 95 miles, but the Swanton Border Patrol is charged with protecting 24,000 square miles, which includes not only the entire State of Vermont, but also numerous counties in New York and New Hampshire. Within this area, the Swanton Border Patrol is required to patrol more than 261 miles of International Boundary. Our approach to port security is also insufficient. More than 90 percent of the world's trade is moved in cargo containers. The Government Accountability Office has found that the information that the Bureau of Customs and Border Patrol uses to determine which cargo should be searched is ``one of the least reliable or useful for targeting purposes.'' In addition, our government has been slow to install radiation detection portals at our ports, leaving us vulnerable to the smuggling of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Mass Transit Measures Idle. Our mass transit systems are similarly at risk. While we spent about $4.5 billion on aviation security last year, we devoted only $65 million to rail security, even though five times as many people take trains as planes every day. The Madrid bombing vividly demonstrated the potential vulnerability of mass transit, and I am concerned that the administration is not responding effectively enough to this threat. This needs to be a higher priority than the administration has made it. The TSA has been slow in developing security procedures at port and rail facilities around the country, and our transit and freight transportation systems remain at risk. The recent DHS budget submission cuts funding for the following essential security programs: port security grants, port security incident response, intercity bus grants, container threat assessments, nuclear detection and monitoring, hazmat truck tracking and training, and rail security inspectors. Air Security Concerns Linger. Despite the dedicated resources to aviation security, problems remain. There have been several reorganizations of the TSA's airport screeners program, but reports from the GAO and the DHS Office of Inspector General suggest that the screening programs for baggage and passengers at our nation's airports are not as effective as they should be. We need to ensure that the $4,734,784,000 budget request for aviation security this year is spent wisely and properly. Secretary Chertoff, if he is confirmed, will oversee both the enforcement of our immigration laws and the granting of immigration benefits. We face a number of important choices on immigration in the coming years, and I hope that he will play a constructive role. I urge him to support the bipartisan efforts in Congress to improve the H-2B visa program, so we can meet the needs of small employers around our nation who depend on seasonal immigrant labor to stay in business. I hope he will support the bipartisan ``AgJOBS'' bill, which provides relief both to the agriculture industry and to the immigrant farm workers who make up a majority of the farm workforce in our nation. And as the Congress debates fundamental immigration reform, I hope that Judge Chertoff will work to help ensure that any reform efforts recognize and embrace the tremendous contributions of immigrants to our economy and our culture. I would like to note the release last week of a report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan commission created by Congress that we asked to study the expedited removal system and its effect on asylum seekers. In his response to me last week, Judge Chertoff showed a commendable concern for the civil rights of those who were detained due to alleged immigration violations during the 9/11 investigation. His concern should be even more pronounced here, where the Commission found that DHS detains people who seek refuge in the United States--and are not even accused of committing any criminal or civil violation--under conditions that ``are entirely inappropriate for asylum seekers fleeing persecution.'' If we are to recapture America's rightful place as a haven for the oppressed, the tragic situation of asylum seekers must be rectified. The Commission offered a number of recommendations that can be implemented through administrative action, such as establishing an office within DHS to oversee the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers and issuing formal regulations governing when asylum seekers should be released from detention. I urge Judge Chertoff to begin the process of making these changes immediately. As secretary, Judge Chertoff will also supervise a number of outstanding Federal employees who are Vermonters and work for various components of the Department, particularly in DHS' immigration agencies. I believe he will be pleased with their efforts and their expertise. Secretary Ridge and I have disagreed strongly about DHS' efforts to privatize Immigration Information Officer, IIO, and other positions at the agency, and Congress has barred that privatization for the current fiscal year. Among other duties, IIOs perform background checks on applicants for immigration benefits, a function that should be performed by government employees. I urge Secretary Chertoff to consider the repeated votes of both the House and Senate to maintain these positions as government employees and to make no effort to revisit the unwise and unpopular efforts of his predecessor. I will support this nomination. Secretary Chertoff will face great challenges ahead. I hope that he will work with me and others, on both sides of the aisle, in finding the best solutions in meeting them.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today again with Senator Bennett to introduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act.'' This bipartisan legislation will enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions, while erasing an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. This is the same bill we introduced the past three Congresses. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the President's 2001 tax cut bill, and in the Senate-passed version of the 2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, CARE, Act. I would like to thank Senators Bingaman, Cantwell, Cochran, Conrad, Dodd, Durbin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Lugar, Stevens and Warner for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists, writers, and composers who donate works to museums and libraries to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the work. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists and it hurts museums and libraries--large and small-- that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. If we as a nation want to ensure that art works created by living artists are available to the public in the future--for study or for pleasure--this is something that artists should be allowed to do. In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. The sharp decline in donations to the Library of Congress clearly illustrates this point. Until 1969, the Library of Congress received 15 to 20 large gifts of manuscripts from authors each year. In the four years following the elimination of the deduction, the Library received only one such gift. Instead, many of these works have been sold to private collectors and are no longer available to the general public. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. Losses like this are an unintended consequence of the 1969 tax bill that should now be corrected. Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. Under this legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/ collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel. In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes and could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the recipient's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works or related activities. This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value. The Joint Committee on Taxation has previously estimated that our bill would cost $50 million over 10 years. This is a moderate price to pay for our education and the preservation of our cultural heritage. I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill will make a critical difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party where it may become lost to the public forever. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today again with Senator Bennett to introduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act.'' This bipartisan legislation will enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions, while erasing an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. This is the same bill we introduced the past three Congresses. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the President's 2001 tax cut bill, and in the Senate-passed version of the 2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, CARE, Act. I would like to thank Senators Bingaman, Cantwell, Cochran, Conrad, Dodd, Durbin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Lugar, Stevens and Warner for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists, writers, and composers who donate works to museums and libraries to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the work. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists and it hurts museums and libraries--large and small-- that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. If we as a nation want to ensure that art works created by living artists are available to the public in the future--for study or for pleasure--this is something that artists should be allowed to do. In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. The sharp decline in donations to the Library of Congress clearly illustrates this point. Until 1969, the Library of Congress received 15 to 20 large gifts of manuscripts from authors each year. In the four years following the elimination of the deduction, the Library received only one such gift. Instead, many of these works have been sold to private collectors and are no longer available to the general public. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. Losses like this are an unintended consequence of the 1969 tax bill that should now be corrected. Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. Under this legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/ collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel. In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes and could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the recipient's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works or related activities. This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value. The Joint Committee on Taxation has previously estimated that our bill would cost $50 million over 10 years. This is a moderate price to pay for our education and the preservation of our cultural heritage. I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill will make a critical difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party where it may become lost to the public forever. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois. He is absolutely right. You have the corporate interests, and this administration is closing courthouse doors--one of the few places where people can go that are not aligned with either the Republican or the Democratic Party; a place where they don't need any political clout; a place where somebody can't say they are going to contribute heavily to a political party so their interests will be heard, or something like that. There is one place they could go-- whether they are a mechanic, a bus driver, a person raising a family, somebody who had been damaged by a product sold when the manufacturer knew of the flaw--the one place they could go would be the courthouse. They are not the rich, powerful, or well-connected. They could win. Or at least seek justice. We are going to close that door, too. Over the few days that the Senate has been considering this bill, there have been a few modest amendments that might actually keep the door open a tiny crack for the people who need it. There have been serious concerns raised by the National Conference of State Legislatures of our 50 States, the National Association of State Attorneys General, prominent legal scholars, consumers, environmental groups, and civil rights organizations. They asked us to at least consider a few improvements but the courthouse door was slammed shut. The Senate's door was slammed shut. For anybody watching this debate, they have figured out that by now the fix was in, despite these legitimate concerns. After 31 years here I am disappointed