Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia. For over a quarter of a century we have been accommodating each other. I refer to the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia as ``my Senator'' when I am away from home. I have had the privilege of living part time during the year in his beautiful State, and we have tried to accommodate each other. I think this is the easiest way out of it. Otherwise, we would be in a quorum call. I do thank him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator Feingold. Senator Feingold's amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, would allow the work of the Inspector General of the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA-IG, to continue its work uninterrupted after the June 30 handover. This is critical. Congress provided more than $18 billion to rebuild Iraq, roughly the same amount that we spend on the rest of the world combined. Congress jammed through the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill in an extremely short time, without a sufficient number of hearings, into a very chaotic environment without the usual financial controls. Recognizing this reality, Congress created a strong, independent inspector general to help police these funds. In the months that followed passage of the Iraq supplemental, we heard numerous reports of waste, fraud, and abuse. If anything, this should have sent a clear signal to the administration and Congress that we need more--not less--oversight of these funds. It defies logic then that the State Department is now proposing to weaken the one entity that Congress specifically tasked with keeping track of these tax dollars. The State Department's plan could undermine the independence of this inspector general and disrupt this important work, reducing Congress's ability to account for these funds. It is unlocking the vault to those who want to cheat us. The State Department also has told the Appropriations Committee that it will have to create 25 new positions to handle the work in Iraq. Let me get this straight. We want to close down an IG that has about 60 people in place, which are actively conducting audits and rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. After the administration is finished closing down that office, they will turn around and hire 25 new people to do the same work--only through at a lower level office at the State Department. Why on Earth would we want to do this? At a time when we are hearing weekly reports of abuse by Halliburton and others, why would we want to reinvent the wheel? Why would we downgrade the status of the CPA-IG and undermine its independence? It just does not make any sense. This is why the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin is so important. This is why I support his amendment. Last year Senator Feingold and I offered an amendment to the supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that established an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority so that there would be one auditing body completely focused on ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently, and that this effort is free of waste, fraud, and abuse. Today the CPA, as we all know, is phasing out, but the reconstruction effort has only just begun. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of May 18, only $4.2 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress appropriated for reconstruction in November had even been obligated. This amendment would ensure that the inspector general's office can continue its important work even after June 30 rather than being compelled to start wrapping up and shutting down while so much important work remains to be done. It renames the Office of the CPA IG, changing it to Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The amendment establishes that this inspector general shall continue operating until the lion's share of the money Congress has appropriated to date for the Iraq relief and reconstruction fund has been obligated. American taxpayers have been asked to shoulder a tremendous burden when it comes to the reconstruction of Iraq. Over 20 billion taxpayer dollars have been appropriated for the Iraq relief and reconstruction fund. That is more than the entire fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations annual appropriation. It is more than the entire fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations annual appropriation. This is a tremendous sum to devote to one country. We all agreed last year that it required an entity on the ground, exclusively focused on this effort, to ensure adequate funding and oversight. We agreed that we need a qualified, independent watchdog with all the powers and the authorities that accrue to inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 1978. We agreed that business as usual whereby individual agency IG's attempt to oversee this mammoth effort in addition to everything else the agency does it simply not appropriate in this case. There is nothing ordinary about the nature of the U.S. taxpayer investment in Iraq. Ordinary measures will not suffice. This amendment modifies the legislation creating this IG to ensure that it does not disappear along with the CPA, but instead continues to operate until the amount of reconstruction spending in Iraq more closely resembles other large bilateral foreign assistance programs, which are overseen by existing agency inspectors general. Specifically, to phases out the special IG after 80 percent of the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund appropriated to date is obligated. If that fund grows substantially in the next calendar, then Congress can consider the wisdom of adjusting this mandate accordingly. Let there be no confusion, this inspector general is only tasked with overseeing how U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent. It does not have a mandate to oversee Iraqi resources. That is not what this is about. So there is nothing at all in continuing this operation that is inconsistent with the transfer of sovereignty on June 30. Because the Department of Defense has responsibility for what is happening to some reconstruction dollars and the Department of State will have responsibility going forward, it makes good sense to have a focused IG on the ground who is able to see the entire picture at once--not being completely required to just focus on the State Department position or just focus on the Department of Defense portion. This amendment is in no way hostile to the reconstruction effort. This amendment is about trying to get it right. Suggesting that a special inspector general's office continues to be in order in Iraq is hardly revolutionary. As I have mentioned, the reconstruction budget for Iraq is bigger than the entire fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Yet five different inspectors general--at USAID, at the State Department, at the Defense Department, at the Treasury, and at the Export-Import Bank--are charged with overseeing portions of that account. In fact, currently some 41 Federal establishments and designated Federal entities with annual budgets less than $21 billion have their own, independent, statutorily mandated inspector general, from the Railroad Retirement Board to the Smithsonian Institution. We ask for focused accountability when taxpayer dollars are a stake in these situations. We must demand the same in Iraq. Obviously, when you are talking about $20 billion just for this Iraq situation, we have to do the same thing. We must demand the same in Iraq. To date, the Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority has made important progress, and has some 30 active investigations and 19 audits underway. A whistleblower hotline established by the inspector general has received hundreds of calls. This is clearly not the time to pull the plug on his important effort. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This is the critical point: To oppose this amendment is to vote for less oversight of the reconstruction effort in Iraq than we have today. It is a step backward if we don't. We cannot abdicate our oversight responsibility. The stakes are far too high for that. Amendment No. 3400 Withdrawn

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished manager and yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 3387 be called up, and I send to the desk a second-degree amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Corzine.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, not to speak on my amendment but to call it up and offer the second degree now?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very simple amendment that everyone should support. This amendment requires the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD-IG), in consultation with the Inspectors General of the State Department and the CIA, to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the programs and activities of the Iraqi National Congress. Over the last 10 years, we have seen funds from the U.S. Government spent in highly questionable, if not fraudulent ways, including money spent on oil paintings and health club memberships. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. A number of serious questions remain unanswered concerning the INC. Here are a couple of examples: First, the INC spent millions in setting up offices around the world, including London, Prague, Damacus, and Tehran. The State Department's internal documents indicated that they really had no idea of what was happening in some of these offices--especially Tehran. In light of the recent press reports about INC intelligence sharing with Iran, I think the DOD-IG should take a look at this issue and see what was happening in the Tehran office. We need to get to the bottom of this. Second, the INC spent millions to set up radio and television broadcasting inside Iraq. The radio program seemed redundant as the U.S. Government was, at the time, funding Radio Free Iraq. A New York Times article questioned the effectiveness of the TV broadcasting program. Kurdish officials indicated that, despite repeated attempts, they could never pickup the INC's TV broadcast inside Iraq. This, again, raises questions about how this money is being spent. The IG should examine this issue. We need to get to the bottom of this. Third the INC's Informaiton Collection Program--funded initially by the State Department and later by the Defense Department--continues to be a source of controversy and mystery. I have a memo here, written by the INC to Appropriations Committee staff, detailing the INC's Information Collection Program. In this memo, the INC claims to have written numerous reports to senior Administration officials, who are listed in this memo, on topics including WMD proliferation. The Administration disputes this claim. Again, we need to get to the botton of this. I could go on and on. However, in the interests of time, I will simply say that there are many, serious unanswered questions about the INC's activities. What was the INC doing with U.S. taxpayer dollars? What was going on in the Tehran office? Did the Information Collection Program contribute to intelligence failures in Iraq? Were the broadcasting programs at all effective in gathering support for U.S. efforts in Iraq? To be sure, there have been a few investigations into INC. However, these have been incomplete, offering only a glimpse of what occurred. A few years ago, the State Department Inspector General issued two reports on the INC. But these reports only covered $4.3 million and examined only the Washington and London Offices. The State Department IG informed my office yesterday that these are the only two audits they conducted and have no plans to conduct audits on this issue. A GAO report, published earlier this year, summarized the different grant agreements that the State Department entered into with the INC, but this report did not attempt to answer the myriad questions that remain about the INC. Another GAO report is underway, but this looks only at the narrow question of whether the INC violated U.S. laws concerning the use of taxpayer funds to pay for public propaganda. Finally, according to press reports, the Intelligence Committee is looking to a few issues related to the INC. My amendment is consistent with these investigations. The DOD-IG does not have to reinvent the wheel. It can build off this existing body of work to answer questions that will remain long after these investigation have been completed. Mr. President, my amendment is about transparency. My amendment is about accountability. My amendment is about getting to the bottom of one of the most mismanaged programs in recent history. Most importantly, my amendment is about learning from our mistakes so we do not repeat them in the future. I urge my colleague to support my amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very simple amendment that everyone should support. This amendment requires the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, DOD-IG, in consultation with the Inspectors General of the State Department and the CIA, to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the programs and activities of the Iraqi National Congress, INC. Over the last 10 years, we have seen funds from the United States Government spent in highly questionable, if not fraudulent, ways including money spent on oil paintings and health club memberships. