Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. How much time?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, why doesn't the Senator just go ahead.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator should feel free to go ahead. When he is finished, then if the Senator from California can be recognized next. I might also note the Senator from Arizona was speaking of stopping a filibuster; otherwise stopping somebody from being heard on the floor. I note there are many ways of doing this. For example, the Senator from Arizona is one who voted against even the motion to proceed on Judge Richard Paez and then also voted against him. That is one of the many well-qualified or highest qualification nominees of President Clinton's against whom he voted. That is one of the many ways of stopping a nomination.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona mentioned my name about 20 different times. If we are going to respond to each one, I will be glad to do it. I am trying to yield so the Senator from Iowa can have the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. As I recall, we all voted for cloture. The motion to proceed to even get there was the crucial vote when the Senator from Arizona voted against the motion to proceed. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Am I correct, while there is time divided between the distinguished chairman and myself prior to these votes, there will be three separate votes, and have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to request the yeas and nays on all three nominations.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on all three nominations.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in answer to that question, to accommodate a number of Senators on the distinguished chairman's side of the aisle, at the time I was chairman, I tried doing that once, and the objection was so vociferous from both sides that I said I was never going to try that again. I would have no objection. I have tried to do that. I have been told there are many who feel that would be inappropriate, so we will not be able to do it.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we will vote on three judges. Let me mention them briefly.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on the confirmation of John Adams to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Judge Adams, incidentally, is named to replace Judge George Washington White, so we have the historical circumstance of another John Adams following another George Washington. Judge Adams has had an admirable career as an attorney and a judge. He has worked in private practice and served as a prosecutor. He has handled civil matters as well as criminal, and he has devoted a significant amount of time to issues beyond his law practice. As a judge, Mr. Adams has been a member of the Summit County Civil Justice Commission, whose goal is to institute reforms in the administration of civil justice in Summit County, and the Summit County Criminal Justice Coordination Council, whose goal is to make recommendations and oversee the operations of the criminal justice system and corrections in Summit County. He is also involved in the Ohio Community Corrections Organization, which tries to work together to develop, improve, expand, and promote adult and juvenile community corrections by bringing judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officials, treatment providers and other parties together to work toward common goals of community intervention for offenders. Judge Adams has been involved in a number of other charitable, civic and professional organizations. He is a life member of the NAACP. He has also served as a member of, among others, the following organizations: the Summit County Mental Health Association, part of a network of professionals and volunteers committed to improving America's mental health and seeking victory over mental illness. His is the sort of solid record of accomplishments, and not ideology, that the President should try and seek out in his future federal court nominees. I congratulate Judge Adams and his family and friends on his confirmation. Today the Senate will also vote on the confirmation of Robert Junell, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. His will be the eighth of President Bush's district court judges confirmed to serve in the State of Texas. Seven of those judges were given hearings and votes during the 17 months I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. That was nearly one judge for Texas every other month, in addition to the four United States Attorneys and three United States Marshals who were reviewed and confirmed in that period of time. This is in great contrast to the fate of many of President Clinton's nominees from Texas, who were blocked and delayed by the Republican majority, including Enrique Moreno, nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals who never got a hearing, never got a vote; Jorge Rangel, nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals who never got a hearing, never got a vote, and; Hilda Tagle to the District Court, whose confirmation was delayed nearly two years for no good reason. So I am glad to see another judge appointed to the Texas bench, and am confident he will serve with more distinction than at least one of his future colleagues, Judge Ron Clark. Judge Clark, a personal friend of the President's was among the judges we confirmed last year to a district court seat in Texas. Judge Clark's commission was not immediately forthcoming from the White House. We learned that Mr. Clark was quoted as saying that he had asked the White House to delay signing his commission while he ran for political office as a Republican so that he could help Republicans keep a majority in the Texas State House until the end of the session in mid-2003. The White House was apparently complicit in these unethical partisan actions by a person confirmed to the federal bench. Clark, who was confirmed to a seat on the federal district court in Texas, was actively campaigning for election despite his confirmation. These actions brought discredit to the court to which Mr. Clark was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and call into question Judge Clark's ability to put aside his partisan roots and be an impartial adjudicator of cases. Even in his answers under oath to this Committee, he swore that if he were ``confirmed'' he would follow the ethical rules. Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges explicitly provides that the Code applies to ``judges and nominees for judicial office'' and Canon 7 provides quite clearly that partisan political activity is contrary to ethical rules. In his answers to me, Mr. Clark promised ``[s]hould I be confirmed as a judge, my role will be different than that of a legislator.'' Yet, even after his confirmation he was flaunting the promises he made to me, to the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the Senate as a whole. That the White House was prepared to go along with these shenanigans reveals quite clearly the political way they approach judicial nominations. Only after the New York Times reported these unseemly actions, did the President sign Judge Clark's appointment papers. Judge Clark then announced that he would stop ``campaigning'', but he insisted on reminding State voters that they still had a choice in the election in November. His name remained on the ballot. And indeed, he was elected to his old seat in the Texas Legislature. I trust that Mr. Junell, who comes highly recommended by Representative Charlie Stenholm of Texas, and who has also been a member of the Texas House of Representatives, has a better understanding of the proper role of a Federal judge than did Mr. Clark, and will serve the people of the Western District of Texas with distinction. Mr. Junell has certainly worked hard during his varied career as a litigator and a politician to help numerous disadvantaged individuals. A life member of the NAACP, Mr. Junell is also a former member of the board of directors of the La Esperanza clinic. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation. With today's confirmation of Judge S. James Otero to be a United States District Judge for the Central District of California, the Senate is filling a vacancy that by all rights could have been filled years ago. Judge Otero, now serving on the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be filling a seat left open on the elevation of Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000. Judge Paez, of course, was nominated to that vacancy on the appellate court more than 4 years before he was confirmed. Judge Otero's nomination is a good example of the kinds of bi- partisan candidates the President ought to be sending the Senate. He comes to us after being unanimously approved by California's bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee--a committee established through an agreement Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer reached with the White House. This committee works to take the politics out of judicial nominations. It reviews qualified, consensus nominees who will serve on the Federal judiciary with distinction. Too often in the last 2 years we have seen the recommendations of such bipartisan panels rejected or stalled at the White House. Instead, they should be honored and encouraged. I note that Judge Otero has contributed strongly to his community, working with and on behalf of Latinos nationally and in California. He has worked on a pro bono project for the Mexican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and served as a member of the Mexican Bar Association, the Stanford Chicano Alumni Association, and the California Latino Judges Association, among others. This stands in stark contrast to a nominee such as Miguel Estrada, whose nomination has dominated debate today. Judge Otero has taken many opportunities to help Hispanics and all Californians. During the 17 months I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I worked hard to ensure that Hispanics were confirmed to the Federal bench, and I am proud of that record. Many Hispanics 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 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. I congratulate Judge Otero and his family on his confirmation and the people of California on a fine Federal judge to fill the seat of such Judge Richard Paez in the Central District.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is passing S. Res. 49 that Senator Hatch and I introduced to recognize February 11, 2003, as National Inventors' Day. More than 200 years ago, on July 30, 1790, Samuel Hopkins, a resident of Vermont, was granted the first United States patent. He had discovered a process for making potash, and was awarded his patent by President George Washington, Attorney General Edmund Randolph and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Samuel Hopkins is just one of the many resourceful and creative inventors from Vermont. The town of Brandon can boast Thomas Davenport, a self-educated blacksmith interested in electricity and magnetism. Through hands-on experiments with electromagnets, he built the first true electric motor in 1834. Initially, his patent request was denied because there was no prior patent on electric machinery. But he garnered the support of numerous professors and philosophers who examined his invention and endorsed his right to a patent on his novel device. In 1837, his determinism paid off, and he secured a patent. John Deere was born in Rutland, VT and spent most of his early life