Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Graham-Daschle amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill. This amendment will take a much needed step to improve the readiness and strength of the National Guard and Reserve by ensuring that more of our citizen-soldiers have adequate health insurance. Almost 220,000 members of the Guard and Reserve answered the call to duty for the war in Iraq. These volunteer soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have responded with professionalism, skill, and honor. In my own State, hundreds of members of the Green Mountain Boys from the Vermont National Guard were deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the United States to answer the call to service. Our Nation's military would not be as large or as strong without these dedicated--and often-used--soldiers. Time and time again, the Total Force concept that we in Congress developed and promoted has given our military unparalled strength and unity. The increased callups of the Reserves since September 11 has raised some problems that threaten the long-term readiness of this critical force and--in turn--of our entire military structure. A recent GAO study underscored that more than 20 percent of those reservists ready to deploy at a moment's notice do not have health insurance. At least 500 of the 4,000 members of the Vermont National Guard currently do not have coverage. These shortfalls mean that there are reservists who are reporting for duty who have not had routine access to doctors, to treatment, or medicine they might need, or to hospitals. These soldiers--ready to make the ultimate sacrifice at any moment--may not be in the best physical shape because our Government is not protecting its investment. At the same time, many families in Vermont and in other States have told me about substantial turbulence from the callups. Even beyond the understandable worry of watching a loved one head off for battle and dealing with loss of income from the temporary departure from a civilian job, families have had to experience the frustration and confusion created by switching health insurance plans. This disruption has resonated from the home front to the frontlines, becoming a factor in reservists' willingness to stay in service. These patriots make selfless decisions to sacrifice time with their families. Some sacrifice their own lives in the line of duty to their country. When we ask a reservist or a guardsman to answer the call, it is our duty to help them take proper care of their families and to make the transition to active duty as easy as possible. This amendment is a version of S. 852, the National Guard and Reserve Comprehensive Health Benefits Act of 2003. I worked closely with Senators Graham, Daschle, DeWine, Clinton, and Smith in crafting this legislation to deal with medical readiness problems for our National Guard in two main ways. First, the legislation makes members of the Guard and Reserve eligible to enroll in TRICARE on a cost-share basis. Second, it allows families to apply to the Defense Department to receive reimbursement for keeping their current health plans during a deployment. The reimbursement is capped to ensure that the costs are no greater than putting the family on TRICARE. This legislation is cost-effective, solving the problem with the minimum necessary expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office has informally scored the entire bill at $4 billion over 5 years, going from about $350 million in the first year and leveling out at about $1.1 billion per year in the fifth year. Figures from the GAO report confirm these cost estimates. This Reserve health care amendment will cost far less than increasing active-duty end-strength or than having to substantially increase recruiting and retention programs--steps which will be necessary if adequate support is not provided to our Reserves. Let me make sure everyone is clear about what this vote means. A vote in support of the amendment is a vote to ensure a vibrant future for the Guard and Reserve. It is a vote that recognizes, as have all of the major military associations, that we cannot continue to have a Total Force if the benefit structure for the Reserves is not improved. A vote against the Daschle amendment means treating the Guard and Reserve as low-paid contractors to the militry--the temporary hires who can do the job but who cost less because they do not have the proper salaries, benefits, and protections as their full-time counterparts. At a time when the Nation has never relied more heavily on the National Guard and Reserve, I urge all Senators to vote in support of the Graham-Daschle amendment, which will ensure a healthy, effective military into the foreseeable future. I ask unanimous consent that several endorsement letters from various military Reserve associations be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on May 1, 2003, the world lost one of those rare people who die long before their time but who touch the lives of more people than most of us do in a lifetime far longer. I did not know Mike Jendrzejczyk well, although I had met him. I did know of his work, and my staff worked closely with him for over a decade. Shortly after Mike's sudden death, the New York Times and the Washington Post printed obituaries which described at length Mike's extraordinary career. I will not repeat what was written there, other than to say that they were remarkable for a person so young. They portrayed very movingly the extent and impact of Mike's work in the field of human rights. It was because of Mike Jendrzejczyk and his colleague Sidney Jones at Human Rights Watch that I first became concerned about human rights violations in East Timor and Indonesia. In 1991, it was Mike's encouragement and advice that enabled me to sponsor the amendment which prohibited Indonesian military officers from participating in the International Military Education and Training program, after they slaughtered an estimated 200 peaceful demonstrators in a cemetery in Dili, East Timor. It was also Mike who helped me with a similar amendment after the Indonesian military orchestrated the mayhem in East Timor following the independence referendum there in 1999. Those were difficult issues, and the amendments were controversial. Without Mike's guidance, they would not have become law. Today, as the Indonesian military launches a major attack against rebels in Aceh, the potential for widespread human rights violations is of great concern. Mike's absence will make it far harder for us to monitor what is happening there, and people in Aceh and throughout Asia will suffer because he is no longer here to stand up for them. Mike was also a regular source of information and advice on Burma, Cambodia, and China, and many of the initiatives we have undertaken in those countries were a result of his input. I can remember an appearance of Mike's on ABC's Nightline when he spoke passionately about human rights in China. Mike was so effective because of his ability to balance his deeply held beliefs about human rights with his understanding of the political realities we deal with every day here. He was a close observer of events in Southeast Asia. He saw opportunities for the U.S. Government to act to support the development of civil society and to protect human rights, the rule of law, and individuals who were persecuted for their political beliefs, and his recommendations to us of what action to take reflected his best judgment of what was possible. Anyone who knew Mike, as my staff did over the course of so many years, saw that he was motivated out of a deep commitment to the rights and freedoms that the United States stands for. He believed, as I do, that those rights and freedoms are universal, and that Asians, like people in so many countries, yearn deeply for the right to express themselves and to associate freely, without fear of persecution. Throughout his career, Mike was a source of hope and support to thousands of people who he never met. His goal was for Asian people to have the chance to enjoy those same rights and freedoms, and for the United States to live up to its own ideals, and he worked tirelessly to achieve those goals. They are goals I share, as do many others here. They are goals that I will continue to work towards in Mike Jendrzejczyk's memory.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the senior Senator from Massachusetts and Senators Feingold and Lautenberg in introducing the Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in Sentencing Act of 2003, or the JUDGES Act. This bill will restore judicial discretion in Federal criminal sentencing, a responsibility that was all but stripped away in controversial, extraneous provisions that were added to the AMBER Alert law enacted last month. I was deeply disappointed when the Republicans took the bipartisan, non-controversial AMBER Alert bill and added numerous unrelated and ill-considered provisions. One set of provisions, collectively called the Feeney Amendment, blithely overturned the basic structure of the carefully crafted sentencing guideline system without any serious process in either the House or the Senate, and over the strong objections of the Nation's most senior jurists. Speaking about the original Feeney Amendment, the Chief Justice of the United States wrote: ``This legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' I commend Senator Kennedy for trying to repair the harm done in the Feeney Amendment by introducing the JUDGES Act today. Rather than directly address important measures to protect our children, the AMBER Alert conference committee effectively rewrote the criminal code on the back of an envelope. First, the final language established one set of sentencing rules for child pornographers and a more flexible set of sentencing rules for other Federal defendants, including terrorists, murderers, mobsters, civil rights violators, and white collar criminals. No one here believes that sex offenders deserve anything less than harsh sentences, but I cannot understand why we would treat the terrorists better. Second, the conference report overturned a unanimous Supreme Court decision, Koon v. United States, by establishing a new standard of appellate review in all departure cases. This provision, like so many others in the Feeney Amendment, is not limited to cases involving children. The Court in Koon interpreted the departure standard in a way that limited departures but left some room for judicial discretion. By contrast, the enacted provision appears to require appellate courts to consider the merits of a departure before it can decide what standard of review to apply to the merits. This sloppy drafted, circular provision is likely to tie up the courts in endless litigation, draining already scarce judicial resources, and costing the taxpayers money. In addition, the Feeney Amendment effectively created a ``black list'' of judges that stray from the draconian mandates of the new law. The enacted amendment attempt to intimate the Federal judiciary by compiling a list of all judges who impose sentences that the Justice Department does not like. Again, this provision is not limited to crimes against children, but applies in any type of criminal case. It takes a sledge hammer to the concept of separation of powers. In justifying this assault on Federal judges, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claimed that there was a ``crisis'' of downward departures in sentencing. In fact, downward departure rates are well below the range contemplated by Congress when it authorized the Sentencing Guidelines, except for departures requested by the government. The overwhelming majority of downward departures are requested by federal prosecutors to reward cooperation by defendants or to manage the high volume of immigration cases in certain border districts. When the government does not like a specific downward departure, it can appeal that decision, and it often wins-- approximately 80 percent of such appeals are successful. The Feeney Amendment, forced through Congress with virtually no debate, was a solution in search of a problem. The legislation that I join Senator Kennedy in introducing today will repeal those provisions of the Feeney Amendment that veered from the underlying purpose of the AMBER Alert bill. Specifically, it will annul those sections that do not specifically involve crimes against children or sex crimes, effectively reversing the Feeney Amendment's attack on judicial discretion. The JUDGES Act will provide accurate and complete information on the incidence of downward departures in sentencing--a set of data that we were denied when the Feeney Amendment was adopted in the AMBER conference. This bill directs the Sentencing Commission to conduct a comprehensive study on sentencing departures and report to Congress within 180 days. This is the type of review Chief Justice Rehnquist called for in his letter opposing the original Feeney language. He urged the Congress to engage in a ``thorough and dispassionate inquiry'' before changes were made to the Federal sentencing structure. That request was dismissed by supporters of the Feeney Amendment, but still deserves full consideration by the Congress. Finally, the JUDGES Act will reverse a provision that goes beyond the Feeney Amendment, having been added to the AMBER Alert bill during the conference committee's one meeting. This provision limits the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. I, for one, believe that judges are extremely valuable members of the Commission. They bring years of highly relevant experience, not to mention reasoned judgment, to the table. The Republicans apparently believe that their expertise is of limited value. The JUDGES Act is a reasoned correction to the far-reaching provisions enacted in the Feeney Amendment. It will restore the integrity of the Federal sentencing system by allowing judges to impose just and responsible sentences. