Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for not more than 6 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, and I commend my friend from Illinois who has been so passionate, and so relentless, in seeking additional funding to combat AIDS. Senator Durbin has been carrying on this fight for several years. He has offered amendment after amendment. He has urged the White House to declare AIDS an emergency, which we all know that it is. And time and again he has been opposed, by the White House and some in the Congress. I hope that does not happen again today. This debate is not about whether AIDS is a catastrophe of historic proportions. It is not about whether it is the worse public health crisis in history. There is no dispute that 15,000 people are becoming infected with this deadly disease each day, that over 42 million people are already infected, and that over 25 million people have already died. Nor is this debate about what needs to be done. We know what types of prevention programs work, and that it depends on the culture and practices in each country. We know that only a tiny fraction of people infected are receiving treatment, and that care often amounts to nothing more than a hospital bed, if that. We know that in many countries, where the infection rate is increasing and where there are already millions of AIDS orphans, faith- based and other private voluntary organizations are working around the clock, with nowhere near the staff or resources they need. There are countless examples of grandmothers struggling to care for a dozen orphaned grandchildren, or children as young as 9 years old caring for their younger siblings. We know that no country is immune, and that the number of people infected is increasing exponentially, especially in Asia. We also know that people infected with HIV often succumb to tuberculosis, which is rampant in many countries, including drug resistant TB. And we know that malaria kills 1 million people each year, mostly African children. Many of these deaths could be prevented. An estimated 500 million people get sick from malaria each year. Again, this debate is not about any of that. Rather, it is about whether the United States should spend $2 billion in 2004 to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, or $3 billion. Earlier this year, at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the President spent a good deal of time talking about the global AIDS crisis. I commend him for that, and for going to Africa, where he highlighted the suffering caused by AIDS there. President Bush has shown real leadership on AIDS, although Senator Durbin and I and others have been pushing for stronger action on AIDS for years. A short time after the President's Coast Guard Academy speech, we passed the United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act, which authorized $15 billion over 5 years. That was consistent with what the President proposed in his State of the Union address back in January. It was an important step. It showed that we are beginning to take AIDS seriously. But that was an authorization bill. It did not appropriate any money. For all intents and purposes, it was like writing a check without enough money in the bank. The President's budget for 2004 contains only $2 billion of the $3 billion we authorized for AIDS. The United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act also called for up to $1 billion for the Global Fund to fight AIDS and TB and Malaria. Again, a promise. For 2004, the President only budgeted $200 million for the Global Fund, which is one-fifth of the amount authorized. It is also a cut of $150 million from what was appropriated last year. There is another problem. While the President's 2004 budget for Foreign Operations includes approximately $1.3 billion to combat AIDS, TB and malaria, it robs Peter to pay Paul to pay for increases in these programs. The President's budget would cut other essential global health programs. Child survival and maternal health programs would be cut by 12 percent. These are the programs that provide lifesaving child immunizations. They help to prevent the 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths each year that could be avoided. The President's budget cuts these programs by 12 percent. It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases like measles, SARS, or ebola, by 32 percent. Measles kills 1 million children not 100,000 or 200,000 but 1 million children a year. Again, this disease is easily preventable. These are not my numbers; these are the administration's numbers. These numbers are in the President's budget. Anyone who knows anything about public health knows that building the health infrastructure in developing countries is essential if you are going to fight AIDS. It is the same with child nutrition. It is the same with maternal health. You don't fight AIDS in a vacuum. It isn't an either/or proposition. People who are malnourished, who are in poor health, who have weak immune systems, who are at risk of other infections, are far more vulnerable to AIDS. It is common sense. Senator McConnell and I were able to restore the funds for these other global health programs. In fact we increase funding to combat other infectious diseases, and to support child and maternal health. But because of that, we did not have additional funds to fight AIDS. That is why we need this amendment. Senator Durbin's amendment builds on an amendment in July by Senator Bingaman to the State Department Authorization bill. That amendment, which passed 78-18, called for full funding--$3 billion--for the first year of the President's $15 billion AIDS initiative, even if it means exceeding the budget ceilings. His amendment would provide an additional $984 million that we already authorized. That is what we said we would do when we passed the AIDS authorization bill, and again when we passed the Bingaman amendment. Senator Durbin's amendment would do it. If we are going to lead, and especially if we are going to ask others to do more, we are going to have to stop playing shell games with the foreign aid budget. We are going to have to start doing what we say. We are spending over $4 billion each month in Iraq. This amendment would provide an additional $1 billion for the year to combat the worst health crisis in world history. Americans are threatened with AIDS not just in this country, but every time they travel abroad. I have traveled to Africa, to Haiti, to Vietnam and China, to Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. I have seen how AIDS is ravaging those countries. In all my travels, and in all my conversations with the leaders of those countries and with public health experts--from the Gates Foundation, to USAID, to the World Health Organization, to the directors of America's public health institutions, to the private voluntary and