in Middlebury. After moving out West, John Deere realized the cast-iron plows he and other settlers brought with them were not going to work in the Midwest soil. He studied the problem and developed the first successful steel plow using steel from a broken saw blade. This new steel plow became the key for successful farming in the West, and ``John Deere'' is still synonymous with farming equipment today. Vermont continues to be a leader in inventing and obtaining patents. My State ranks fourth in the Nation for number of patents issued. IBM's Essex Junction Plant, which designs and makes computer technology for a wide range of products, received 411 patents from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in 2002. Vermont's plant also has 18 inventors who together have earned more than 600 patents. One of those inventors is Steve Voldman, the top patent winner. Over the past 10 years, he has received 110 patents. In 2002, he received 29. Many of his 2002 patents had to do with silicon germanium, a new technology that has produced the world's fastest chip. Today's inventors are individuals in a shop, garage or home lab. They are teams of scientists working in our largest corporations or at our colleges and universities. In the spirit of independent inventors, small businesses, venture capitalists and larger corporations in Vermont and all over the United States, I would like to recognize February 11, 2003, as `'National Inventors' Day.''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the First Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003. I thank the Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle, and Assistant Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation that will supply our nation's first responders with the support they so desperately need to protect homeland security and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. I want to begin by thanking each of our Nation's brave firefighters, emergency rescuers, law enforcement officers, and other first responder personnel for the jobs they do for the American public day in and day out. Our public safety officers are often the first to respond to any crime or emergency situation. On September 11, the Nation saw that the first on the scene at the World Trade Center were the heroic firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel of New York City. These real-life heroes, many of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice, remind us of how important it is to support our State and local public safety partners. But while we ask our Nation's first responders to defend us as never before on the front lines against the dark menace of domestic terrorism, we have failed to supply them with the Federal support they need and deserve to protect us, as we expect and need them to protect us. Since March 12, 2002, the Federal Homeland Security Advisory System has kept State and local first responders on Yellow Alert, an ``elevated'' threat level declared when there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks, requiring increased surveillance of critical locations. On top of this, from September 10 to September 24 last year, Attorney General Ashcroft declared our country at Orange Threat level, a ``high'' condition indicating a high probability of a terrorist attack and when additional precautions by first responders are necessary at public events. Only hours ago, in fact, counterterrorism officials warned that the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is at a higher level than in previous months due to the possibility of impending military action against Iraq. Debate has already begun at the new Department of Homeland Defense on whether to put out an alert warning or to actually raise the national threat level to Orange again. Counties, cities and towns in my home state of Vermont and across the U.S. find themselves overwhelmed by increasing homeland security costs required by the Federal government. Indeed, the National Governors Association estimates that states incurred around $7 billion in security costs over the past year alone. As a result, the national threat alerts and other Federal homeland security requirements have become unfunded Federal mandates on our State and local governments. Rutland County Sheriff R.J. Elrick, President of the Vermont Sheriffs' Association, recently wrote to me, ``We are in dire need of financial support to keep our personnel trained and equipped to meet the challenges here at home as we continue our vigilant commitment to fight terrorism.'' I will ask unanimous consent to place after my remarks in the Record the letter from the Vermont Sheriffs' Association, as well as letters from the Professional Firefighters of Vermont, the Vermont Ambulance Association, and the Vermont Association of Police Chiefs, and Chief Doug Hoyt of Montpelier, Chief Anthony Bossi of Rutland City, Chief David Demag of Essex, and Chief Jeffery Whitesell of Winhall. When terrorists strike, first responders are and will always be the first people we turn to for help. We place our lives and the lives of our families and friends in the hands of these officers, trusting that when called upon they will protect and save us. Just how, without supplying them with the necessary resources, do we expect our Nation's first responders to realistically carry out their duties? Our State and local law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency personnel are full partners in preventing, investigating and responding to terrorist acts. They need and deserve the full collaboration of the Federal government to meet these new national responsibilities. Washington is buzzing about the literally hundreds of billions of additional dollars the President plans to ask Congress to provide for our military services to fight the war on terrorism