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. A number of serious questions remain unanswered. Here are a couple of examples: First, the INC spent millions in setting up offices around the world, including London, Prague, Damascus, and Tehran. The State Department's internal documents indicate that they really had no idea of what was happening in some of these offices--especially Tehran. In light of the recent press reports about INC intelligence sharing with Iran, I think the DOD-IG should take a look at this issue and see what was happening in the Tehran office. We need to get to the bottom of this. Second, the INC spent millions to set up radio and television broadcasting inside Iraq. The radio program seemed redundant as the U.S. Government was, at the time, funding Radio Free Iraq. A New York Times article questioned the effectiveness of the TV broadcasting program. Kurdish officials indicated that, despite repeated attempts, they could never pick up the INC's TV broadcast inside Iraq. This, again, raises questions about how this money was being spent. The IG should examine this issue. We need to get to the bottom of this. Third, the INC's Information Collection Program--funded initially by the State Department and later by the Defense Department--continues to be a source of controversy and mystery. I have a memo written by the INC to Appropriations Committee staff, detailing the INC's Information Collection Program. In this memo, the INC claims to have written numerous reports to senior administration officials, who are listed in this memo, on topics including WMD proliferation. The administration disputes this claim. Again, we need to get to the bottom of this. I could go on and on. However, in the interest of time, I will simply say that there are many serious unanswered questions about the INC's activities. What was the INC doing with U.S. taxpayer dollars? What was going on in the Tehran office? Did the Information Collection Program contribute to intelligence failures in Iraq? Were the broadcasting programs at all effective in gathering support for U.S. efforts in Iraq? To be sure, there have been a few investigations into INC. However, these have been incomplete offering only a glimpse of what occurred. A few years ago, the State Department Inspector General issued two reports the INC. But these reports only covered $4.3 million and examined only the Washington and London offices. The State Department IG informed my office yesterday that these are the only two audits they conducted and have no plans to conduct future audits on this issue. A GAO report, published earlier this year, summarized the different grant agreements that the State Department entered into with the INC, but this report did not attempt to answer the myriad questions that remain about the INC. Another GAO report is underway, but this looks only at the narrow question of whether the INC violated U.S. laws concerning the use of taxpayer funds to pay for publicity or propaganda. Finally, according to press reports, the Intelligence Committee is looking into a few issues related to the INC. My amendment is consistent with these investigations. The DOD-IG does not have to re- invent the wheel. It can build off this existing body of work to answer questions that will remain long after these investigations have been completed. My amendment is about transparency. My amendment is about accountability. My amendment is about getting to the bottom of one of the most mismanaged programs in recent history. Most importantly, my amendment is about learning from our mistakes so we do not repeat them in the past. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. amendment no. 3399, as modified

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to some of the debate in the last 30 or 40 minutes, and it is sort of like a tempest in a teapot--a great deal of shouting and carrying on, but not really hitting the central point. I spent years as a prosecutor. It was one of the best jobs I ever had. I had the great opportunity to try a lot of cases. I was in the courtroom several days every week in Burlington, VT. We had a saying there, as we do in many States, that if you have the facts on your side, you pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, you pound the law. Of course, if you have neither on your side, you pound the table. We have heard a lot of table pounding tonight. The fact is that every American, Republican or Democrat, knows that some terrible things happened at Abu Ghraib prison. Some apparently happened in Afghanistan and some in Guantanamo. These are acts that are beneath a great and wonderful country such as the United States, a country blessed with a Constitution and laws and values that serve as a shining beacon for much of the rest of the world. This did not happen here, and it is not answered by going out and cashiering a couple of corporals or a couple of privates and saying: There, look what we have done. We all know that the 140,000 American men and women serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan and Guantanamo are obeying the laws, and upholding the best ideals of the United States. And many of our soldiers have been told they are going to serve much longer than their Government originally told them they would have to. There are some, however, who did the same wrong things in Iraq as they did in Afghanistan and as they did in Guantanamo. Who gave them the green light? Don't tell me it is just a handful of bad actors. If so, those few bad actors must have a wonderful frequent flyer program to be able to show up in Abu Ghraib one day, Afghanistan the next, and Guantanamo the next. Somewhere there was some core permission given. It went to those who were willing to follow a wrong order. My colleagues can table my amendment, but it will aid the coverup of what has become an international prisoner abuse scandal. If this amendment is tabled, as it may be, it says that the Republican Senators have decided to join the Republican administration in circling the wagons of the unfolding prisoner abuse scandal. The American public--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--are sick and tired of being lied to. They are sick of the secrecy. They are demanding answers all over this Nation, but the wagons continue to circle. My amendment would require the administration to cooperate with a thorough congressional investigation into the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody by releasing all documents relevant to the scandal. We call for the release of all relevant documents, not a tiny subset of documents selected by the administration when the political heat was on. The question for us as Senators is, Are we content to see the Senate serve as an arm of the executive branch, or are there some of us--at least a majority of us--who actually read the Constitution and realize we are an independent branch of Government? The distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia has reminded us that we do not serve under Presidents, we serve with Presidents. He has reminded us that there are three branches of Government, each independent of the other. Nonetheless, we hear arguments on the floor that we can't ask for these documents because the executive branch does not want to show them to us. But, we are independent