that the Senate is now taking its marching orders for major legislation from corporate special interests and the White House. We could have actually acted as an independent body and made some changes in this bill. Instead, we are saying--the 100 of us--to all 50 of the State legislatures that we know better than they do, that they are irrelevant, that we could close them off. It is going to make it harder for American citizens to protect themselves against violation of State civil rights, consumer, health, environmental protection laws, to take these cases to State court. Aside from being convenient, plaintiffs actually know where the local state courthouse is. These courthouses have experience with the legal and factual issues within their States. We are simply going to sweep these cases into Federal court, after we have already swept so much criminal jurisdiction there, and you can't get a civil case heard anyway. We are erecting barriers to lawsuits, and we are placing new burdens on plaintiffs. They will languish. The bill contains language that would reduce the delay that parties can experience when a case is removed to Federal court by setting a limit for appeals of remand orders. But we don't say anything about how long the court can sit on the remand motion. They could sit on it for 10 years if they want to before they do a thing. Plaintiffs can die, witnesses can move away, memories could grow dim, and nothing happens. Senator Feingold offered a modest amendment to set a reasonable time for action on remand motions. The solution received praise from one of the sponsors of this legislation, but the corporate masters and the White House said no. So it was rejected by the Senate. The biggest concern raised by legal scholars and agreed to by several Senate sponsors of the bill would address the recent trend in Federal courts not to certify class actions if multiple state laws are involved. The way this is set up in the bill--a lot of the business groups are behind this--one could easily get a case dismissed by a Federal court. Senator Feinstein and Senator Bingaman worked together to alleviate what was a legal Catch-22. The Federal court says if a case has complicated State laws in it, it can't hear it. But you can't bring it in State court either. The Federal court says the State laws are complicated and it should have been heard in the State court. But under this bill, it goes to the Federal court so, of course, the corporate interests win. We tried to change that. Cynics might even speculate that is what the business groups behind this purported ``procedural'' change are really seeking, the dismissal of meritorious cases on procedural grounds by the federal courts. Naturally, the orders came down from the corporate masters and the White House: Don't do it. We love the way this is going to allow us to keep things out of court. There it goes. Anyone who reads this bill will notice that despite its title, it affects more than just class actions. Individual actions, consolidated by state courts for efficiency purposes, are not class actions. Despite the fact that a similar provision was unanimously struck from the bill during the last Congress, mass actions reappeared in this bill this Congress. Federalizing these individual cases will no doubt delay, and possibly deny, justice for victims suffering real injuries. Senator Durbin's amendment sought to clarify the bill's effect on these cases. I'm glad the debate this week served to clarify the narrow scope of this provision. It is interesting because a similar provision to was unanimously struck from the bill during the last Congress--unanimously but that wasn't good enough for the corporate masters. It was slipped back into the bill this Congress. Class action legislation had been criticized by nearly all of the State attorneys general in this country, Republicans and Democrats alike. The distinguished former attorney general, Senator Pryor of Arkansas, had a concern that S. 5 would limit their official powers to investigate and bring actions in State courts against defendants. He wanted to put in minor clarifications to show they could do that. Although these attorneys general contacted their Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike--they were tossed out. Senator Kennedy's amendment to exempt civil rights, and wage and hour cases in the bill, was a sensible solution. Prominent civil rights organizations and labor advocates requested that the bill be modified to acknowledge the fact that many of our states have their own protective civil rights and employment laws. I was proud to cosponsor it and regret that with the fix being in, this amendment was rejected by the Senate. But the fix was in, and that is out. What we have done here? I will give you an example of one class action suit that would have been impacted under this legislation--Brown v. Board of Education, finally ending segregation in our schools, a blight on the American conscience. And how did Brown v. Board of Education get to the Supreme Court? Not from the three Federal courts in that class action suit; not the three Federal courts that said ``separate but equal'' is the law of the land. It had been good enough for all of us. Send those African-American children to one school. Send the White kids to a much better school--because that is what it was. The view was that is good enough for us, always been that way. Only one State court in the State of Delaware said: That might be what the U.S. Supreme Court said, but they are wrong. They are wrong. We don't believe in Plessy v. Ferguson. We don't believe in the separate but equal. We say sending Black children to one school and White kids to the other is not equal. We are making second-class citizens of these African Americans. And because a State court heard and ruled on that class action, it went up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously came down with Brown v. Board of Education. We pray there is not some class of people in this country being damaged the way African-American children were being damaged at that time because if they go into the courts in the wake of this legislation, the fix is in, this Senate has closed the court doors to them, this White House has closed the court doors to them, these corporate interests have closed the court