Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my respected colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, a bill designed to improve the health of our Nation's schoolchildren. I am also pleased to have the support of Senators Bingaman, Dodd and Jeffords, who have worked with me in past Congresses on this bill. I am hopeful that in the coming weeks many more Senators will join us in this important effort. We have an obesity crisis in America. Too many children are gaining too much weight. Advertisements for soda and candy bombard them from television, vending machines, and grocery store aisles. Schools, however, should be a healthy refuge from the outside world, where kids can learn to make the right choices when it comes to their diets. Nutrition education needs to be a critical component of every child's school day. But with all of the funds that Congress rightly appropriates each year for nutrition education and healthy school lunches and meals, our Nation's efforts are severely undermined when children have to walk through a gauntlet of vending machines offering unhealthy choices on the way to the cafeteria. Under current regulations, schools may not offer soda, hard candies or other foods of minimal nutritional value in the cafeteria during lunch or breakfast. Unfortunately, some private companies have offered schools signing bonuses to openly flout this restriction, at times lining the halls to the cafeterias with foods that provide absolutely no nutritional value. In February 2001, the Washington Post reported that a school in Maryland had signed a contract with a soda company that contained a clause forbidding the school from enforcing the Federal ban on soda machines in schools. The clause read ``If the Board of Education actively enforces the policy in which vending machines are turned off during the school day, the commission guarantee will be suspended.'' In other words, the schools could only get commissions from the vending machines if they broke the law. We can not sell our children's health to the highest bidder on a sodas contract. That is why our bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to more effectively restrict the sale of soft drinks and other foods of minimal nutritional value in schools that participate in the Federal school lunch program. We would give the Secretary authority to regulate these foods throughout the school grounds, until the end of the school lunch period. Our bill also mandates that the Secretary use the best science available to determine which foods provide no nutritional value. My bill will ensure that students are not substituting empty calorie sodas and snacks for their nutritious federally subsidized school meals. According to a report issued by the Center for Science and the Public Interest, 20 years ago boys consumed more than twice as much milk as soda; now boys and girls drink twice as much soda as milk. This is a huge problem, particularly for girls--the teenage years are critical for building up a woman's lifetime supply of calcium. Girls who substitute soda for milk are at a greater risk for developing osteoporosis later in life. We must provide our kids with better options. I have no problem with vending machines themselves, but let's get vending machines that sell fresh milk, fruits and vegetables into our schools. Senator Lugar and I have successfully worked together on many important issues relating to child nutrition and agriculture in the past. I am extremely pleased that we can work together again to create healthier schools and healthier children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Better Nutrition for Schoolchildren Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we will soon be voting on the nomination of Judge Cecilia Altonaga to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. I believe that Judge Altonaga will be the first Cuban-American woman to sit on the Federal bench. Judge Altonaga comes to us with bipartisan support after being unanimously approved by Florida's bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee. I commend Senators Graham and Nelson for insisting that a bipartisan selection commission be implemented in Florida. This shows how well it works. We are moving down judicial vacancies. As we can see, starting in 1994, judicial vacancies increased actually under Republican control of the Senate. It went from 63 up to 110. When Democrats took control and I became chairman, we cut that almost immediately from 110 to 60, with nominees of President Bush, notwithstanding all of President Clinton's nominees who had been blocked. Circuit court nominees went from 16 vacancies under Republican Senate leadership up to 33. When I became chairman, we cut it immediately to 25. I note that because we did move to cut those vacancies--even though, in this case, it is Cuban-American women--there were many Hispanics and women nominated by President Clinton who were blocked or delayed by the Republican majority. We were told that unless every single Republican agreed, even if one disagreed, they would not get a hearing or a vote. We had nominees such as Christine Arguello, Jorge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Ricardo Morado who were never given hearings, including Judge Richard Paez, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and Judge Hilda Tagle who were stalled for no good reason. Even though President Clinton's nominees had been blocked, we, the Democrats, when we took over, moved President Bush's nominees for the same spots. I urge the White House to work with more Senators in forming selection commissions to ensure that we have nominees who are supported in their communities and come to the Senate with true, bipartisan support. Under this administration, we have seen the recommendations of such bipartisan panels rejected or stalled. Instead, the recommendations of these important bipartisan commissions should be honored and encouraged by expedited consideration before the committee and on the floor of the Senate. Judge Altonaga is active in her community. She is a member of the Florida International University Law School Advisory Board, and belongs to the Dade County Bar Association, the Cuban American Bar Association, and the Florida Association of Women Lawyers. She has served as a member of the National Advisory Committee for Cultural Considerations in Domestic Violence Cases, the Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, and the First Family Law American Inns of Court. During the 17 months I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I worked hard to ensure that women and minorities were considered for the federal bench, and I am proud of that record. Many Hispanics and women nominated by President Clinton were blocked or delayed by the Republican majority, and I did not want to see that repeated. Fine nominees such as Christine Arguello, Jorge Rangel, Enrique Moreno and Ricardo Morado were never given hearings. Others, including Judge Richard Paez, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and Judge Hilda Tagle, were stalled for no good reason. I am proud that did not happen on my watch. I am glad to say that we quickly considered and confirmed nominees such as Christina Armijo to the District Court in New Mexico, Philip Martinez, to the District Court in Texas, Jose Martinez to the District Court in Florida, Alia Ludlum to the District Court in Texas, and Jose Linares to the District Court in New Jersey. Also during the 17 months I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, three judicial nominees were confirmed to the District Courts of Florida. Timothy J. Corrigan was confirmed to the Middle District of Florida, and Jose E. Martinez and Kenneth A. Marra, were both confirmed to the Southern District of Florida. I congratulate Judge Altonaga and her family on her confirmation. Today the Senate is reducing the number of Federal judicial vacancies to the lowest level it has been in 13 years. The 110 vacancies I inherited in the summer of 2001 have been more than cut in half. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee we not only kept up with attrition but reduced those 110 vacancies to 60 with Judge Altonaga's confirmation and that of Patricia Minaldi we will have 47 vacancies for the entire federal judiciary. I thank all Senators for working with us. I thank the Democratic leadership for pressing for this vote on Judge Altonaga. I have spoken about her and urged this vote since she was reported by the Judiciary Committee almost 1 month ago. Since July 2001 a number of Senators have worked very hard to repair the damage done during the years 1995 through the early part of 2001. We made significant progress. Unfortunately, our efforts have received little acknowledgement and the current administration continues down the strident path of confrontation and court packing rather than working with Senators of both parties to identify and nominate consensus, mainstream nominees. While the Nation's unemployment rate rose last month to 6 percent, the vacancy rate on the federal judiciary has been lowered to 5.6 percent. While the number of private sector jobs lost since the beginning of the Bush administration is 2.7 million, almost 9 million Americans are now out of work, and unemployment has risen by more than 45 percent, Democrats in the Senate have cooperated in moving forward to confirm 123 of this President's judicial nominees, reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest level in years, and reduce federal judicial vacancies by almost 60 percent. Yet the Republican-led Senate remains obsessed with seeking to force through the most divisive of this President's controversial, ideologically-chosen nominees. In just the last 2 years, 123 of the President's judicial nominees will have been confirmed. One hundred of those confirmations came during the 17 months of Democratic leadership of the Senate. No fair- minded observer could term that obstructionism. By contrast, during the six and one-half years during which Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton's nominations were being considered, they averaged only 38 confirmations a year. During the last two years of the Clinton administration, the Senate confirmed only 73 Federal judges. Combining the 1996 and 1997 sessions, Republicans in the Senate allowed only 53 judges to be confirmed in two years, including only seven new judges to the circuit courts. One entire congressional session, the Republican-led Senate confirmed only 17 judges all year and none at all to the circuit courts. The Senate confirmed 72 judges nominated by President Bush last year alone under Democratic leadership. The fact is that when Democrats became the Senate majority in the summer of 2001, we inherited 110 judicial vacancies. These are the facts. 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 an 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'' on the federal judiciary by Senator Hatch. Since the beginning of this year, in spite of the fixation of the Republican majority 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 is at 47. That is the lowest it has been in several years. That is lower than it ever was allowed to go at any time during the entire eight years of the Clinton administration. We have already reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to 47, in less than two years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.6 percent, the lowest it has been since 1990. With some cooperation from the administration think of the additional progress we could be making. The President promised to be a uniter not a divider, but he has continued to send us judicial nominees that divide our Nation and, in the case of Miguel Estrada, he has even managed to divide Hispanics across the country. The nomination and confirmation process begins with the President, and I urge him to work with us to find a way forward to unite, instead of divide, the Nation on these issues. Republican talking points will likely focus on the impasse on two of the most extreme of the President's nominations rather than 123 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. What is unprecedented about the Estrada matter is that the administration and Republican leadership have shown no willingness to be reasonable and accommodate Democratic Senators' request for information traditionally shared with the Senate by past administrations. That we have endured numerous cloture votes is an indictment of Republican intransigence on this matter, nothing more. What is unprecedented is that there has been no effort on the Republican side to work this matter out, as these matters have always been worked out in the past. What is unprecedented is that the Republican insistence to schedule cloture vote after cloture vote without first resolving the underlying problem caused by the administration's inflexibility. What is unprecedented about the Owen nomination is that it was made at all. Judge Owen had a fair hearing and was given fair consideration for the Judicial Committee last year. We proceeded is spite of the fact that the Republican majority had refused to proceed with any of President Clinton's Fifth Circuit nominees during his last 4-year term. Never before in our history has a President renominated for the same vacancy someone voted down by the Judiciary Committee. From 1995 through the summer of 2001, the Republican majority averaged only 38 confirmations a year with only seven to the Courts of Appeals. That explains why Federal judicial vacancies rose from 63 to 110 on the Republican watch and circuit vacancies more than