Senators, all 100 of us. Somewhere in the upper reaches of this administration, a process was set in motion that seeped forward until it produced this awful scandal. So to put the scandal behind us--which all of us want to do--we have to understand what happened. The President of the United States has said they want to get to the bottom of this. So do I, but you cannot get to the bottom of this until you have a clear picture of what is on the top. We have heard the party line on this scandal. The Senator from Alabama argued that the whole thing boils down to just a few people on the midnight shift in Abu Ghraib prison who got out of control. He said that a few people came in at midnight and somehow they got out of control. That line has become harder and harder to swallow as every day new evidence surfaces that the abuses were widespread. The photographs may be limited to a small group of soldiers at Abu Ghraib, but the abuses were not. It is not right for any of us to claim this was just a small thing when every one of us has seen how extensive the photographs are, those that have been revealed to the public and those that have not. I question the idea that it was only in Abu Ghraib. As I said, somebody must be getting frequent flyer miles because the same thing was happening at Abu Ghraib prison, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. Just last week, a Federal grand jury indicted a CIA contractor for brutally beating a prisoner in Afghanistan in June of last year. Why did they indict him? Because the prisoner died the day after he was beaten. The Army has opened a criminal investigation into injuries suffered by a U.S. soldier who was posing as an uncooperative detainee during training with military police at Guantanamo Bay. That soldier suffered traumatic brain injury. This was a brave American soldier who went into a training program. Suddenly, apparently, the rules changed, He used a code word to stop it. He said: I am an American soldier. They kept on doing what somebody higher up had given them the order to do, and he suffered traumatic brain injury. I could go on and on about this. My point is, it is not just a few bad apples in Abu Ghraib. These things have happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo. Does anybody seriously think that the American public is going to fall for a lie that it is a coincidence that a bunch of MPs in Iraq were abusing prisoners with the very same tactics that were being debated at the highest levels of Government, such as the use of hoods, the use of dogs, the removal of clothing? Do we think these people are somehow telepathic, that they can read the minds of those at the White House or the Pentagon? Yesterday, the White House released a tiny subset of the materials we sought. This was not all the material we requested. It was a tiny subset. All of those documents should have been provided earlier to Congress. Much more remains held back from public view. The documents that were released raised more questions than they answered. After January 2002, did the President sign any other orders or directives? Did he sign any with regard to prisoners in Iraq? Why did Secretary Rumsfeld issue and later rescind interrogation techniques? How did these interrogation techniques come to be used in Iraq even though the administration has maintained it followed the Geneva Conventions there? Why is the White House withholding relevant documents produced after April 2003? Where is the remaining 95 percent of the materials requested by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? We have heard on the floor there was a broad-brush request made for the documents. But it was actually a request for 23 specific documents. The White House gave 3 of the 23 and said that it had complied. Incidentally, of those three, two had already appeared on the Internet. The press had found them out before the White House gave them to us. So even though they gave only one that had not been made public before, I will give them credit for all three. Where are the other 20? When are we, as Senators, going to stop sitting on our hands, becoming a rubberstamp for an administration cloaked in secrecy? We have the legal right, we have the constitutional obligation, and I remind Senators we have the moral authority to ask questions and demand answers today. We have been blessed in this country with a great and wonderful country, but that is a blessing that comes with some responsibilities. We are not maintaining that responsibility unless we keep the pressure on, until we get honesty and we get answers. So I urge my colleagues, vote down the motion to table. Let us show the Senate is willing to stand up. Let us do what Senators have done in the past. We did it during the Watergate era. We have done it at other times. Let us stand up and ask the questions the American public wants us to ask. The press seems to be doing it for us. After extensive investigation, the Guardian uncovered widespread evidence of violent abuse and sexual humiliation of prisoners at Baghram and other U.S. detention centers around Afghanistan. We should have found that out, and we should have stopped it. As I said before, a Federal grand jury indicted a CIA contractor for brutally assaulting a detainee in Afghanistan June 2003. We should have found that out. Instead, we turned a blind eye. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted in November 2003 that he ordered a prisoner be held incommunicado, off the prison rolls, and out of the sight of the Red Cross. This ghost detainee got lost in the system for 7 months. Despite his high intelligence value, this ghost detainee received only a cursory initial interview while in detention. Major General Taguba later criticized the practice of keeping ghost detainees as deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law. The New York Times reported that military lawyers and some colonels received memos citing complaints of abuse at Abu Ghraib in November 2003, 2 months before photographic evidence of abuse prompted the military to launch an investigation. At the same time, the letters I had written to the Department of Defense and others about what we had heard were not answered. In fact, it turns out now that the majority of detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not the worst of the worst, as the administration asserted, but rather low-level recruits or even innocent men swept up in the chaos of war. This is why, after years, not a single one has been brought before a military tribunal. This is not the mark of a great country. This is not the mark of a moral country.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the continuing courtesy of my dear friend, the senior Senator from Virginia. I said earlier on the floor of the Senate that he and I have been friends for over a quarter of a century. I have aged in that time, but he has not. I do appreciate his continuing courtesies.

