Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment is quite straightforward. We offered it to restore the conservation funding commitment Congress and the administration made to farmers and ranchers in the 2002 farm bill. I was one of the conferees in that farm bill. I remember we went all night long. We went weekend after weekend. The final bill was a very delicately put together compromise between Republicans and Democrats in both bodies and the administration, between those in the East, those in the West, those in the Midwest. It was a very delicate balance because of the amount of money involved and how it would be allocated. It was especially important because in this bill there was concern when it was passed whether those in the East would vote for the bill. Our amendment addressed the problem that Senators, if not all Senators, have been hearing about. Despite the historic conservation funding levels of the 2002 farm bill, the family farmers and ranchers trying to restore wetlands are offering to change the way they farm to improve air and water quality are rejected when they seek USDA help. Producers are turning away because of a Department of Agriculture decision earlier this year to divert $158.7 million from working lands conservation programs, to pay for the conservation reserve and wetlands reserve. It goes directly against the clear directive in the 2002 farm bill. That directed the USDA use mandatory funds for the Commodity Credit Corporation to pay for CRP and WRP technical assistance. This may sound technical, but the fact is, by not following what the Congress voted for, Republicans and Democrats alike, we end up having the administration raid the farm bill, raid working lands programs. This chart shows what happens: $57 million diverted from EQIP, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program; $18 million diverted from the Farmland and Rangeland Protection Program; $9.6 million diverted from the Grasslands Reserve Program; and $5.6 million from the WHIP, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, to pay for technical assistance. All these are included for different reasons. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program helps those who fish and hunt. They were part of the overall compromise. Their money is gone. The language of the statute, a relevant colloquy, supports this interpretation, and the General Accounting Office concurred in a recent memo that we settled a very clear intent of the Congress how that money be spent. I ask unanimous consent that memo be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is the Senator from Utah suggesting a half hour evenly divided?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I answer the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada by saying, yes, it is. I answer further, although he didn't ask this question, I am not aware of any votes that have changed since that time.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the senior Senator from Nevada is absolutely right. In fact, of those appropriations, we have held up the appropriations for our veterans, and we can't find time to vote on the floor. Appropriations for our law enforcement people are being held up and we can't find time to vote on the floor. Appropriations for the Federal judiciary, for the State Department, for housing, and a number of others are being held up, and we can't seem to find time to vote on the floor. But we are doing this revote when everybody knows the result will be precisely what it was the last time.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator is absolutely right. The vacancy rate in the judiciary is at a 13-year low. It was at a high at the end of President Clinton's term because the Republican majority in the Senate had blocked over 60 of President Clinton's nominees, usually by either threatening filibusters or not even allowing them to have a vote. In the 17 months that the Democrats were in charge of the Senate, we confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominees, which brought down that rate. In the 17 months the Republicans have been in charge, they have confirmed another 68. So the vacancy rate is at a 13-year low. In fact, I say to my friend from Nevada, President Bush, in less than 3 years, has seen more of his nominees confirmed than President Reagan did in his first 4 years, with a Republican majority in those 4 years, and he was the all-time champ.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is. As a good friend of mine in the Republican Party said the other day: Pat, I know this whole argument is bogus. I guess we are making it for fundraising letters. But I do know President Bush has had far more of his nominees confirmed with both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate than anybody has in decades. Yes, it is true, and I do agree with my Republican friend that the argument is bogus. But the only objection I have to the bogus argument being made is that we should be voting on the money for our veterans. We should be voting on the money for our law enforcement. We should be voting on the money for housing. And, we should be passing those bills that, by law, we were supposed to have passed way back in September. I ask unanimous consent that the entire L.A. Times article that has been referred to by the distinguished Senator from Nevada be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I compliment the Republican leadership for finally agreeing to move to the nomination of Roger Titus, who has been cleared on this side for some time. The nominee has won universal acclaim as a member of the Maryland bar. In fact, it was suggested that he was going to be nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It would have been a consensus where both Republicans and Democrats would have agreed. I wish the administration had done that. Instead, they have moved him to fill this seat. It is not a confrontational one for the circuit. In any event, he should be supported. He will make the 168th judicial nominee of President Bush's to be confirmed, which sets an all-time record for this time in a President's term in office, surpassing even that of President Reagan, when we had a Republican majority. Mr. Titus has been an active litigator in Maryland for over 37 years, and has litigated hundreds of cases, both civil and criminal. He has been a partner at the Venable law firm and is a former president of the Maryland Bar Association. He has also served as an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Titus earned a unanimous ``well-qualified'' rating from the ABA, and an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell. In 2001, Mr. Titus was honored with The Baltimore Daily Record's first Leadership in the Law Award, which recognizes members of the legal community for their devotion to the betterment of the profession and their communities. In 1999, Mr. Titus received the Century of Service Award from the Montgomery County Bar Association for his outstanding contributions to the legal profession and community during the 20th century. According to an article in The Baltimore Sun, Mr. Titus was apparently in the running to be nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In light of his stellar qualifications, deep roots in his legal community and ability to garner the bipartisan support of his elected officials he would have been a consensus choice for this important appellate seat. It is unfortunate that the President felt the need to nominate someone without any local ties to that Maryland vacancy. There are reportedly 30,000 practicing attorneys in the State of Maryland. Instead of nominating a well-qualified Marylander like Mr. Titus to Judge Murnahan's vacant seat on the Fourth Circuit, the President selected a younger, more controversial nominee with very little litigation experience. Not surprisingly, that nominee, Claude Allen, received a partial ``not qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association and his selection for this prestigious lifetime appointment has garnered a significant amount of opposition from concerned citizens groups. It is regrettable that this President has again chosen the course of confrontation and conflict for his appellate court nominations. Mr. Titus, with his many years of litigation experience and his well- deserved reputation as a leader among lawyers in Maryland, is the type of person who