faith based organizations doing the work in those countries, I have never met anyone, no one, who believes that the additional funds provided by this amendment could not be well spent. No one who works in the field or AIDS prevention and treatment, or TB or malaria, who I have spoken to, believes that we do not need these additional funds. We need them now, not a year from now. The White House argues that $3 billion could not be spent effectively in combating AIDS in the 14 countries where it plans to focus. They may be right, but that is not what the United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act says. Why limit our efforts to 14 countries, when 5 times that many countries are being ravaged by these diseases? Why ignore the other two dozen countries in Africa, or Russia, or China or India where AIDS is spreading out of control? It makes absolutely no sense. It is a false argument. Fighting AIDS is not about 14 countries. There are dozens of countries that need help, and if there are not enough trained people or infrastructure, we should help build that capacity. We should train more people and provide the vehicles, the testing equipment, the drugs, to carry out effective prevention and treatment programs. Ask anyone working in public health in those countries, and they will tell you what needs to be done. I really cannot understand the White House's argument. It is not based on fact. It is not based on reality. It is not based on public health. Is it because they don't want to spend the money? We are paying far more today to fight AIDS than if we had faced up to this disease back when it was just beginning. We wasted two decades, and 25 million people died, in part because we and others failed to act. We will spend far more tomorrow if we do not do what is needed today. That is what this amendment does. I commend the Senator from Illinois. I urge the White House not to oppose this amendment. I urge the majority leader to support it. He recently traveled to Africa and saw the same tragic consequences of AIDS that many of us have seen there. We need to work together. Let's not make the same mistake again.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``September 11 Victim Compensation Fund Extension Act of 2003'' to extend the pending deadline of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund to December 31, 2004. I thank Senators Durbin, Schumer, Dodd, Lieberman, Clinton, Corzine, and Lautenberg for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation. Along with Senator Daschle, Representative Gephardt and others, I worked hard to create the Victims Fund over the objections of some in the administration and Congress. We insisted that it be included in the legislation to bail out the airlines passed in the wake of the most devastating terrorist attacks on American soil. The current deadline for applying for compensation from the Victims Fund is rapidly approaching, but it has become apparent that many families need more time. Thus far, just under a third of eligible families have applied to the Fund for compensation--only about 1,282 death claims and 1,050 injury claims have been filed so far by victim families, according to the Department of Justice. Ken Feinberg, the Special Master for the Fund, is doing his best to get victims families to understand their rights. Recently, he has even taken out extensive advertisements in a number of newspapers and created a series of informational meetings and claim assistance sites to assist victims' families to file for compensation with the Victims Fund instead of filing a lawsuit against the airlines industry. I commend him for his efforts. It appears that only a few relatives of victims of September 11 are opting out of eligibility for the fund by filing a lawsuit against the airlines industry. While some families are likely weighing that decision, the number of disqualifying lawsuits is low--69 as of last month--and only three of those were in the last three months, according to The New York Times. Instead, victims support groups have told me that they receive calls daily from individuals who understand that the deadline is approaching but cannot face the emotional pain of preparing a claim. Mr. Feinberg has also commented that many victims are still too paralyzed by their grief to confront the logistical burden and emotional pain of filing a death claim. In light of this painful reality, I believe it is appropriate to extend the deadline for filing applications to the Victims Fund to December 31, 2004--an extension of just over a year. This extension would give grieving families additional time to mourn those who were lost and to overcome the emotional challenges of filing paperwork with the Victims Fund. In recent days, I have been in contact with several September 11 victims support groups, all of which agreed that such an extension would provide some relief during these dark days for victims' families as they endure the grieving process. As the anniversary of the tragedy of September 11 approaches, victims' families have many burdens. They do not need this arbitrary deadline confronting them between September 11 and the year-end holidays. This is something we can do now for victims of September 11. I urge my colleagues to support the ``September 11 Victim Compensation Fund Extension Act of 2003.''

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. I will support Steven Colloton.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, we vote to confirm Steven Colloton to a lifetime appointment on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Colloton comes to us with bipartisan support from both his home-state Senators, for whom I have great respect. Steven Colloton currently serves as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. While I continue to remain concerned that, at 40 years old, Mr. Colloton received a partial not qualified rating from the ABA, he has a good academic record and has a record of public service in the state of Iowa. I note that Mr. Colloton is the ninth confirmed circuit court judge who is a member of the Federalist Society and the third former member of Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr's office to be confirmed to a Federal judgeship. I would like to take this opportunity to express my hope that Mr. Colloton acts as a fair and impartial judge, despite his active role in conservative political causes and groups. It was very troubling that another former Starr prosecutor confirmed to the Federal bench overlooked years of precedent to rule in favor of Vice President Cheney and against the American people's interest in open access to who was advising the administration on energy policy, a special concern in the aftermath of the blackouts in the Northeast this August. Mr. Colloton's confirmation process stands in stark contrast to what occurred with judicial