Mr. LEAHY. How about 9:45?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note by this vote that 20 of the 44 active Federal circuit court district judges from Pennsylvania will be made up of nominees of President Bush. I mention this because some think that somehow he has not been able to get a lot of nominations through. This is a sharp contrast to the way vacancies in Pennsylvania were left unfilled during Republican control of the Senate when President Clinton was in the White House. Republicans denied votes to nine districts and one circuit court nominee of President Clinton in Pennsylvania. That was notwithstanding the very honest due diligence of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, who tried to get them confirmed. Others in his party blocked a vote. I do not want to see that happen again in Pennsylvania. Today the Senate considers the nomination of Juan Ramon Sanchez to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I am glad that the Republican majority has finally decided to proceed to this well-qualified Hispanic nominee, since they departed from the order of the Executive Calendar last week and did not schedule a confirmation vote for Mr. Sanchez, despite the fact that he would have received unanimous Democrat support. Judge Sanchez has served as a judge on the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County, PA since 1998. Prior to that, he worked for Legal Aid of Chester County, in private practice, and as a senior trial attorney with the Chester County Public Defender's Office. Judge Sanchez has devoted a substantial amount of time to pro bono work in his community and, in particular, to assisting Latino individuals and groups in various legal matters, including housing, employment, and immigration. He has also served on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System and the Racial Ethnic Bias Implementation Committee of the Judicial Council. While some people have accused Democrats of being anti-Hispanic, our record of confirming Hispanic nominees is excellent. Judge Sanchez is the 18th Latino confirmed to the Federal courts in the past three years. With the exception of Mr. Estrada, who failed to answer many questions and provide the Senate with his writings and views, we have pressed forward to confirm all of the other Latinos whose nominations have been reported to the floor. Democrats have supported the swift confirmation of 18 of President Bush's 22 Latino nominees. While President Clinton nominated 11 Latino nominees to Circuit Court positions, three of those 11 were blocked by the Republican Senate and never given a vote. President Bush has only nominated four Latino nominees to Circuit Court positions, three of whom have been confirmed with Democratic support. President Bush's 22 Latino nominees constitute less than 10 percent of his nominees, even though Latinos make up a larger percentage of the U.S. population. It is revealing that this President has nominated more people associated with the Federalist Society than Hispanics, African Americans and Asian Americans, combined. While President Clinton cared deeply about diversity on the Federal bench, this President is more interested in narrow and slanted judicial ideology. Forty-five of President Bush's nominees to the Federal courts have been actively involved, either as members or speakers, in the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society is sometimes mischaracterized as a mere debating society, but according to its own statement of purpose, it is a group with a point of view: ``The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order.'' One of the goals of the Federalist Society is the ``reordering of priorities within the legal system.'' The administration wants to have it both ways. They want to take credit with the Federalist Society and hard-right conservatives when they nominate ideological nominees, but they want to pretend that ideology does not matter. If ideology does not matter to the President, why has he nominated more members of the Federalist Society than he has members of minority groups? The President has shown that he is steadfastly committed to packing the courts with individuals who will shape the bench according to his ideological goals rather than creating courts that are fair, balanced, independent, and reflective of the diversity within our country. A look at the Federal judiciary in Pennsylvania demonstrates yet again that President Bush's nominees have been treated far better than President Clinton's and shows dramatically how Democrats have worked in a bipartisan way to fill vacancies, despite the fact that Republicans blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. With this confirmation, 20 of President Bush's nominees to the Federal courts in Pennsylvania will have been confirmed, more than for any other state. With this confirmation, President Bush's nominees will make up 20 of the 44 active Federal circuit and district court judges for Pennsylvania--that is more than 40 percent of the Pennsylvania Federal bench. On the Pennsylvania district courts alone, President Bush's influence is even stronger, as his nominees will now hold 17 of the 36 active seats. In other words, nearly half of the district court seats in Pennsylvania will be held by President Bush's appointees. Republican appointees will outnumber Democratic appointees by nearly two to one. This is in sharp contrast to the way vacancies in Pennsylvania were left unfilled during Republican control of the Senate when President Clinton was in the White House. Republicans denied votes to nine district and one circuit court nominees of President Clinton in Pennsylvania alone. Despite the efforts and diligence of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to secure the confirmation of all of the judicial nominees from every part of his home state there were 10 nominees by President Clinton to Pennsylvania vacancies who never got a vote. Despite records that showed these to be well- qualified nominees, many of their nominations sat pending before the Senate for more than a year without being considered. Such obstruction provided President Bush with a significant opportunity to shape the bench according to his partisan and ideological goals. New articles in Pennsylvania have highlighted the way that President Bush has been able to reshape the Federal bench in Pennsylvania. For example, The Philadelphia Inquirer, observed that the significant number of vacancies on the Pennsylvania courts ``present Republicans with an opportunity to shape the judicial makeup of the court for years to come.'' Like other nominees of President Bush, Judge Sanchez has been very involved in the Republican party. He has assured me that he will be fair to all those who come before him. I hope that he will follow the law and treat all who appear before him fairly regardless of their ideology or party affiliation. I congratulate Mr. Sanchez and his family today on his confirmation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are asked to consider the nomination