doors to them. It is a shame. It is wrong. It is one heck of a message to send to this country. It is disappointing to me that the Senate has refused to listen to wise counsel of our state legislatures, our state law enforcement officers, our state judges and even the views expressed by our federal judiciary since they are the institutions that we are affecting by enacting this legislation. I predict this legislation will be manipulated by well-paid corporate defense lawyers to create complex, expensive and lengthy litigation over the criteria and factors in the bill and whether they apply to a particular case. Unfortunately, one of the great boons of this legislation, to the extent it does not simply deter class actions brought by consumers, is that it will make them more costly, burdensome and complicated. The so-called Class Action Fairness Act falls short of the expectation set by its title. It will leave many injured parties who have valid claims with no avenue for relief, and that is anything but fair to the ordinary Americans who look to us to represent them in the United States Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to speak in favor of the commonsense amendment brought to us by Senators Bingaman and Feinstein. Before I do, though, if I could make a couple personal comments. I have been in the Senate for 31 years. I came at a time when there was a real effort for Republicans and Democrats to work together, and for White Houses to do so. I have been here during the administrations of President Ford, President Carter, both terms of President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, both terms of President Clinton, and now into the second term of President George W. Bush. I have seen terrific majority leaders in both parties, leaders in both parties. Senator Mansfield, Senator Scott, Senator Byrd, Senator Baker, Senator Dole, Senator Mitchell, obviously Senator Daschle. I think of all the times they would work so closely to bring people together. The President, whoever the President was, would do the same. I can remember times Senator Dole, a partisan, tough-minded Republican, would reach a point as majority leader when he would call Senators from both parties into his office and say: OK, boys, let's see where we go from here. How do we get this legislation done? Senator Baker would do that. Senator Mansfield was famous for coming out on the floor during evening sessions and picking a few Senators from both sides of the aisle and saying: Come up to the office. We have to chat and work things out. Senator Baker had the ability to do that. He would go down and speak to President Reagan and suggest to him which Democrats, which Republicans, he might call to make things work out. You also had, during that time, the practice where the two great parties, the Democratic Party and Republican Party, would keep from attacking the leaders of the other party's caucus in either body. They did it because they knew that, while they might oppose each other on one issue today, they were going to have to work together for the betterment of the country the next day. Now it has broken down. For some reason, something I never thought I would see, nor, I suspect, did any of those leaders I mentioned from either party ever think they would see, it stopped last session when the leader of one party went to the home of the leader of the other party and attacked him in a political campaign, and attacks were then mounted by the national party. I think it was a mistake. In the years I have talked about, the 31 years of both Republicans and Democrats running the Senate--we have seen it go back and forth a half a dozen times since I have been here--it has worked very well, where you fight for your party, you fight for your majority or minority, but you do not go after the leaders. I was hoping the last election might be an aberration. Now I see a difference when the Republican National Committee has come out with the most scurrilous, outrageous attack on the Democratic leader, Senator Reid. It makes no sense whatsoever. Senator Reid spent his years as the deputy Democratic leader helping to get legislation through this place. He worked very closely with two different Republican deputy leaders, both when he was in the majority and in the minority, to move legislation through. I can think of dozens of times, hundreds of times on this floor when legislation looked like it might not get through, and both Republicans and Democrats were going to Harry Reid as the deputy leader to say: How can we work this out? He would say: Why don't you leave off these amendments, and I will talk to the Republicans and they will leave off these amendments. We will get it through. It always worked. The legislation we have before us is not one that Senator Reid favors, but he worked in good faith with the Republican leadership to bring it up. Almost a day after he does that, he gets attacked by the Republican National Committee, a day or so after the President of the United States in his State of the Union message said how we must all work together, and on the day when the President invites Senator Reid down for a cordial family dinner, which is, of course, showing how bipartisan we can be, the Republican National Committee--controlled, of course, by the White House--sends out this scurrilous attack on Senator Reid. It is a mistake. I would say the same thing if the Democratic Party was doing it to the Republican leadership. It is a mistake because ultimately the Senate consists of only 100 men and women who have the privilege to represent 290 million Americans at any given time. There are so many things we need to get done. We should be working together. An example: During President Reagan's term, we were facing a real crisis--not a manufactured crisis but a real crisis in Social Security, not the manufactured one we see today, a real one--and we were stuck here on the floor. Neither side seemed to budge, and efforts to do something that might save Social Security seemed lost when two giants of the Senate--I know this for a fact because I was standing right here on the floor--Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York and Senator Robert Dole, the leaders on the Finance Committee where Social Security reform now seemed founded, were talking, and Pat