nominees during the Clinton administration. His confirmation process has been expeditious and smooth. In contrast, an earlier nominee to the Eighth Circuit from Iowa, Bonnie Campbell, never even received a vote before the Judiciary Committee following the hearing on her nomination. Ms. Campbell was a former attorney general of Iowa, a former head of the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, and a nominee who also had the support of both of her home-state Senators including a senior Republican Senator. Neither the nominee nor the Judiciary Committee members were ever told why the Republican majority refused to accord her nomination a Committee vote and, when given the chance to do right by her, President Bush instead decided to withdraw her nomination. Another contrast exemplified by Mr. Colloton's confirmation process is the pace of confirming circuit court judges. Steven Colloton will be the 28th circuit court judge confirmed since President Bush has taken office. Again, this stands in strong contrast to what occurred during President Clinton's second term in office. More than 3 years passed in President Clinton's second term before the 28th circuit court judge was confirmed. And, we have already confirmed more circuit court nominees of this President, since July of 2001, than were confirmed at this time in the third year of President Reagan's first term, President George H.W. Bush's term, or either of President Clinton's terms. Finally, I point out that with Mr. Colloton's confirmation, there will be as many active George W. Bush appointees on the bench as there are active George Herbert Walker Bush appointees. The President's father served 4 full years. This President has served less than three and already has made as much impact on the Federal courts across the country. I congratulate Steven Colloton, his family, and the Senators from Iowa on his confirmation. Madam President, to reiterate this will be the 28th circuit court judge confirmed since President Bush has taken office. For those who are wondering, that is more circuit court nominees confirmed than in the third year of President Reagan's first term or President George H. Bush's term or either of President Clinton's terms. We have done far better, I might say, for President George Bush than we have his three predecessors. I will also note a contrast. Mr. Colloton's nomination moved very quickly, as contrasted to President Clinton's nominee for the same seat, Bonnie Campbell, who was never given a vote before the Judiciary Committee. Even though she had been a former attorney general of Iowa, she was the former head of the Department of Justice's Office of Violence Against Women, and she had the support of both of her home State Senators, she was never given a vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I see the very distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, the most senior member of this body, on the Senate floor. I know he wishes to speak. As soon as he is prepared, I will, of course, yield the floor. Last night we were able to move five of President Bush's judges, to get them confirmed in a matter of about 20 or 30 minutes. I thank those who worked with me to make that possible. Senator Lott from the other side of the aisle was very helpful in moving those forward. Senator McConnell was very helpful in moving those nominees forward, as well as a number of Senators on this side of the aisle. Senator Harry Reid, Senator Tom Daschle worked with me, along with Senator Lott and Senator McConnell, to move them. So we were able to move them, actually, in a matter of 20 or 30 minutes. I mention that because there was a consensus on these nominees. They were not sent up here to divide us but, rather, they were the rare ones who were sent to unite us. I mention that because we have now confirmed 145 judges for President Bush. We stopped three. This stands in tremendous contrast to the time of President Clinton, when the Republican leadership stopped 60 of President Clinton's nominees. For very good reasons, because of their ideology, their obvious intent to politicize the courts, we have stopped three. So we have confirmed 145 and stopped three. Those who are worried that we have politicized this, I would point out, we have stopped three. When President Clinton was there, they stopped 60, usually because one Republican, one, would object. So they were not allowed to have a hearing or vote. I see my friend from West Virginia, and I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his usual courtesy.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion about judicial nominees recently. One issue is on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I mention that because at the time when President Clinton nominated highly qualified people to go there, my friends on the other side said the workload was such that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals didn't need extra judges. So they were never given a hearing, never given a vote. One of those nominees is now the dean of the Harvard Law School. In fact, the chief judge, as I recall, a Reagan appointee, said they definitely didn't need more judges; they didn't have the workload. He took that position consistently throughout President Clinton's term. Now we have a new President. The workload has gone down in that court. But we have several people suddenly nominated for the seats that just a few months ago were unneeded, we were told, by all the Republican leadership. We were told by the Republican leadership on this very political court that we didn't need anybody. Suddenly we need somebody. The interesting thing about that is the Washington Post, which has been very supportive--more supportive than most newspapers in the country--of President Bush's judicial nominees, no matter who they are, took a different position. Even that paper, which has basically given in many ways--and it is their right--a blank check to the administration, wrote an editorial this morning called ``Fueling the Fire.'' They basically ask what I have: What is the sudden change? I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Because we have discussed at great length an issue involving one of the judiciary nominees, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Council of Churches addressed to President Bush regarding the debate on Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Marc Wheat, who is leaving the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs after 2 years of outstanding service. As a Senior Advisor for Senate Affairs, Marc Wheat worked closely with my staff on the Foreign Operation Subcommittee on a range of important and controversial issues--from Plan Colombia to reconstruction in Afghanistan to Iraq. To be sure, my staff tells me that Marc was a tireless and forceful advocate for the State Department's position on these, as well as other issues. But, they also emphasize that he was always honest and forthright, responding promptly and fully to the committee's requests for information. Perhaps what comes through the most is what a decent and genuine person Marc is. That was obvious to me when I met him after a committee hearing with Secretary Powell. The State Department's loss is a gain for the House of Representatives. Marc is leaving his job at the State Department to be the Staff Director of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. I know Marc will be a great asset to Chairman Souder in his new position. This is the latest move in a distinguished career for Marc, which includes service as a Counsel on the House Commerce Committee and Legislative Assistant to Congressman Hastert. I know my staff will miss working with Marc, and I wish him the best of luck in his new job.