of Walter Kelley, Jr. to the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Kelley is currently a partner with the Norfolk office of the Troutman Sanders law firm. He has significant civil litigation experience. The ABA unanimously found Mr. Kelley to be well-qualified to be a district court judge. He also has the support of both of his home-State Senators. It should be noted that Mr. Kelley has been very active in Republican politics over the past several decades. Mr. Kelley recently served as the Chairman of the Republican Party of Norfolk for four years. He is currently involved in a Republican political action committee and serves as Director of the Downtown Republican Club. A few years ago, upon being elected Rector of the Old Dominion University Board of Visitors, Mr. Kelley was asked about the political nature of the position and politics in general, when he answered, ``[i]f you really believe strongly in how it is you think Government should act with the citizenry . . . you can't sit on the sidelines and not be in the game. You're either in there trying to make happen that which you believe in, or you're ceding the whole debate to the other side.'' I trust that Mr. Kelley will not believe that he can continue this advocacy as a judge. By taking his oath of office he will be expected to assume a position of impartiality and discard his previous partisan advocacy. Certainly, we can all agree that the Federal bench is not the place to advocate any agenda other than fairness. I congratulate Mr. Kelley and his family on his confirmation today. Mr. President, again, he had the highest ABA rating and is strongly supported by the two Senators from Virginia. I hope everybody on this side of the aisle will vote for him. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for what she had to say. My wife and I got to know Mattie. My wife invited him to speak at the spouses dinner, the First Lady's luncheon. She told me I had to come down and meet this young man. I remember coming in there and talking with him. I also talked with him again by phone. I sort of hung back because I was not a Senate spouse. I sort of hung back in the corner and listened when he spoke. What an inspirational little boy. I know the tug I felt when I turned on the news this morning and heard what we all knew was going to happen had happened. He is no longer with us. Somebody in the news said he probably had more life in that short span than most people have. The Senator from Maryland said similar things. In this case, it is true. He really had. I thank her for her statement. I know Marcelle and I had our hearts enriched by having met him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have the floor, though I see the distinguished Senator from Virginia and, of course, I will yield to him if he is seeking the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator----

Mr. LEAHY. I wanted to accommodate the distinguished chairman, of course. I thought he was about to bring something up. I hope he would not put in a quorum call. I would like to speak about some of the matters that may be coming up later. I have been talking with him and Senator Reid and Senator Levin. If it becomes ripe to make that agreement, naturally I would yield the floor immediately as I did for the chairman. But I find in the joys of allergies, my voice is fast disappearing and I would like to speak now while I know I can so speak.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield again before he did that? I note, as the Senator knows, I could be speaking now if I wanted to because I already had the floor and I could have refused to yield to him. I did not.

Mr. LEAHY. I yielded to him, and had I not done that, of course I would have retained the floor and would have gone forth. Yesterday we had hours upon hours of quorum calls. All I am suggesting is that I be allowed to continue, and at such point as the Senator reaches an agreement, I would, of course, yield to whomever wishes to make the unanimous consent request. Being unable to do that, I believe my courtesy in giving up the position I had has not been returned. But, of course, the Senator has the parliamentary right to do whatever he wants because he has the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, nobody can deny that the digital age has brought many benefits and many challenges to all of us. In my home state of Vermont, the Internet has revolutionized how we work and how we learn: Distance learning brings the best teaching tools right into rural communities, and new business models let Vermont businesses reach new and far-flung customers. As suppliers who use the Internet, we enjoy access to a range of goods and services unimagined when I was growing up, and the vast panoply of information and entertainment offerings on the World Wide Web are at the fingertips of many Vermonters. Of course, we must work to ensure that everyone can reap the benefits of the digital age, and I am striving both here in Washington and in my state to do what is necessary to bring affordable and reliable Internet access to every household. I am confident that, with continued focus and perseverance, the day of universal access is coming and we will all take part in the many advantages of the digital age. But there are other problems that require immediate attention, because they threaten the development of the web. We will never be able to make the Internet an entirely trouble-free zone, but we will also never be justified in failing to make efforts to defend and improve it. One important effort to improve it is the bill that I am proud to introduce today--along with Senators Hatch, Daschle, Frist, Boxer, and Graham of South Carolina--the ``Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004.'' The ``Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004'' is a straightforward bill. Our legislation treats those who induce others to violate copyrights as infringers themselves. This is not a novel concept; it is the codification of a long-standing principle of intellectual property law: that infringement liability reaches not only direct infringers but also those who intentionally induce illegal infringement. And while the legal principle is an old one, the problems of inducement for copyright are a relatively new byproducts of the digital age--an age in which it is easy, and often profitable, to induce others to violate copyrights through illegal downloading from the Internet. The principle at the heart of this bill--secondary copyright liability--has long been in the common law. In fact, such secondary liability is provided for by statute in the patent law. The patent code provides liability for inducing infringement and for the sale of material components of patented machines, when the components are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. This is because it has long been relatively simple and economically worthwhile to induce patent infringement. By contrast, until recently the ability to illegally download music, books, software, and films has not existed. Recent