doubled from 16 to 33. Of course, during those years there were no Republican- led hearings calling for prompt action or fair consideration of President Clinton's moderate judicial nominees. To the contrary, Senator Ashcroft held hearings designed to justify the slowdown. Senator Ashcroft and others perfected the practice of using anonymous holds both in committee and on the floor so that judicial nominees were stalled for months and years without consideration. Scores of nominees never received hearings, at least 10 who received hearings never received committee consideration and those who were ultimately considered often were delayed months and years. Beginning in July 2001, Democrats started bringing accountability and openness to the process. In the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority we held more hearings on more judicial nominees, held more Committee votes and more Senate votes than before. We were able virtually to double the pace and productivity of the process. We did away with the secrecy of the ``blue slip'' and the anonymous hold. We considered President Bush's nominees fairly, responsibly and in those 17 months confirmed 100 of this President's nominees. We reversed the destructive trends with respect to the number of vacancies and length of time that nominees had to wait to be considered. While we could not consider all nominations simultaneously, we considered more, more quickly than in the preceding years. The Democratic majority inherited 110 judicial vacancies including a record 33 to the circuit courts. By December 2002, we were able through hard work to outpace the 40 additional vacancies that had arisen and reduce the remaining vacancies to 60, including 25 to the circuit courts. We have continued to cooperate and today the remaining vacancies number 47, including 20 on the circuit courts. This is the lowest vacancy number and lowest vacancy rate in 13 years. Senator Hatch used to say, when President Clinton was nominating moderates to more than 100 vacancies, that there was no vacancies crisis. He used to say that he considered 67 vacancies to be ``full employment'' on the Federal judiciary. Today we are well short of 100 vacancies and well beyond what he used to term ``full employment'' with 47 vacancies. Today I expect the Senate to consider and confirm both Judge Cecilia Altonaga, who will be the first Cuban-American woman to serve on the Federal judiciary, and Patricia Minaldi, and thereby bring the remaining vacancies down to 47. The Committee continues to report nominations to fill additional vacancies, as well as, with another hearing scheduled for tomorrow. This is not to say that our work is done. Last week, with the help and hard work of the Senate Leadership we were able to make additional progress. Last Wednesday, Majority Leader Frist used that word ``progress'' to describe how we have been able to resolve complications caused by the manner in which these nominations were forced through the Judiciary Committee. Last Thursday, I thanked the majority leader and the Democratic leader and others for their efforts in this regard and for working with us to bring the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to a vote without further, unnecessary delay. Yesterday, the Senate debated and voted on the nomination of Deborah Cook to the Sixth Circuit. She is the fourth nominee of President Bush to be confirmed to the Sixth Circuit in less than 2 years. During the entire second term of President Clinton, the Republican majority would not hold hearings or consider a single one of President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth Circuit--not Judge Helene White, not Kathleen McCree Lewis, not Professor Kent Markus. Nonetheless, while I was chair of the Judiciary Committee we proceeded to consider and confirm two conservative nominees of President Bush to the Sixth Circuit and this year the Senate has proceeded to confirm two more. The work of the Senate would be more productive if this administration were more interested in filling vacancies with qualified, consensus nominees rather than packing the federal courts with activist judges. The nominations and confirmation process begins with the President. Far from being someone who has sought consensus and to unite us on judicial nominees, this President has used judicial nominees as a partisan weapon and sought sharply to tilt the courts ideologically. That is unfortunate. Some of us have urged another course, a course of cooperation and conciliation, but that is not the path this administration has chosen. Yet, in spite of the historically low level of cooperation from the White House, the Senate has already confirmed 123 of President Bush's judicial nominees, including some of the most divisive and controversial sent by any President. Last week, the Senate proceeded to a vote on the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit. He received the fewest number of favorable votes of any nominee in almost 20 years with 52. He is the third controversial judicial nominee of this President against whom more than 40 negative votes were cast, yet those three nominees were not stalled and not subjected to a filibuster. Our Senate leadership, both Republican and Democratic, have worked to correct some of the problems that arose from some of the earlier hearings and actions of this committee. Last week, we were able to hold a hearing on the nomination of John Roberts to the District of Columbia Circuit. We are all working hard to complete committee consideration of that nomination at the earliest opportunity. Thus, a number of additional, controversial nominations are in the process of being considered and will be considered by the Senate in due course. My point is to underscore that we have made and are making real progress from the thoroughgoing obstruction from 1996 until 2001. While ``the glass is not full,'' it is more full than empty and more has been achieved than some want to acknowledge. One hundred and twenty-three lifetime confirmations in less than 2 years is better than any 2-year period from 1995 through 2000. We have reduced judicial vacancies to 47, which is the lowest number and lowest vacancy percentage in 13 years. During the entire eight-year term of President Clinton it was never allowed by Republicans to get that low. We have made tremendous progress. These achievements have not been easy. The administration has chosen confrontation with the Congress, with the Senate and with this Committee. We are now proceeding at three to four times the pace Republicans maintained in reviewing President Clinton's judicial nominees. We have reached the point where this Committee and the Senate are often moving too fast on some nominations and we risk becoming a racing conveyor belt that rubber stamps rather than examines these lifetime appointments. Democrats have worked hard to repair the damage to the confirmation process and achieved significant results. Republicans seem merely results oriented and interested in ideological domination of the federal courts. As Republicans turn their guns on the propriety of the filibuster in connection with judicial nominations, I trust the Republican majority will not overlook the precedent on this question. Republicans not only joined in the filibuster of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, they joined in the filibuster of Stephen Breyer to the First Circuit, Judge Rosemary Barkett to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the Third Circuit, and Judge Richard Paez and Judge Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit. The truth is that filibusters on nominations and legislative matters and extended debate on judicial nominations, including circuit court nominations, have become more and more common on the initiative of Republicans working against Democratic nominees. Now that a Republican President, intent on packing the courts with ideologues, has seen two nominees delayed by filibusters, and even though the other 123 judges he nominated have been confirmed, partisans want to change the rules to make it easier for this President to get his way. Of course, when they are in the majority Republicans have more successfully defeated nominees by refusing to proceed on them and have not publicly explained their actions, preferring to act in secret under the cloak of anonymity. From 1995 through 2001, when Republicans previously controlled the Senate majority, Republican efforts to defeat President Clinton's judicial nominees most often took place through inaction and anonymous holds for which no Republican Senator could be held accountable. Republicans held up almost 80 judicial nominees who were not acted upon during the Congress in which President Clinton first nominated them and eventually defeated more than 50 judicial nominees without a recorded Senate vote of any kind, just by refusing to proceed with hearings and Committee votes. These are just the sorts of stealth tactics Democrats have rejected. Beyond judicial nominees, Republicans also filibustered the nomination of Executive Branch nominees. They successfully filibustered the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to become Surgeon General of the United States in spite of two cloture votes in 1995. Dr. David Satcher's subsequent nomination to be Surgeon General also required cloture, but he was successfully confirmed. Other Executive Branch nominees who were filibustered by Republicans included Walter Dellinger's nomination to be Assistant Attorney General. Two cloture petitions were required to be filed on that nomination and both were rejected by Republicans. We were able finally to obtain a confirmation vote for Professor Walter Dellinger after significant efforts and he was confirmed to be Assistant Attorney General with 34 votes against him. He was never confirmed to his position as Solicitor General because Republicans had made clear their opposition to him. In addition, in 1993, Republicans objected to a number of State Department nominations and even the nomination of Janet Napolitano to serve as the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, resulting in more cloture petitions. In 1994, Republicans successfully filibustered the nomination of Sam Brown to be an Ambassador. After three cloture motions were filed, his nomination was returned to President Clinton without Senate action. Also in 1994, two cloture motions were required to get a vote on the nomination of Derek Shearer to be an ambassador. And it likewise took two cloture motions to get a vote on the nomination of Ricki Tigert to chair the FDIC. So when Republican Senators now talk about the Senate Executive Calendar and Presidential nominees, they must be reminded that they recently filibustered many, many qualified nominees. Filibusters should be and are rare. That there are two this year is a direct result of the strategy of confrontation sought by the White House and Senate Republicans. The administration holds the key to ending the Estrada impasse, as it has for the last year. It should cooperate with the Senate and provide access to his work papers, following the example set by all previous Republican and Democratic administrations. The renomination of Judge Owen was most ill-advised and unprecedented. Her nomination had already been rejected after fair hearings and thorough debate and a Committee vote last year. Some apparently want to rewrite the rules so that this President can have every nominee confirmed, no matter how divisive and controversial, by the Republican Senate majority. Recently, I heard a respected Republican and senior advisor to the majority leader describe cloture as ``the fulcrum on which you balance the rights of the individual and the rights of the institution.'' He explained how important the rights of the minority party are in the Senate and how Senate rules are deliberately constructed to reflect that and protect the minority. That Republicans are now intent on rewriting longstanding Senate rules shows just how partisan and ends- oriented they have become. The President promised to be a uniter not a divider, but he has continued to send us judicial nominees that divide our Nation. He has even managed to divide Hispanics across the country with the nomination of Mr. Estrada. He has managed to outrage disabled individuals by his nomination of Jeffery Sutton. The nomination and confirmation process begins with the President. I, again, urge him to work with us to identify and nominate qualified, consensus, mainstream nominees who all Americans can be confident will be fair and impartial and to abandon his ideological court-packing scheme. Mr. President, am I correct that at 2:30 p.m. the vote is to take place?