Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. This is the second of the five?

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

Mr. LEAHY

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. Mr. President, Larry Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian, has provided a letter to the majority and minority leaders that clarifies the intentions of the Smithsonian with regard to Section 5 of H.R. 2195. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Small concerning this clarification of how the Smithsonian will proceed with voluntary separation incentive payments be made part of the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. So the first vote would count for three.

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, could the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, my good friend, repeat that? I am not sure I understood.

Mr. LEAHY. I object.

Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I must say I completely agree with the senior Senator from Nevada on this. The senior Senator from New Mexico, who was in the Chamber, expressed concern about time being taken talking about William Pryor's nomination. We are not the ones who scheduled William Pryor's nomination in the middle of the Energy bill. The distinguished senior Senator from Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is in the Chamber. He knows the concerns expressed by members of the committee that this nomination was voted out of committee before investigations underway involving Mr. Pryor were completed. It is passingly strange that when we say that after the nomination has been moved prematurely out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with pending questions, very serious questions involving the conduct of that nominee unresolved, but it gets sort of rocketed onto the floor. Then we are asked to lie down and just let it go through without even saying why we object. First, the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee itself were violated. Rule 4 was violated. The matter is still coming up. The distinguished majority leader and the distinguished Democratic leader had a conversation in which the distinguished majority leader assured us that this would never happen again. Within a few weeks of that assurance, it happens again, an assurance that no nomination of this nature would come up if it was sent out in violation of rule 4 of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was. The nomination is up. And we don't ask questions about it? Then we hear some on the other side say: Our judges are being blocked. Well, it is true; 2 out of 140 have been. But at the same time, they want to quietly voice vote all these other judges through so that nobody will notice that we are passing judges. One of the reasons we have asked for rollcall votes on a number of them is to show how easy it is to pass a judge where there is a consensus. In those rare instances where people have actually been consulted about a judge and where a judge has been nominated who is not going to be an ideological arm of either political party but, rather, be an independent judge, they go through easily. In this case, the Republican leadership--not the Democratic leadership, the Republican leadership--filed a cloture motion on the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. So we are going to have this premature debate. I hope there is one aspect on which we can get closure in the Senate. In connection with this nomination, supporters of the administration have leveled the unfounded charges that Democratic Senators are anti- Catholic. This charge is despicable. I have waited patiently for more than 2 years for Republican Senators to disavow such charges. So far, only one has, the distinguished Presiding Officer. This is a despicable, slanderous charge. It is one calculated to throw us back into a time that maybe some in this Chamber may not remember. Some of us have parents who do remember when anti-Catholic bias ran rampant in this country. It is outrageous, of course, that Republicans will not knock down these slanderous charges of anti-Catholicism and allow them to go forward. This slander and the ads recently run by a group headed by the President's father's former White House counsel and a group whose funding includes money raised by Republican Senators and the President's family are personally offensive. They have no place in this debate or anywhere else. For a charge of anti-Catholicism to be leveled against any Member of this Chamber, Republican or Democratic, is wrong. But for those who stay silent and allow it to go forward, who take part in it, the only way for a lie to get traction is for people to remain silent. And those who could stop this lie in a hurry remain silent. I challenged the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee who are so fond of castigating special interest groups and condemning every critical statement of a Republican nominee as being somehow a partisan sneer, to condemn this ad campaign and the injunction of religion into these matters. Only the junior Senator from Georgia now presiding responded to that challenge. Other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee and of the Senate have either stood mute in the face of these obnoxious and disgusting and scurrilous charges or, worse, they have fed the flames. Today, Republican Senators have another chance to do what they have not yet done and what this administration has not yet done--disavow this campaign of division and those who have played wedge politics with religion. I hope the Republican leadership of the Senate and of the Judiciary Committee will finally disavow the contention that any Senator is being motivated in any way by religious bigotry, just as I and others on this side of the aisle have defended members of the Republican side of the aisle when they have been attacked on their religion. We find it so painful that not only do they remain silent when people on this side of the aisle are attacked on their religion but in some instances have even continued the attack in statements they have made outside this Chamber. When we began debate on the nomination of Miguel Estrada in February, I made a similar request with respect to the charges that Senators were being anti-Hispanic. The other side never withdrew that ridiculous charge. Instead, the special interest groups and others trying to intimidate the Senate into voting on that nomination broadened the attack to include Hispanic members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, MALDEF, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, past presidents of the Hispanic National Bar Association, and many other Hispanic and civil rights organizations that opposed the Estrada nomination. It was so bad that one Hispanic organization that supported Miguel Estrada issued a statement that the charge was wrong, that they certainly didn't believe it applied to any Member of the Senate, and urged the Republicans to stop it. They didn't, but they were urged by other Hispanic groups to stop it. The demagoguery, divisive and partisan politics being so cynically used by supporters of the President's most extreme judicial nominees needs to stop. There are at least five judicial nominations on the Executive Calendar on which we can join as Democrats and Republicans. I would be willing to bet that they would be confirmed by an overwhelming vote. I remember when we had a circuit court of appeals judge nominated by President Bush. For a month, the Democrats tried to get a vote on that nominee. For a month, one Republican had an anonymous hold and refused a vote to go forward. There are people we could vote on. Why don't they? We took a month to get the Republicans to release the anonymous hold on Judge Edward Prado, who was nominated by President Bush. Interestingly enough, I finally found out why. They didn't want a vote. They wanted to attack us for not voting on him, even though we were the ones asking to vote on him. It is Alice in Wonderland to the tenth power. Now, the assistant minority leader suggested going to these matters and making progress. I have suggested scheduling rollcall votes on these nominees and making further bipartisan progress. Instead, we waste time on cloture motion after cloture motion after another cloture motion in connection with the most controversial of this President's nominees. Now I find out why. I am told by members of the press that the Republicans said this was supposed to be our issue this week. We are not getting appropriations bills done, we are not going to finish the Energy bill, or do anything else, so we are going to tie up the Senate with a number of cloture votes. Then they all went out with their talking points with members of the press to tell them how terrible it was that we were having these votes, which they scheduled.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to recognize the Senator from California, and then be in order to recognize the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest to my colleagues that we do this, as we have offered before: We allow the Senator from California to speak, and then the Senator from Utah, and then, as we have done before, we go back and forth.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that that be the order; that I complete my speech, yield to the Senator from California, and then the Senator from Utah be recognized.