should have been chosen for Judge Murnahan's vacant seat on the Fourth Circuit. His nomination stands in sharp contrast to the inexperienced and divisive candidates chosen by the White House for too many appellate judgeships in what appear to be an effort to pack the court with ideological nominees and tilt these courts. There is no doubt that Mr. Titus is a Republican, yet he has the support of both of his home-State Senators and has earned the unanimous support of the Members of the Judiciary Committee. I am happy to support his nomination today and I congratulate Mr. Titus and his family on his confirmation. I commend Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski for their efforts to identify outstanding Maryland lawyers to maintain the high standards of the Federal bench in Maryland. In less than 3 years' time, President George W. Bush exceeded the number of judicial nominees confirmed for President Reagan in all 4 years of his first term in office. Senate Democrats have cooperated so that this President already surpassed the record of the President Republicans acknowledge to be the ``all time champ'' at appointing Federal judges. Since July, 2001, despite the fact that the Senate majority has shifted twice, with today's vote, a total of 168 judicial nominations have been confirmed, including 29 circuit court appointments. One hundred judges were confirmed in the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority and with Mr. Titus' nomination we will have confirmed 68 during the comparative time of the Republican majority. One would think that the White House and the Republicans in the Senate would be heralding this landmark. One would think they would be congratulating themselves for putting more lifetime appointed judges on the Federal bench than President Reagan did in his entire first term and doing it in three-quarters the time. But Republicans have a different partisan message and this truth is not consistent with their efforts to mislead the American people into thinking that Democrats have obstructed judicial nominations. That is why the President chose to criticize the Senate from the Rose Garden again last week rather than work with us and recognize what we can accomplish together. Not only has this President been accorded more Senate confirmations than President Reagan achieved during his entire first term, but he has also achieved more confirmations this year than in any of the 6 years that Republicans controlled the Senate when President Clinton was in office. Not once was President Clinton allowed 68 confirmations in a year when Republicans controlled the pace of confirmations. Despite the high numbers of vacancies and availability of highly qualified nominees, Republicans never cooperated with President Clinton to the extent Senate Democrats have. President Bush has appointed more lifetime circuit and district court judges in 10 months this year than President Clinton was allowed in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, or 2000. Last year alone, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 72 of President Bush's judicial nominees and was savagely attacked nonetheless. Likewise in 1992, the last previous full year in which a Democratic Senate majority considered the nominees of a Republican President, 66 circuit and district court judges were confirmed. Historically, in the last year of an administration, consideration of nominations slows, the ``Thurmond rule'' is invoked and vacancies are left to the winner of the upcoming Presidential election. In 1992, Democrats proceeded to confirm 66 of former President Bush's judicial nominees even though it was a Presidential election year. By contrast, in 1996, when Republicans controlled the pace for consideration of President Clinton's judicial nominees only 17 judges were confirmed and not a single one of them was to a circuit court. In fact, President Bush has now already appointed more judges in his third year in office than in the third year of the last five Presidential terms, including the most recent term when Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton was leading the country to historic economic achievements. That year, in 1999, Republicans allowed only 34 judicial nominees of President Clinton's to be confirmed all year, including only 7 circuit court nominees. Those are close to the average totals for the 6 years 1995-2000 when a Republican Senate majority was determining how quickly to consider the judicial nominees of a Democratic President. By contrast, with today's confirmation, the Senate this year will have confirmed 68 judicial nominees, including 12 circuit court nominees, almost double the totals for 1999. We have worked hard to balance the need to fill judicial vacancies with the imperative that Federal judges need to be fair. In so doing, we have reduced the number of judicial vacancies today to 40. More than 95 percent of the federal judgeships are filled. After inheriting 110 vacancies when the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized under Democratic control in 2001, I helped move through and confirm 100 of the President's judicial nominees in just 17 months. With today's 68th confirmation this year, we have reached the lowest number of vacancies in 13 years. There are more Federal judges on the bench today than at any time in American history. These facts stand in stark contrast to the false partisan rhetoric that demonize the Senate for having blocked all of this President's judicial nominations. The reality is that the Senate is proceeding at a record pace and achieving record numbers. I congratulate Mr. Titus and his family on his confirmation today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support passage of the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act, S. 589, and urge favorable Senate action and swift House adoption, as well. Senators Akaka and Durbin deserve great credit for developing this legislation last Congress with Senator Thompson and pursuing it to passage this year. I share their concern that we need to do more to recruit and retain outstanding personnel in our pursuit of national security. I believe that includes our law enforcement personnel. For the last two Congresses I have sponsored the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act, which is now S. 640. That bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Hatch, Mikulski and Durbin, would correct an inequity that exists under current law whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than nearly all others involved in the federal criminal justice system. We have proposed that Assistant United States Attorneys be included as law enforcement officers under the Federal Employees' Retirement System and Civil Service Retirement System. I urge the Republican chairs of the Government Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal workforce, and the District of Columbia to make enactment of that measure a priority rather than allow it to continue to languish without action year after year. Similarly, I am a cosponsor of the Law Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity Act, S. 819, which was introduced by Senator Mikulski and is cosponsored by Senators Sarbanes and Campbell. This measure would include Customs agents, Treasury agents, and Homeland Security agents whose duties include the investigation or apprehension of suspected or convicted individuals and who are authorized to carry a firearm within the definition of ``law enforcement officer'' for purposes of retirement benefits equity. This measure, likewise, is one that has been introduced and reintroduced but that has not received attention from the Government Affairs Committee or Subcommittee. In the interest of fairness and in recognition of the sacrifices that our officers make every day on our behalf, I urge attention to this measure. I also note that last Congress the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the Innocence Protection Act of 2002, which included provisions on student loan forgiveness. The bill would have established a program under which full-time prosecutors and public defenders could apply for repayment assistance of the Federal Stafford loans and would have extended the Perkins loan forgiveness program to include public defenders. I commend Senator Durbin for his strong leadership in these matters. Unfortunately, those improvements and encouragements to young