abroad. The same cannot be said for helping security here at home, which is shamefully overlooked. For a year and a half I have been working hard to remedy that, with allies like our distinguished Democratic Leader and Assistant Democratic Leader, and New York Senators Schumer and Clinton. As former chair and now ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have made it a high priority to evaluate and meet the needs of our first responders. For these reasons, I am proud to introduce the First Responders Partnership Grant Act to give our nation's law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency personnel the resources they need to do their jobs. Our legislation will establish a grant program at the Department of Justice to provide $4 billion nationwide in annual Federal funds to support State and local public safety officers in their efforts to protect homeland security and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Similar to the highly successful Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Programs, the First Responder Grants will be made directly to State and local government units for overtime, equipment, training and facility expenses to support our law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency personnel. The First Responder Grants may be used to pay up to 90 percent of the cost of the overtime, equipment, training or facility. In cases of fiscal hardship, the Justice Department can waive the local match requirement of 10 percent to provide federal funds for communities that cannot afford the local match. In a world shaped by the violent events of September 11, day after day we call upon our public safety officers to remain vigilant. We not only ask them to put their lives at risk in the line of duty, but also, if need be, give their lives to protect us. If we take time to listen to our Nation's State and local public safety partners, they will tell us that they welcome the challenge to join in our national mission to protect our homeland security. But we cannot ask our firefighters, emergency personnel, and law enforcement officers to assume these new national responsibilities without also providing new federal support. The First Responders Partnership Grant Program will provide the necessary federal support for our state and public safety officers to serve as full partners in the fight to protect our homeland security. We need our first responders for the security and the life-saving help they bring to our communities. All they ask is for the tools they need to do their jobs for us. And for the sake of our own security, that is not too much to ask. I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, more than 200 years ago, on July 30, 1790, Samuel Hopkins, a resident of Vermont, was granted the first United States patent. He had discovered a process for making potash, and was awarded his patent by President George Washington, Attorney General Edmund Randolph and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Samuel Hopkins is just one of the many resourceful and creative inventors from Vermont. The town of Brandon can boast Thomas Davenport, a self-educated blacksmith interested in electricity and magnetism. Through hands-on experiments with electromagnets, he built the first true electric motor in 1834. Initially, his patent request was denied because there was no prior patent on electric machinery. But he garnered the support of numerous professors and philosophers who examined his invention and endorsed his right to a patent on his novel device. In 1837, his determinism paid off, and he secured a patent. John Deere was born in Rutland, VT and spent most of his early life in Middlebury. After moving out West, John Deere realized the cast-iron plows he and other settlers brought with them were not going to work in the Midwest soil. He studied the problem and developed the first successful steel plow using steel from a broken saw blade. This new steel plow became the key for successful farming in the West, and ``John Deere'' is still synonymous with farming equipment today. Vermont continues to be a leader in inventing and obtaining patents. My State ranks fourth in the Nation for number of patents issued. IBM's Essex Junction Plant, which designs and makes computer technology for a wide range of products, received 411 patents from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in 2002. Vermont's plant also has 18 inventors who together have earned more than 600 patents. One of those inventors is Steve Voldman, the top patent winner. Over the past 10 years, he has received 110 patents. In 2002, he received 29. Many of his 2002 patents had to do with silicon germanium, a new technology that has produced the world's fastest chip. Today's inventors are individuals in a shop, garage or home lab. They are teams of scientists working in our largest corporations or at our colleges and universities. In the spirit of independent inventors, small businesses, venture capitalists and larger corporations in Vermont and all over the United States, I would like to recognize February 11, 2003, as National Inventors' Day.