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my respected colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, a bill designed to improve the health of our Nation's schoolchildren. I am also pleased to have the support of Senators Bingaman, Dodd and Jeffords, who have worked with me in past Congresses on this bill. I am hopeful that in the coming weeks many more Senators will join us in this important effort. We have an obesity crisis in America. Too many children are gaining too much weight. Advertisements for soda and candy bombard them from television, vending machines, and grocery store aisles. Schools, however, should be a healthy refuge from the outside world, where kids can learn to make the right choices when it comes to their diets. Nutrition education needs to be a critical component of every child's school day. But with all of the funds that Congress rightly appropriates each year for nutrition education and healthy school lunches and meals, our Nation's efforts are severely undermined when children have to walk through a gauntlet of vending machines offering unhealthy choices on the way to the cafeteria. Under current regulations, schools may not offer soda, hard candies or other foods of minimal nutritional value in the cafeteria during lunch or breakfast. Unfortunately, some private companies have offered schools signing bonuses to openly flout this restriction, at times lining the halls to the cafeterias with foods that provide absolutely no nutritional value. In February 2001, the Washington Post reported that a school in Maryland had signed a contract with a soda company that contained a clause forbidding the school from enforcing the Federal ban on soda machines in schools. The clause read ``If the Board of Education actively enforces the policy in which vending machines are turned off during the school day, the commission guarantee will be suspended.'' In other words, the schools could only get commissions from the vending machines if they broke the law. We can not sell our children's health to the highest bidder on a sodas contract. That is why our bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to more effectively restrict the sale of soft drinks and other foods of minimal nutritional value in schools that participate in the Federal school lunch program. We would give the Secretary authority to regulate these foods throughout the school grounds, until the end of the school lunch period. Our bill also mandates that the Secretary use the best science available to determine which foods provide no nutritional value. My bill will ensure that students are not substituting empty calorie sodas and snacks for their nutritious federally subsidized school meals. According to a report issued by the Center for Science and the Public Interest, 20 years ago boys consumed more than twice as much milk as soda; now boys and girls drink twice as much soda as milk. This is a huge problem, particularly for girls--the teenage years are critical for building up a woman's lifetime supply of calcium. Girls who substitute soda for milk are at a greater risk for developing osteoporosis later in life. We must provide our kids with better options. I have no problem with vending machines themselves, but let's get vending machines that sell fresh milk, fruits and vegetables into our schools. Senator Lugar and I have successfully worked together on many important issues relating to child nutrition and agriculture in the past. I am extremely pleased that we can work together again to create healthier schools and healthier children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Better Nutrition for Schoolchildren Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we consider another controversial and divisive judicial nomination, that of Deborah Cook to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Just last week we debated and voted on the controversial nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit. The vote on his confirmation received the fewest positive votes in almost 20 years. Only 52 Senators voted in favor of his confirmation and appointment to the Sixth Circuit. This number demonstrates the serious opposition many conscientious Senators have to some of the extreme nominations this administration has been insisting be confirmed in its continuing effort to take ideological control of the Federal courts. The nomination of Deborah Cook to be Judge Sutton's colleague on the Sixth Circuit also presents many serious problems. I believe that it is important to make the record clear that her nomination has a unique procedural posture, especially in light of the recent history of Republican obstruction of President Clinton's nominations to that important court. These procedural controversies are in addition to significant substantive concerns raised by Justice Cook's record as an activist State judge. Similar to Justice Priscilla Owen, Deborah Cook's judicial record is replete with evidence of results-oriented reasoning. Similar to Priscilla Owen, Justice Cook has demonstrated herself to be an activist judge. Justice Cook sits on a court that is numerically dominated by Republicans. Given the partisan politicization of the judiciary by Republicans over the last several years, one might expect that Justice Cook would be part of the Ohio Supreme Court's majority in all but rare instances and that the two Democratic judges might be the most frequent dissenters. However, Justice Cook is the most active dissenter on the Republican-dominated Ohio Supreme Court. She is the most extreme of her colleagues and demonstrates an inability to reach consensus with seemingly like-minded judges. I fear that if confirmed, her inability to reach a consensus would further polarize the Sixth Circuit, as well. Justice Cook's dissents distort precedent, misinterpret legislative intent and demonstrate results-oriented reasoning in an effort to suppress workers' rights. She has repeatedly voted to protect corporations that have harmed or lied to employees. One example is Bunger v. Lawson, where a convenience store employee who had been robbed at gunpoint was denied psychological trauma remedies, while the employer had failed to install basic safety features such as a working phone and door locks. Similar to Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice Cook's own Republican colleagues have criticized her extremist opinions. The court in Bunger called Justice Cook's interpretation of the law ``nonsensical,'' and said that it, ``leads to an untenable position that is unfair to employees.'' Taking the position adopted by Justice Cook in her dissent would be, as the majority clearly stated, ``an absurd interpretation that seems borrowed from the pages of Catch-22.'' Similarly, Justice Cook sought to deny workers compensation benefits to another employee in a case called Russell v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. In Russell, Justice Cook's dissent ignored the plain language of the statute and the relevant precedent regarding workers compensation benefits. The Court's opinion stated that Justice Cook's dissent: lacks statutory support for its position [and she] has been unable to cite even the slightest dictum from any case to support its view . . . . [the] dissent's argument, which has not been raised by the commission, the bureau, the claimant's employer, or any of their supporting amici, is entirely without merit. Russell at 1073-74. I ask my colleagues, is this the type of judge who should be given a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench? As a former prosecutor, I am also troubled by Justice Cook's opinions that repeatedly seek to disregard jury findings in powerful discrimination cases. Anyone who has ever tried a case to verdict before a jury knows how much time and effort goes into the lengthy process. For this reason, jury verdicts should be given the utmost respect on appeal. In Byrnes v. LCI Communications, Justice Cook voted with a 3-judge plurality to overturn a $7.1 million jury verdict for employees in an age discrimination case despite powerful evidence of statements made by the employer about the relative merits of having a younger staff. Evidence in the plaintiffs' favor in this case included blatant statements from the employer that he wanted ``to bring in young, aggressive staff managers and change out the old folks,'' and that ``some of the older folks there could no longer contribute.'' In Byrnes, the jury also heard testimony that the employer said a certain worker was, ``too old to grasp the concepts that he was looking for,'' and that he did not, ``want old marathoners in my sales organization . . . I want young sprinters.'' These statements are directly relevant to a jury's determination whether the employer engaged in age discrimination. Yet, Justice Cook demonstrated her lack of respect for the jury's role in our system of justice by voting to overturn the jury's determination. Unfortunately, this case is not an isolated incident. Justice Cook also voted to overturn jury verdicts in other discrimination cases such as Gliner v. St. Gobain Norton Industries and Perez v. Falls Financial Incorporated. In addition to her apparent bias against workers' rights, Justice Cook opposes the rights of consumers and victims even in the most compelling cases. For example, in Sutowski v. Eli Lilly, Justice Cook wrote for a divided majority that denied plaintiffs the ability to claim damage to their reproductive systems due to in utero exposure to DES, a drug known to cause cancer and reproductive disorders. She denied these victims the ability to rely on the market-share theory in their complaints against the manufacturers even though the market-share theory was virtually invented for DES cases where hundreds of companies manufactured the drug but the victims could have no idea by whose drug they were affected. Her colleagues in dissent severely criticized Justice Cook's opinion stating that she ``selectively quoted,'' from a prior Ohio case: . . . to create the impression that the General Assembly is the only appropriate body to recognize the market-share liability theory in DES litigation. The majority then uses that misguided impression as a platform for launching into a tortured analysis of Ohio's Products Liability Act. It is here that the majority's shell game becomes most deceptive. In another case, Williams v. Aetna Finance, Justice Cook dissented from the majority's affirmation of the trial courts' holding that an arbitration clause was unconscionable in a case involving a scheme to defraud elderly African American home owners into home improvement loans at exorbitant rates. These are just a few examples of the hundreds of cases that Justice Cook has decided as a State court judge. They provide a picture of a judge with a proclivity for stretching the boundaries of precedent to rule against victims and workers in favor of corporations. On the substance of her record as a judge, I have concluded that Deborah Cook is a conservative activist who is hostile to consumers, victims, workers and civil rights. The prospect of elevating this activist judge to a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench has generated a significant amount of controversy. We have received letters of opposition from many national organizations that represent labor and consumers, as well as local citizens groups and law professors who oppose her nomination to the Sixth Circuit. Justice Cook's nomination was forced out of the Judiciary Committee over the objection of the Democratic Senators and in violation of our longstanding Committee rules. The Democratic members of the Committee sought additional time to debate her nomination. Such requests have always before been honored on the Judiciary Committee, which for 24 years had a rule providing protection for minority rights to debate. Rule IV requires the votes of 10 Senators to bring a matter to a vote and one of those votes to end debate must be cast by a member of the minority. In their determination to bring this controversial nominee to the floor in February, Republicans unilaterally overruled the Committee rules by not allowing a vote to end debate over the objection of Democratic Senators. Along with several other Senators, I voted ``present'' in protest of this violation of our rules and rights. Over the last several weeks our Republican and Democratic Senate leadership has discussed the violation of Senators' rights that occurred on February 27. I thank them for their attention to these matters and for working with us to address our concerns. In addition, there is the serious matter of the mistreatment of previous nominations to the Sixth Circuit by the Republican majority. Deborah Cook is nominated to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court to which President Clinton had an impossible time getting his nominees considered. For years, the Sixth Circuit has been one of the prime targets of Republicans intent on ideological court packing. During President Clinton's entire second term, not a single nominee to the Sixth Circuit was allowed a hearing or a vote by the Republican majority. Three highly qualified, moderate nominees to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Helene White, Kathleen McCree Lewis and Professor Kent Markus, were all denied hearings and votes in the years 1997 through 2001. Republicans today fail to acknowledge that the vacancies that have plagued the Sixth Circuit in recent years are the result of their tactics to prevent any action on any of President Clinton's nominees. Judge Helene White of the Michigan Court of Appeals was nominated in January 1997 and did not receive a hearing on her nomination during the more than 1,500 days before her nomination was withdrawn by President Bush in March 2001. Judge White's nomination may have set an unfortunate but unforgettable record. Her nomination was pending without a hearing for more than four years. She was one of almost 80 Clinton judicial nominees who did not get a hearing during the Congress in which first nominated. Unfortunately, she was also denied a hearing after being renominated a number of times over the next four years, including in January 2001. Likewise, Kathleen McCree Lewis, a distinguished African American lawyer from a prestigious Michigan law firm was also never accorded a hearing on her 1999 nomination to the Sixth Circuit. This daughter of a former Sixth Circuit judge and Solicitor General of the United States was never accorded a hearing or vote by the Republican majority. Her