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I have mentioned a few times over the last few days, and as anyone watching the horrible display here on the floor last night knows, those opposing the confirmation of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit have been subjected to a despicable smear. Supporters of the nomination have turned reality on its head. They accuse us of imposing a religious test, but it was a Republican supporter of the nomination who was the only Senator to ask Mr. Pryor what his religion was and to use what they now term a code phrase ``deeply held religious beliefs.'' The scurrilous accusations against opponents of the nomination must be popular with the political gurus at the White House. It has been echoed in recent days by the Committee for Justice, a group closely associated with the President and his family, headed by the first President Bush's White House counsel. I know about the bias against immigrants and against Catholics. That was real discrimination. What is being spread this week is a falsehood uttered for partisan political purposes. Those who know what real religious discrimination is have spoken out against the advertising campaign. Earlier today I mentioned the members of the Interfaith Alliance, who spoke so eloquently against this sort of smear. Now I am pleased to recognize the Anti-Defamation League, so well known and well respected for their work against religious bigotry, for speaking out against the Committee for Justice's slurs. Abraham H. Foxman, the National Director of the ADL, and Glen A. Tobias, its National Chairman, have written to the head of the Committee for Justice, Mr. Boyden Gray, to object to his advertisements. They explain to Mr. Gray, that, ``[t]o promote the view that Mr. Pryor's opponents object to his Catholic religious beliefs, rather than his views as expressed in his prolific legal writings and speeches and his answers to questions at his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, needlessly and wrongfully injects religion into the Senate's `advise and consent' role in the nomination process.'' I could not agree more. I appreciate that the ADL has added its voice to those trying to show the Committee for Justice the error of its ways. I ask unanimous consent the ADL's letter to Mr. Gray be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Republican leadership's actions this week were an attempt to create the impression that Senate Democrats are stalling judicial nominations. Rather than work with us to confirm the five consensus judicial nominations that have been before the Senate and available for action all week, the Republican leadership has chosen to schedule cloture vote after cloture vote on the most divisive, controversial and extreme of this President's judicial nominees. Senators have spoken to the contentious nominations Republicans have tried to force through the Senate confirmation process this week. This is a striking difference from the days in which more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were stalled and defeated by anonymous holds and secret objections. Just as I made Judiciary Committee blue slips and the process by which the committee consults with home-state Senators public when I chaired the committee in 2001, Democratic Senators have not opposed nominees without coming before the Senate and making known their concerns. During the 17 months a Democratic Senate majority reviewed this President's judicial nominees we were able to confirm 100 judges. This year, we have cooperated in the confirmation of 45 additional judges. The total confirmations already number 145. We have worked in good faith to reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest level in the last 13 years and to increase the full-time judge on the Federal bench across the country to the highest number in our history. We continue to work in good faith and the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee have joined in reporting at least a dozen additional judicial nominations favorably to the Senate. Working together the Republican and Democratic leadership will be able to schedule debate and votes on those judges. There are other nominees I frankly do not support and that large numbers of Senators do not support. And yet, as chairman, I did something our Republican predecessor never did, I proceeded on judicial nominations I opposed. Some were confirmed; a few have been so extreme and controversial that they have not been confirmed. Ours is a good record and a fair record. It is a record that shows we have sought, as Senator Baucus explained recently, to protect the essential independence of the judiciary, to support fair-minded impartial judges, and to protect the essential rights of all Americans. This week we have witnessed a number of unsuccessful cloture petitions. When the Republicans filed these petitions they knew they would be unsuccessful. The Republican leadership was nonetheless insistent on diverting hours from debate on the Energy bill in order to create partisan talking points. This is another example of how this administration and its aides here in the Senate are seeking to use judicial nominations for partisan purposes. That is most unfortunate. Republican partisans have changed the practices and rules of the Senate that have helped over time to encourage the White House to work with home-State Senators and to consult with both sides of the aisle in the Senate. When judicial nominations were being made by a Democratic President, the objection of a single home-State Senator would have prevented any action on a judicial nomination. As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee acknowledged in 1999, under the practices of the committee, no nomination opposed by both home-State Senators would proceed. Yet now that the President is a Republican and the home-State Senators are Democrats, the rules are changed and traditional practices are conveniently abandoned. The big picture is that