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the senior Senator from Massachusetts and Senators Feingold and Lautenberg in introducing the Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in Sentencing Act of 2003, or the JUDGES Act. This bill will restore judicial discretion in Federal criminal sentencing, a responsibility that was all but stripped away in controversial, extraneous provisions that were added to the AMBER Alert law enacted last month. I was deeply disappointed when the Republicans took the bipartisan, non-controversial AMBER Alert bill and added numerous unrelated and ill-considered provisions. One set of provisions, collectively called the Feeney Amendment, blithely overturned the basic structure of the carefully crafted sentencing guideline system without any serious process in either the House or the Senate, and over the strong objections of the Nation's most senior jurists. Speaking about the original Feeney Amendment, the Chief Justice of the United States wrote: ``This legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' I commend Senator Kennedy for trying to repair the harm done in the Feeney Amendment by introducing the JUDGES Act today. Rather than directly address important measures to protect our children, the AMBER Alert conference committee effectively rewrote the criminal code on the back of an envelope. First, the final language established one set of sentencing rules for child pornographers and a more flexible set of sentencing rules for other Federal defendants, including terrorists, murderers, mobsters, civil rights violators, and white collar criminals. No one here believes that sex offenders deserve anything less than harsh sentences, but I cannot understand why we would treat the terrorists better. Second, the conference report overturned a unanimous Supreme Court decision, Koon v. United States, by establishing a new standard of appellate review in all departure cases. This provision, like so many others in the Feeney Amendment, is not limited to cases involving children. The Court in Koon interpreted the departure standard in a way that limited departures but left some room for judicial discretion. By contrast, the enacted provision appears to require appellate courts to consider the merits of a departure before it can decide what standard of review to apply to the merits. This sloppy drafted, circular provision is likely to tie up the courts in endless litigation, draining already scarce judicial resources, and costing the taxpayers money. In addition, the Feeney Amendment effectively created a ``black list'' of judges that stray from the draconian mandates of the new law. The enacted amendment attempt to intimate the Federal judiciary by compiling a list of all judges who impose sentences that the Justice Department does not like. Again, this provision is not limited to crimes against children, but applies in any type of criminal case. It takes a sledge hammer to the concept of separation of powers. In justifying this assault on Federal judges, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claimed that there was a ``crisis'' of downward departures in sentencing. In fact, downward departure rates are well below the range contemplated by Congress when it authorized the Sentencing Guidelines, except for departures requested by the government. The overwhelming majority of downward departures are requested by federal prosecutors to reward cooperation by defendants or to manage the high volume of immigration cases in certain border districts. When the government does not like a specific downward departure, it can appeal that decision, and it often wins-- approximately 80 percent of such appeals are successful. The Feeney Amendment, forced through Congress with virtually no debate, was a solution in search of a problem. The legislation that I join Senator Kennedy in introducing today will repeal those provisions of the Feeney Amendment that veered from the underlying purpose of the AMBER Alert bill. Specifically, it will annul those sections that do not specifically involve crimes against children or sex crimes, effectively reversing the Feeney Amendment's attack on judicial discretion. The JUDGES Act will provide accurate and complete information on the incidence of downward departures in sentencing--a set of data that we were denied when the Feeney Amendment was adopted in the AMBER conference. This bill directs the Sentencing Commission to conduct a comprehensive study on sentencing departures and report to Congress within 180 days. This is the type of review Chief Justice Rehnquist called for in his letter opposing the original Feeney language. He urged the Congress to engage in a ``thorough and dispassionate inquiry'' before changes were made to the Federal sentencing structure. That request was dismissed by supporters of the Feeney Amendment, but still deserves full consideration by the Congress. Finally, the JUDGES Act will reverse a provision that goes beyond the Feeney Amendment, having been added to the AMBER Alert bill during the conference committee's one meeting. This provision limits the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. I, for one, believe that judges are extremely valuable members of the Commission. They bring years of highly relevant experience, not to mention reasoned judgment, to the table. The Republicans apparently believe that their expertise is of limited value. The JUDGES Act is a reasoned correction to the far-reaching provisions enacted in the Feeney Amendment. It will restore the integrity of the Federal sentencing system by allowing judges to impose just and responsible sentences. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my happiness over the Senate passage of the ``Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003 in the early morning hours of last Friday. I thank Senators Graham of South Carolina, Collins, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Schumer, Durbin, Landrieu, Nelson of Florida, Clinton, Snowe, Kohl, Smith, Stabenow, Kennedy, and Dayton for joining me as cosponsors of this multi-partisan legislation that will improve the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers' Benefits, PSOB, Program by allowing families of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes to qualify for federal survivor benefits. I also thank Senator Minority Leader Tom Daschle for his hard work to pass our bill through the Senate last Friday at 2:30 AM. Without his perseverance, passage of this bill would not have happened. I also thank each of our Nation's brave firefighters, emergency medical rescuers and law enforcement officers for the jobs they do for the American public day in and day out. Our public safety officers are often the first to respond to any crime or emergency situation. On September 11, the Nation saw that the first on the scene at the World Trade Center were the heroic firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel of New York City. These real-life heroes, many of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice, remind us of how important it is to support our state and local public safety partners. I commend Congressmen Etheridge, Weldon, Hoyer and Oxley for their leadership and fortitude during the last Congress on an identical bill in the House. I look forward to working with them, as well as House Judiciary Chairman, Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, to pass our Senate bill through the House and send it to the President's desk for passage into law as soon as possible. Our legislation has received the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Congressional Fire Services Institute, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Fire Fighters, National Fire Protection Association, National Volunteer Fire Council, North American Fire Training Directors, International Fire Buff Associates, National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, American Ambulance Association, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, along with over 50 additional national organizations. I thank all of these organizations for their unwavering support for this legislation. Public safety officers are our most brave and dedicated public servants. I applaud the efforts of all members of fire, law enforcement, and EMS providers nationwide who are the first to respond to more than 1.6 million emergency calls annually--whether those calls involve a crime, fire, medical emergency, spill of hazardous materials, natural disaster, act of terrorism, or transportation accident--without reservation. Those men and women act with an unwavering commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens, and forever willing to selflessly sacrifice their own lives to provide safe and reliable emergency services to their communities. Sadly, that kind of dedication can result in tragedy, which was reaped in abundance at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, when scores of firefighters, police officers and medics raced into the jaws of danger with no other goal than to save lives. Every year, hundreds of public safety officers nationwide lose their lives and thousands more are injured while performing duties that subject them to great physical risks. And while we know that PSOB benefits can never be a substitute for the loss of a loved one, the families of all our fallen heroes deserve to collect these funds. The PSOB Program was established in 1976 to authorize a one-time financial payment to the eligible survivors of Federal, State, and local public safety officers for all line of duty deaths. In 2001, Congress improved the PSOB Program by streamlining the process for families of public safety officers killed or injured in connection with prevention, investigation, rescue or recovery efforts related to a terrorist attack. We also retroactively increased the total benefits available by $100,000 as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. The Program now provides approximately $262,000 in benefits to the families of first responders killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately, the issue of covering heart attack and stroke victims in the PSOB Program was not addressed at that time. When establishing the PSOB Program, Congress placed only three limitations on the payment of benefits. No award could be paid, first, if the death was caused by the intentional misconduct of the officer or by such officer's intention to bring about his own death; second, if voluntary intoxication of the officer was the proximate cause of such officer's death; or, third, to any person otherwise entitled to a benefit if such person's action was a substantial contributing factor to the death of the officer. In years following, however, the Justice Department began to interpret the Program's guidelines to exclude from benefits the survivors of public safety officer who die of a heart attack or stroke while acting in the line of duty, arguing that the attack must be accompanied by a traumatic injury, such as a wound or other condition of the body caused by external force, including injuries by bullets, smoke inhalation, explosives, sharp instruments, blunt objects or other physical blows, chemicals, electricity, climatic conditions, infectious diseases, radiation, and bacteria. Barred are those who suffer from occupational injuries, such as stress and strain. Service-connected heart, lung, and hypertension conditions are silent killers of public safety officers nationwide. The numerous hidden health dangers dealt with by police officers, fire fighters and emergency medical personnel are widely recognized, but officers face these dangers in order to carry out their sworn duty to serve and protect their fellow citizens. Our multi-partisan bill would effectively erase any distinction between traumatic and occupational injuries. The Hometown Heroes bill will fix the loophole in the PSOB Program to ensure that the survivors of public safety officers who die of heart attacks or strokes in the line of duty or within 24 hours of a triggering effect while on duty-- regardless of whether a traumatic injury is present at the time of the heart attack or stroke--are eligible to receive financial assistance. I was serving my first term in the Senate when the Program was established, and I firmly believe that this is what Congress meant for the survivors of our nation's first responders to receive through the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program. Heart attacks and strokes are a reality of the high-pressure jobs of police officers, firefighters and medics. These are killers that first responders contend with in their jobs, just like speeding bullets and burning buildings. They put their lives on the line for us, and we owe their families our gratitude, our respect and our help. No amount of money can fill the void that is left by these losses, but ending this disparity can help these families keep food on the table and shelter over their heads. It helps them make the transition into their new lives. The gap hits families hard when tragedy strikes. Earlier this year, two Vermont firefighters suffered heart attacks while responding to emergencies. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 31 firefighters died of heart attacks relating to their jobs in 2002, and based on statistics from the Officer Down Memorial Page, 8 police officers suffered heart attacks while carrying out their duties. Due to the current loophole in the PSOB Program, though, the families of these individuals will not receive federal survivor benefits without the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act. For example, in January 1978, special Deputy Sheriff Bernard Demag of the Chittenden County Sheriff's Office in Vermont suffered a fatal heart attack within two hours of his chase and apprehension of an escaped juvenile whom he had been transporting. Mr. Demag's family spent nearly two decades fighting in court for workers' compensation death benefits all to no avail. Clearly, we should be treating surviving family members of officers who die in the line of duty with more decency and respect. Public safety is dangerous, exhausting, and stressful work. A first responder's chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke greatly increase when he or she puts on heavy equipment and rushes into a burning building to fight a fire and save lives. The families of these brave public servants deserve to participate in the PSOB Program if their loved ones die of a heart attack or other cardiac related ailments while selflessly protecting us from harm. First responders across the country now face a new series of challenges as they respond to millions of emergency calls this year. They do this with an unwavering commitment to the safety of their fellow citizens, and are forever willing to selflessly sacrifice their own lives to protect the lives and property of their fellow citizens. I see no reason to hold up this important legislation--last Congress the House passed Congressman Etheridge's identical language, and only a single, anonymous Republican hold in the Senate prevented its final passage. I am proud that the Senate has chosen to do the right thing and shown its support and appreciation for these extraordinarily brave and heroic public safety officers by passing the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act. I urge the leaders of the House to follow our lead and pass this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch today in offering this bill to increase criminal penalties against those who monopolize or restrict the market using unfair and illegal business practices. In an age that combines robust levels of international trade with the threats of Enron-style accounting, we must be increasingly vigilant to the threats of white-collar crime to our economy. Legitimate business can only thrive when bad actors realize that violations of antitrust law will be met with the strictest of penalties. Our bill increases the maximum sentence for a violation of the Sherman antitrust laws from 3 to 10 years. Fines to corporations are increased tenfold to a maximum of $100 million per infraction. This increase will make it clear to corporate wrongdoers that no antitrust violation is affordable. These changes bring antitrust penalties in line with other white-collar crimes and send a clear message that the United States will not allow any company to abuse its consumers by misusing market power. Our bill also repeals an old and rarely used provision, the Antidumping Act of 1916. Congress must eliminate this provision in order to come into compliance with a ruling by the World Trade Organization. The U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Justice both support the repeal of this act, and indeed have made a joint request for such legislation to the Congress. I am pleased to have worked with the chairman on this important legislation and urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the joint request by the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Justice.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has confirmed the nomination of Maurice Hicks to be a United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Louisiana. Maurice Hicks has spent 25 years as a litigator in Shreveport, LA, where he has appeared frequently in State and Federal courts. He comes to us with the support of his home State Senators. Mr. Hicks is the seventh nominee of President Bush to be confirmed to the Federal courts in Louisiana. Just this year, the Senate already confirmed Dee Drell and Patricia Minaldi to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. With these confirmations, there are no longer any current vacancies in the Federal courts in Louisiana. Under my chairmanship last Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first hearing for a Fifth Circuit nominee in 7 years. Judge Edith Brown Clement of Louisiana was promptly given a hearing in October 2001 and confirmed in November 2001, despite the fact that three of President Clinton's Fifth Circuit nominees never received a hearing, including H. Alston Johnson of Louisiana. The Democrats turned the other cheek on past obstruction by the Republicans in order to move forward. In fact, with Democratic support, the Senate recently confirmed another nominee to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Edward Prado, despite the fact that President Clinton's Hispanic nominees to that court, Enrique Moreno and Jorge Rangel, never received a hearing or a vote. With the confirmation of Mr. Hicks, the Senate will have confirmed 25 of President Bush's judicial nominees so far this year and 125 overall. So far this year we have confirmed more judicial nominees of President Bush than the Republican majority was willing to confirm in the entire 1996 session when President Clinton was in the White House. That entire year only 17 judges were confirmed all year and that included none to the circuit courts, not one. In contrast, already this session, 5 circuit court nominees, including several highly controversial nominees, have been confirmed among the 25 judges the Senate has approved to date. Those confirmations--including two that had more negative votes than the required number to be filibustered but who were not filibustered never get acknowledged in partisan Republican talking points. We are also almost 6 months ahead of the pace the Republican majority set in 1999 when it considered President Clinton's judicial nominees. It was not until October that the Senate confirmed as many as 25 judicial nominees in 1999. In the 17 months when I chaired the Judiciary Committee, we were able to confirm 100 judges and vastly reduce the judicial vacancies that Republicans had stored up by refusing to allow scores of judicial nominees of President Clinton to be considered. We were able to do so despite the White House's refusal to work with Democrats on circuit court vacancies and many district court vacancies. With Mr. Hicks' confirmation, the Senate will have succeeded in reducing the number of Federal judicial vacancies to the lowest level it has been in 13 years. The 110 vacancies that I inherited in the summer of 2001 have been more than cut in half. In the 17 months that I chaired the Judiciary Committee we not only kept up with attrition, but reduced those vacancies from 110 to 60 and with Mr. Hicks's confirmation we will only have 46 vacancies for the entire Federal judiciary. I congratulate Mr. Hicks and his family on his confirmation. Republican talking points will likely focus on the impasse on 2 of the most extreme of the President's nominations rather than the 125 confirmations and the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years. They will ignore their own recent filibusters against President Clinton's executive and judicial nominees in so doing and their own delays in considering some of this President's judicial nominees. I continue to be disappointed that the Republican leadership has not found time to proceed to the nomination of Judge Consuelo Callahan to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is another of the judicial nominees that Senate Democrats has strongly supported and whose consideration we had expedited through the Judiciary Committee weeks ago. Just as Senate Democrats cleared the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit without delay, so, too, the nomination of Judge Callahan, another Hispanic nominee to another circuit court, was cleared on the Democratic side. All Democratic Senators serving on the Judiciary Committee voted to report this nomination favorably. All Democratic Senators had indicated that they are prepared to proceed to this nomination and, after a reasonable period of debate, vote on the nomination. I am confident this nomination will be confirmed by an extraordinary majority--maybe unanimously. It is most unfortunate that so many partisans in this administration and on the other side of the aisle insist on bogging down consensus matters and consensus nominees in order to focus exclusively on the most divisive and controversial of this President's nominees as he continues his efforts to pack the courts. Democratic Senators have worked very hard to cooperate with this administration in order to fill judicial vacancies. What the other side seeks to obscure is that effort, that fairness and the progress we have been able to achieve without much help from the other side or the administration. Judge Callahan's nomination has been delayed on the Senate Executive Calendar unnecessarily in my view. It is time to act on this nomination and make progress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might interject for a moment? The distinguished chairman knows the great respect I have for what I many times refer to as my Senator away from home because I spend part of the week--seems to be the longer part of the week, with the hours we have been putting in around here lately--in Northern Virginia. Of course my dear friend, the senior Senator from North Dakota, knows my respect for him. I think this is a good amendment. Senator DeWine of Ohio has taken a very active role in this, too. I hope the distinguished chairman would hold off making a snap judgment. I know he doesn't do that, in any event. But think about what the distinguished Senator from South Dakota has said. The Senator from Ohio and I will speak on this matter at another time rather than hold the floor to do it. But there are a number--and the numbers are rather shocking--of those who are without health insurance, especially in the enlisted area. You have, so many times, this hiatus. They are leaving their job, getting called up, and being without it. It leaves families in this limbo. I would rather, if they were being called up, they be concentrating on what they are going to be doing, not on whether they are covered by health care insurance. This is a matter we have raised with the health care committee. I am a cochair of the National Guard caucus. We raised it within our caucus. We heard from Guard units all over the country of their needs. As the distinguished Democratic leader has said on the floor today, this is a case where we are asking they have the ability to pay into this and do this. So I hope maybe during the evening, before we come back in tomorrow, everybody might be able to look at it. I know the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, will also want to be speaking on it. I will withhold my further comments. There are Senators on the floor waiting to speak on this bill. I totally concur with the distinguished Democratic leader on what he has said. His experiences with the brave men and women in South Dakota are very similar to what I hear in Vermont. I suspect most States are hearing it also from their Guard. So maybe we will keep our powder dry until tomorrow. We will get some of these facts and figures and see where they go.