nomination was withdrawn by President Bush in March 2001 without ever having been considered. Professor Kent Markus was another outstanding nominee to a vacancy on the Sixth Circuit. He had served at the Department of Justice and was nominated by President Clinton in 1999, but never received a hearing before his nomination was returned to President Clinton without action in December 2000. While Professor Markus' nomination was pending, his confirmation was supported by individuals of every political stripe, including 14 past presidents of the Ohio State Bar Association and more than 80 Ohio law school deans and professors. As Professor Markus testified last year, he was told by Republicans that some on the other side of the aisle held these seats open for years for a Republican President to fill, instead of proceeding fairly on the consensus nominees then pending before the Senate. The Republican majority was unwilling to move forward, knowing that retirements and attrition would create four additional seats that would arise naturally for the next President. That is how the Sixth Circuit was left with eight vacancies, half of its authorized strength, in 2001. Had Republicans not blocked President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth Circuit, if the three Democratic nominees had been confirmed and President Bush appointed the judges to the other vacancies on the Sixth Circuit, that court would be almost evenly balanced between judges appointed by Republican and Democratic Presidents. That is what Republican obstruction was designed to prevent--balance. The same is true of a number of other circuits, with Republicans benefiting from their obstructionist practices of the preceding six and a half years. This, combined with President Bush's refusal to consult with Democratic Senators about these matters, is particularly troubling. Long before some of the recent voices of concern were raised about the vacancies on the Sixth Circuit, Democratic Senators in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 implored the Republican majority to give President Clinton's distinguished and moderate Sixth Circuit nominees hearings. Those requests, made not just for the sake of the nominees but for the sake of the public's business before the court, were ignored. Numerous articles and editorials urged the Republican leadership to act on those nominations. The growing vacancies on the Sixth Circuit were ignored by the Republican majority. The former Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit, Judge Gilbert Merritt, wrote to the Judiciary Committee Chairman years ago to ask that the nominees get hearings and that the vacancies be filled. The Chief Judge predicted that by the time the next President was inaugurated, there would be at least six vacancies on the Court of Appeals. In fact, there were soon eight. Despite all these pleas, no hearing on a single Sixth Circuit nominee was held in the last three full years of the Clinton Administration. Not one. The situation was exacerbated further as two additional vacancies arose. And regrettably, despite my best efforts, this White House has rejected all suggestions to redress the legitimate concerns of Senators in that circuit that qualified, moderate nominees were blocked by Republicans Senators during the previous administration. Instead, the White House forwarded several extreme nominees to fill the seats that their party held hostage while leading the Senate during the prior administration. When I scheduled the April 2001 hearing on the nomination of Judge Gibbons to the Sixth Circuit, it was the first hearing on a Sixth Circuit nomination in almost 5 years, even though three outstanding, fair-minded individuals were nominated to the Sixth Circuit by President Clinton and pending before the Committee for anywhere from one year to over 4 years. Despite the partisan treatment of President Clinton's nominees, I went forward. The conservative Judge Gibbons was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2002, by a vote of 95 to 0. We did not stop there, but proceeded to hold a hearing on a second Sixth Circuit nominee, Professor John Marshall Rogers, just a few short months later in June. This conservative was likewise confirmed last year. Thus, the Democratically-led Senate proceeded to hold hearings, give Committee consideration and confirm two of President Bush's conservative nominees to the Sixth Circuit last year. With the confirmations of Judge Julia Smith Gibbons of Tennessee and Professor John Marshall Rogers of Kentucky, Democrats confirmed the only two new judges to the Sixth Circuit in the previous 5 years. Under the current Republican leadership, our Committee raced to hold Justice Cook's hearing at the same time as two other controversial circuit court nominees, including Jeffrey Sutton. This triple hearing resulted in a marathon sitting lasting almost 12 hours. Most of the questioning focused on Jeffrey Sutton and relatively little time was dedicated to Justice Cook. Many Democrats serving on the Judiciary Committee requested an additional hearing for Justice Cook and Mr. Roberts. That request was denied for Justice Cook. We invited Justice Cook and Mr. Roberts to meet with us. That request was denied. Then Republicans overrode our longstanding Committee rules in order to report those nominations without proper consideration before the Judiciary Committee. This nomination is one of a long line of divisive and controversial nominations on which this Administration and the Republican majority in the Senate insist. They are taking full advantage of their power after having unfairly refused to consider President Clinton's well qualified, moderate nominees and now insisting that the administration's ideological court packing scheme be put into effect. The ideological takeover of the Sixth Circuit is all but complete with the confirmation of Judge Gibbons, Professor Rogers, Mr. Sutton and now Justice Cook.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few months the International Criminal Court, ICC, has taken important steps towards becoming an effective forum to hold accountable those accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. By all accounts, the countries participating in these negotiations did an excellent job of selecting qualified jurists and, perhaps most importantly, a responsible and experienced prosecutor. But an important voice is missing from these negotiations. That voice is the United States, a country which was founded on the principles of the rule of law, human rights, and democratic freedoms. Perhaps more than at any other time, the past few months have highlighted the folly of the Bush administration's policy towards the ICC. The whole world wants the United States to be involved with the development of this institution. Yet, instead of seizing this opportunity to shape the Court in our interests, we are one of the only democracies sitting on the sidelines--joined by some of the world's worst human rights offenders. It is an embarrassment, and contrary to the arguments of those who oppose the Court, it is self-defeating. Instead of making sure that the ICC will function the way we want it to, this Administration withdrew our signature from the Rome Treaty and supported legislation, the American Service Members Protection Act, openly hostile to the ICC. Instead of working to influence the selection of judges, prosecutors, and other ICC officials, our negotiators are not even sitting at the table. Has the administration taken this position because they believe engagement is not a viable strategy to promote U.S. interests in international negotiations? Clearly not. One need only look at their position on military training assistance to the Indonesian Armed Forces. Despite the fact the Indonesian military is a corrupt, brutal institution that has been implicated in the deaths of American citizens, the State Department says that U.S. aid to this institution ``provides a vehicle for the United States to impart our ideas about civil-military relations to foreign military audiences, and to promote military reform.'' I don't favor training the Indonesian military unless they show they want to reform. Then we can and should help them. But the ICC is an institution designed to punish the world's worst criminals. The Administration refuses to engage with the ICC, but it will engage with the Indonesian military. If anything, it should be the other way around. We should be working to shape the ICC, an imperfect but potentially valuable institution, to promote U.S. interests, while distancing ourselves from institutions that are corrupt, abusive and incapable of reform. The administration points to efforts to combat international terrorism as the reason that it wants to restore military training for Indonesia. The same can be said for the ICC. The Court could become an important forum to try dictators or others involved in atrocities-- providing an important tool to deter acts of international terrorism. Another explanation for the administration's policy might be that the United States simply got nowhere during previous negotiating sessions and further engagement simply will not yield results. In fact, during the negotiations on the Rome Treaty, the U.S. delegation worked to ensure that the Court will serve our national interests by being a strong, effective institution. They succeeded in inserting a number of important safeguards, including provisions to deter frivolous prosecutions. Like any international agreement, the U.S. did not get 100 percent of what we wanted in the negotiations. However, that is why the U.S. should remain involved with the Court. As the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, has said, U.S. policy toward the International Criminal Court should be one of ``aggressive engagement.'' Instead, the Bush administration has taken its bat and ball and walked off the field. While this might make those opposed to the Court feel better, the fact of the matter is that the ICC is a reality--even the Bush administration acknowledges this. It is rapidly becoming operational and will have jurisdiction over offenses committed on the territory of state parties, even if those offenses are committed by the citizens of nonparty states. Bush administration officials have said over and over that the power of the prosecutor is one of the main reasons that they oppose the ICC. In March, the New York Times reported that, because of the historic role that the United States has played in international justice, many nations sought to appoint an American as Chief Prosecutor to the Court. I can think of few measures that would have been more effective in accomplishing the Administration's stated goal of guarding against political prosecutions of American soldiers than having an American citizen serve as Chief Prosecutor. However, the New York Times article went on to point out that the Administration's policy of being openly hostile towards the ICC was precluding an American from being appointed to this critical position. Ultimately, an Argentine was selected as the prosecutor. While this prosecutor appears to be a very capable, distinguished individual, one gets the sense that if U.S. policy towards the ICC had been less hostile, an American would now occupy that position. The U.S. need not be estranged from the ICC. Our closest allies, almost all of whom are strong supporters of the Court, have made it clear that with or without U.S. ratification of the Rome Treaty they would welcome our involvement in guiding its development. As a signatory to the final document of the Rome Conference we had the right to participate in all of the various preparatory meetings leading up to the creation of the Court. Despite its concerns about the Court--or rather, because of them--it is bewildering that the Bush administration chose to not even send U.S. representatives to participate in the final negotiations. Instead of supporting frivolous legislation that declares war on The Hague and would cut off military assistance to a number of key friends and allies, this administration should reconsider its position on the ICC. By sitting on the sidelines, the United States is losing out on its ability to influence the structure and culture of this important new institution. Each time we refuse to join another treaty or international organization, which has become a pattern of this administration, we erode our international leadership. I urge the administration to re-engage in a discussion with the Congress, and with our allies, of how the United States can once again play a constructive, leadership role in ensuring that the International Criminal Court effectively carries out its historic mandate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my Child Nutrition Initiatives Act of 2003. This legislation consists of a number of proposals that I believe will significantly improve the nutrition benefits available to our Nation's children through Federal child nutrition programs. I am hoping that this legislation will serve as a starting point in the Senate's debate over how to improve child nutrition programs this year. It is not meant to be a comprehensive proposal for reauthorization, nor does it represent all of the potential improvements that could be made to the programs that I will be supporting in the Agriculture Committee. I look forward to working with Chairman Cochran and with Senator Harkin, the ranking Democrat on the Committee, as well as the rest of the Committee to craft a comprehensive bill. The Committee has already held two hearings on child nutrition legislation, where we