we have the most confrontational President in recent history. His administration is committed to a plan to pack the Federal courts with nominees of a narrow judicial ideology. Compounding the situation, the Republican leadership in the Senate has decided to assist the administration in this effort at all costs. Longstanding Senate practices and rules have been broken. Home-State Senators are being ignored or overridden if they are Democratic Senators, committee rules are being breached, committee practices of the last 25 years are being ignored in a rush to steamroll the Senate. Sadly, the most partisans have made detestable arguments and injected religion into the debate. Regrettably, the Senate under its current leadership has abandoned its constitutional role as a check on the Executive. So we have the most aggressive Administration in recent history and its efforts to pack the courts are being facilitated by efforts of the Republican Senate majority and its willingness to remove all the processes and practices that had been available to the Senate to provide a check and balance. As they remove the mechanisms that had traditionally provided incentives for the Executive to consult with the Senate, the administration has refused to moderate its actions. Instead, Republican partisans have ratcheted up the points of contention and conflict. Rather than work in a bipartisan way to unite the country and maintain a balanced and independent federal judiciary, Republicans insist on the expedited confirmation of every nomination no matter how extreme. With all of the other, traditional screening mechanisms removed, only one Senate procedure is left--the filibuster. All their talk about supposed obstructionism is just that, partisan talking points. The factors that have led to more filibusters than usual this week have been the actions of the administration and Senate Republicans. These matters need not be contentious. The process starts with the President. If this administration would work with us, we could avoid these situations. We have and will continue to work with the administration. We would like to be more helpful in the President's identification of nominees and advising him on the selection of consensus nominees so that we can join together in adding those confirmations to the 145 so far achieved.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering legislation to renew family farmer bankruptcy protection, which expired on July 1. More than a month ago, on June 23, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2465 by an overwhelming vote of 379-3. This legislation will retroactively renew and extend family farmer bankruptcy protection until January 1, 2004. Senator Feingold, Senator Grassley and I have been urging for weeks that the Senate majority leadership bring up this House-passed bill to retroactively renew Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code. Senator Grassley and I introduced S. 1323, the companion bill to this legislation to temporarily extend these protections that our farmers have come to rely upon. But this is just a short term fix. We need to stop playing politics and permanently reauthorize the Chapter 12 family farmer protections. Too many family farmers have been left in legal limbo in bankruptcy courts across the country because Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code is still a temporary measure. This is the sixth time that Congress must act to restore or extend basic bankruptcy safeguards for family farmers because Chapter 12 is still a temporary provision despite its first passage into law in 1986. Our family farmers do not deserve these lapses in bankruptcy law that could mean the difference between foreclosure and farming. In 2000 and 2001, for example, the Senate--then as now controlled by the other party--failed to take up a House-passed bill to retroactively renew Chapter 12. As a result, family farmers lost Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection for 8 months. Another lapse of Chapter 12 lasted more than 6 months in the previous Congress. At the end of June, Chapter 12 lapsed once again. Enough is enough. It is time for Congress to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a stable safety net for our nation's family farmers. Last year, I strongly supported former Senator Carnahan's bipartisan amendment to make Chapter 12 permanent as part of the Senate-passed farm bill. The Senate unanimously approved the Carnahan amendment by a 93-0 vote. Unfortunately, the House majority objected to including the Carnahan amendment in the farm bill conference report and agreed to an extension of Chapter 12 only through the end of 2002. Thus, at the tail end of the last Congress, we had to pass yet another six-month extension of basic bankruptcy protection for family farmers. In the bipartisan bankruptcy reform conference, we again tried to make Chapter 12 permanent and update and expand its coverage. During our conference negotiations, we adopted most of the Senate-passed provisions, including those authored by Senator Grassley to make Chapter 12 permanent and those authored by Senator Feingold to strengthen Chapter 12 to help our family farmers with the difficulties they face. Unfortunately, the House majority again scuttled our bipartisan efforts by failing to pass the rule to consider the bipartisan conference report on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. It is time to end this absurdity and make these bankruptcy protections permanent. Everyone agrees that Chapter 12 has worked. When this bill passed in the House, Chairman Sensenbrenner praised Chapter 12, but then only proposed reauthorizing it for 12 months. He admitted that the only reason his bill, which we are finally passing today, did not permanently reauthorize Chapter 12 was because it is being used as leverage for the controversial larger bankruptcy reform bill. That is unfortunate. I will continue to work hard with Senator Grassley, Senator Feingold and others on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation that once and for all assures our farmers of permanent bankruptcy protection to keep their farms. In the meantime, we should quickly pass this legislation and end another lapse in this basic bankruptcy protection for our family farmers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today I am introducing the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, a Senate companion to legislation that Representative Nadler of New York has introduced in the House for each of the last three Congresses. This legislation would allow U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to petition for their foreign same-sex partners to come to the United States under our family immigration system. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Jeffords, Feingold, Kennedy, and Kerry. Under current law, committed partners of Americans are unable to use the family immigration system, which accounts for about 75 percent of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the United States. As a result, gay Americans who are in this situation must live apart from their partners, or leave the country if they want to live legally and permanently with them. This bill rectifies that situation, while retaining strong prohibitions against fraud. To qualify as a permanent partner, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 and in a committed, intimate relationship with another adult in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment, and are financially interdependent with one's partner. They must also prove that they are not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, anyone other than that person, and are unable to contract with that person a marriage cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Proof could include sworn affidavits from friends and family and documentation of financial interdependence. Penalties for fraud would be the same as penalties for marriage fraud-- up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the alien partner. There are Vermonters who are involved in permanent partnerships with foreign nationals and who have felt abandoned by our laws in this area. This bill would allow them--and other gay and lesbian Americans throughout our Nation who have come to feel that our immigration laws are discriminatory--to be a fuller part of our society. The idea that immigration benefits should be extended to same-sex couples has become increasingly prevalent around the world. Indeed, fifteen nations Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom--recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes. Our immigration laws treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships as second-class citizens, and that needs to change. It is the right thing to do for the people involved, it is the sensible step to take in the interest of having a fair and consistent policy, and I hope that the Senate will act.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join my Judiciary Committee colleague Senator Hatch and others in introducing a bill to authorize the minting of a commemorative coin in honor of United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, commonly known as ``the Great Chief Justice.'' Marshall's contributions to our country have been noted by members of the executive and judicial branches. President John Quincy Adams described his father's appointment of Marshall to the Supreme Court as ``one of the most important services rendered by [his father] to his country.'' Fellow Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story described Marshall in the following terms: ``Patience, moderation, candor, urbanity, quickness of perception, dignity of deportment, gentleness of manners, genius which commands respect, and learning which justifies confidence.'' Congress' passage of the ``John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act'' in honor of the upcoming 250th anniversary of his birth would be a fitting complement to these, and other, recognitions of ``the Great Chief Justice's'' extraordinary accomplishments. Marshall presided over the Supreme Court during the formative years of 1801-1835. Before that time, the Supreme Court played a comparatively minor role in our Federal government. Under Marshall's leadership, the Court evolved into a powerful institution and assumed its role as guardian of the Constitution, and as the arbiter of disputes between the Federal government and the States. As one legal scholar commented: ``It is not inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have remained a minor appendage of our government, and our constitutional development taken a distinctly different course, but for the fact that John Marshall occupied the Chief Justice's chair during the first three decades of the nineteenth century.'' Marshall is considered the founding father of American Constitutional law. To name just a few of Marshall's groundbreaking opinions, Marbury v. Madison the first instance in which the Supreme Court pronounced an act of Congress unconstitutional is the leading precedent for the Court's power to judge the constitutionality of legislative and executive acts. In McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall asserted the right of the Supreme Court to decide questions involving the conflicting powers of the Federal and State governments, affirmed Congress' authority to act in furtherance of its enumerated powers, and established the standard for determining when the exercise of a Federal power limits the otherwise sovereign power of a State. In Cohens v. Virginia, Marshall established the authority of the Federal judiciary to review decisions of the highest State courts. As a final illustration of Marshall's many important judicial opinions, in Gibbons v. Ogden, he set forth Congress' power to regulate commerce among the States and with foreign nations. Aside from the specific constitutional principles Marshall established while on the Court, he made many other important contributions to American constitutional law. For example, Marshall advocated that judges, as ultimate guardians of the Constitution, should be above politics and that the role of the Nation's courts was to mitigate the effects of factional politics. Moreover, Marshall adopted an approach to constitutional interpretation termed ``fair construction'' which struck a middle ground between an overly restrictive, and an overly broad, reading of the Constitution because he feared that strict construction would ultimately weaken the Constitution and, in due course, the Nation. In closing, it is difficult to overstate Chief Justice Marshall's contributions to our Nation. Many years ago, when I read Marshall's opinions in my first year of law school, I admired the Chief Justice. Now, having served in Congress and worked within the principles Marshall established, I find him all the more admirable. A commemorative coin in his honor would be a fitting tribute to ``the Great Chief Justice.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I alerted the distinguished Senate floor manager on this matter. I send a resolution to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Durbin. The resolution says that in any proceeding of a committee considering a nomination made by the President to the U.S. Senate, it shall not be in order to ask any question of the nominee relating to the religious affiliation of the nominee. With that, Madam President, I send a resolution to the desk to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide that it is not in order in a committee to ask questions regarding a Presidential nominee's religious affiliation.