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch today in offering this bill to increase criminal penalties against those who monopolize or restrict the market using unfair and illegal business practices. In an age that combines robust levels of international trade with the threats of Enron-style accounting, we must be increasingly vigilant to the threats of white-collar crime to our economy. Legitimate business can only thrive when bad actors realize that violations of antitrust law will be met with the strictest of penalties. Our bill increases the maximum sentence for a violation of the Sherman antitrust laws from 3 to 10 years. Fines to corporations are increased tenfold to a maximum of $100 million per infraction. This increase will make it clear to corporate wrongdoers that no antitrust violation is affordable. These changes bring antitrust penalties in line with other white-collar crimes and send a clear message that the United States will not allow any company to abuse its consumers by misusing market power. Our bill also repeals an old and rarely used provision, the Antidumping Act of 1916. Congress must eliminate this provision in order to come into compliance with a ruling by the World Trade Organization. The U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Justice both support the repeal of this act, and indeed have made a joint request for such legislation to the Congress. I am pleased to have worked with the chairman on this important legislation and urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the joint request by the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Justice.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Republican partisans are acting as if Senate Democrats were treating President Bush's judicial nominees the way Republicans treated President Clinton's. That is not the case. We have worked hard to repair much of the damage of Republican mistreatment of President Clinton's nominees. When we led the Senate we moved forward at twice the rate that Republicans had and during our leadership 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed. This year we have proceeded to consider and confirm another 25 lifetime judicial appointments. I would understand the partisanship if Democrats had held up consideration of 125 judicial nominees and the Senate had only confirmed two, but just the opposite is true. I understand the frustration that Senator Frist feels regarding the continuing impasse over the nominations of Mr. Estrada and Judge Owen. I am sorry that the White House has chosen confrontation over cooperation with the Senate on these matters. It is too bad that this White House will not work with us, as Senator Bennett and others have indicated was reasonable, in order to provide access to the materials we requested from Mr. Estrada and the Justice Department one year ago today. With respect to the renomination of Judge Owen, I have said that unprecedented renomination of a judicial nominee rejected after a hearing and a fair debate and vote before the Judiciary Committee was ill advised. It remains so. Along with the other members of the Judiciary Committee, I have voted on the Estrada and Owen nominations. We have not taken the course of prior Republican leadership in which any Senator was allowed to block President Clinton's judicial nominees by use of a secret, anonymous hold. Instead, Democrats acted over the last few years to reform the confirmation process. We have added openness and accountability. What we have not been able to do is obtain a fair level of consultation and cooperation from this White House. We made home State Senators' ``blue slips'' matters of public record. When Republican Senators stymied Judiciary Committee consideration of President Clinton's judicial nominations, they were permitted to do so under the cloak of confidentiality. I changed that in 2001. The Republican myth of a ``crisis'' in the Senate is punctured by the facts, which show the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years--lower than the national jobless rate of 6 percent. Court-packing by Presidents of either party is harmful, and I have spoken out often about the need to preserve the independence of our Federal judiciary. The world's emerging democracies envy the judicial independence in the American system, and we should make every effort to defend it, not to undermine it, as the escalating tactics of this administration would do. Just last month the administration and congressional Republicans turned a deaf ear when Chief Justice Rehnquist warned against the assault on the independence of the judiciary when so-called sentencing ``reforms'' were tacked on to a popular bill without hearings or careful consideration. The White House says it opposes judicial activism, but the President sends the Senate activist nominees. The White House itself pushes results-oriented changes in the rules of the Senate, which is a separate branch of Government. This White House is not satisfied with its subjugation of the House and Senate to its will and removing Congress as a check on the Executive. They also want to pack the independent Federal courts. Republicans are not satisfied with means undermining the independence of the Senate, they are embarked on a course to undermine the independence of the Federal judiciary, as well. They already have convinced Senate Republicans to bend and even break the Judiciary Committee's rules in the handling of judicial nominees. Now they want to change the rules of the Senate itself in a raw bid for unitary government, directed by the White House. The American people and their representatives in the Senate should not let the Senate or the Federal judiciary become mere arms of any political party or any President. The President's charges about obstruction would be easier to understand if the numbers themselves did not disprove them. The President and some Republicans in the Senate seem to be suffering from confirmation amnesia. The Democratic-led Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees, acting far faster than Republicans did with President Clinton's nominees. We have confirmed another 24 this year for a total so far of 125 and achieved the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years. The vacancy rate on the Federal bench today is 5.3 percent, which is lower than the national jobless rate of 6 percent. Unemployment has soared, the deficit has soared, crime is on the rise for the first time in a decade--about the only thing that has gone down significantly over the last 2 years is Federal judicial vacancies. Yet the White House complains that it has not been able to bully the Senate into rubber-stamping every one of the White House's ideological choices. Democratic Senators have cooperated to improve the process so that it has worked much more smoothly for President Bush's nominees than Republicans allowed for President Clinton's nominees. The fact is that 125 have been confirmed, and two have been held back. You would not know that by listening to the President's remarks last Friday or to Republican talking points or various attack ads now being broadcast around the country in a partisan effort to intimidate Senators. Democrats held hearings on more nominees faster than Republicans had and proceeded on controversial nominations. We have cooperated this year in bringing many controversial nominations to the floor for votes. When Republicans controlled the Senate during the last Democratic administration, they blocked more than 60 judicial nominees. And they were blocked not with cloture votes in the light of day, but sometimes by a single, anonymous Republican objection. And yes, there were also Republican filibusters of President Clinton's nominees. The answer for handling the remaining controversial nominees is not reckless rhetoric or undermining the Senate's independence by changing its rules so that the independence of the Federal judiciary can become a victim to partisan court-packing. The answer has to start with the President, where the process begins. Despite his earlier promises, the President has been a divider and not a uniter in choosing many of his nominees, who would roll back the hard-won rights of workers, women, minorities and consumers, and who would side with the big polluters over communities when it comes to clean air and water. Several of his choices have divided the American people, and they have divided the Senate. We have drawn a line with a few of his most extreme choices. Drawing that line has been the responsible response to this President's divisive nominations for lifetime positions on the Federal courts. This President campaigned saying he wanted to change the tone in Washington. He has--for the worse. The White House has adopted the rabid partisanship of House Republicans. The President of the United States has sunk to name-calling, extreme rhetoric and partisan campaigning against the Senate and individual Senators, which is not helpful to the process or to the institutions of our government. The answer is for the administration to work with the Senate, as earlier Presidents have done. The process starts with the President, and the buck stops with the President. Here on the Senate floor, when Senators have opposed the most divisive of the President's nominees with whom he is seeking to pack the courts and ideologically tilt them, we have done so on the record. We have debated and put forth the considerations and reasons. That, too, was something all too often missing from the years in which Republicans defeated judicial nominees through stealth tactics. We have voted on the record in vote after vote required by Republican cloture petitions. Unfortunately, in the case of Mr. Estrada, the administration has made no effort to work with us and resolve the impasse. Instead, there has been a series of votes on cloture petitions in which the opposition has grown and from time to time the support has waned. Recently, there have been press reports indicating that Mr. Estrada had asked the White House months ago to withdraw his nomination. I understand his frustration. If this administration is not going to follow the practice of every other administration and share with the Senate the government work papers of the nominee--the very practice this administration followed with an EPA nominee in 2001--then I can understand him not wanting to be used as a political pawn by the administration to score partisan, political points. That the administration has not acceded to his reported request but has plowed ahead to force a succession of unsuccessful cloture votes and to foment division in our Hispanic community for partisan gain is another example of how far this administration is willing to go to politicize the process at the expense of its own nominees. The frustration with these two difficult nominations should not obscure the work that the Senate leadership has done to correct some of the abuses of power earlier this year and pave the way for votes on the nominations of Jeffrey Sutton and Judge Cook to the Sixth Circuit and John Roberts to the DC Circuit. There were more votes against the Sutton nomination than the number required for a filibuster, but there was no filibuster of that nomination. Just as there was no filibuster of the controversial nomination of Mr. Tymkovich to the Tenth Circuit or of the controversial nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit. All three of these circuit court nominations were controversial and opposed by many Americans and many Senators. The President's recent comments took the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to task for, among other things, not holding a hearing on the nomination of Judge Terry Boyle. I understand that Chairman Hatch is following a longstanding tradition of the Senate in not proceeding with a nomination that is opposed by a home State Senator. After all, it was Senator Helms' opposition to Judge Beaty and Judge Wynn, as well as to Roger Gregory and a number of others, that has led to there being numerous vacancies on the Fourth Circuit. Having honored Senator Helms' objections, Chairman Hatch would be seen as hypocritical and partisan if he were to ignore the concerns of Democratic home State Senators. Among the difficulties the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has faced since 2001 are the high number of judicial nominees of this White House that do not have home State Senator support. So when the President attacks the Senate for not having acted on nominations that the White House knows does not have the support of home State Senators, he is not being fair to the Senate, to the chairman or to the nominees. The White House knows that judicial nominations do not proceed without the support of home State Senators. Yet this administration continues to belittle the role of home State Senators in the advice and consent process and ignore the important role they have long played in Senate consideration of judicial nominees. Another example is the nomination of Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit. This is a nomination that is opposed by both home State Senators. Proceeding on such a nomination is unprecedented. Yet Senate Republicans have forced the nomination out of the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote after knowing that Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer both oppose confirmation. The last time the Senate voted on a nomination opposed by both home State Senators was only because the Republican caucus ambushed the nomination of Judge Ronnie White of Missouri on the Senate floor in 1999 after one of the Missouri Senators switched from supporting the nomination to opposing it the day of the vote. They proceeded without telling the administration, Senate Democrats or the nominee of the change of position and a number of Republican Senators who had previously voted in favor of the nomination changed their positions, as well, and the nomination was defeated on the only party-line vote to defeat a judicial nominee in Senate history of which I am aware. With respect to Senator Frist's resolution, S. Res. 138, I look forward to the work of the Rules Committee on this proposal. Initially, I would observe that voting on judicial nominations is unlike Senate consideration of legislation in the way that imposing capital punishment is unlike any other criminal sentence. It is final and irrevocable. A bad statute once enacted can be amended or repealed. A bad judge is on the bench for life and will continue to affect American's rights, our freedoms and our environment in case after case for decades to come, long after the President who appointed that judge is gone. Given that dimension, I believe Senator Frist got his proposal upside down by seeking to exempt judicial nominations from Senate debate rules. It is more important that there be a higher level of confidence and certainty that a judicial nomination being considered for a lifetime appointment be the right person for the job, be a person of fairness, impartiality, judgment and someone committed to our constitutional values. The rights of women, minorities, consumers, workers and those concerned about the environment should not be sacrificed to political expediency and the independence of our federal courts should not be lost to ideological court packing by this administration. Others will no doubt point out that Senator Frist voted against a proposal in 1995 to revise the Senate filibuster rules. I have pointed out in other statements how many Republicans supported the filibusters against President Clinton's executive calendar nominees, including the judicial nominations of Judge Marsha Berzon and Judge Richard Paez, the last most recent double filibuster in 2000, and the nominations of Judge Rosemary Barkett and Judge H. Lee Sarokin. In addition, recent Republican filibusters succeeded in defeating the nominations of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General and Sam Brown to be an ambassador. Republicans have not been shy about using filibusters to defeat the nominees of the most recent Democratic President or stall legislation some of them oppose. Just last year, in their tributes to Senator Thurmond, Republicans extolled his use of the filibuster and his setting a record for the longest individual filibuster in Senate history. What they left out of their tributes was the fact that Senator Thurmond had filibustered civil rights legislation. Others may also point out how many Republicans have proposed supermajority requirements. Not only have Republicans abandoned their commitment to fiscal responsibility and their call for a balanced budget, they have forgotten that they insisted in recent years on three-fifths requirements to raise the debt ceiling or have taxes apply retroactively. Senator Craig and Senator Miller currently support a proposal, S.J. Res. 2, to require a balanced Federal budget that includes a three-fifths rollcall vote of each chamber to increase the debt limit. Last year Senator Sessions introduced a measure, S.J. Res. 11, cosponsored by Senators Crapo, Kyl, Fitzgerald, Hagel, Inhofe and Shelby to require a two-thirds vote of each House in order to increase any tax. Of course, in the 105th Congress, along with former Senators Ashcroft and Abraham, who are now Cabinet secretaries in this administration, Senators Allard, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Burns, Campbell, Cochran, Collins, Craig, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Nickles, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas and Warner all cosponsored S.J. Res. 1 which would have required a three-fifths majority requirement to raise the debt ceiling. The Senate was not designed by the founders or the Constitution to be a strictly majoritarian institution. To the contrary, the genius of the Framers at the Constitutional Convention was to construct a House of Representatives, structured on majoritarian principles with representatives voting on behalf of relatively equal numbers of constituents, and the Senate using different principles. The Senate has always had two Senators for each State regardless of size. Thus, small States like Vermont and Rhode Island and less populous States like Wyoming, Idaho and Alaska each have equal representation with California, Texas and New York. The Senate and the House are not the same and were not intended to be the same. They were designed to be complimentary institutions of government to form a balanced legislature. I understand why proposals like S. Res. 138 might appeal to newer Republican Senators and to former House Members who are now Republican in the Senate but I fear it would represent another ill- advised step to change the Senate into a second House of Representatives. The Constitution did not assign the advice and consent role to the House but to our distinctive body, the Senate. The Senate has many distinctive traditions including, to me, one of the most significant--that smaller States have a larger role to play in the Senate than in the House. It is a bit ironic, to say the least, that an administration that was selected with less popular vote than the Democratic Presidential candidate because of a court decision and the workings of the electoral college is now pressing so vociferously to change the Senate rules and allow judicial and executive branch confirmations approved by the barest of ``majorities''--of only those Senators present and voting at the time the Republican Senate majority chooses to call the vote. In addition, given the Senate's structure, the administration's pretense that somehow the votes of a majority of Senators shows that a majority of Americans favor a nomination may not be factually accurate. For example, Senate Republicans have complained bitterly and resentfully about the Senate's failure to end debate on the nomination of Judge Owen. But the Senators who have voted to end debate represent less than 50 percent of the population of the United States and the Senators who have voted not to end that debate represent the majority of the American population. Now, put that way, the decision of the Senate on this controversial nominee hardly seem anti-democratic. I respect the role of the Senate and the ways in which it has traditionally functioned on behalf of the American people. Any rule or practice can be used for ill, of course. For instance, the Senate grants significant authority to committees and to chairs of committees to determine the Senate's agenda and business. Traditionally, when a committee votes down a nominee, that nomination does not go forward. We have made one recent exception for the nomination of Judge Bork to the Supreme Court. That led to a heated battle on the Senate floor that resulted in that nomination ultimately being rejected by the Senate. Never in our history has the Senate or an administration simply overridden the judgment of the Judiciary Committee. That is what this administration chose to do when it renominated Judge Owen after her nomination had been thoroughly and fairly considered last year. Finally, I am troubled that the administration and Senate Republicans are so intent on changing the rules and procedures and practices of the Senate in so many ways to gerryrig the process in favor of the administration's most extreme, divisive and controversial nominees. That was not the motivation behind the amendment of rule 22 in 1975 that I supported. It used to be rare that judicial nominees would receive so many negative votes and engender so much opposition. In accordance with the consultation and cooperation that prevailed between administrations before this one and Senators from both parties, it was a rarity to have a contested nomination or to have close votes. That this administration is so fixated on forcing through the Senate nominees that do not have the support of more Senators is alarming in itself. Consensus, mainstream, qualified nominees will get the support of not just a bare majority of Senators voting but the overwhelming majority of Senators. Thus, Judge Prado, and Judge Gregory, and Judge Raggi were confirmed with overwhelming bipartisan support. So, too, I am confident that Judge Consuelo Callahan will be the second Hispanic nominee of this administration to a circuit court to receive the strong support of Democratic Senators, when the leadership decides to schedule a vote on her confirmation. The 125 judicial confirmations to date are by and large conservative nominees but many enjoyed the strong bipartisan vote of Senators from both parties. Yet Senate Republicans at the behest of the administration want to grant even more power to the administration by encouraging the President to nominate more controversial nominees. I respectfully suggest that the better way to proceed would be for the White House to work more closely with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to identify consensus nominees who will not generate a close vote and do not need special rules in order to be considered. I thank the majority leader for working with the Democratic leader and assistant leader to make what he himself recognized as progress over the last weeks. With some cooperation and consideration from the administration we could accomplish so much more.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Dorgan-Leahy amendment. This amendment tries to get at the heart of two interconnected problems that are literally wiping out countries in sub- Saharan Africa. Famine and AIDS. This amendment directs the Secretary of Agriculture to use the authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to provide $250 million in desperately needed food aid to HIV/AIDS victims in sub- Saharan Africa and other developing countries. Moreover, it allows the administration to sell this food aid and use the money to purchase drugs, medical equipment, and other supplies to help combat HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. In other words, this amendment takes a small step in addressing two of the most critical problems on the African continent. We have all seen the pictures and heard the statistics about AIDS in Africa. But, let me take just a moment to reiterate a couple of points. According to the Congressional Research Service, about 30 million adults and children are infected with the HIV virus in Africa. As of 2001, an estimated 21.5 million Africans had died of AIDS, including 2.2 million who died in that year. AIDS is now the leading cause of death in Africa. At the same time AIDS is ravaging the continent, a famine has placed more than 40 million Africans at risk of starvation. Men, women, and children of all ages of all religions are dying, because they cannot get enough to eat. There is a direct connection between HIV/AIDS and malnourishment. The House bill recognizes that fact. Let me read to you one section--and I am quoting: ``Healthy and nutritious foods for individuals infected or living with HIV/AIDS are an important complement in HIV/AIDS medicines for such individuals.'' The bill goes on to say: ``Individuals infected with HIV have higher nutritional requirements than individuals who are not infected with HIV . . . Also, there is evidence to suggest that the full benefit of therapy to treat HIV/AIDS may not be achieved in individuals who are malnourished . . .'' There are plenty of statistics, medical studies, and reports. But, it is common sense. When people are starving, its harder for their bodies to fight the HIV/AIDS virus. We know that HIV/AIDS is the worst public health crisis in human history. We see 40 million people at risk of starvation in Africa. We need to do something about it right now. To be sure, H.R. 1298 is an important bill and it is a good start at taking action. But there is a gaping hole in this bill--resources. This bill does not appropriate one dime of money to address this problem. Let me repeat that. This bill does not appropriate one dime of money to address AIDS or famine in Africa. As I have said over and over, we can have the best policies in the world, but if we don't have the money to back them up, our policies simply will not be effective. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. I have seen the President's budget request for P.L. 480 food aid. Is there an increase to effectively deal with this problem? No. The President's budget decreases food aid by $574 million. That is a 32 percent cut from last year's level. More importantly, the funds we do provide in the fiscal year 2004 budget won't be available for months. We don't have months. By then, the problem will have gotten worse. More people will have died. We need to break this cycle. That is exactly what this amendment does. It tells the Secretary of Agriculture to use existing authorities to provide $250 million in food aid for HIV/AIDS affected populations in sub- Saharan Africa. We are not giving the Secretary of Agriculture any new authority. The CCC can already provide $30 billion to support agricultural programs-- both here and abroad. This amendment simply says that we should use less than 1 percent of this authority to combat the worst public health crisis in human history. We all know that we need to act for humanitarian reasons. But, we should not forget that there are important national security reasons for taking action to address AIDS and famine in Africa. For example, CIA Director Tenent testified that ``[t]he chronic problems of sub- Saharan Africa make it, too, fertile ground for direct and indirect threats to United States interests. Governments without accountability and natural disasters have left Africa with the highest concentration of human misery in the world''. This should not be a hard amendment to support. Each and every Senator has already essentially expressed his or her support for this amendment. Let me explain. During Senate consideration of the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill, Senator Bill Nelson and I offered a bipartisan amendment to add $500 million in emergency food aid to sub-Saharan Africa. The amendment was accepted by the Senate, but was reduced by the House to $250 million in the conference committee. My amendment simply directs to Secretary of Agriculture to use the authorities of the Credit Commodity Corporation to restore this $250 million that the Senate supported but the House eliminated in conference. I want to remind people that this $500 million figure was not picked out of the air. It was based on an assessment by humanitarian organizations with field operations in Africa. More importantly, this figure represents the U.S. share of what is needed to combat this problem. In other words, it doesn't let other donors off the hook. I would point out that the Dorgan-Leahy amendment has a wide range of support from international relief organizations--from Catholic Relief Services to Oxfam to the International Rescue Committee. In addition, agricultural organizations, as represented by the Coalition for Food Aid, supports this amendment. This is not a partisan issue. One has to look no further than Republican Representative Frank Wolf's op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post on this very issue. It is, however, a security issue. It is a humanitarian issue. It is a moral issue. The AIDS pandemic in Africa is out of control. A famine threatens the lives of 40 million people. We need to act. We need to act now. We need to provide real resources. This amendment does all of these things.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I will withhold my amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we want to get this bill off to the President so he will have it when he goes abroad. I agree with that, although I don't think that was a reason for opposing the amendments that were offered tonight. We could have passed those amendments, gone to conference with the House, and sent this bill to the President in plenty of time. But that was not what the majority wanted. They wanted to rubber stamp the House bill, despite its defects which were obvious to everyone. Let's be realistic about what is going on here. This is an authorization bill. It does not actually appropriate one dime. The President will be taking a promise when he goes abroad, nothing more. In fact, his budget request for 2004 does not include the amount authorized in this bill that people have been talking about. Not only that, while this bill authorizes $1 billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the President's 2004 budget includes only $200 million for the Global Fund, a $150 million cut from last year. And not only does this bill not appropriate any money, his 2004 budget would cut many other global health programs. It would cut funding for child survival and maternal health by 12 percent. It would cut funding for programs to protect vulnerable children by 63 percent. It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases--diseases which kill millions of children each year, by 32 percent. I wonder how many Senators know this. So I hope that soon after the President signs this bill he will send us a budget amendment for the rest of the $3 billion authorized here that is missing from his 2004 budget request. I hope he also asks for the funds to replace the cuts his budget makes in other global health programs. Because those cuts are going to mean fewer children will be vaccinated against measles and polio, and fewer pregnant women will have access to medical care. Each year, over half a million women die needlessly from pregnancy related causes. There are real consequences to cutting these programs.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have heard this interesting discussion by two Senators I like a great deal. I cannot add to the experience the distinguished Senator from California had as mayor of San Francisco and, in fact, in her work as a national leader in efforts to prevent AIDS. I say also to my good friend from Kansas that I remember being in Uganda at a time when they were first becoming aware of the fact they had an AIDS problem. I was sitting with President Museveni when he got his first real briefing, by USAID officials, of the calamity of AIDS in his country. At that time he switched from opposing the use of condoms as an acceptable way to protect against AIDS to supporting it. It is one of the reasons Uganda is a model for Africa today. Of course they support abstinence. So does the Senator from California. Of course they support fidelity. So does the Senator from California. But also in Uganda they know that does not always work. And they also support the use of condoms. I commend the Senator from California for her amendment. This amendment addresses one of the serious flaws in a bill that has much else to recommend it. This bill, assuming the President requests the funds to implement it, will be a major step forward in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. I have pressed for significantly more funding to combat AIDS ever since I first traveled to Africa in 1990 and saw the ravages of AIDS in Uganda, South Africa, and Kenya. We have had amendments brought up here within the past year to appropriate emergency funds to combat AIDS, that were opposed by the White House. Now the majority party has its own bill, a House bill and they want us to pass it without amendment. I understand that. But this is the Senate, not the House. The amendment of the Senator from California would clarify several matters. First, we all support programs to promote abstinence among young people who are not yet sexually active. We support that and her amendment reaffirms that. We also support programs to promote fidelity, because multiple partners is a major cause of HIV transmission. The Senator's amendment promotes fidelity. But in many instances, and especially for women and girls in countries like Uganda, Cambodia, India, or South Africa, abstinence is not a realistic option. And fidelity may be an option for women, but it makes no difference because they have no control over their male partners. And that also goes for married women. In many developing countries, women and girls have no say over when or even with whom they have sexual relations. And for them, a condom is their only protection against HIV. It is a matter of life and death. That is true in Uganda, where I have been. We have heard a lot said about how Uganda's rate of HIV infection was reduced because of abstinence. That is not the whole story. In fact it is a distortion. Promoting abstinence has been very important there, but it has been no more important than other interventions, like promoting the use of condoms. Senator Feinstein's amendment supports abstinence. It supports fidelity. And it supports the use of condoms. Like the Uganda model, her amendment does not give one approach any more weight than the other. Most importantly, it does not mandate a certain amount of funds for any one approach. Whether 33 percent or 13 percent or 3 percent of the funds we make available for AIDS prevention are used to promote abstinence is a public health decision that should be made not by Congress, but by experts working in the field. The same goes for the amount spent on condoms. It is not for us to decide that. It varies depending on the country and the target population. Among younger populations abstinence may be the best approach. Among others it may be irrelevant and condoms may be the only practical protection. That is consistent with Uganda's experience. It is consistent with the experience of exports everywhere who are working to stop the spread of AIDS. And it is consistent with what President Bush himself has said. It is also important to mandate that abstinence, fidelity, and condoms are only three of the necessary approaches to AIDS prevention. There is also counseling. There is voluntary testing. There is treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. These are all essential to any AIDS prevention strategy. Again, this has been true in Uganda, and in many other countries. So let us not earmark one approach--abstinence--when it is only one of several necessary approaches. Senator Feinstein's amendment leaves it to the Administration, and to the experts who implement these programs, to decide. That is the only sensible and workable approach. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been disappointed that the Republican leadership has not found time to proceed to the nomination of Judge Consuelo Callahan to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is another of the judicial nominees that Senate Democrats have strongly supported and whose consideration we had expedited through the Judiciary Committee last week. We still do not know who on the Republican side delayed consideration of the consensus nomination of Judge Prado for a month. I thank the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for its support of that nomination as well as this nomination and for working with the Senate to bringing fair evaluation of these nominees and for adding their voice to the discussion of these lifetime appointments. Just as Senate Democrats cleared the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit without delay, so, too, the nomination of this Hispanic nominee to another circuit court was cleared on the Democratic side last week. All Democratic Senators serving on the Judiciary Committee voted to report her nomination favorably. All Democratic Senators indicated that they were eager to proceed with her nomination and, after a reasonable period of debate, we voted on her nomination. I am confident this nomination will be confirmed by an extraordinary majority--maybe unanimously. It is most unfortunate that so many partisans in this administration and on the other side of the aisle insist on bogging down consensus matters and consensus nominees in order to focus exclusively on the most divisive and controversial of this President's nominees as he continues his efforts to pack the courts. Democratic Senators have worked very hard to cooperate with this administration in order to fill judicial vacancies. What the other side seeks to obscure is our effort, our fairness and the progress we have been able to achieve without much help from the other side or the administration. The fact is that when Democrats became the Senate majority in the summer of 2001, we inherited 110 judicial vacancies. Over the next 17 months, despite constant criticism from the administration, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of President Bush's nominees, including several who were divisive and controversial, several who had mixed peer review ratings from the ABA and at least one who had been rated not qualified. Despite the additional 40 vacancies that arose, we reduced judicial vacancies to 60, a level below that termed ``full employment'' by Senator Hatch. Since the beginning of this year, in spite of the Republican's fixation on the President's most controversial nominations, we have worked hard to reduce judicial vacancies even further. As of today, the number of judicial vacancies has been reduced to 47 and is the lowest it has been in 13 years. That is lower than at any time during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration. We have already reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to 47, in 2 years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.4 percent, the lowest it has