lawyers were blocked and are not yet enacted. They need to be. We must ensure that full-time public defenders have equivalent eligibility if the public defense function is to fulfill its constitutionally required role in our criminal justice system. Specifically, with respect to the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act that we consider today, I believe the program it establishes for student loan repayment can be an important incentive for our national security programs and understand those to include our law enforcement agents and officers. I regret that the substitute amendment lowers the maximum amount of loan repayment from $80,000 to $60,000 but believe it is an important start and should be used broadly as an incentive to both recruit and retain our national security employees. According to Dr. Paul Light of the Brookings Institution Center for Public Service, in 2002 the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense together awarded student loan repayment to only seven employees. To have its intended effect to recruit and retain outstanding talent to government service, especially national security positions that include law enforcement, we need to have a broad-based incentive through loan forgiveness. Student loans, include law school loans, that saddle talented and public-spirited graduates are a key reason so many opt for higher paying jobs in the private sector. An effective program of student loan forgiveness can help counterbalance that pressure. I regret that the bill as written limits its application to executive departments like the Department of Justice and does not include Federal courts, which oversee our federal public defenders. Our prosecutors and our public defenders need this assistance and incentive to join and remain as critical components of the criminal justice system. To skew programs to help only one side of the criminal justice system is shortsighted and unfair. For more information on this important topic of loan forgiveness, I urge consideration of pages 37 through 40 of Senate report 107-315. I am concerned that the Bush administration and its Office of Personnel Management will adopt an unreasonably restrictive view of those Federal employees who contribute to our national security. As I read the substitute amendment, the determination of national security positions is left to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General and the other agency heads. That decision no longer is intended to reside with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. That is an improvement. I hope that it will lead to a more broadly-based determination of the employment positions eligible for the student loan repayment program to include all who contribute to our national security. I also look forward to enactment of the fellowship program provided by the bill and the strengthening of our national security workforce. I have been extremely disappointed by the efforts made at the Department of Justice to fulfil the mandates of the USA PATRIOT Act with respect to improving our workforce. As I detailed recently in connection with the confirmation hearing for the nominee to be the Deputy Attorney General, the Attorney General has yet to give us a straight answer with respect to hiring the necessary Arabic translators. That was a need I identified within days of the September 11, 2001 attacks and insisted be addressed in the PATRIOT Act. Over the last 2 years the Department has been both evasive and inconsistent in its answers regarding implementation of those provisions in that Act. Recently the FBI has, again, put out the call for assistance and additional translators. While Senator Voinovich may be correct that these provisions in the bill may be necessary, it is my hope that they will encourage the administration to do that which it could have done but has not under existing authority. The administration has a long way to go to provide for our national security. I support this bill as another bipartisan effort by the Senate to help it along the way.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, available for brief debate and confirmation votes by the United States Senate are several of the President's judicial nominees. Roger W. Titus of Maryland was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee to the Senate more than a month ago. This nomination was greeted with universal acclaim. He is an outstanding Maryland lawyer and leader of the bar, an active litigator in Maryland for over 37 years, a partner at the Venable law firm, a former President of the Maryland Bar Association. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Titus earned a unanimous ``Well-Qualified'' rating from the ABA, and an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell. In 2001, Mr. Titus was honored with The Baltimore Daily Record's first Leadership in the Law Award, which recognizes members of the legal community for their devotion to the betterment of the profession and their communities. In 1999, Mr. Titus received the Century of Service Award from the Montgomery County Bar Association for his outstanding contributions to the legal profession and community during the twentieth century. According to an article in The Baltimore Sun, Mr. Titus was apparently in the running to be nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In light of his stellar qualifications, deep roots in his legal community and ability to garner the bipartisan support of his elected officials he would have been a consensus choice for this important appellate seat. This White House was not interested in appointing a consensus nominee to the Fourth Circuit. It wanted to pick a fight. So it did. It nominated someone from Virginia to the Maryland vacancy on the Fourth Circuit and precipitated a controversy. There are reportedly 30,000 practicing attorneys in the State of Maryland. Instead of nominating a well qualified Marylander like Mr. Titus to Judge Murnahan's vacant seat on the Fourth Circuit, the President selected a controversial nominee with very little litigation experience from another jurisdiction. That nominee, Claude Allen, received a partial ``not qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association and his selection has engendered significant opposition from concerned citizens groups and understandably from the Maryland Senators. It is regrettable that this President has again chosen the course of confrontation and conflict for his appellate court nominations. Mr. Titus, with his many years of litigation experience and his well- deserved reputation as a leader among lawyers in Maryland is the type of person who should have been chosen for Judge Murnahan's vacant seat on the Fourth Circuit. His nomination stands in sharp contrast to the inexperienced and divisive candidates chosen by the White House for too many appellate judgeships in what appear to be an effort to pack the court with ideological nominees and tilt these courts. There is no doubt that Mr. Titus is a Republican, yet he has the support of both of his home-state Senators, both Democrats, and has earned the unanimous support of the Members of the Judiciary Committee. I would have supported his nomination to the Fourth Circuit vacancy. I continue to support his nomination to the District Court. The month- long delay the Republican leadership has already caused in his consideration for the District Court position reminds me of their delay in scheduling a vote on the Fifth Circuit nomination of Judge Edward Prado earlier this year. Then they did not want to allow Democratic Senators to vote for a conservative Hispanic nominee when they were trying desperately to mischaracterize Senate Democrats as anti- Hispanic. Now it seems we are making too much progress on too many judicial nominees to suit their partisan interests in mischaracterizing Senate Democrats as blockading Bush nominee's to the courts. The truth is that in less than three years' time, President George W. Bush exceeded the number of judicial nominees confirmed for President Reagan in all four years of his first term in office. Senate Democrats have cooperated so that this President already surpassed the record of the President Republicans acknowledge to be the ``all time champ'' at appointing Federal judges. Since July, 2001, despite the fact that the Senate majority has shifted twice, a total of 167 judicial nominations have already been confirmed, including 