developments, however, now make it necessary for Congress to clarify that this principle also applies to copyrights. What the inducement bill does not do is just as important as what it does: It does not target technology. Useful legislation on this topic must address the copyright issue and not demonize certain software. As a practical matter, if a law is targeted at certain software, the designers will simply design around the law and render it useless. And as a matter of effectiveness, if the law addresses only well-understood present threats, it will necessarily be too narrow to encompass future technologies that may pose the same threat to copyrights. A law that deals simply with the copyrights--and their violation--is far less likely to be circumvented or out-dated before it can do any good. It will be both broad enough and sufficiently flexible to accommodate situations we cannot foresee. This legislation is also carefully crafted to preserve the doctrine of ``fair use.'' Indeed by targeting the illegal conduct of those who have hijacked promising technologies, we can hope that consumers in the future have more outlets to purchase creative works in a convenient, portable digital format. Similarly, the bill will continue to promote the development of new technologies as it will not impose liability on the manufacturers of copying technology merely because the possibility exists for abuse. Finally, the bill will not affect Internet service providers who comply with the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Copyright law protecting intellectual property is one of the taproots of our economy and of our creativity as a nation. For copyright law to work as the Founders intended, it needs effective enforcement. That means adapting enforcement tools to meet new challenges, in the digital age or in any age. And that is the straightforward purpose of this bill. I would like to take a moment also to emphasize another important, if obvious, point about this bill that some detractors have ignored. The law only penalizes those who intentionally induce others to infringe copyrights. Thus, the makers of electronic equipment, the software vendors who sell email and other programs, the Internet service providers who facilitate access to the Web--all of these entities have nothing to fear from this bill. So long as they do not conduct their businesses with the intention of inducing others to break the law--and I certainly have not heard from anyone who makes that claim--they should rest easy. The only actors who have anything to fear are those that are already breaking the law; this bill simply clarifies and codifies that long-standing doctrine of secondary liability. The ``Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004'' is a simple fix to a growing problem. The bill protects the rights inherent in creative works, while helping to ensure that those same works can be easily distributed in digital format.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. I also had the good fortune to meet with the new interim President of Iraq. I actually asked him a similar question, and what the Senator from Massachusetts says is absolutely so. He said: Get it all out. He spoke of making it as transparent as possible. He said: The United States has always had a reputation of being honest, of being a democratic nation, of admitting our mistakes, and, of course, of being proud of those things we have accomplished that we can be so proud of. If we want to maintain that credibility, get it all out. The Senator from Massachusetts said that in our system, nobody is above the law. I thank God that is so, that the Founders of this country were wise enough to set in place a system where nobody-- nobody--was above the law. We have demonstrated this over and over again throughout our history as a nation. Anybody who has tried to step above it, the checks and balances stop that. What the administration can do is so easy: Answer the questions. The Attorney General refused to answer our questions. But he did not do it on the basis of any of the very limited reasons that a question might be refused--either because the information being sought is classified, which requires us to go into closed session, or because the President has asserted executive privilege, which the President did not in this case. They have sent up 3 of the 23 items we requested. Two of the 3 items were already on the Internet. But at least we are one item forward. Let's get the rest of the information and documents up here, and then let the Senate do what it should do: Let the various committees actually ask questions and seek answers. Mr. President, I see my good friend from Pennsylvania on the floor seeking recognition, so I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, it is time to level with the American people. We tried to subpoena these records last week. We were rebuffed on a party-line vote, with many on the other side saying: But they are going to be forthcoming. We now get 3 out of 23 documents, 2 of which were already on the Internet. When are they going to be forthcoming? We want to understand what happened. As I said, if you are going to get to the bottom of what happened, you have to start at the top. President Bush has said he wants to get to the bottom of this. I agree with him, but I think we have to start at the top to find out what happened there. And simply prosecuting some corporals and sergeants and privates does not get to the bottom of what happened.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will say that I agree with the second- degree amendment the Senator from Massachusetts has temporarily withdrawn. Obviously it will be reoffered. The reason I agree, Congress not only has done a very poor job of oversight; with some exceptions, the administration has taken advantage of that and made it a practice to deny oversight cooperation to Congress. The stonewalling in the prison abuse scandal has been building to a crisis point. Today, finally, after huge pressure, the White House has released a small subset of the documents that offer glimpses into the genesis of this scandal. All should have been provided earlier to Congress. We know a lot has been held back, and remains hidden from public view. While this is a self-serving selection on the part of the administration, it is at least a beginning, a tiny beginning, a tiny baby step. But if we want the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to find the whole truth, we will need much more cooperation and extensive hearings. The documents released today raise more questions than they answer. I will give some examples, speaking now of the documents released today. The White House released only 3 of the 23 documents that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested and tried to subpoena last week. In having released only 3 of the 23 we asked for, I point out that 2 of the 3 were already available on the Internet. Where are the other 20 documents we asked for? They have given us one that was not already on the Internet. Where