Moynihan walks over to Bob Dole and says: We have to give this another try. It is far too important to let this fall apart in partisan bickering. Let us make this work. You know the two of us can do it. I and a couple others who were standing there said: We are all with you. When I say ``I and a couple others,'' Republicans and Democrats said: We are all for you. You can do it. They went down and saw President Reagan, talked with him and said: Look, we are going to take another try at it, if you will work with us. He said: Fine. And they did. As a result of that, in the 1980s, Social Security was put in solvent standing for 70 years. If we do nothing with Social Security now, it will still be solvent in the year 2045, 2050. Wouldn't it be nice if we went back to the days of giants in the Senate and Presidents of both parties who wanted to work with the Members of the House and Senate who actually want to get something done, not for partisan gain but for American gain, not for one political party but for all Americans? Those who came up with the bright idea of attacking Harry Reid, a man who will get reelected his next term, I suspect by even a greater margin than the last landslide he had, ought to step back. They might raise money this way. They might stir up some of the true believers this way. They do nothing for the country. They do nothing for the Nation. All they do is deepen the divides instead of healing them. It would be nice if we could have leaders who would try to be uniters, not dividers. We haven't had that for a few years. I wish we could. I digress somewhat. I see the distinguished Chair, a man I knew before he came here, admired in his work as a member of the Cabinet. We are benefited by having him here. I hope that he might be one of those who will come in not with preconceptions but his enormous talent of bringing people together and work with us. I say this somewhat unfairly because under the rules he cannot respond, of course. I hope I have not damaged him irreparably with the Republican Party in Florida, but he has known me long enough to know I mean what I am saying. This Bingaman-Feinstein amendment is a commonsense amendment. It seeks to rectify one of most significant problems of the class action legislation under consideration by the Senate. As we all know, this class action bill is going to sweep most class actions into Federal court. But then many of the Federal courts refuse to certify multistate class actions because the court would be required to apply the laws of different jurisdictions to different plaintiffs, even if the laws of those jurisdictions are quite similar. Without this balanced amendment, members of important class actions that involve multiple-State laws may have no place to receive justice. In other words, they get removed from the State court to Federal court, but then the Federal court says: Well, because the State laws may be different, we can't do anything. But you can't go back to State court because you are removed here. It is probably as classical a legal Catch-22 as one could see. According to 14 of our State attorneys general: [I]n theory, injured plaintiffs in each state could bring a separate class action lawsuit in federal court, but that defeats one of the main purposes of class actions, which is to conserve judicial sources. Moreover, while the population of some states may be large enough to warrant a separate class action involving only residents of those states, it is very unlikely that similar lawsuits would be brought on behalf of residents of many smaller states. The Feinstein-Bingaman amendment would help citizens of States such as my own of Vermont. We have smaller populations. We are only the size of one congressional district, 610,000 people. But it would allow us to join with other injured plaintiffs from other States to have their day in court. Federal courts should be allowed to certify nationwide class actions by applying one State's law with sufficient ties to the underlying claims in the case. This amendment would give Federal judges that power and make it clear that they should not deny certification on the sole ground that the laws of more than one State would apply to the action. If the Senate is truly interested in passing class action legislation that gives injured citizens from every State a place to seek relief, then all Senators should embrace this commonsense amendment. I hope my colleagues will support this important amendment. I thank Senators Bingaman and Feinstein for their hard work on the amendment. Sad News for Vermont On another issue, I spoke of my small State. I was born in Vermont, a precious State. We have had Leahys there since the 1850s. It is in my heart and soul. I read with pride but with sadness an article on the front page of the Washington Post today about Vermont and the number of our brave men and women who have been called up in the Guard and Reserves. Two States have the highest per capita callup in the Nation-- Hawaii and Vermont, two of the smaller States. We also have the very sad distinction of having the most fatalities, the most soldiers killed per capita of any State in the Union. I mention this because in our State, everybody knows everybody else. If one person dies, everybody in the State feels it. I have been to those funerals where I have seen people with whom I was in kindergarten, people I grew up with, neighbors of mine or my sister's, people my parents knew. You go to the funeral, you walk into a church, not as a member of the congressional delegation from Vermont--we have all done that--but you go as a friend and neighbor, and that is what you see, friends and neighbors. I will later today put the full article in the Record. It struck me as to what this means. We have one small town that is about the size of a small town in which my wife and I live in Vermont. They have one country store. It is a small store, but it is important to the town. Everybody goes there. A mother and a son run the store. The son gets called up. He goes bravely, of course. The mother cannot handle the store by herself, and the store closes. The community in many ways has lost its center. These are the realities of what is happening. Several of us met earlier today from both bodies, both parties, to introduce legislation to increase health benefits