29 circuit court appointments. One hundred judges were confirmed in the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority and the Senate has proceeded to confirm another 67 judges during the comparative time of the Republican majority for a total of 167 judges. One would think that the White House and the Republicans in the Senate would be heralding this landmark. One would think they would be congratulating themselves for putting more lifetime appointed judges on the federal bench than President Reagan did in his entire first term and doing it in three-quarters the time. One would think that they would be building upon that success by scheduling prompt votes on noncontroversial nominees like Roger Titus. But Republicans have a different partisan message and this truth is not consistent with their efforts to mislead the American people into thinking that Democrats have obstructed judicial nominations. That is why the President chose to criticize the Senate from the Rose Garden again last week and in campaign appearances around the country last weekend and earlier this week rather than work with us and recognize what we can accomplish together. Not only has this President been accorded more Senate confirmations than President Reagan achieved during his entire first term, but he has also achieved more confirmations this year than in any of the six years that Republicans controlled the Senate when President Clinton was in office. Not once was President Clinton allowed 67 confirmations in a year when Republicans controlled the pace of confirmations. Despite the high numbers of vacancies and availability of highly qualified nominees, Republicans never cooperated with President Clinton to the extent Senate Democrats have. President Bush has appointed more lifetime circuit and district court judges in 10 months this year than President Clinton was allowed in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, or 2000. Last year alone, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 72 of President Bush's judicial nominees and was savagely attacked nonetheless. With a little cooperation from Senate Republicans we might match that record before adjournment this year, as well. In fact, President Bush has now already appointed more judges in his third year in office than in the third year of the last five presidential terms, including the most recent term when Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton was leading the country to historic economic achievements. That year, in 1999, Republicans allowed only 34 judicial nominees of President Clinton's to be confirmed all year, including only 7 circuit court nominees. Those are close to the average totals for the six years 1995-2000 when a Republican Senate majority was determining how quickly to consider the judicial nominees of a Democratic President. By contrast, the Senate this year has already confirmed 67 judicial nominees, including 12 circuit court nominees, almost double the totals for 1999. We have worked hard and bent over backwards cooperating with a very uncooperative White House and Senate Republican majority. In spite of their false charges and partisanship, Senate Democrats have continued working to make progress in filling judicial vacancies. According to the website of the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee we have reduced the number of judicial vacancies below 40. Had the Senate Democratic majority not acted last year to authorize between 15 and 20 additional judgeships, the vacancies total might well be in the low 20's. After inheriting 110 vacancies when the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized under Democratic control in 2001, I helped move through and confirm 100 of the President's judicial nominees in just 17 months. Through hard work we have proceeded to reduce vacancies to the lowest number in 13 years and arguably the lowest level since President Reagan. There are more Federal judges on the bench today than at any time in American history. These facts stand in stark contrast to the false partisan rhetoric that demonize the Senate for having blocked all of this President's judicial nominations. The reality is that the Senate is proceeding at a record pace and achieving record numbers. Also on the Senate calendar awaiting action is the nomination of Gary Sharpe of New York. That nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee two weeks ago. He remains on the Senate Executive Calendar because the Senate Republican leadership has no interest in scheduling this noncontroversial judicial nominee for a vote. Also on the Senate Executive Calendar awaiting scheduling of debate and a final vote are the nominations of Judge Dora Irizarry of New York and J. Leon Holmes of Arkansas. Mr. Holmes nomination has been awaiting debate since May, more than six months. Let us be clear. There is no Democratic hold preventing debate and votes on either of these nominees. They merit debate. There was debate in the Judiciary Committee. There should be debate on the Senate floor. And then the Senate will vote. Indeed, following the debate on Judge Irizarry more than half of the Republican Members indicated that they opposed the President's nomination. I respect and understand their concern. I have had similar concerns about a number of this President's nominees. More than two dozen have received ratings or partial ratings of ``not qualified'' by the ABA. Some, like Timothy Hardiman of Pennsylvania and Dora Irizarry of New York, do not have the support of their local bar association either. Unlike the way Republicans treated the nomination of Justice Ronnie White of Missouri when he was ambushed on the Senate floor and defeated in a party line vote. I do not expect that to happen with Judge Irizarry. Those with concerns have been forthright in coming forward. I do not expect Democratic Senators to do what Republicans did in 1999 to Ronnie White when they switch their votes and voted lockstep in a partisan effort to defeat his nomination on the floor. With these four nominees for additional lifetime appointments to the federal bench, the Senate has the chance to reach a total of more than 170 judicial confirmations for the President in less than three years. Maybe that is why the Republican leadership has chosen not to go forward. Could it be that they do not want the American people to know that we have cooperating in filing 170 judicial vacancies in less than three years? That would not be consistent with the talking points the Administration is peddling to friendly media outlets all over town and around the country. Over the last several days more than 200 people have been killed or wounded in Baghdad. The number of unemployed Americans has been at or near levels not seen in years, poverty is on the rise in our country, and the current Administration seems intent on saddling our children and grandchildren with trillions in deficits and debt. For the first time in a dozen years, charitable giving in this country is down. While negative indicators are spiking, the Republican leadership of the Congress would rather demonize Democrats, engage in name calling and charge obstruction where the facts are historic levels of cooperation. The Senate wheel-spinning exercises involving the most controversial judicial nominees and the Republican leadership's insistence on unsuccessful cloture votes are unhelpful to the Senate or the courts. Despite the heated rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, we have made progress on judicial vacancies when and where the Administration has been willing to work with the Senate. Only a handful of the President's most extreme and controversial nominations have been denied consent by the Senate. Up to today only four have failed. That record is in stark contrast to the more than 60 judicial nominees from President Clinton who were blocked by a Republican-led Senate. One-hundred sixty-seven to four, but as I have said, that total could be 170 to four if the Republican leadership would work with us and schedule voted and debate on the four nominees I have identified. But despite this record of progress, made possible only through good faith effort by Democrats on behalf of a Republican President's nominees, and in the wake of the years of unfairness shown the nominees of a Democratic President, the Republican leadership has decided to use partisan plays out of its playbook as this year winds down. Instead of putting partisanship aside and bridging our differences for the sake of accomplishing what we can for the American people, we are asked to participate in a transparently political exercise initiated by a President. With respect to his extreme judicial nominations, President George W. Bush is the most divisive President in modern times. Through his extreme judicial nominations, he is dividing the American people and he is dividing the Senate. Far from a uniter, on judicial nominations he has chosen to be a divider.