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration; that the resolution be considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to speak about the meeting earlier this week with the Interfaith Alliance where they--Catholics, Protestants, and Jews--condemned the activities of having any Member of the Senate ask somebody their religion in a Senate meeting. A few days ago we heard from a distinguished group of members of the clergy from a variety of churches and synagogues who serve as members of the Interfaith Alliance. The Alliance is a national, grassroots, non-partisan, faith-based organization of 150,000 members who come from over 65 religious traditions. These men and women of faith promote the positive and healing role of religion in public life, and challenges all who seek to manipulate or otherwise abuse religion for sectarian or partisan political purposes. They came to the United States Capitol to denounce the despicable charges made against Senators, and to urge, as many of us have, that this involvement of religion in the confirmation process come to an end. I would like to enter into the record the statements of some of the participants in the event where the Alliance's members came together for that purpose. Specifically, I would like to have printed in the Record the remarks of Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, the President of the Interfaith Alliance, the remarks of Rabbi Jack Moline, the Vice-chair of the Alliance, and the remarks of the Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, the Immediate Past President of the Alliance. These statements are moving and persuasive and important. I would hope that my Republican colleagues would read them and take them to heart. The demagoguery, divisive and partisan politics being so cynically used by supporters of the President's most extreme judicial nominees needs to stop. I ask unanimous consent to have those remarks by clergy printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Illinois who, incidentally, gave one of the finest speeches I ever heard last night on the Senate floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today I am introducing the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, a Senate companion to legislation that Representative Nadler of New York has introduced in the House for each of the last three Congresses. This legislation would allow U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to petition for their foreign same-sex partners to come to the United States under our family immigration system. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Jeffords, Feingold, Kennedy, and Kerry. Under current law, committed partners of Americans are unable to use the family immigration system, which accounts for about 75 percent of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the United States. As a result, gay Americans who are in this situation must live apart from their partners, or leave the country if they want to live legally and permanently with them. This bill rectifies that situation, while retaining strong prohibitions against fraud. To qualify as a permanent partner, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 and in a committed, intimate relationship with another adult in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment, and are financially interdependent with one's partner. They must also prove that they are not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, anyone other than that person, and are unable to contract with that person a marriage cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Proof could include sworn affidavits from friends and family and documentation of financial interdependence. Penalties for fraud would be the same as penalties for marriage fraud-- up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the alien partner. There are Vermonters who are involved in permanent partnerships with foreign nationals and who have felt abandoned by our laws in this area. This bill would allow them--and other gay and lesbian Americans throughout our Nation who have come to feel that our immigration laws are discriminatory--to be a fuller part of our society. The idea that immigration benefits should be extended to same-sex couples has become increasingly prevalent around the world. Indeed, fifteen nations Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom--recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes. Our immigration laws treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships as second-class citizens, and that needs to change. It is the right thing to do for the people involved, it is the sensible step to take in the interest of having a fair and consistent policy, and I hope that the Senate will act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while I recognize the Nation needs a sound and balanced national energy plan emphasizing a clean, reliable, sustainable, and affordable energy policy, unfortunately this bill fails to do that. In my home State of Vermont we are proud of an environmental ethic that supports the increased use of clean and sustainable energy. Vermonters have a long history of taking good care of our natural resources, which has served our economy and ecosystems well. It is important to strike a balance when working to resolve environmental and energy problems. That is why I will continue to strongly support programs such as Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. While the Senate has been debating the energy bill on-and-off for the past few months, the debate has been fairly limited compared with the debate on the energy bill during the 107th Congress. During the 107th Congress, when the Democrats were in the majority, we debated the bill for 24 days over an 11-week span. During that time, the Senate adopted 126 amendments and rejected 18 others. At no time during the consideration of that bill, did the Senate try to limit debate by entering into a unanimous consent agreement to limit amendments. In comparison, we have had very limited debate on this bill and avoided critical issues. Many of my colleagues offered common sense amendments that would have greatly improved the bill. This includes conservation measures offered by Senate Durbin that would have required cars, SUVs, minivans and cross-over utility vehicles to achieve a new fuel standard of 40 mpg by 2015 and would require pickup trucks and vans to achieve a CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg by 2015. Senators Cantwell and Bingaman offered several amendments to the electricity title to improve consumer protections. Senators Feinstein and Schumer offered amendments to reduce the impact of ethanol mandates on consumers in the Northeast. I am disappointed that all of these amendments failed. Further, it should be noted this bill is fiscally irresponsible. Senators Wyden and Sununu proposed an amendment that would have struck from