heard from a wide variety of nutritionists, school food service operators and others interested in these programs. They presented us with a wide variety of ideas, some of them appearing in my bill, which underlined the immense impact of these programs to the nutritional health and well-being of all of our children and grandchildren. Undersecretary Bost also testified, and he too offered an array of proposals for improving these programs. I look forward to more detailed proposals from the Department of Agriculture on how we can better serve the children in these programs. I was encouraged to hear that the Administration is interested in providing much-needed financial help for schools choosing to improve their nutritional environment. We know that many school food service directors and employees want to offer healthier, more appetizing options to the children they serve, yet the cost of providing attractive fresh fruits and vegetables, or milk in child-friendly plastic containers kept chilled in a cooler, is often prohibitive. Increased per-meal reimbursements will encourage school cafeterias to spend more on the foods that are healthiest for kids. With these funds, schools will be able to make the salad bar and the milk cooler just as attractive to school children as less nutritious foods. Healthier food in the school cafeteria does little good if children do not understand the benefits of eating apples over high-fat junk food. For years, the Nutrition Education and Training, NET, program provided critical support for state and local efforts to increase and improve nutrition education in classrooms. It is in the classrooms where the most effective and innovative nutrition education is happening, and NET offered teachers the resources they needed to develop a nutritional curriculum for their students. Unfortunately, this program has not been funded in the last few years. My bill would reinstate funding for the NET program, and encourage strong nutrition education at the local level. It is amazing how many kids do not know where the food that they eat comes from. It's also amazing how far some farm products travel to get to the cafeteria table. My bill includes a farm-to-cafeteria program that will provide one-time grants to connect farms with their local school system. These grants would be used to buy equipment and pay for other costs to provide the freshest farm products available to our children. Projects funded by the farm-to-cafeteria program would also give children first-hand experience about how food is produced. This new program would also provide economic benefits for small, local firms by keeping food dollars within the community. My support for these new farm-to-cafeteria projects comes in part from the amazing successes demonstrated by the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Years ago, I helped create this program, which provides vouchers to WIC families good for fruits and vegetables at their local farmers market. The effects of this program have been stunning. In Vermont, recipients and farmers are raving about this program, which provides fresh, local, and healthy food to those who need it most. There has also been an unexpected educational component to this program, with many recipients reporting that the farmers who sell them the food have also helped them learn how to best prepare it. This is a win-win situation. My bill will secure steady and predictable funding for the Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Every State receives a small amount of funds to administer and ensure the integrity of all Federal child nutrition programs. Though these funds are distributed based on usage of the programs, there has been an all-State minimum to ensure that all States still have enough funds to meet the basic administrative requirements mandated by law. This minimum, however, has not been raised since 1981, despite inflation and expansion of the responsibilities of the states. My bill updates the minimum funding level to reflect inflation since 1981 and also indexes it for inflation into the future. I am pleased that my bill has the support of the American School Food Service Association, the National Association for Farmers Market Nutrition Programs, the National Milk Producers Federation, the International Dairy Foods Association, and the Community Food Service Coalition. Opponents of my bill will undoubtedly point to the cost of these programs, stating ``there is no money for such programs.'' Well, I answer them with one word: priorities. Our Nation is faced with a growing health crisis. Children are growing up and growing out. They eat more, eat less nutritious foods and exercise less. It is a health epidemic that plagues them throughout life. By acting now, we can increase the quality of life for these children and save in healthcare costs down the line. For example, a study for the American School Food Service Association and the National Dairy Council found that by improving the quality, and therefore consumption, of milk in our school lunch programs, we could save between $800 million to $1.1 billion in health care costs every year. I joined with a number of fellow senators in requesting that Congress provide a modest increase of $1 billion per year in the Budget Resolution so that we on the authorizing committees might make some long-awaited and essential improvements to the child nutrition programs. I am disappointed that increased funds were not provided. The Senate sent a clear message to America's children: we would rather give a several hundred billion dollar tax cut to a small minority of health adults than protect our children, through $1 billion in programming, from a health crisis. The Federal Government reaches well over 25 million children each year with these programs. We have a tremendous opportunity to be proactive--to teach kids about food and give them nutritious options. We have a growing health crisis on our hands as our children grow wider because of unhealthy diets and less exercise. We must get serious about finding solutions to the problem. Or we can wait, and allow a system already doing its very best, working at maximum capacity, to deteriorate. I am for acting now and I hope the Senate is too. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my Child Nutrition Initiatives Act of 2003. This legislation consists of a number of proposals that I believe will significantly improve the nutrition benefits available to our Nation's children through Federal child nutrition programs. I am hoping that this legislation will serve as a starting point in the Senate's debate over how to improve child nutrition programs this year. It is not meant to be a comprehensive proposal for reauthorization, nor does it represent all of the potential improvements that could be made to the programs that I will be supporting in the Agriculture Committee. I look forward to working with Chairman Cochran and with Senator Harkin, the ranking Democrat on the Committee, as well as the rest of the Committee to craft a comprehensive bill. The Committee has already held two hearings on child nutrition legislation, where we heard from a wide variety of nutritionists, school food service operators and others interested in these programs. They presented us with a wide variety of ideas, some of them appearing in my bill, which underlined the immense impact of these programs to the nutritional health and well-being of all of our children and grandchildren. Undersecretary Bost also testified, and he too offered an array of proposals for improving these programs. I look forward to more detailed proposals from the Department of Agriculture on how we can better serve the children in these programs. I was encouraged to hear that the Administration is interested in providing much-needed financial help for schools choosing to improve their nutritional environment. We know that many school food service directors and employees want to offer healthier, more appetizing options to the children they serve, yet the cost of providing attractive fresh fruits and vegetables, or milk in child-friendly plastic containers kept chilled in a cooler, is often prohibitive. Increased per-meal reimbursements will encourage school cafeterias to spend more on the foods that are healthiest for kids. With these funds, schools will be able to make the salad bar and the milk cooler just as attractive to school children as less nutritious foods. Healthier food in the school cafeteria does little good if children do not understand the benefits of eating apples over high-fat junk food. For years, the Nutrition Education and Training, NET, program provided critical support for state and local efforts to increase and improve nutrition education in classrooms. It is in the classrooms where the most effective and innovative nutrition education is happening, and NET offered teachers the resources they needed to develop a nutritional curriculum for their students. Unfortunately, this program has not been funded in the last few years. My bill would reinstate funding for the NET program, and encourage strong nutrition education at the local level. It is amazing how many kids do not know where the food that they eat comes from. It's also amazing how far some farm products travel to get to the cafeteria table. My bill includes a farm-to-cafeteria program that will provide one-time grants to connect farms with their local school system. These grants would be used to buy equipment and pay for other costs to provide the freshest farm products available to our children. Projects funded by the farm-to-cafeteria program would also give children first-hand experience about how food is produced. This new program would also provide economic benefits for small, local firms by keeping food dollars within the community. My support for these new farm-to-cafeteria projects comes in part from the amazing successes demonstrated by the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Years ago, I helped create this program, which provides vouchers to WIC families good for fruits and vegetables at their local farmers market. The effects of this program have been stunning. In Vermont, recipients and farmers are raving about this program, which provides fresh, local, and healthy food to those who need it most. There has also been an unexpected educational component to this program, with many recipients reporting that the farmers who sell them the food have also helped them learn how to best prepare it. This is a win-win situation. My bill will secure steady and predictable funding for the Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Every State receives a small amount of funds to administer and ensure the integrity of all Federal child nutrition programs. Though these funds are distributed based on usage of the programs, there has been an all-State minimum to ensure that all States still have enough funds to meet the basic administrative requirements mandated by law. This minimum, however, has not been raised since 1981, despite inflation and expansion of the responsibilities of the states. My bill updates the minimum funding level to reflect inflation since 1981 and also indexes it for inflation into the future. I am pleased that my bill has the support of the American School Food Service Association, the National Association for Farmers Market Nutrition Programs, the National Milk Producers Federation, the International Dairy Foods Association, and the Community Food Service Coalition. Opponents of my bill will undoubtedly point to the cost of these programs, stating ``there is no money for such programs.'' Well, I answer them with one word: priorities. Our Nation is faced with a growing health crisis. Children are growing up and growing out. They eat more, eat less nutritious foods and exercise less. It is a health epidemic that plagues them throughout life. By acting now, we can increase the quality of life for these children and save in healthcare costs down the line. For example, a study for the American School Food Service Association and the National Dairy Council found that by improving the quality, and therefore consumption, of milk in our school lunch programs, we could save between $800 million to $1.1 billion in health care costs every year. I joined with a number of fellow senators in requesting that Congress provide a modest increase of $1 billion per year in the Budget Resolution so that we on the authorizing committees might make some long-awaited and essential improvements to the child nutrition programs. I am disappointed that increased funds were not provided. The Senate sent a clear message to America's children: we would rather give a several hundred billion dollar tax cut to a small minority of health adults than protect our children, through $1 billion in programming, from a health crisis. The Federal Government reaches well over 25 million children each year with these programs. We have a tremendous opportunity to be proactive--to teach kids about food and give them nutritious options. We have a growing health crisis on our hands as our children grow wider because of unhealthy diets and less exercise. We must get serious about finding solutions to the problem. Or we can wait, and allow a system already doing its very best, working at maximum capacity, to deteriorate. I am for acting now and I hope the Senate is too. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I have any remaining time, I yield it.