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to commend one of Vermont's most successful farmer-owned enterprises, the world-renowned Cabot Creamery of Vermont. Since its founding by 94 farmers in 1919, Cabot's farm families have preserved the heritage and proud agrarian traditions of the State of Vermont and our great nation. Cabot has an 80-year history of doing what they do best, making the world's best cheddar cheeses. When Cabot Creamery earned the title of ``Best Cheddar in the World'' and ``Best Flavored Cheddar'' at the 22nd Biennial World Championship Cheese Contest, they did it as a team, steeped in family traditions and pride and with skill and expertise that has been painstakingly built over the generations. That same teamwork goes into every aspect of their business. In 1992 Cabot joined forces with another New England farmer-owned cooperative, Agri-Mark Inc, to open new markets for Vermont dairy farmers. Today the cheese made by Cabot is from the milk of more than 1,450 Agri-Mark dairy producers throughout Vermont, New England and New York. The Cabot Creamery of Vermont combines the best aspects of both cooperative farming and value-added agricultural products to provide much-needed price premiums to Vermont dairy farmers. The dairy farmers of Cabot Creamery also have a rich history in teaching their communities about the importance of dairy to the economy and to nutrition and health. Dairy products pack a powerful punch of eight additional nutrients needed for stronger bones and healthier bodies. Throughout New England, Cabot runs the Ag in the Classroom program, an educational program for elementary students that teaches them about agriculture. This program has been recognized by educators as a valuable resource that helps connect students to their communities, raises self-awareness and fosters creativity. Cabot also has sponsored Calcium Crisis Challenge, a program for 6th--8th-grade students that helps them learn about calcium and its importance for stronger bones and healthy living. The program brings attention to the fact that more than 75 percent of Americans do not get enough calcium in their diets. This week in Washington, D.C., the dairy farmers of Cabot Creamery will host a reception to highlight the national 3-A-Day education campaign. The 3-A-Day campaign is simple--three servings of milk, cheese or yogurt is a deliciously easy way to help build stronger bones and better bodies. Most Americans are eating only half the daily recommended servings of dairy each day, resulting in loss of bone density and in related health problems. Eating 3-A-Day of dairy is an easy and wholesome way for families to help meet their calcium needs. Along with Senator Jeffords and Congressman Sanders, I am pleased to join Cabot's involvement with this important education campaign to highlight the importance of dairy products to healthy diets.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will adopt by voice vote the conference report containing $87 billion in supplemental funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. Before I speak about this legislation, I want to express my deepest condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed and wounded in the attack on a U.S. military helicopter yesterday. This tragedy illustrates, once again, the tremendous sacrifices of our soldiers in Iraq. They are there serving their country, and while their accomplishments rarely make the headlines, they are also enduring daily hardship and tragic losses. This supplemental legislation has been controversial. We all want Iraq to become a democratic, prosperous, peaceful nation. But, we differ on the President's decision to go to war and on the way forward from here. I did not support the supplemental when it was considered by the Senate, and was one of twelve Senators to vote against it. I discussed my reasons for this decision at length in this Chamber on October 17, 2003. My views have not changed since that date. That said, I want to recognize the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for the effort he made to get this supplemental passed. During the past several days he has demonstrated strength on par with one of his favorite superheroes: The Incredible Hulk. Senator Stevens worked extremely hard, under difficult conditions, to accommodate a number of my priorities: Tricare for Guard and Reservists, humanitarian aid for Liberia, and additional assistance for Afghanistan. He also supported my provision to impose new criminal penalties for war profiteering. Although the House Republican conferees ultimately rejected the new criminal penalties for war profiteering--a major mistake in my view--Chairman Stevens defended the Senate position on this issue during conference. I am grateful to him for doing so. I will have more to say on the war profiteering provision in a moment, but I want to take a few moments to explain why I oppose this conference report. I have no doubt that the world is far better off without Saddam Hussein. But, I also feel that the administration rushed into this war prematurely, alienated some of our closest friends and allies, exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and downplayed the extraordinary difficult and costly task of rebuilding Iraq. We all know the confident statements made by senior administration officials, including the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser, Director of OMB, and Administrator of USAID, that have since been disavowed, debunked, or disputed. Some say that we should simply move on--that the differences we have over the war and the administration's abysmal post war planning is water under the bridge. I disagree. there is no question that we have to work hard to succeed in Iraq. But, I cite the words of Ted Koppel, a well-respected journalist with long experience, who said: Before the Iraq war, senior officials confidently predicted that US troops would be welcomed as liberators, that vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction would be found, that Iraqi oil income would pay for post-war reconstruction, and that a successful military victory in Iraq would quickly lead to implementation of the ``road map to peace'' between Israelis and Palestinians. Not only were all those predictions wrong but there is growing evidence that officials should have know better at the time. But that was then, this is now. And everyone likes to pretend that what was said before the war is no longer relevant. The decision to go to war in Iraq strikes at the very heart of our credibility as a nation. It is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue, and I am outraged by administration officials who attacked the patriotism of those who have asked legitimate questions about the decision to launch a unilateral, preemptive attack. I think we all wish that more questions had been asked and answered before we decided to send hundreds of thousands of troops to Vietnam. I agree with those who say that we cannot simply walk away from Iraq. However, I am deeply troubled by the administration's partisan, take-it or leave-it attitude towards this supplemental. There are better alternatives, and the Administration should have been open to considering other approaches. I believe they could have saved the taxpayers money and hastened the time when our soldiers can come home. Amendments offered by Democrats on the Senate floor would have gone a long way towards accomplishing these goals. They would have: put the Secretary of State in charge of reconstruction efforts, which has been the case for every major post-conflict operation since the Marshall Plan; required the administration to internationalize the effort, formulate a viable plan to rebuild Iraq, and come up with a workable exit strategy; and fully paid for the reconstruction by repealing the tax cut on the wealthiest Americans for just one year rather than raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and saddling future generations with even more debt. Each of these amendments was defeated by the Republican leadership, acting in concert with the administration, on the Senate floor. Instead of acknowledging problems with the current policy and making bold proposals to turn around the situation in Iraq, the President's approach does little more than throw more money at the status quo. This goes to the heart of my opposition to this conference report, and again, I refer any who may want further details about my views to review my October 17 statement. I want to turn to an issue that I mentioned earlier, which is the refusal of House Republicans on the Appropriations Committee to include a provision which I, along with Senators Feinstein and Durbin, included in the Senate version of the Supplemental conference report. This provision would have created criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who try to defraud American taxpayers and cash in on the relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform are risking their lies in Iraq. Our aid workers and diplomats are laboring under difficult and dangerous conditions. This provision would have sent a message: If you cheat American taxpayers while our men and women are dying in Iraq, you will go to jail. In rejecting this provision, House Republicans offered no substitute or willingness to compromise. They also offered, in my opinion, no real substantive arguments against this provision. More importantly, Representative Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, did not oppose this provision. The partisan approach by the House Appropriators was in stark contrast to the Senate position. Both Republican and Democratic Senate conferees consistently supported the provision, which was unanimously accepted during the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. Not a single objection was raised to this provision during Senate consideration of the Supplemental. Why is this provision so important? Congress is about to send about $70 billion dollars to a Iraq, where there is no functioning government, too little accountability and too few financial controls. This is a formula for mischief. Because we are sending so much of the taxpayers' money to a place without the usual oversight and controls, I strongly believe that we need an extra layer of protection to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. This is what my provision would have done. By creating strong criminal penalties and clarifying current uncertainties about jurisdiction, it would create a strong deterrent against this type of behavior. As I said during the conference discussion of this provision, if one warehouse is locked while another warehouse is unlocked, everyone knows which one will get robbed. There are, of course, fraud statutes to protect against waste of tax dollars at home. But there are serious impediments, especially jurisdictional issues, to using these statutes to prosecute these types of crimes in Iraq. Moreover, there are no statutes that expressly prohibit war profiteering. The provision in the Senate bill would have addressed these issues and made it easier to prosecute those accused of defrauding U.S. taxpayers in Iraq. In addition, some of the penalties under existing fraud statutes are weak--perpetrators could walk away with little or no jail time. This provision would have increased the penalties to up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. We have a duty to do our best to protect every penny of the taxpayers' money from waste, fraud and abuse. I believe the House Appropriators, by refusing to accept this provision, abdicated this responsibility. This is not a new idea. The United States has enacted similar laws after World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. These laws were successful, and there is a long history of case law on this issue. Advocating exactly such an approach, President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that ``a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.'' The provision in the Senate bill borrowed heavily from this successful approach, especially the portions relating to war profiteering. Some have asked me, you are the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, why not go through the regular process and report a bill out of this committee? We all know that criminal penalties cannot be applied retroactively. I wanted to have this strong deterrent against defrauding the U.S. taxpayers in place on the same day that the President signed this bill into law and the money goes out the door. Clearly, this is an unusual situation that called for quick action to ensure that these controls were in place. We have missed this opportunity. But, I am hoping that in the bipartisan spirit of the Senate, we can come together to pass a law that will minimize the damage of the House's refusal to act. In the coming week, I will be introducing a free-standing bill that mirrors the provision in the Senate bill. I hope that the Senate will continue to do the right thing on this issue. I believe that we should press ahead and support its prompt passage through Congress. In closing, I want to say that there has been bipartisan concern with the administration's approach in Iraq. I hope the administration listens to the Congress and asks the tough questions of itself. It should reach out to Members of Congress and consult with experts who do not necessarily agree with what the administration is doing in Iraq. While we may disagree on how to get there, we all want the same thing: a peaceful and democratic Iraq and our troops home safely. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to take 7 minutes of the time available to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not object to the senior Senator from Virginia speaking. I just ask that I be recognized after him.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been waiting. I notice we are going back and forth. I ask for 5 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senators Feinstein, Durbin, and Clinton the ``War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2003.'' This bill creates criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who would exploit the relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq to make an extra buck. Sadly, these very same provisions are missing from the final version of the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan because House conferees refused to accept the amendment, offering no substitute and no willingness to compromise. Republican and Democratic Senate conferees consistently supported the provision, which had been unanimously accepted during Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. There are, of course, fraud statutes to protect against waste of tax dollars at home. But none expressly prohibit war profiteering and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas. Technical jurisdictional elements in existing laws also make their applicability in these unique circumstances more difficult. The Leahy-Feinstein- Durbin-Clinton bill would criminalize ``war profiteering''-- overcharging taxpayers for any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The bill also prohibits fraud and false statements in any matter involving a contract or the provision of goods or services in Iraq. These new crimes would be felonies, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. These are strong and focused sanctions that are narrowly tailored to criminalize and create tough criminal penalties for fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Congress is about to send billions and billions of dollars to a place where there is no functioning government, under a plan with too little accountability and too few financial controls. That's a formula for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would defraud taxpayers. It baffles me why House members would not want to provide this protection to taxpayers. Every penny of our taxpayers' money must be scrupulously spent and protected from waste. The message sent by this bill speaks volumes; any act taken to financially exploit the crisis situation in Iraq for exorbitant personal gain is simply reprehensible. It demeans and cheapens the sacrifices that our military and civilian personnel are making in Iraq. In post-war times, where