for those in the Guard and Reserves who are called up, to improve their retirement situation, make sure they stay healthy, make sure if they have a solely owned business and they get called up, they can at least have health care for their family. I mention this again not because it is apropos to the legislation--I do not see anybody else seeking recognition; I am not taking away from others' time--but I hope those who are watching or listening to this will read this article about what happens in rural America with these callups. In my State, the largest community is only 38,000 people. The town I live in has about 1,500 people. They know everybody. I live on a dirt road on the side of a mountain with magnificent views. Again, everybody is on a first-name basis. When somebody gets called up, you know it, you feel it. This is not a question about whether somebody is for or against the war. In my State, everybody has supported those who have gone. Even though I would suspect the majority of the people in Vermont are opposed to the war, they are all supportive of our troops. But it hurts. It is real. I hope we can bring them home soon. I was heartened by the elections in Iraq. I was heartened by the efforts of those who would brave in some cases death to go out and vote. I hope those of us in our country who say it is going to be a hard time to vote today because it is raining or it is snowing or it is cold or it is hot or it is inconvenient to go those extra five blocks, or whatever the reason, look at what they did. I hope that country will soon be able to take care of itself. We are going to spend huge amounts of money in this budget to build schools, improve police forces, build communications, roads, and hospitals all in Iraq. We have those same needs at home. I hope soon they can be on their own. I hope soon our men and women can come home, as many safely as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. It is with great sadness that I inform the Senate that Virginia ``Ginny'' Cochran of Richmond, VT, died this past Saturday. She was 76. Ginny Cochran was a native Vermonter originally from Hartland Four Corners. Like her husband Mickey who died in 1998, she attended the University of Vermont. Over the years, the Cochran name became synonymous with Vermont skiing. Ginny and Mickey established their own ski area where thousands of children learned to ski. They instilled a competitive spirit in each of their four children who went on to become internationally known ski racers. One daughter, Marilyn, won a World Cup race in 1969, and another, Barbara Ann, won an Olympic gold medal in 1972. Several of Ginny's grandchildren are already outstanding ski racers. Ginny Cochran was one of those lifelong Vermonters who personified the essence of what it means to be a Vermonter. She loved the four seasons, she was loved by her community, and she taught countless people how to enjoy freezing weather and beautiful scenery while gliding down snow covered mountains with style. I ask that a February 6, 2005, article in the Burlington Free Press about the extraordinary life of Ginny Cochran be printed in the Recrod. The article follows.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senators McCain and Cantwell in introducing important legislation to increase the number of frequencies available for low power radio stations in America. Low power stations serve their communities with broadcasting that reflects local needs and local preferences. In this way, low power FM offers a valuable counterpoint to nationwide media consolidation. As National Public Radio reported this morning, low power FM has a large following of listeners tired of hearing the same programming across the country. For this reason, I have been a strong supporter of low power FM for many years now. In fact, I recently urged FCC Chairman Powell to expedite licensing for new low power stations. Unfortunately, for many years now the number of low power FM stations the FCC could license has been limited by unrealistic and unnecessary rules requiring these small stations to find available frequencies far from any full power broadcaster. Interference must be avoided if we are to make use of the airwaves. The current rules, however, go beyond what is necessary to protect full power stations from interference and, instead, protect them from competition. This bill will reduce the unnecessary restrictions on low power FM stations. Of course, the need for low power FM radio must be balanced against other important uses of nearby frequencies. I have worked hard to protect reading services for the blind, and this bill protects those services by retaining the third-adjacent rule where such services would be affected. In addition, this bill protects commercial broadcasters of all sizes from actual interference by leaving intact the FCC's expedited interference claim review procedures. I look forward to working with all the parties involved to strengthen local broadcasting.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senators McCain and Cantwell in introducing important legislation to increase the number of frequencies available for low power radio stations in America. Low power stations serve their communities with broadcasting that reflects local needs and local preferences. In this way, low power FM offers a valuable counterpoint to nationwide media consolidation. As National Public Radio reported this morning, low power FM has a large following of listeners tired of hearing the same programming across the country. For this reason, I have been a strong supporter of low power FM for many years now. In fact, I recently urged FCC Chairman Powell to expedite licensing for new low power stations. Unfortunately, for many years now the number of low power FM stations the FCC could license has been limited by unrealistic and unnecessary rules requiring these small stations to find available frequencies far from any full power broadcaster. Interference must be avoided if we are to make use of the airwaves. The current rules, however, go beyond what is necessary to protect full power stations from interference and, instead, protect them from competition. This bill will reduce the unnecessary restrictions on low power FM stations. Of course, the need for low power FM radio must be balanced against other important uses of nearby frequencies. I have worked hard to protect reading services for the blind, and this bill protects those services by retaining the third-adjacent rule where such services would be affected. In addition, this bill protects commercial broadcasters of all sizes from actual interference by leaving intact the FCC's expedited interference claim review procedures. I look forward to working with all the parties involved to strengthen local broadcasting.