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, notwithstanding the misleading charts of my good friend from Utah--we will get to the numbers--there is an easy number for everyone to remember. There are 10 Hispanics on the circuit court of appeals today. Eight were nominated by President Clinton. There would actually be 13 on the circuit courts of appeals today except the Republican leadership in the last couple of Congresses blocked three of President Clinton's nominees for the court of appeals. President Clinton does have, by far, the record of having successfully appointed the highest number of Hispanics for circuit courts of appeals of either President of either party. As I said, it would be even larger if the Republican Party had not refused votes in committee on three nominations. Madam President, in the wake of the tragic events of this week, all Americans are grieving with the families of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia and with the entire NASA community. The President acknowledged that loss with a prayerful statement Saturday afternoon and with his presence, and his eloquent words yesterday in Houston were joined by a number of Senators of both parties. Our Nation mourns the loss of another crew, the crew of the Black Hawk helicopter that went down east of Baghram Afghanistan last Thursday. Both were connected to important national missions, one the scientific quest into space, and the other part of the continuing struggle to secure Afghanistan from those who have made it a haven for international terrorism. These actions remind us all of the courage and sacrifice of those who serve the Nation in our armed services and on the frontiers of space. This week the Nation mourns, and much of the world grieves with us. This morning, Secretary of State Powell spoke to the Security Council of the United Nations on the situation in Iraq as the administration moves forward with preparations for war, war that appears now inevitable. We know how precious to their families are each of the members of the Reserves and Armed Forces who may be about to take assignments in harm's way. In light of all these events, this week is really a poor time for the leadership of the Senate and the administration to force the Senate into an extended debate on the administration's controversial, divisive plan to pack the Federal court with activists. I had hoped the administration and the Republican leadership would reconsider that plan and the timing of this debate. I know the Democratic leader raised the matter with the Republican leadership. I thank Senator Daschle for having done so. I thought the Senate was right to begin the week with unanimous Senate action on S. Res. 41, commemorating the devotion and regretting the fate of the Columbia space shuttle mission. Both the Republican leader and Democratic leader joined to put together that resolution. I commend both of them for doing it. In fact, memorials are taking place around the country this week, in our hometowns and small towns, as well as the one in Houston yesterday, and here at the National Cathedral in Washington tomorrow, at Cape Canaveral in Florida, and elsewhere. Of course, there are memorials in other countries affected, especially Israel and India. So this is not the time I would have chosen for this debate. The Senate should be finding matters of consensus on which we can all work together in unity in these difficult days of grieving. It would be good, just for once, to have things that could unite us rather than things that divide us. Under Democratic Senate leadership in the difficult days following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, that is what we did. We joined together, Democrats and Republicans alike. We worked hard to put aside divisive issues. We focused exclusively on what America needed most in the aftermath of those attacks. I recall how hard some of us devoted ourselves to what became the USA Patriot Act; the hours, the days, the weeks we spent trying to forge consensus. We also saw how the administration worked to demean that bipartisanship, and how during the election season it denigrated the work of Democrats trying to help the security of this country and began, once again, to divide, not unite. It would be good to see national leaders in national campaigns seek to unite us and not to divide us. But it has been sometime since we have seen that. So in the new 108th Congress, as we begin this initial nominations debate in the Senate Chamber, we see an emboldened executive branch wielding its rising influence over both Houses of Congress, and ever more determined to pack the Federal courts with activist allies, to turn this independent judiciary into a political judiciary. That would be one of the greatest tragedies this Nation could face. Throughout the world, when people come to America they look at our Federal judiciary and say: This is a truly independent judiciary. Shouldn't we be working to do that? In upholding our constitutional oath, shouldn't we, as Senators, be doing that? Shouldn't whoever is President be doing that? I recall when the Soviet Union collapsed, Members of the new Russian Duma came here to the United States to see how we do it in a democracy. I recall sitting in my conference room with a number of people. I remember the Members of the Duma coming to my office. There were those who were going to have to oversee the new judiciary. One of the things that struck me is one of them said: We have heard that there are instances where American citizens go into a court and they bring suit against the American Government. Is that true? I said: Yes, it happens all the time. They said: We have also heard there were times when Americans bring suit against their Government and the individual citizen wins, the Government loses. I said: That happens all the time. And they said: You don't replace the judges if they rule with one of the citizens and rule against the U.S. Government? I said: If the U.S. Government is in the wrong, of course they do, that's their duty. That is what we mean by judicial independence. That is how the same American citizen could come in on another issue and lose. The fact is, American citizens can come into our Federal courts and know they are going to be independent. They are going to know it doesn't make any difference whether they are Republicans or Democrats, whether they are rich or poor, no matter what their color, no matter what their religion, no matter whether they are liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever part of the country they are from, when they go to the Federal courts they can see they are independent. Now, in this attempt to change the ideology of all the Federal courts into one narrow ideological strata, we see a attempt not to unite Americans but to divide them. But worse than that, because these are lifetime appointments, we see an attempt to irrevocably damage the integrity and the independence of the Federal judiciary. With unprecedented speed--certainly unprecedented in the last 15 or 20 years--the Democratic-controlled Senate moved through and, in 17 months, confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominees. The vast majority of them were conservative Republicans, and I voted for almost all of them because I thought, having listened to them, at least we knew enough about them to know that they could be impartial on the bench. There were some we did not take up because it was so obvious from their statements that they were there to take a political, ideological view. Then we find some, of course, who will not tell us at all what they are there for. The fundamental checks and balances of our Federal system are at risk of being sacrificed to a one-party rule with the coequal branches of our Government collapsing into one. The Senate should not abandon its critical role. I wish more people-- I wish 100 Members of the Senate--would sit down and read history books and determine how we got here and what our advice and consent rule is. Look at the fact that even President George Washington had judges who were turned down by the Senate at that time. This is a great institution. I have given 29 years of my life here. It is the main place of checks and balances in our Federal Government, especially when it comes to advising and consenting to appointees. We are not talking about an appointment to an assistant secretaryship, or administratorship somewhere in a job that may last for a couple of years, important though it may be; we are talking about lifetime appointments, appointments of judges who will be there long after all of us have left. Defending and upholding the Constitution is what we Senators are sworn to do. I can remember every time I walked down the aisle of this Senate and up to the Presiding Officer and raised my hand to take my oath of office to begin another 6-year term. I can remember each one of those times as though it was in crystal, as though time stopped, because what I remember is not the fact that I have become a Senator again, or that my family may be in the Gallery, or that my friends are happy. What I remember is I am taking a very awesome oath. This oath says that I will uphold the Constitution, and I will uphold my duties as a U.S. Senator--not as a Democrat or as a Republican, and not even as a Vermonter but as a U.S. Senator. We are a nation of 275 million Americans. Only 100 of us get the opportunity to represent this country at any given time. And it is an awesome responsibility. I see the administration trying to pack the Federal court with activists. I take that very seriously. I have voted against nominees of Republican Presidents and of Democratic Presidents if I believed it would not be upholding my duties as a Senator to vote for them. But, unfortunately, this debate will be contentious, and it may be split largely along party lines. Already, Republicans have charged those who have spoken or voted against this nomination as motivated by racism. I do not know any racist in this body in either party, and I resent the fact that some Republicans have said those who have voted against this nominee in the committee were motivated by racism. There are none in this body. The Associated Press reports that Republicans, last Thursday, charged those who opposed this nomination of doing so ``because of ethnicity'' and with wanting ``to smear anyone who would be a positive role model for Hispanics.'' Those who made such statements should begin this debate by withdrawing those statements and disavowing that divisive rhetoric. It is wrong for anybody to be declaring that Members of this body in either party are racists. I think it is wrong what has happened here. Those who have done so should apologize to Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee who voted against this nomination, and also to the Hispanic leaders--very respected Hispanic leaders--in this country who showed the courage to examine this nomination, and, having examined the nomination of Mr. Estrada, decided to oppose it. Last year, some Republicans made an outrageous and slanderous charge that religious bigotry motivated votes by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee--even going so far as to say no Christians should get a vote, and basically made it very clear because there are four Catholics and four Jews on that committee. As one of those Catholics, I resent that, and I resent that more than anything I have heard in 29 years in the U.S. Senate. We have not seen that outrageous and slanderous charge withdrawn. Again, I have never met a Senator in either party who showed religious bigotry. But I have heard Senators accuse Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee of that. It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong--and just as wrong to say if you vote against somebody it is out of racism. That is wrong. I have voted on thousands upon thousands of nominees for Presidents of both parties. For most of them I had absolutely no idea what their race or religion was. And when I did, it never once entered into my thought. It may cause fundraising letters or cheap applause lines when speaking to different groups, but I must admit as a member of a religious minority that I find that it is something which I resent greatly. I had hoped the administration and the Republican leadership