Mr. LEAHY. Who is trying to accommodate the Senator from Vermont. I will try to do that even though the Senator from Utah wants to speak longer than I thought. But he is, after all, the chairman of the committee. I was willing to stop my speech at this point to accommodate him. We have probably taken longer in making these unanimous consent requests.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tried to accommodate the Senator from Utah.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of both myself and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from California be recognized for no more than 15 minutes; the distinguished Senator from Utah be recognized for up to an hour; and then the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois be recognized for up to 40 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada for a question.

Mr. LEAHY. For how long?

Mr. LEAHY. Along with the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, I renew my request that I be allowed to yield now to the distinguished senior Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY. I have the floor. I would renew my request.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have the floor. I am not on the Energy Committee.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. I renew my request.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would renew any request.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will answer this way: We have diverted some 6 to 10 hours off the Energy bill now. I see my friend, the senior Senator from Nevada. I know over the years he has worked very closely with his counterpart on the Republican side and usually tried to work out a finite list of amendments to the Energy bill. Again, based on my experience, my years in the Senate--almost three decades--I find usually if we stay on a bill that is your important bill, if you do not keep going off it for the trade agreements about which the Senator from North Dakota spoke, or these various cloture motions, if we keep going off these bills, then nobody feels the pressure to work things out. On the other hand, if we just stay on the bill and people bring up amendments, we will find which ones are close amendments and actually have a chance of being adopted and which ones are not going to be adopted. Usually the Republican and Democratic leadership get together and whittle down the finite number. Then, as the Senator from Pennsylvania suggested, we are usually in the position to find a time for a final vote. My suggestion is that we use what he has suggested but stay on the Energy bill, work toward a finite list of amendments. We will then know when they are going to take place and how much time they are going to take. And then we will know when we are going to have final passage. We can do that and then go back to anything else they want. If we are going to keep going back to these judges--as I said, we so far stopped two of President Bush's judges and confirmed 140, unlike the 60 of President Clinton's judges who were stopped by the Republicans, usually because someone objected anonymously. We have done it out here on the floor where we stood up on the nomination. I am one Senator who actually takes seriously the role of the Senate. There are only 100 of us, and we are given the privilege to represent 270 million Americans. But we also have a very unique place. There is no other parliamentary body in the world quite like the Senate. We have this unique spot where we have checks and balances, especially on confirmations. The Constitution does not say advise and rubberstamp; it says advise and consent. Nobody should underestimate our commitment to the independence of the Federal judiciary and to our constitutional duty to advise and consent on these lifetime appointments. Nobody should underestimate our commitment to the protection of the rights of all Americans-- Republicans and Democrats, Independents--in every part of this Nation. The Senate was intended to serve as a check and balance in our unique system of Government. We fail our oaths of office as Senators if we allow the Federal judiciary to be politicized, if we cast votes that would remove their independence. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to yield to the distinguished senior Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to expand the boundaries of the Green Mountain National Forest. This will allow for the inclusion of lands that have already been purchased using Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars to be brought into the boundaries of the national forest providing them full statutory protection. The Forest Service supports this administrative action and has been extremely helpful in providing the information needed for this legislation. It is with pride that I can say that since I came to Congress in 1975 and began to seek funding for land acquisition in 1977 we Vermonters have seen the Green Mountain National Forest expand from approximately 264,100 acres to over 387,500 acres in size. This 123,400 acre expansion will provide unmeasured opportunities for the American public. While there is much debate over the future management of our Nation's national forests today, this should not diminish their importance. In Vermont, where approximately five percent of land base is in federal ownership, these lands are treasured for the opportunities they provide not only to Vermonters, but to all who enjoy the Green Mountain National Forest. This includes recreational activities from camping, hiking, mountain biking, and skiiing to job opportunities provided through timber management activities, the ski industry, and other support services, as well as for their intrinsic value by providing that certain lands are set aside for in their natural state through wilderness protection and other special designations. I am concerned that some will argue that we need to reduce our land acquisition dollars and to better manage what we already have. I do not dispute the need for better management, but I wholeheartedly disagree with reducing our land acquisition efforts. At one time this Nation believed that our boundaries were limitless. Today we realize that land is a finite resource and as more is acquired for development less will available for the American public to acquire for Federal ownership. There will come a time when the only land one can freely access, thereby avoiding the ``No Trespassing'' signs, will be our Federal, State, and county lands. Visionaries see what tomorrow will bring and prepare for that today--those who are still building upon our public land base have that vision. At the turn of the century, the 20th century that is, there existed that vision, between then Chief of the Forest Service Gifford Pinchot and President Theodore Roosevelt who together expanded the boundaries of the national forests immensely. We continue to need that vision, as seen by the efforts by those on the Green Mountain National Forest, in continuing to fund land acquisition into the future. This need, for providing the American public with unfettered access to open lands, is of significant importance to those who live east of the Mississippi; where more than 50 percent of the American public are within three hours of their national forests, but only have access to approximately one-quarter of the national forest land. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and continue to carry that vision on the future to build upon our national forest system as we start the 21st century.