been in the last two decades. With some cooperation from the administration think of the additional progress we could be making. Earlier this month, we were able to obtain Senate consideration of the nomination of Judge Prado, and another distinguished Hispanic nominee who was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last month--Judge Cecilia Altonaga to be a Federal judge in Florida. We expedited consideration of that nominee at the request of Senator Graham of Florida. I am told that she is the first Cuban-American woman to be confirmed to the Federal bench. Indeed, Democrats in the Senate have worked to expedite fair consideration of every Latino nominee this President has made to the Federal trial courts in addition to the nominations of Judge Prado and Judge Callahan. Today, I urge the leadership to allow us to consider the nomination of Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike the divisive nomination of Carolyn Kuhl to the same court, both home-State Senators support the nomination of Judge Callahan. Rather than disregarding time-honored rules and Senate practices, I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to help us fill more judicial vacancies more quickly by bringing those nominations that have bipartisan support, like Judge Callahan, to the front of the line for committee hearings and floor votes. As I have noted throughout the last 2 years, the Senate is able to move expeditiously when we have consensus, mainstream nominees to consider. In a recent column, David Broder noted that he asked Alberto Gonzales if there was a lesson in Judge Prado's easy approval, but that Mr. Gonzales missed the point. In Mr. Broder's mind: ``The lesson seems obvious. Conservatives can be confirmed for the courts when they are well known in their communities and a broad range of their constituents have reason to think them fair-minded.'' Judge Consuelo Callahan is another such nominee. To date the Senate has proceeded to confirm 124 of President Bush's nominees, 100 in the 17 months in which Democrats comprised the Senate majority. The lesson that less controversial nominees are considered and confirmed more easily was the lesson of the last 2 years, but that lesson has been lost on this White House and the current Senate leadership. Unfortunately, far too many of this President's nominees raise serious concerns about whether they will be fair judges to all parties on all issues. Those types of nominees should not be rushed through the process. I regret the administration's refusal to work with us to end the impasse it has created in connection with the Estrada nomination. The partisan politics of division that the administration is practicing with respect to that nomination are not helpful and not respectful of the damage done to the Hispanic community by insisting on so divisive a nominee. I invite the President to work with us and to nominate more mainstream individuals like Judge Prado and Judge Callahan whose proven records and bipartisan support make it easier for us to uphold our constitutional duty of advise and consent. I look forward to casting a vote in favor of her confirmation to the Circuit Court. In connection with the unexplained Republican delay before consideration of the nomination of Judge Prado, some suggested that Judge Prado had been delayed because Democratic Senators were likely to vote for him and thereby undercut the Republican's shameless charge that opposition to Miguel Estrada is based on his ethnicity. We all know that the White House could have cooperated with the Senate by producing Mr. Estrada's work papers. This would have enabled the Senate to have voted on the Estrada nomination months ago. The request for his work papers was sent last May 15 and has been outstanding for a year. Rather than respond as every other administration has over the last 20 years and provide access to those papers, this White House has stonewalled. Rather than follow the policy of openness outlined by Attorney General Robert Jackson in the 1940s, this administration has stonewalled. And Republican Senators and other partisans could not wait to claim that the impasse created by the White House's change in policy and practice with respect to nominations was somehow attributable to Democrats being anti-Hispanic. The charge would be laughable if it were not so calculated to do political damage and to divide the Hispanic community. That is what Republican partisans hope is the result. That is wrong. Unfortunately, in the case of Mr. Estrada, the administration has made no effort to work with us to resolve the impasse. Instead, there has been a series of votes on cloture petitions in which the opposition has grown and from time to time the support has waned. Recently, there have been press reports indicating that Mr. Estrada asked the White House months ago to withdraw his nomination. I understand his frustration. If this administration is not going to follow the practice of every other administration and share with the Senate the government work papers of the nominee--the very practice this administration followed with an EPA nominee in 2001--then I can understand him not wanting to be used as a political pawn by the administration to score partisan, political points. That the administration has not acceded to his reported request but has plowed ahead to force a succession of unsuccessful cloture votes and to foment division in our Hispanic community for partisan gain is another example of how far this administration is willing to go to politicize the process at the expense of its own nominees. Judge Callahan enjoys the full support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Not a single person or organization has submitted a letter of opposition or raised concerns about her. No controversy. No red flags. No basis for concern. No opposition. This explains why her nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous, bipartisan vote on an expedited basis. During President Clinton's tenure, 10 of his more than 30 Latino nominees, including Judge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Christine Arguello to the circuit courts, were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes by the Republican leadership. Republicans delayed consideration of Judge Richard Paez for over 1,500 days, and 39 Republicans voted against him. The confirmations of Latina circuit nominees Rosemary Barkett and Sonia Sotomayor were also delayed by Republicans. Judge Barkett was targeted for delay and defeat by Republicans based on claims about her judicial philosophy, but those efforts were not successful. After significant delays and an unsuccessful Republican filibuster, 36 Republicans voted against the confirmation of Judge Barkett. Additionally, Judge Sotomayor, who had received the ABA's highest rating and had been appointed to district court by President George H.W. Bush, was targeted by Republicans for delay or defeat when she was nominated to the Second Circuit. She was eventually confirmed, although 29 Republicans voted against her. The fact is that the Latino nominations that the Senate has received from this administration have been acted upon in a expeditious manner. They have overwhelmingly enjoyed bipartisan support. Under the Democratically-led Senate, we swiftly granted hearings for and eventually confirmed Judge Christina Armijo of New Mexico, Judge Phillip Martinez and Randy Crane of Texas, Judge Jose Martinez of Florida, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum, and Judge Jose Linares of New Jersey to the district courts. This year, we also confirmed Judge James Otero of California, and we would have held his confirmation hearing last year if his ABA peer rating had been delivered to us in time for the scheduling of our last hearing. As I have noted, we also have recently confirmed Judge Cecilia Altonaga and Judge Edward Prado with unanimous Democratic support. Judge Callahan's nomination has been delayed on the Senate executive calendar unnecessarily in my view. I recall all too vividly when anonymous Republican holds delayed Senate action on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Second Circuit for 7 months. It is time to act on this widely supported, uncontroversial Latina nominee. I urge the Senate leadership to bring her nomination up for a vote without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the tax reconciliation bill being considered by the Senate today. This tax cut bill is not fiscally responsible. When President Bush entered the White House our country enjoyed a record budget surplus. The fiscal irresponsibility of this administration quickly turned that surplus into record deficits. Now this bill will bring our country further into debt, cause more hard working Americans to lose their jobs, and put a greater share of the tax receipts in the pockets of our country's most privileged. I have several concerns about the bill before us. First, these tax cuts are tilted even more heavily to the very wealthy than the tax cuts the President championed in 2001. Just look at the rate reductions. For three income brackets, rates would drop by 2 percentage points, but the top rate falls by 3.6 percentage points. While the 2001 bill calls for marriage penalty relief beginning in 2004, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Senator Jeffords to provide immediate marriage penalty relief to those who qualify for the earned-income tax credit. Sadly, this administration has chosen to support tax policies where people making over $1 million will reap enormously, while working families will receive very little tax relief. Second, these plans have taken tax gimmickry to a whole new level by pretending that most of the provisions will expire after just 3 years, at the end of 2005. By doing so, this bill attempts to jam in as much of the President's dividend tax proposal as they can into the Senate's $350 billion limit at the expense of more reasonable tax cut provisions aimed at low- and middle-income working families. It is obvious that proponents of these tax cuts have no intention of allowing any of these provisions to expire and in fact will come back to this floor again and again asking for them to be made permanent. Instead of acting in a fiscally responsible manner, they are masking from the American people the true, astronomical costs of this bill. Third, these cuts will push our country deeper in debt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the President's full tax cut would add $2.7 trillion to the deficit through 2013. At the same time the administration is pushing for Congress to pass a $1 trillion increase in the Federal debt limit that does not account for additional tax cuts. I do not think we can afford another large tax cut at this time until we get our own fiscal house in order. Clearly, this tax cut plan is not about growing the economy or creating jobs. It is about starving the Government and wooing some voters. In fact, leading economists have stated repeatedly that the elimination of taxes on dividends paid to investors--the centerpiece of the President's tax cut proposal--would do very little to spur economic growth or reduce the Nation's jobless rate. In 2001, I voted against the Bush tax cut bill because it was too skewed toward the wealthiest Americans and too fiscally irresponsible. Since then, we have gone from record surpluses to record deficits, and the economy is still floundering. Passing another enormous tax cut this year will only continue this trend and increase the economic problems that our children and grandchildren will inherit. Earlier this year, the President said we should not pass our fiscal problems onto future Presidents, Congresses, and generations. I agree with him. Unfortunately, this tax cut bill will drive us deeper into debt and will do exactly what the President says we should avoid, burden our children. While the promise of another tax cut sounds great, I am not going to ask my children and grandchildren and everyone else's children and grandchildren to pay for it. It is not right. It is not fair. And it is not the American way.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the majority leader. I think that is important, because we do not want to impose requirements which have the unintended result of impeding the ability of these organizations to do their work, or interfering with our ability to support them. section 333