U.S. taxpayers have been called upon to bear the burden of reconstruction contracts--where contracts are awarded in a system that offers little competition and even less accountability-- concerns about wartime profiteering are of grave concern. Historical efforts to stem such profiteering have been successful: Congress implemented excessive-profits taxes and contract renegotiation laws after both World Wars, and again after the Korean War. Advocating exactly such an approach, President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that ``a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.'' Then, as now, our government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction efforts that allow so many others to unfairly profit. There is urgency to this important measure because criminal statutes cannot be applied retroactively. These controls need to be in place now. We can only hope that the Senate will continue to press and support its prompt passage through Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senators Feinstein, Durbin, and Clinton the ``War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2003.'' This bill creates criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who would exploit the relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq to make an extra buck. Sadly, these very same provisions are missing from the final version of the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan because House conferees refused to accept the amendment, offering no substitute and no willingness to compromise. Republican and Democratic Senate conferees consistently supported the provision, which had been unanimously accepted during Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. There are, of course, fraud statutes to protect against waste of tax dollars at home. But none expressly prohibit war profiteering and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas. Technical jurisdictional elements in existing laws also make their applicability in these unique circumstances more difficult. The Leahy-Feinstein- Durbin-Clinton bill would criminalize ``war profiteering''-- overcharging taxpayers for any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The bill also prohibits fraud and false statements in any matter involving a contract or the provision of goods or services in Iraq. These new crimes would be felonies, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. These are strong and focused sanctions that are narrowly tailored to criminalize and create tough criminal penalties for fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Congress is about to send billions and billions of dollars to a place where there is no functioning government, under a plan with too little accountability and too few financial controls. That's a formula for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would defraud taxpayers. It baffles me why House members would not want to provide this protection to taxpayers. Every penny of our taxpayers' money must be scrupulously spent and protected from waste. The message sent by this bill speaks volumes; any act taken to financially exploit the crisis situation in Iraq for exorbitant personal gain is simply reprehensible. It demeans and cheapens the sacrifices that our military and civilian personnel are making in Iraq. In post-war times, where U.S. taxpayers have been called upon to bear the burden of reconstruction contracts--where contracts are awarded in a system that offers little competition and even less accountability-- concerns about wartime profiteering are of grave concern. Historical efforts to stem such profiteering have been successful: Congress implemented excessive-profits taxes and contract renegotiation laws after both World Wars, and again after the Korean War. Advocating exactly such an approach, President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that ``a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.'' Then, as now, our government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction efforts that allow so many others to unfairly profit. There is urgency to this important measure because criminal statutes cannot be applied retroactively. These controls need to be in place now. We can only hope that the Senate will continue to press and support its prompt passage through Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is interesting, before I came to the Senate, I recall seeing headlines saying the Congress passed an authorization to do this or an authorization to do that; $100 million to improve the environment somewhere, authorized $1 billion to do this. It was not until I got here that I realized that does not do anything. We could authorize $5 trillion for polio vaccine tonight, but if we did not appropriate some money, it is nothing. In ``Henry IV,'' Part I--if the Senator from West Virginia were here, he could set me--Part I, Act 3, Scene 1, we all remember that scene very well. Glyndower says to Hotspur: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur answers: Why, so can I, so can any man; But will they come when you call for them? We have authorized the money and the President and everybody else had wonderful speeches. I commended him, praising him. He met with all the various religious leaders and everyone else and went to Africa and talked about what we have promised. That was the authorization. Now it is time to call for the money from the vasty deep. We can find $87 billion we had to send immediately to Iraq with absolutely no indication of whether the capacity was there to spend it when questions were asked. They were never answered. Included were items such as $6,000 telephones that could be bought for $600 in neighboring countries, and so on. But we just told them, we will build the capacity. What the Durbin amendment, combined with the DeWine amendment--and I was a cosponsor of the DeWine amendment as I am of the Durbin amendment--if you put them together, then we do fulfill the commitment that the President of the United States very rightly said this country would do. I have traveled to Africa. I have traveled to Haiti, Vietnam, China, and elsewhere. I have seen how AIDS is spreading. Other Senators on both sides of the aisle have seen the same. When you see that these additional funds can be effectively used, we have to ramp up. In all my travels, all my conversations with foreign leaders and public health experts, I have never met anyone who believes the money provided by this amendment could not be well spent today, not a year from now. I have seen some of the vaccines that some companies donate, just about at their expiration date. Then they take a full tax writeoff even though it will not be used. Everyone who is working in the field to stop AIDS believes we need the additional funds today. That is why I praised the President when he promised them. That is why I will support the senior Senator from Illinois tonight to help in carrying out the promise that President Bush made. You cannot argue $3 billion is too much to spend effectively in combating AIDS in 14 countries. That is not what the United States Leadership Against Aids Act says. Besides, why limit our efforts to 14 countries when five times that many countries are being ravaged by AIDS? Why ignore the other two dozen countries in Africa? Why ignore Russia or China or India where AIDS is spreading out of control? India is going to swamp virtually everywhere else with an AIDS crisis the way it is spreading. China, Russia, we have strategic interests there. It is a false argument to say we cannot do this. Frankly, when you are the wealthiest nation on Earth, the most powerful nation on Earth, I believe it is an immoral argument. It is not just a fact that we in the United States are threatened by the spread of AIDS in other countries. We actually have a chance to do something about it. We have a chance to do something about it in countries where the yearly income is less than some of us have spent on an evening out with dinner, a show with our spouses; actually, where a yearly income is less than we spend on the time it takes for us to have this debate in most places. It is in the 14 countries. If we could isolate AIDS to 14 countries, we should sing ``Glory, Hallelujah.'' We cannot. There are dozens of countries that need help, that need to have people trained. We should provide the equipment to support a national prevention and