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to commend a longtime friend and adviser who has spent his career in service to Vermont and American agriculture, Harold J. Howrigan of Fairfield, VT. Harold has served the dairy industry long and well, bringing his farmer's ingenuity, common sense and perseverance to his efforts. He has served on the St. Albans Co-operative Board of Directors since 1981 and at the upcoming 2005 Annual Meeting he will be stepping down to enjoy time with his family on their home farm in Fairfield. Harold, his wife Anne and their sons operate two farms comprised of over 500 head of cattle, some 1,800 acres of cropland and forest, including a significant maple sugaring operation. Harold and Anne have opened their home and the farm to many dairy industry leaders, international dignitaries, government officials, co-op customers and, I daresay, even a campaign commercial or two along the way. Anyone who has had the good fortune to visit the Howrigans enjoys the beautiful views and witnesses the hard work and pride that Harold and his family take in the stewardship of their farming operations. As much as he loves that line of Fairfield hills, Harold has spent considerable time away from his farming operation serving his community and Vermont agriculture. Locally, Harold is active in the St. Patrick's Church and the Franklin County Maple Producers Co-op. On the State level, he has served as president of the Green Mountain Dairy Farmers Federation of Cooperatives and as a director with both the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers Association and the Vermont Dairy Promotion Council. Regionally, Harold was the chairperson of the Vermont Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission. In fact, Harold's tireless efforts were a key force in the establishment and successful implementation of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The long-standing relationship between Harold and the Cooperative with the Vermont Congressional Delegation was critical in the passage of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact at the national level which provided stability to dairy farmer income without adverse effects on consumers. He has also served as Chair of the Council of Northeast Farmer Cooperatives. In addition to championing the Compact, Harold has been active in other national dairy industry organizations serving the interests of dairy farmers beyond Vermont on the U.S. Dairy Export Council, and the National Milk Producers Federation. As Chair of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, he was awarded the Richard E. Ling Award for the distinguished service in January of 2001. The St. Albans Cooperative Creamery was most fortunate to benefit from Harold's leadership over his years as Director beginning in 1981, and as board president since 1988. In his 24 years with the Cooperative, Harold has seen the Cooperative increase in yearly milk volume to over a billion pounds, build a partnership with Ben & Jerry's ice cream, expand its territory into New York State, acquire the Independent Dairymen's Association and develop a strategic relationship with Dairy Farmers of America and Dairy Marketing Services. Throughout his distinguished career, Harold has remained among my most trusted advisers on farm policy. I know that I can always count on him to provide the unvarnished truth, based on experience forged on a Vermont dairy farm with its tradition of hard work, common sense, simplicity, love of family and service to community, state and country. I join countless Vermonters and Americans as we all thank Harold for his years of service and consider myself fortunate to call him my friend.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Here the National Conference of State Legislatures is saying to us: Why are you being so heavy-handed that you feel the 100 Members of the Senate can just wipe out the legislatures of all 50 States on matters of their States' laws? Fourteen State Attorneys General wrote to our Senate leaders today to express their collective view that ``despite improvements over similar legislation considered in prior years, [they] believe S. 5 still unduly limits the right of individuals to seek redress for corporate wrongdoing in their State courts.'' Again, they are saying: What gives you such wisdom in the U.S. Senate that you can completely throw out 50 States and say, We know far better than they could ever know in their years and decades of experience? The letter urges passage of amendments to be offered by Senators Bingaman, Pryor, and Kennedy. This letter is signed by the Attorneys General from New York, Oklahoma, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Today, we are considering the first of several bills that I am afraid are advanced not with an interest of what is best for the American consumer but advanced by corporate special interests to dramatically limit the public's access to their courts. I am going to oppose this so-called Class Action Fairness Act for a very simple reason: it is not fair. This legislation would make it harder for citizens to protect themselves against violations of State civil rights or consumer, health, or environmental protection laws--things we take seriously in my own State and most others do in theirs. It will make it harder because these cases will be forced out of the local State courts. Aside from being convenient, State courts have experience with the legal and factual issues involved in these important cases. This legislation sweeps these cases into Federal courts, erects new barriers to lawsuits, and places new burdens on the plaintiffs. Let me give you an example. In the case of legal rights it would take from the citizens of my own State, this legislation would deprive Vermonters the right to band together to seek