the energy bill a provision to make available Federal subsidies for nuclear power plants. This amendment was not against nuclear power but an amendment for Congress to be fiscally responsible to the American taxpayer. Unfortunately, this amendment failed earlier in the summer. Now the American public will have to subsidize an estimated $14-$16 billion for a source of energy that leaves many citizens concerned over their safety. Lastly, many other amendments that attempted to hold the administration accountable to environmental laws were rejected by my colleagues that will result in further degradation to the American public's natural resources. If these amendments had passed, they would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil imports, maintain air quality protections, and conserve energy. Instead this bill forces the American people to pay for the construction of new nuclear power plants and increased oil and gas drilling. The Senate had a real opportunity to put together a sensible energy policy that shifted the focus from nuclear power and offshore drilling to a clean, renewable, and affordable energy plan. Unfortunately, we failed to so this, and that is why I cannot support S. 14.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Free Trade Agreements with Chile and Singapore because the benefits of the intellectual property and anti-piracy provisions in these agreements outweigh the valid concerns that have been raised about the inclusion of immigration provisions. At the outset, let me begin by expressing my disappointment that the administration short-circuited the proper consideration process for these implementing bills through its decision to transmit them to Congress 2 days before the Judiciary Committee's scheduled debate, and before responding to written questions from this committee's members. To be fair, the administration did eventually respond to these questions. Of course, as the responses themselves pointed out, ``the implementing bill cannot be modified after its introduction.'' The administration apparently views the Judiciary Committee simply as an obstacle to be overcome as quickly as possible, and not as a source for possible improvements to its legislative proposals. As a result of the administration's undue haste--and the Judiciary Committee's failure to begin consideration of these measures early enough to guarantee that it could have meaningful input--we were deprived of the opportunity to propose changes in the implementing legislation. Instead, we were required to conduct an up-or-down vote on final passage of these implementing bills only 2 days after their introduction. I share the concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, and Sessions that the U.S. Trade Representative should not be in the business of amending domestic immigration laws, as these treaties do. The decision to include immigration provisions was not only unauthorized by Congress but also unnecessary to achieve the administration's stated goals. Congress has already created the H-1B program, which allows foreign workers with specialized skills to work in the United States. That program was established after a lengthy process of public hearings, debate, and negotiation. If the administration feels that program needs to be changed, or a new visa category created, it should have sought to do so through the ordinary legislative process. This matter is of particular concern because these agreements are widely viewed as the template for future trade agreements, many of which are being negotiated as we speak. I hope that the administration has gotten the message from members on both sides of the aisle and both chambers that Congress does not intend to delegate its power over our immigration system to the executive branch. I for one believe that we should do more than express our concerns and hope that they are heeded. As a result, I have introduced the Congressional Responsibility for Immigration Act, a bill to prevent the use of fast-track procedures for trade agreements that include immigration provisions. On the whole, however, I support these agreements because they recognize that intellectual property, and our response to international piracy in particular, is an integral part of any trade structure. The United States is the world's leading creator and exporter of intellectual property. That means we are also the world's leading target for piracy of copyrighted works. New technology has made piracy cheap and easy, and everything from music to films to books is susceptible to this kind of theft. At the same time, the advent of new technologies means that international distribution of copyrighted works is increasingly viable, and necessary, if the U.S. intellectual property industry is to continue to thrive. These agreements go a long way to harmonize the intellectual property laws of Singapore and Chile with those of the United States. They make IP systems in each country more transparent, uniform and predictable. This is a significant benefit to U.S. industries that depend on transparency and predictability in order to be able to protect their rights in these countries. The agreements also call on the countries to recognize and uphold the rights of authors to control the electronic dissemination of their works, and to protect the encryption technology that safeguards such electronic dissemination. This too is important, because more and more intellectual property is being distributed electronically. If intellectual property holders cannot securely distribute their works in electronic form, a major source of revenue is lost, and American creativity is hampered. Intellectual property is increasingly an international business, one that needs an international approach to many of its problems. Despite my concerns about the immigration provisions in these agreements, I will support their passage because they improve international cooperation on intellectual property issues.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I have discussed this with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I have not heard any request from any of the members of the Judiciary Committee, chairmen or otherwise, on this. I have heard a number of members on the other side of the Judiciary Committee attack people on this side for not allowing judges to go through. This will make 145 of President Bush's judges going through. I was concerned because we have done so many by voice vote that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been so critical of this side for not allowing judges to go through. They may not have realized they were going through because we have voice-voted so many. Because my good friend from Mississippi has asked me this as a personal matter, I have no objection to the request of the majority leader.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this judge?