are the other 20? The White House released a Presidential memorandum dated February 7, 2002, directing that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees be treated humanely. Did the President sign any directive regarding the treatment or interrogation of detainees after February 7, 2002, more than 2 years ago? More specifically, did the President sign any directive after the United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003? The latest document released by the White House is dated April 16th, 2003. Why is that, when many of the worst abuses that we know of occurred months later, in the fall of 2003. Why has the White House stopped with memoranda produced in April 2003? I live on the side of a mountain in Vermont. I know that water flows downhill, but so does Government policy. Somewhere in the upper reaches of this administration a process was set in motion that seeped forward until it produced a scandal. All of us want to put the scandal behind us, but to do that we have to know what happened. And we cannot get to the bottom of this until there is a clear picture of what happened at the top. We need to keep the pressure on until we get honesty and answers. So I will support Senator Kennedy's second-degree amendment when it is offered.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, nobody can deny that the digital age has brought many benefits and many challenges to all of us. In my home state of Vermont, the Internet has revolutionized how we work and how we learn: Distance learning brings the best teaching tools right into rural communities, and new business models let Vermont businesses reach new and far-flung customers. As suppliers who use the Internet, we enjoy access to a range of goods and services unimagined when I was growing up, and the vast panoply of information and entertainment offerings on the World Wide Web are at the fingertips of many Vermonters. Of course, we must work to ensure that everyone can reap the benefits of the digital age, and I am striving both here in Washington and in my state to do what is necessary to bring affordable and reliable Internet access to every household. I am confident that, with continued focus and perseverance, the day of universal access is coming and we will all take part in the many advantages of the digital age. But there are other problems that require immediate attention, because they threaten the development of the web. We will never be able to make the Internet an entirely trouble-free zone, but we will also never be justified in failing to make efforts to defend and improve it. One important effort to improve it is the bill that I am proud to introduce today--along with Senators Hatch, Daschle, Frist, Boxer, and Graham of South Carolina--the ``Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004.'' The ``Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004'' is a straightforward bill. Our legislation treats those who induce others to violate copyrights as infringers themselves. This is not a novel concept; it is the codification of a long-standing principle of intellectual property law: that infringement liability reaches not only direct infringers but also those who intentionally induce illegal infringement. And while the legal principle is an old one, the problems of inducement for copyright are a relatively new byproducts of the digital age--an age in which it is easy, and often profitable, to induce others to violate copyrights through illegal downloading from the Internet. The principle at the heart of this bill--secondary copyright liability--has long been in the common law. In fact, such secondary liability is provided for by statute in the patent law. The patent code provides liability for inducing infringement and for the sale of material components of patented machines, when the components are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. This is because it has long been relatively simple and economically worthwhile to induce patent infringement. By contrast, until recently the ability to illegally download music, books, software, and films has not existed. Recent developments, however, now make it necessary for Congress to clarify that this principle also applies to copyrights. What the inducement bill does not do is just as important as what it does: It does not target technology. Useful legislation on this topic must address the copyright issue and not demonize certain software. As a practical matter, if a law is targeted at certain software, the designers will simply design around the law and render it useless. And as a matter of effectiveness, if the law addresses only well-understood present threats, it will necessarily be too narrow to encompass future technologies that may pose the same threat to copyrights. A law that deals simply with the copyrights--and their violation--is far less likely to be circumvented or out-dated before it can do any good. It will be both broad enough and sufficiently flexible to accommodate situations we cannot foresee. This legislation is also carefully crafted to preserve the doctrine of ``fair use.'' Indeed by targeting the illegal conduct of those who have hijacked promising technologies, we can hope that consumers in the future have more outlets to purchase creative works in a convenient, portable digital format. Similarly, the bill will continue to promote the development of new technologies as it will not impose liability on the manufacturers of copying technology merely because the possibility exists for abuse. Finally, the bill will not affect Internet service providers who comply with the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Copyright law protecting intellectual property is one of the taproots of our economy and of our creativity as a nation. For copyright law to work as the Founders intended, it needs effective enforcement. That means adapting enforcement tools to meet new challenges, in the digital age or in any age. And that is the straightforward purpose of this bill. I would like to take a moment also to emphasize another important, if obvious, point about this bill that some detractors have ignored. The law only penalizes those who intentionally induce others to infringe copyrights. Thus, the makers of electronic equipment, the software vendors who sell email and other programs, the Internet service providers who facilitate access to the Web--all of these entities have nothing to fear from this bill. So long as they do not conduct their businesses with the intention of inducing others to break the law--and I certainly have not heard from anyone who makes that claim--they should rest easy. The only actors who have anything to fear are those that are already breaking the law; this bill simply clarifies and codifies that long-standing doctrine of secondary liability. The ``Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004'' is a simple fix to a growing problem. The bill protects the rights inherent in creative works, while helping to ensure that those same works can be easily distributed in digital format.