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for some reason the Republican leadership is forcing what may be the fifth vote on a cloture motion on this divisive and controversial nomination. I mention that because none of these cloture motions would have been needed if the administration had simply cooperated with the Senate as did prior administrations, Democratic and Republican. I have been here with six different administrations. The previous five always, no matter who was President, no matter who was in the majority in the Senate, always showed cooperation on judicial nominations as, I believe, has every President in the last century. Not this one. I mention that because we are having this vote yet nothing has changed since the last cloture vote. No effort has been forthcoming by the administration to accommodate Senators' requests for access to the executive branch documents requested last May, almost a year ago. Everybody says Mr. Estrada is perfectly willing to come up and answer Senators' questions but not to answer the only questions the Senators really want to ask him. Remember, this man was appointed based on what the administration knows of his writings while employed in the government. They have access to these writings. They say, in effect: Trust us. I am a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan's position: Trust but verify. I would like him to verify what was in these writings. We have not had access to them. If we did, we wouldn't be needing all these cloture votes. Since the beginning of this year, despite the 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 is 49. That is the lowest it has been in many 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, when I became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to 49. We did this in less than 2 years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.7 percent, the lowest it has been in a decade. If we could get even a modicum of cooperation from the administration, think of the additional progress we could be making. The Nation's unemployment rate rose last month to 6 percent, but the vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary dipped to 5.7 percent. While the number of private sector jobs lost since the beginning of this administration is 2.7 million, and while almost 9 million Americans are now out of work, and unemployment has risen by more than 45 percent during this administration, Democrats in the Senate have cooperated, moving forward to confirm 121 of the President's judicial nominees to reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest level in more than a decade and to reduce Federal judicial vacancies by more than 60 percent. Apparently, the majority in the Senate remains obsessed in seeking to force through the most divisive of this President's controversial, ideologically chosen nominees. While they have pushed the Nation's unemployment rate up to 6 percent, they have focused their energies on dropping the vacancy rate of the Federal judiciary to below that. I think it is unfortunate that the White House and some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have insisted on this confrontation rather than working with us to provide the needed information so we could proceed on the Estrada nomination. Some seem to prefer political game playing, seeking to pack the courts with ideologues and leveling baseless charges of bigotry at those who may disagree with them, rather than working with us on this nomination by providing information and proceeding to a fair vote. We have spent day after day on this nomination that will not go any further until the nominee is given permission to provide answers to us regarding the same questions that were obviously asked by the administration. What was it he wrote that made the administration want to appoint him to the second highest court in the land? On one level, I admire their efforts to get this high-paying lifetime job for this nominee. Maybe they should talk about the 9 million Americans who do not have any lifetime job, who now don't have any job; or the 2.7 million Americans who have lost their jobs since this administration came into office. Maybe we should be debating that. Maybe we should be working to put them back to work. Apparently, the administration believes it is more important to have this one job. In that regard, just as any employer would want to know why they should hire a particular person, we in the Senate have a right to ask what is it in this man's record that made the administration want to appoint him to the second highest court in the land. But they don't want us to see what it was on which they based their decision. Maybe they believe the Senate is irrelevant. That is not the way I read the advise and consent clause. Let us see what brought them to their conclusion, and then let us go forward. Let's actually take those steps that would unite us rather than divide us, and then maybe the administration will be able to turn to the lives of the millions upon millions of Americans who are out of work--the highest unemployment rate in a decade. To reiterate, today the Republican leadership in the Senate is forcing what may be the fifth vote on a cloture motion on this divisive and controversial nomination. None of these motions would have been needed if the administration had cooperated with the Senate as have prior administrations, Democratic and Republican. Nothing has changed from the last cloture vote. No effort has been forthcoming by the administration to accommodate Senators' requests for access to the executive branch documents requested last May, almost 1 year ago. The White House continues to obstruct any progress toward resolving this matter by its unprecedented refusal to turn over documents requested to determine whether or not Miguel Estrada should sit on the second highest court in the land, for life. Mr. Estrada's nomination is apparently being sacrificed by the administration for its own partisan, political purposes. I do want to thank the Democratic leadership in the Senate for working with us and helping press for a vote on the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to the Fifth Circuit last week. We had been seeking that vote for several weeks, since his nomination was favorably reported with the support of every Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. Last Thursday, the Republican leadership at last agreed to schedule that nomination for Senate consideration. Judge Prado's nomination was confirmed 97 to zero. This nomination is another example of how quickly the Senate is able to proceed on consensus, mainstream nominees. Judge Prado has 19 years of experience as a U.S. District Court judge. Our review of his actions on the bench showed him to have a solid record of fairness and evenhandedness. No supervisor or colleague of Judge Prado has questioned his willingness to interpret the law fairly. Judge Prado enjoyed the full support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Not a single person or organization submitted a letter of opposition or raised concerns about Judge Prado. Judge Prado is now the second nominee of this President to be confirmed by the Senate to the Fifth Circuit after years during which President Clinton's nominees were denied hearings and consideration by a Republican Senate majority. Although Republicans had refused to proceed on three of President Clinton's nominees to that court--two from Texas and one from Louisiana--during his entire second term, Democrats proceeded with hearings and committee votes on all three of President Bush's nominees. Judge Prado is the fourth nominee of this administration to receive a hearing and consideration. Still stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar is the nomination of Judge Cecilia Altonaga to be a Federal judge in Florida. Senator Graham requested that the Judiciary Committee expedite the consideration of her nomination, and we did. All Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee supported this nomination. She will be the first Cuban- American woman to be confirmed to the Federal bench, whenever the Republican majority is willing to proceed on her nomination. In my view, the Senate's time would be better spent this evening voting on this nomination than another unsuccessful cloture vote on the Estrada nomination. Unfortunately, that is not how the Republican leadership has chosen to proceed. The administration remains intent on packing the Federal circuit courts and on insisting that the Senate rubberstamp its nominees without fulfilling this body's constitutional advise and consent role in this most important process. The White House could have long ago helped solve the impasse on the Estrada nomination by honoring the Senate's role in the appointment process and providing the Senate with access to Mr. Estrada's legal work. Past administrations have provided such legal memoranda in connection with the nominations of Robert Bork, William Rehnquist, Brad Reynolds, Stephen Trott and Ben Civiletti, and even this administration did so with a nominee to the Environmental Protection Agency. In my statement in connection with an earlier cloture petition, I outlined additional precedent for sharing the requested materials with the Senate, as did Senator Kennedy. I am disappointed that the White House refuses to end this problem and, instead, continues to politicize the process. We understand that the President's nominees will be Republicans. We understand they will be conservative. We understand that they will have positions with which we disagree. I have voted for hundreds of nominees who were conservative Republicans. In just the last 2 years, 121 of the President's judicial nominees have been confirmed. One hundred of those confirmations came during the 17 months of Democratic leadership of the Senate. No fair-minded observer could term that obstructionism. By contrast, during the 6\1/2\ years during which Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton's nominations were being considered, they averaged only 38 confirmations a year. During the last two years of the Clinton administration, the Senate confirmed only 73 Federal judges--the Senate confirmed 72 judges nominated by President Bush last year alone. Combining the 1996 and 1997 sessions, Republicans in the Senate allowed only 53 judges to be confirmed in 2 years, including only seven new judges to the Circuit Courts. It is a shame that the White House refuses to work together with us to do even more to help the Federal judiciary. This week, we have already had a debate and vote on yet another controversial circuit court nominee, Deborah Cook, for the Sixth Circuit, and now a cloture vote on the nomination of Miguel Estrada. The fact is that when Democrats became the Senate majority in the summer of 2001, when we inherited 110 judicial vacancies, there was a dire need to fill 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 fixation of the Republican majority 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 is at 49. That is the lowest it has been in 7 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 49, in less than 2 years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.7 percent, the lowest it has been in a decade. With some cooperation from this administration, think of the additional progress we could be making. While the Nation's unemployment rate rose last month to 6 percent, the vacancy rate on the Federal judiciary dipped to 5.7 percent. While the number of private sector jobs lost since the beginning of the Bush administration is 2.7 million, almost 9 million Americans are now out of work, and unemployment has risen by more than 45 percent, Democrats in the Senate have cooperated in moving forward to confirm 121 of this President's judicial nominees, to reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest level in more than a decade, and to reduce Federal judicial vacancies by almost 60 percent. Yet the Republican-led Senate remains obsessed with seeking to force through the most divisive of this President's controversial, ideologically-chosen nominees. It is unfortunate that the White House and some Republicans have insisted on this confrontation rather than working with us to provide the needed information so that we could proceed on the Estrada nomination. Some on the Republican side seem to prefer political game playing, seeking to pack our courts with ideologues and leveling baseless charges of bigotry, rather than to work with us to resolve the impasse over this nomination by providing information and proceeding to a fair vote. I was disappointed that Senator Bennett's straightforward colloquy with Senator Reid and me on February 14, which pointed to a solution, was never allowed by hard-liners on the other side to yield results. I am disappointed that all my efforts and those of Senator Daschle and Senator Reid have been rejected by the White House. The letter that Senator Daschle sent to the President on February 11 pointed the way to resolving this matter reasonably and fairly. Republicans would apparently rather engage in partisan politics. Republican talking points will undoubtedly claim that this is ``unprecedented.'' They will ignore their own recent filibusters against President Clinton's executive and judicial nominees in so doing. The only thing unprecedented about this matter is that the administration and Republican leadership have shown no willingness to be reasonable and accommodate Democratic Senators' request for information traditionally shared with the Senate by past administrations. That this is the fifth cloture vote on this matter is an indictment of Republican intransigence on this matter, nothing more. What is unprecedented is that there has been no effort on the Republican side to work this matter out as these matters have always been worked out in the past. What is unprecedented is the Republican insistence to schedule cloture vote after cloture vote without first resolving the underlying problem caused by the administration's inflexibility. I urge the White House and Senate Republicans to end the political warfare and join with us in good faith to make sure the information that is needed to review this nomination is provided so that the Senate may conclude its consideration of this nomination. I urge the White House, as I have for more than 2 years, to work with us and, quoting from today's New York Times editorial: The answer is not to try to twist the rules or demonize Democrats. It is for the White House to consult with the Senate and agree on nominees that senators from both parties can in good conscience confirm. The President promised to be a uniter not a divider, but he has continued to send us judicial nominees that divide our nation and, in this case, he has even managed to divide Hispanics across the country. The nomination and confirmation process begins with the President, and I urge him to work with us to find a way forward to unite, instead of divide, the Nation as well as the Senate on these issues. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I know we have set a time. I wonder if the Senator from Vermont might have a minute or so to speak about this nomination.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the democratic leader and assistant leader for going to bat for Judge Edward Prado and working out this arrangement with the Republican leadership so that this consensus nomination can be considered without further delay. I appreciate that the majority leader and Senator McConnell have been willing to work with us to allow this nomination to go forward today. I was disappointed to hear on Tuesday that the Republican position was that this matter should be further delayed and I did not understand the logic or motivation behind that position. I cannot recall a time when the Senate or either party leadership insisted on strict adherence to consideration of nominations based on their calendar number. Indeed, during the period 1995 through 2001, quite the opposite was true and Democrats had to work very hard to get the Republican leadership to take up nominations that were stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar for weeks, months and sometimes years. This year we have continued to make progress on filling judicial vacancies not by holding up all nominations reported after that of Mr. Estrada but, on the contrary, by moving to those on which there is agreement and on which we can proceed most efficiently. In fact, all 20 judicial confirmations this year were nominations reported and considered after that of Mr. Estrada and after debate on the Estrada nomination had begun. We still do not know who on the Republican side delayed consideration of the consensus nomination of Judge Prado for the last month. I thank the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for its support of this nomination and for working with the Senate to bring this matter forward at this time. I also want to thank the Republican leadership for changing position and working with us to move forward. I came to the floor on Monday to make the point that the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was cleared on the Democratic side and that we were prepared to proceed. Senator Daschle and Senator Reid came before the Senate on Tuesday to urge that the Prado nomination be considered rather than be held captive on the Senate calendar. All Democratic Senators serving on the Judiciary Committee voted to report this nomination favorably. All Democratic Senators had indicated that they were eager to proceed to this nomination and, after a reasonable period of debate, voting 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. This week, again, despite Democratic willingness to proceed to a vote on the controversial nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit, the other side then insisted we proceed to the unprecedented renomination of Priscilla Owen. Mr. Sutton was confirmed with the fewest votes in favor of any judicial nominee in the last 20 years and with more than enough negative votes to have sustained a filibuster. Rather than proceed to a consensus nominee and fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Fifth Circuit with an experienced and respected Hispanic federal judge, Judge Prado, Republicans insisted on pressing forward with another of the President's most controversial and divisive nominations. 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 fixation of the Republican majority on the President's most controversial nominations, we have worked hard to reduce judicial vacancies even further. As of today, the Senate Judiciary Committee website lists the number of judicial vacancies at 48. That is the lowest it has been in 13 years. That is lower than at any time during the entire eight years of the Clinton administration. We have already reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to 48, in less than two years. We have reduced the vacancy rate from 12.8 percent to 5.6 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. Even after the consideration of Judge Prado, for example, there is another distinguished Hispanic nominee who was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last month on which the Senate will not yet have acted: on the Senate executive calendar is the nomination of Cecilia Altonaga to be a Federal judge in Florida. We expedited consideration of this nominee at the request of Senator Graham of Florida. She will be the first Cuban-American woman to be confirmed to the Federal bench when Republicans choose to proceed to that nomination. 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 nomination of Judge Prado. Another example may be the nomination of Consuelo Callahan to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike the divisive nomination of Carolyn Kuhl to the same court, both home State Senators returned their blue slips and support a hearing for Judge Consuelo Callahan. I have asked that she receive a hearing in the near future and look forward to learning more about her record as an appellate judge for the State of California. 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 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. Nationally-respected columnist David Broder made this point in an April 16 column that appeared in the Washington Post. I referenced this column earlier this week and inserted it in the Congressional Record. In his column, Mr. Broder noted that when he asked Alberto Gonzales if there might be a lesson in Judge Prado's easy approval, 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.'' To date the Senate has proceeded to confirm 120 of President Bush's nominees, 100 in the 17 months in which Democrats made up the Senate majority. The lesson that less controversial nominees are considered and confirmed more easily was the lesson of the last two years and that lesson has been lost on this White House. 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. His proven record and bipartisan support makes it easier for us to uphold our constitutional duty of advise and consent. I encourage those on the other side of the aisle to allow us to consider his nomination. I look forward to casting a vote in favor of his confirmation. Judge Prado is an exceptional candidate for elevation to the appeals court. He has significant experience as a public servant in west Texas. Perhaps the fact that he has bipartisan support is the reason why he is not being brought forward at this time for a floor vote. That does not fit the Republican message but reveals the truth: That Democratic Senators, having already acted on 120 judges nominated by President Bush, are prepared to support even more of his nominations when they are mainstream, consensus nominees. Perhaps the fact that Democrats unanimously supported his nomination in committee is seen as a drawback for Mr. Prado in the Republican world of nomination politics. I hope that is not the case. I also hope the fact that Judge Prado is Hispanic has not been a factor in the Republican delay. Some have suggested that Judge Prado has been delayed because Democratic Senators are likely to vote for him and thereby undercut the Republican's shameless charge that the opposition to Miguel Estrada is based on his ethnicity. Republican partisans have made lots of partisan hay attacking Democrats in connection with the Estrada nomination. We all know that the White House could have cooperated with the Senate by producing his work papers and the Senate could have proceeded to a vote on the Estrada nomination months ago. The request for his work papers was sent last May. 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 1940's, 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. So some have come to the conclusion that Republican delay in connection with the consideration of Judge Prado's nomination may be related to the political strategy of the White House to characterize Democrats unfairly. Might the record be set straight if Democrats were seen to be supporting this Hispanic nominee to the Fifth Circuit? Might the Republicans' own record of opposing President Clinton's nominations of Judge Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno to that same circuit court be contrasted unfavorably with Democrats' support of Judge Prado? Might Judge Prado, a conservative from Texas with a public record of service as a Federal district court judge, become the first Hispanic appointed by President Bush to the circuit courts with widespread support from Senate Democrats? Might this more mainstream, consensus nominee stand in stark contrast to the ideological choices intended to pack the courts on which the White House and Senate Republicans concentrate almost exclusively? Judge Prado has 19 years of experience as a U.S. District Court judge, which provides us with a significant judicial career to evaluate. A review of Judge Prado's actions on the bench demonstrates a solid record of fairness and evenhandedness. While I may not agree with each and every one of his rulings or with every action he has taken as a lawyer or judge, my review of his record leads me to conclude that he will be a fair judge. No supervisor or colleague of Judge Prado's has questioned his ability or willingness to interpret the law fairly. Judge Prado enjoys the full support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Not a single person or organization has submitted a letter of opposition or raised concerns about Judge Prado. No controversy. No red flags. No basis for concern. No opposition. This explains why his nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous, bipartisan vote on an expedited basis. To understand the importance of Judge Prado's nomination, we must put it in the context of prior nominations to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Until Judge Prado's hearing, it had been more than a decade since a Latino nominee to that Court had even been allowed a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, let alone a vote on the floor. I recall President Clinton's two Hispanic nominations to the Fifth Circuit and the poor treatment they received from the Republican-led Senate. Judge Jorge Rangel was a former Texas State judge and a dedicated attorney in private practice in Corpus Christi, TX when President Clinton nominated him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1997. Judge Rangel is a graduate of the University of Houston and the Harvard Law School and earned a rating of ``Well Qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Yet, under Republican leadership, he never received a hearing on his nomination, let alone a vote by the Committee or by the full Senate. His nomination languished without action for 15 months. Despite his treatment, this outstanding gentleman has recently written us in support of a judicial nominee of President Bush. After Judge Rangel, disappointed with his treatment at the hands of the Republican majority, asked the President not to resubmit his nomination, President Clinton nominated Enrique Moreno, a distinguished attorney in private practice in El Paso, TX. Mr. Moreno is a graduate of Harvard University and the Harvard Law School. He was given the highest rating of unanimously ``Well Qualified'' by the ABA. Mr. Moreno also waited 15 months, but was never allowed a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Clinton renominated him at the beginning of 2001, but President Bush, squandering an opportunity for bipartisanship, withdrew the nomination and refused to renominate him. In addition, President Clinton nominated H. Alston Johnson to the Fifth Circuit in 1999. This talented Louisianan came to the Senate with the support of both of his home state Senators but he never received a hearing on his nomination or a vote by the Committee or the full Senate in 1999, 2000, or the beginning of 2001. His nomination languished without action for 23 months. In contrast, when I served as Chair of the Judiciary Committee last Congress, we granted Edith Clement a hearing within months of her nomination. At that time there had been no hearings on Fifth Circuit nominees since 1994 and no confirmations since 1995. We also proceeded to hearings, committee debate and committee votes on the divisive and controversial nominations of Judge Priscilla Owen and Judge Charles Pickering. We granted hearings and votes on all four of this President's nominees to the Fifth Circuit in spite of the treatment Republicans accorded President Clinton's qualified nominees to that same circuit. Under Republican leadership, none of President Clinton's nominees to this Court received a hearing during his entire second term of office. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made the outrageous claim that Democratic Senators are anti-Hispanic or anti- Latino. I think it is important to set the record straight. Of the ten Latino appellate judges currently seated in the Federal courts, 8 were appointed by President Clinton. Three other Latino nominees of President Clinton to the appellate courts were blocked by Republicans--as well as several others for the district court. In fact, in contrast to the President's selection of only one Latino circuit court nominee in his first 2 years in office, 3 of President Clinton's first 14 judicial nominees were Latino, and he nominated more than 30 Latino nominees to the Federal courts. 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, 36 Republicans voted against the confirmation of this nominee who received a ``Well Qualified'' rating by the ABA. Additionally, Judge Sotomayor, who also received a ``Well Qualified'' 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 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 the nomination of Cecilia Altonaga to be a Federal judge in Florida already on the Senate Executive Calendar. I, again, urge those on the other side of the aisle to help us fill more judicial vacancies more quickly by bringing those nominations that have bipartisan support 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. That is the way to achieve 100 confirmations in 17 months and 120 in less than 2 years. The lesson that less controversial nominees are considered and confirmed more easily was the lesson of the last 2 years and that lesson has been lost on this White House. 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 invite the President to nominate more mainstream individuals like Judge Prado. His proven record and bipartisan support makes it easier for us to uphold our constitutional duty of advise and consent. I encourage those on the other side of the aisle to allow us to consider his nomination. I look forward to casting a vote in favor of his confirmation. I, again, thank the Senate Republican leadership for working with us to proceed to this consensus nomination, to provide adequate time for debate and to proceed to a vote without further delay. Judge Prado's nomination has been delayed on the Senate executive calendar for several weeks, 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. Let us work together. I thank all Senators, even those Republicans who have anonymously held up consideration of Judge Prado's nomination for the last month, for agreeing to proceed with this nomination at this time. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his elevation to the Fifth Circuit and look forward to his continuing judicial service. Again, I thank the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for its support of this nomination and for working with the Senate to bring this matter forward at this time. I do thank the Republican leadership for changing its position and working with us to move forward. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Texas in the Chamber, and if I have further time, I withhold it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I am glad my friends on the Republican side now allow Judge Prado's nomination to go forward. I intend to vote for him. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am happy that the Senate is passing S. Res. 75, a resolution that would designate May 15, 2003, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Senator Campbell and I introduced this resolution to keep alive in the memory of all Americans the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who lost their lives serving their communities. We are joined by 20 cosponsors, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch, and Judiciary Committee members Biden, Durbin, Schumer and Kohl. I commend Senator Campbell for his leadership in this issue. As a former deputy sheriff, he has experienced first-hand the risks faced by law enforcement officers every day while they protect our communities. I also want to thank each of our nation's brave law enforcement officers for the jobs they do. They are real-life heroes, too many of whom often give the ultimate sacrifice, and they remind us of how important it is to support our state and local police. Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who serve this Nation as our guardians of law and order do so at a great risk. Each year, 1 in 15 officers is assaulted, 1 in 46 officers is injured, and 1 in 5,255 officers is killed in the line of duty somewhere in America every other day. After the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 72 peace officers died while trying to ensure that their fellow citizens in those buildings got to safety. That act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of this country. In 2002, over 152 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 237 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction including better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved training, longer prison terms for violent offenders, and advanced emergency medical care. And, in total, more than 16,700 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice. National Peace Officers Memorial Day will provide the people of the United States with the opportunity to honor that extraordinary service and sacrifice. More than 15,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington to join with the families of their fallen comrades who, by their last full measure of devotion to their responsibilities and the right and security of their fellow citizens, have rendered a dedicated service to our nation. I look forward to passage of this important resolution, a fitting tribute for this special and solemn occasion.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Madam President, I regret we have to be here today, but we are here because the President has picked another fight with the Senate by renominating a divisive and controversial activist to another circuit court. That is regrettable. The Republican leadership in the Senate is forcing this confrontation at this time, and it is neither necessary nor constructive. I am sorry the White House has chosen to make these matters into partisan political fights, rather than working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to fill judicial vacancies with qualified consensus nominees. I have been here with six Presidents. Five of them, from both parties, would work with members on both sides of the aisle for consensus nominees. This is the first President who has not. Despite what is really a historic low level of cooperation from the White House--and it is the lowest level of cooperation from any White House I have ever had experience with in my 30 years in the Senate--we have already confirmed 120 of President Bush's judicial nominees. We have confirmed 120. We have rejected 2 out of 120. That is not a bad record. Some of them we voted for, including some of the most divisive and controversial nominees sent up by any President. So 120 passed, 2 are being held up. I don't know where that shows an obstructionist Senate. This week the Senate debated and voted on the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit. This was a divisive one, and I think the fact that it is so divisive is shown by the fact he got the fewest number of favorable votes of any confirmation in almost 20 years-- barely a majority. He got 52. That is the lowest number of votes any judge has had in about 20 years. That reflects the fact we have reached the point in the queue where many of these nominations divide the American people and the Senate far more than they unite us. I urge the President to be a uniter, not a divider. This is the third controversial judicial nominee of this President against whom more than 40 negative votes were cast. Our Senate Democratic leadership is working hard to correct some of the problems that arose with some of the earlier hearings and actions of the Judiciary Committee this year. Just yesterday, we were able to hold a hearing on the nomination of John Roberts to the District of Columbia Circuit. He was put in almost as an afterthought. There was a massive day of hearings, and he was not able to get a full hearing. This was done by the Republican leadership. I appreciate the fact they recognized that was wrong and they had another hearing yesterday. We are all working hard to complete committee consideration of that nomination at the earliest opportunity. The distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he will put off that nomination today for a hearing sometime next week, and we will have a vote on him. I am optimistic our leadership will be able to work out a procedure for Senate consideration of the nomination of Deborah Cook to the Sixth Circuit. So a number of controversial nominations are being considered. I point out there are other nominations, such as that of Judge Edward Prado of Texas, a distinguished Hispanic jurist. Every Democratic Senator said they are willing to go forward with a vote on him. He has been held up on the Republican side. I don't know if we are going to be blamed for holding up this judge or not. We have all agreed we are ready to go forward with a short time agreement and a vote. He will be confirmed. He is not being held up on the Democratic side, but by the Republican side, even though he is one of President Bush's nominees. There is also Judge Cecilia Altonaga, on whom we have been seeking consideration for some time. I hope the Republican leadership will let them go forward. We are making progress. The glass is not full, but it is more full than empty. More has been achieved than some want to acknowledge. There have been 120 lifetime confirmations in less than 2 years. That is better than in any 2-year period from 1995 through the year 2000. Why do I mention that time? Because the Republicans were in charge and President Clinton was the President. We have done better in less than 2 years than in any 2-year period when they were in charge. This time, 17 months of that was under Democratic control, where we set a record with the number of Senatorial confirmations of Presidential nominations. We have reduced judicial vacancies to 48, which is the lowest percentage in more than 12 years. During the entire 8-year term of President Clinton, the Republicans never allowed the vacancy rate to get this low. We have made tremendous progress. The Republicans continue their drumbeat of political recriminations. We ought to talk about how far we have come with the 110 vacancies Democrats inherited from the Republican majority in the summer of 2001. We have cut those vacancies in half. Under the Republican majority, circuit vacancies more than doubled and overall vacancies increased significantly. Despite the fact that more than 40 additional vacancies have arisen since the summer of 2001, we have cut those vacancies by more than in half, from 110 to 48. If we had a little bit of cooperation from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and from the other side of the aisle, we could achieve so much more. This is a nomination that should not have been made in the first place and never should have been remade in the second place. It was rejected by the Judiciary Committee last year after a fair hearing and extensive and thoughtful substantive consideration. I think the White House would rather play politics with judicial nominations than solve problems. This unprecedented renomination of a person voted down by the Senate Judiciary Committee is proof of that. I thank the Democratic leader, the assistant leader, and my Democratic colleagues who have spoken so eloquently and passionately to these matters. Particularly the statements of Senators Mikulski, Murray, Cantwell, and Stabenow yesterday were outstanding. This nomination is extreme. This nominee has shown herself to be a judicial activist and extremist even on the very conservative Texas Supreme Court where her conservative colleagues have criticized her judgements as activist. They have done it not once, not twice but again and again. The nomination process starts with the President. It is high time for the White House to stop the partisanship and campaign rhetoric. Work with us not to divide us but to unite us, and work with us to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Federal judiciary, something that Presidents have cherished for over 200 years, so that all the American people, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, rich, poor, White, Black, plaintiff or defendant, can go into every Federal courtroom across the country and know that they will receive a fair hearing and justice under the law; that they will come into the one place that is supposed to be impartial, the one place that is supposed to be nonpolitical, the one place that is supposed to look only at the litigants and the law, and so they will not go instead into a politicized, partisan Federal judiciary. That would be a mistake that would hurt us all and that is what we are trying to avoid now. How much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished senior Senator from New York.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I yield back our time.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains for the Senator from Vermont?