relief in their State courts--even if the harm occurred in Vermont and the principal defendant has a substantial presence in Vermont. That is a highhanded override of the rights of the American people. You have to ask who it would benefit. Obviously, it benefits the wealthy and powerful special interests. This legislation also overrides the laws and legislatures in our State governments. I find it interesting that many colleagues who have spoken over and over again on how we have to stand up for the rights of our States are so willing, when some of their corporate backers come up with legislation like this, to simply slam the door on their own States. Indeed, the National Conference of State Legislatures wrote to us last week to note that this bill ``undermines our system of federalism, disrespects our State court system, and clearly preempts carefully crafted State judicial processes which have been in place for decades regarding the treatment of class action lawsuits.'' I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I might say, I worked with Sir Paul and his wife on the issue of landmines and landmine removal. I must admit that he has aged better than some of us who were Beatle fans when he first started. He has his own hair, among other things. The Senator is correct to say that sometimes on Monday afternoon, we digress. I give fair warning to the Senator from New Hampshire, now presiding, that one of these digressions in about 3 or 4 weeks when the maple syrup crop comes in, I will be extolling the virtues of Vermont maple syrup being the finest in the world. I will also compliment those from our neighboring States who do a pretty good job with their maple syrup.

Mr. LEAHY. Only.

Mr. LEAHY. This so-called Class Action Fairness Act falls short of the expectation set forth by its title. It will leave many injured parties who have valid claims with no avenue for relief, and that is anything but fair to ordinary Americans who look to us to represent them in the Senate. I seem to have a touch of laryngitis which is an occupational hazard for Senators. I will not speak further, but I will come back to this issue in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be included as a cosponsor of S. Res. 38.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate for 31 years. This is one of the most enjoyable colloquies I have ever had. I hope that the Philadelphia Eagles and actually all of their fans recognize what a great fan they have in the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania. We all know him as one of the most knowledgeable and best lawyers ever to serve in the Senate in either party. But we saw another side of him today. Anybody who can recount effortlessly--I say for those reading the Record, it was without a single note--the history of the Eagles and give a play by play recounting, this recounting was a tour de force of the first order. For Eagles fans, I want you to know his legal expertise is every bit as good. I grew up with a different sport--baseball--in Vermont, where my home is only a couple hours' drive from Fenway Park. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows what that is like because he is even closer. We all will wait for next year and the Red Sox. As a child growing up, my father, who had some interest in politics, used to say there will be a day when Vermont will actually elect a Democrat to the U.S. Senate. Everybody told him this would never happen in his lifetime. I am delighted that it did. I was thinking about my father today. It was 21 years ago today that he left this Earth. He got to see this one and only Democrat, and he got to be there twice on election night and twice to see me sworn into this body, which even after six times is still one of those moments one will never forget. We waited in Vermont from 1918--my father was 18 years old when the Red Sox won the championship--until this past year. There was some celebration. I might mention that I thought maybe there was some inspiration from Paul McCartney, who performed in the halftime show. I was very disgusted with the halftime show last year--at something nobody even noticed until the next day, when people talked about it on Web sites. The photographs of Miss Jackson became the most visited Web site in America, which gives you some idea of what our priorities are. What I found disgusting at that halftime show was Kid Rock ripping a hole in the American flag and wearing it as some kind of a poncho and then throwing it on the ground at the end of his song. I found that to be very offensive. I would hope that some of the keepers of morality in this country, who have had a wonderful time sending out fundraising letters based on something nobody really saw until the next day and spending just as much time trying to sell patriotism to everybody, would say how disgusted they are at the actions of a rock singer who would so desecrate the American flag--to the roaring cheers of too many people in the audience. I thought that was outrageous. Perhaps we needed somebody from the United Kingdom to come over here and give us a rousing halftime show, which it was. Actually, the game got better after that. Maybe that is in the eyes of the beholder, too. But I appreciate what the Senator from Pennsylvania said. I also note that in my 31 years here, it is the first time I heard the unanimous consent request Senator Specter made. Perhaps it was made before. I have to think that when future historians go back into the Record and find that Senators actually did that, they would probably applaud that we know what the Record is. I recall my days in law school having a summer job and researching the Congressional Record for the then-Federal Power Commission, which later became the Department of Energy, and trying to figure out what was actually said and what was not said, what order it was said in, and why some Senators appeared to have said the same thing twice. When I came to the Senate, I must admit some of the Senators--no longer with us, God rest their souls--would tend to say the same thing twice, but that was not intentional on their part, or at least they were unaware of it. But I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for making a unanimous consent request that actually will make sense for those who read the Record.