Mr. LEAHY. This provision says that no funds made available to carry out this act may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy ``explicitly opposing'' prostitution and sex trafficking. On its face, this provision appears harmless. No one here supports prostitution or sex trafficking. In fact, we abhor these practices, which are demeaning and degrading towards women, and also extremely dangerous. The rate of HIV infection among prostitutes in Cambodia is estimated to be 40 percent. India is facing a similar catastrophe. It is no secret that commercial sex workers and sex trafficking are a major cause of HIV transmission in Asia and in parts of Africa. We all want to see these practices end. But the reality is that they exist. Prostitution and sex trafficking are rampant, not only in parts of Africa and Asia, but in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics, the Caribbean, and parts of Latin America. Any effective strategy to combat HIV/AIDS must include programs to reduce its spread through prostitution and sex trafficking. As difficult as it is, this reality cannot be ignored. There are organizations who work directly with commercial sex workers and women who have been the victims of trafficking, to educate them about HIV/AIDS, to counsel them to get tested, to help them escape if they are being held against their will, and to provide them with condoms to protect themselves from infection. This work is not easy. It can also be dangerous. It requires a relationship of trust between the organizations and the women who need protection. I am concerned that this provision, which requires such organizations to explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking, could impede their effectiveness. In fact, some or many of these organizations may refuse to condemn the behavior of the women who trust they need in order to convince them to protect themselves against HIV. I would ask the Majority Leader how we can avoid that result, because we need to be able to support these organizations.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, and wonder if I could ask him to address a concern I and other Senators have about a provision entitled ``Limitation'' which is located on page 62, line 13 of the bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I will not speak long. In times of national stress there is an understandable impulse for the government to ask for more power. Sometimes more power is needed, but sometimes it is not. After the September 11 attacks, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion and with unprecedented speed to craft and enact the USA PATRIOT Act, which enhanced the government's surveillance powers. Now, as we consider S. 113--and we anticipate a possible sequel to the USA PATRIOT Act--it is vital for us first to examine and understand how Federal agencies are using the power that they already have. We must answer two questions: First, is that power being used effectively? Our citizens want not only to feel safer, but to be safer. They need results, not rhetoric. Second, is that power being used appropriately, so that our liberties are not sacrificed, the openness of our society and our government are preserved, and our tax dollars are not squandered? Unfortunately, the FBI and the Department of Justice have either been unwilling or unable to help us to answer these basic questions. Moreover, the information that we have gleaned on our own through our bipartisan oversight efforts has not inspired confidence. In February, Chairman Grassley, Chairman Specter and I released a detailed report based on the oversight that the Judiciary Committee conducted in the 107th Congress. That report distilled our bipartisan findings and conclusions from numerous hearings, classified briefings and other oversight activities. Our oversight demonstrated the pressing need for reform of the FBI. In particular, it focused on the FBI's failures in implementing what is already in FISA. The administration's response to our bipartisan oversight report has been to dismiss it as ``old news'' relating to problems that are all already fixed. In short, ``everything is fine'' at the FBI and they plan to do nothing to respond to the systemic criticisms in the Specter, Grassley, Leahy report. Predictably, however, Congress is asked yet again to expand the FISA statute. The bill that we are considering, S.113, adopts a ``quick fix'' approach. With slick names like the ``Moussaoui fix,'' and the ``lone wolf'' bill, it is aimed at making Americans feel safer, but it does nothing to address the problems that actually plague our intelligence gatherers. It does nothing to fix the real problems that plagued the FBI before 9/11 and that continue at the FBI. In private briefings, even FBI representatives have stated that they do not need this change in the law in order to protect against terrorism. They are getting all the warrants they want under the current law. Sunset provisions, such as the one I helped add during the Judiciary Committee markup, allow us to adopt such measures as S. 113 on a temporary basis. The reporting requirement that is being added to the bill on the floor is another welcome improvement, which will help us to ascertain whether this surveillance tool is working properly or not. The reporting requirement is similar to those proposed in a bill I introduced with Senators Grassley and Specter--S. 436, the Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act. While there is little evidence that this bill is necessary, it does create significant problems. First, it tears FISA from one of its most basic moorings. FISA was intended to assist in gathering intelligence about foreign powers and their agents. The Kyl-Schumer proposal would simply read that requirement out of the law for a whole class of FISA cases. As introduced, the bill essentially said that a ``person'' is now a ``foreign power,'' which makes little sense as a matter of logic or policy. As reported by the Judiciary Committee, the bill's wording makes more sense, but the fundamental policy problem remains. Second, in the rare case of a true ``lone wolf,'' our federal law enforcement agents already have potent tools at their disposal, including the title III wiretap, the rule 41 search warrant, and the grand jury subpoena. These provide ample means to combat isolated criminal acts, but with more accountability and judicial supervision than the FISA surveillance authorities. Far from addressing a true problem, then, all that S.113 would do is encourage the use of the secret, unchecked FISA process for an entire class of cases that are more appropriately handled as criminal matters. To the extent that some believe that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, I support the more measured and practical approach that Senator Feinstein developed, and that I was pleased to cosponsor. The Feinstein approach is to create a statutory presumption to assist the FBI in terrorism cases. Using this approach, when the government shows probable cause to believe that a non-U.S. person is engaging in international terrorism, the FISA Court may presume that the person is also an agent of a foreign power. This permissive presumption would allow law enforcement some extra leeway in international terrorism cases, but without simply removing the foreign power nexus from a huge class of FISA matters altogether. I commend Senator Feinstein for her work on this amendment. I believe it is a constructive and reasonable compromise. It would give the FBI what it claims to need as a practical matter, to ensure that it can use FISA against individuals like Zacarias Moussaoui, whose ties to a foreign power may be difficult to prove. At the same time, the amendment would preserve some discretion on the part of the FISA court to determine that an individual should not be subject to surveillance because he is not, in fact, an agent of a foreign power. The FISA court should not become an automatic adjunct of the executive branch. That would destroy the checks and balances that keep us all free. Let's make sure they have the ability to act as a court. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr LEAHY

Mr LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to denounce, in the strongest terms, the recent deplorable actions by the regime of President Fidel Castro. While the world focuses on the aftermath of the war in Iraq and the enormity of Saddam Hussein's atrocities are revealed, we must not ignore egregious violations of human rights taking place much closer to home. I have long believed that the way to encourage democratic reform and respect for human rights in Cuba is not through isolation of this tiny island nation, but through the normalization of our relationship. I totally oppose the restrictions on the right of Americans to travel to Cuba. But the recent crackdown against pro-democracy dissidents in Cuba is not only a reprehensible affront to human decency, it has threatened already strained relations between Cuba and the United States and between Cuba and the rest of the world. My visit to Cuba in March 1999 reinforced my belief in the folly of our antiquated policy. I met with President Castro and a number of political activists. I saw firsthand the need for ending not only the embargo--which simply compounds the misery of Cuba's people and provides President Castro with a convenient excuse, but the repression and pervasive climate of fear perpetrated by that government. On March 18, the Cuban government suddenly launched an attack against its political opponents. After storming their houses, seizing their computers, typewriters, fax machines and books, the government arrested 79 people, accusing them of subverting Cuba's government by conspiring with James Cason, the head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. They were charged with the vague crime of ``collaborating with a foreign power against their homeland.'' Less than 3 weeks later, the Cuban courts had tried, convicted and sentenced at least 75 of these people in a whirlwind process of closed- door trials lasting less than one day in improvised courts where undercover security agents who had infiltrated dissident groups surfaced as witnesses. The punishments for conduct, that in most countries would not even be criminal, ranged from 6 to 28 years in prison. Those arrested in this crackdown include leaders of independent labor unions and opposition political parties, independent journalists, librarians, and pro-democracy activists. More than half of the arrests were local organizers of the Varela Project reform effort. The Varela Project collected more signatures than the constitutionally required 10,000 for a national referendum calling for electoral reforms, freedom of association, and amnesty for nonviolent political prisoners. The Cuban government responded with a counter petition, decreeing the Cuban socialist system to be untouchable. While local organizers received some of the heavier sentences, Osvaldo Paya, head of the Varela Project, was not arrested. Mr. Paya said that the crackdown is ``an attempt to kill the chances of peaceful change in Cuba, but [dissidents] will continue seeking peaceful reforms.'' At a meeting this month of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the Swedish foreign minister warned that the crackdown in Cuba could harm its prospects for cooperation with the European Union. On March 10, the European Commission opened its first diplomatic office in Havana. Cuba is applying for membership in the Cotonou Agreement--the economic assistance pact between the EU and African, Caribbean, and Pacific nations. Cubans would benefit significantly from the Cotonou Agreement, but Cuba's entry is now in jeopardy. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights also adopted a resolution to send a U.N. envoy to Cuba to investigate human rights abuses, but Cuban officials have apparently rejected this. The Bush administration is reportedly considering punitive measures to restrict the flow of American dollars to Cuba by further limiting the number of Americans who may travel to Cuba on charter flights, and by reducing the monetary remittances that Cubans in the United States send back to their families in Cuba. Unfortunately, such measures would only hurt the wrong people. If this were not bad enough, earlier this month, Cuban authorities detained three men who had hijacked a ferry crossing the Florida Straits on its way to the United States. Less than 24 hours later, these men were summarily executed by a firing squad. No one supports the act of hijacking, and people of good conscience disagree about the death penalty. But such an outrageous denial of due process should be universally condemned. As one who strongly opposes the policy of the Bush administration and previous U.S. administrations of isolating Cuba, a policy which for more than 40 years has failed to achieve any of its goals. I want to add my voice to those who have denounced these recent events. Human rights are universal. They are every much the rights of the Cuban people as they are the rights of people everywhere. When they are denied, we are all diminished. The United States cannot prevent the wholesale violation of human rights by the Cuban government or any government. But we can speak up. We can say to them that this is unacceptable. We can say do not trouble us with your farcial explanations and excuses. And we can say, with confidence, that those whose rights are so blatantly denied today will one day show their oppressors the real meaning of ``revolution''--one that is based on the rights of man, not the brutality of one man.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.