treatment program. Ask anyone who is working those countries. They will tell you. To argue that we do not have the capacity is not based on fact. It is not based on reality. It is not based on public health. I worry that argument is made because they do not want to spend the money. We are spending an awful lot more money to fight AIDS today than if we faced up to this problem two decades ago, but people did not want to. We wasted two decades. Twenty-five million people died in part because we and others failed to act. People died during that time. It is a population equal to 50 times my own State. Actually it is in population about 50 times the State of the distinguished Presiding Officer. I commend the Senator from Illinois. I wish the White House would not oppose this amendment. What the Senator from Illinois is trying to do is to call them from the deep, call up the money to back up what the President has promised. The President has been rightly praised by religious leaders, by heads of state, by well-known entertainers such as my good friend Bono, from Ireland, for promising this money. So the White House should not stop us now that they have had the praise, now that everyone has stood up and said the President was right. Now we should not have the White House coming in through the backdoor and saying, don't vote for the money. We want to make the promise. We do not want to spend the money. I hope everyone will stop and think. We could spend this money. The President was right to promise it. We are right to back the President's promise.

Mr. LEAHY. I have great respect for the Senator from Kentucky and the bill that he has put together. Whatever the outcome of the vote, I will strongly support this bill. It is a good bill. Senator McConnell has worked in a bipartisan manner to accommodate a number of priorities. This is one disagreement. We have hundreds of issues that we have to resolve in this bill. I think our average is pretty good. As Senator Bingaman pointed out, this is not a vote for or against the Millennium Challenge Account. The MCA could turn out to be a great program. This is a vote about priorities. This amendment is fully offset. The vote is on the following question: Do you want $200 million sitting in the Treasury for a year? Or, do you want to spend if fighting HIV/AIDS? The administration's own budget documents say that they will spend only $800 million of this money this year. Anything above this level will not be obligated until Fiscal Year 2005. This is precisely why the Republican-controlled House provided $800 million for the MCA. Secretary Powell made this point very clear when he testified before Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was asked: ``Why can you spend only $800 million in Fiscal Year 2004? He replied--and I am quoting--this figure is ``based on the careful selection system we will set up.'' Secretary Powell continues: This is an innovative approach with no precedent to guide us. We anticipate that it will take some time to develop the first proposals and then hone them into acceptably detailed and accountable contracts. We thus did not believe it likely that all MCA money will be obligated in the fiscal year. We would anticipate that any remaining funding would be obligated in fiscal year 2005 for programs in countries selected in fiscal year 2004. I know that the White House will figure out a way to say they need this money. But, let me tell my colleagues a couple of other things I know. I know that this additional money will sit in Treasury--their own budget documents show this. Secretary Powell testified to this. I know we do one year appropriations around here. We will revisit this issue next year. I know there is not enough money in this bill to combat the worst public health crisis in 500 years. The Bingaman amendment gets us more money, which is fully offset, to accomplish this important goal. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Also, I thank the staff members who have worked so hard on this bill. Senator McConnell and I work in a bipartisan manner and so do the respective staffs. On the Republican side I thank Paul Grove, Brendon Wheeler, Robert Karem. On the Democratic side, I thank Tim Rieser, Mark Lippert, and J.P. Dowd.

Mr. LEAHY. I also appreciate what my friend Senator Byrd has said, and I will gladly work with him in conference in support of the language he seeks in the Statement of Managers. Global TB Drug Facility

Mr. LEAHY. I agree with my colleague. When countries do not have access to TB drugs, people die needlessly and when TB treatment is interrupted, this leads to the development of more deadly multi-drug resistant TB--which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat each infected person in the United States.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to take just 30 seconds to speak in support of Senator Feinstein's amendment. The issue here is not about whether we support abstinence as a method of preventing the transmission of HIV. Obviously, it is one approach, and an important one especially in countries where young girls are extremely vulnerable. Encouraging young people to postpone sexual activity until they are in a monogamous relationship is a key goal of any AIDS prevention strategy. So abstinence is one approach that we need to support along with other prevention strategies. But the Leadership Against AIDS Act says that 33 percent of all AIDS prevention funds should be spent on abstinence programs. The question, which is not answered in that act, is how to define abstinence, because if it is defined too broadly, it will eat into funds that are crucially needed for other prevention methods, such as HIV testing, and educational and information programs about methods to prevent HIV transmission among people who are sexually active. This amendment strikes the right balance, and I commend the Senator from California for taking on this difficult but very important issue. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Feinstein amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I just took this from the quotes of what the President said on July 12 in Nigeria: The people of Africa are fighting HIV/AIDS with courage. And I'm here to say, you will not be alone in your fight. In May, I signed a bill that authorizes $15 billion for the global fight on AIDS. This week, a committee of the House of Representatives took an important step to fund the first year of the authorization bill. And the Senate is beginning to take up debate. He then stated: The House of Representatives and the United States Senate must fully fund this initiative, for the good of the people on this continent of Africa. . . . So I went to what it was the President had signed, the authorization bill of which he spoke. He called upon us to fully fund it, but what it said in the authorization was $3 billion for the first year. I spoke with the President about this. I told him I thought we could use the money. It is what he in his speech in Africa called upon the Congress to do. He said he would sign this authorization bill, which authorized $3 billion the first year, and he is calling upon us now to carry out our part. He has done his part. He wants us to carry out our part to fund it. Well, we are trying to carry out our part. I also worked with the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Illinois, as did Senator McConnell, to find the extra money. It is more money. We have just voted for more money than what the White House said we needed when the bill first came up. I am glad they are not resisting that extra money. I commend the White House for that. I commend Senator McConnell, Senator Durbin, and Senator DeWine for working so hard to find it. But the fact is--the fact is--we have to build capacity. Capacity does not happen overnight. We can use the $3 billion. There is no question, it can be used. Every health official in the world would tell you that. We can use the money. We ought to get it into the pipeline. We ought to spend it. The President was right. I took the floor of the Senate and praised him when he spoke of the need for this. I praised him publicly, and I praised him privately when I spoke with him about it. So that is what it is we are trying to do.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mary Guillot, of my office staff, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the consideration of H.R. 1904.