would not do something so controversial and divisive with this nomination-- not with all this Nation has gone through and continues to go through, with the tragedy of last weekend, and not knowing that we are coming to the final decision on going to war. Just as the President has, once again, chosen to divide rather than unite by sending controversial judicial nominations in an effort to pack the courts, the Republican leadership in the Senate has chosen this time to force that controversy forward. I made efforts over the last 2 years to try to work with the White House to confirm and appoint judges to the judicial vacancies, including a very large number of vacancies that are there because Republicans refused to allow a vote on nominations by President Clinton--moderate nominations by President Clinton. The vacancies remain year after year after year because the Senate does not allow a vote on the nominee. As I said, during the last 17 months of the last Congress under Democratic leadership, the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Actually during that time, even though the Republicans were in charge for 6 months, they did not confirm a single one of President Bush's judicial nominees--but Democrats did, 100 of them. We worked at a rate almost twice that averaged during the preceding years when a Republican-led Senate was considering nominees of a Democratic President. Consensus nominees were considered first and relatively quickly. Controversial nominees took more time but we considered many of them as well. The last judicial nominee considered by the Senate last December was from the neighboring State of the distinguished Presiding Officer, Judge Dennis Shedd of South Carolina. Judge Shedd's nomination was chiefly supported by Senator Strom Thurmond. Despite his record--and certainly a record with which I disagree--in civil rights cases and his record on the bench, we proceeded. His record raised serious concerns among many--especially among African Americans living in the Fourth Circuit and across the Nation. But we brought the nominee forward. I do recall when we did that some Republicans said it would bring adversity to the bench. I am not sure what they meant by that. But we brought it forward, nonetheless, as I had agreed to. The Senate vote was 55 to 44 to confirm him. Shortly thereafter, the Nation and the Senate were confronted by the controversy over the remarks of the former Republican leader, and people openly speculated whether the President would renominate that Senator's choice, Judge Charles Pickering. The nomination was defeated in our committee. I do not know of any precedent for a President renominating a judicial nominee who was voted on and rejected by the Judiciary Committee. Yet this President has chosen to renominate--to go against precedent--both Judge Pickering and Justice Priscilla Owen, who both had been voted on by the Judiciary Committee and whose nominations were rejected last year. I am over the fact that we haven't seen them on the agenda, in case Senators have second thoughts. But we will see. But now we have a different nomination before the Senate. As I have said for some time, the Senate and the American people deserve to have an adequate record and strong confidence about the type of judge Mr. Estrada would be in order to support a favorable vote on this nomination. But we don't have that in the sparse record before the Senate on his nomination to the second highest court of the land, and as a Senator I certainly don't have confidence to support this nomination when basically all I can say about him is he is a pleasant person to be with. We have seen different sort of constantly changing biographies of him in the press--all impressive, whichever one is the latest one being used. But what I want to know is what is he going to be like in a court? You have to be concerned. Will he be an activist on the DC court? Throughout our earlier proceedings, I repeatedly urged Mr. Estrada and the administration to be more forthcoming--certainly to be forthcoming at least to the extent that the five previous administrations I served with have been. But neither the nominee nor the administration has shown any interest--any interest whatsoever--in being more forthcoming. So what do we have? We have before us for consideration a nominee with no judicial experience, and little relevant practical experience related to the jurisdiction of this court. He counts Justice Scalia, Kenneth Starr, and Ted Olson among his friends and mentors, but any information about how his decisionmaking would go or what he thinks is not there. The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, asked him: Well, we are not going to ask you about a case that may actually be before the court. Senator Schumer said: We are not going to ask you how you would vote on the WorldCom case because that may well be there. But if you look at Supreme Court cases, for example, can you name any you disagree with? And that was just to get some idea of what he thinks. He asked him: Can you name any cases you disagree with? And he could not. Even if you did not want to look at some very recent cases, I would think somebody would think of a case, such as the Dred Scott decision, or Plessy v. Ferguson. These are a couple cases that would come to mind that you might disagree with. I certainly would disagree with the court upholding, what everybody now realizes is unconstitutional, the locking up of Japanese Americans during World War II, the locking up of loyal American citizens absent any due process just because of where their ancestors came from, which was upheld by a very political Supreme Court. I could have disagreed with that. There has to have been some cases--over all these years. Upholding slavery? Upholding separate but equal? Upholding the internment of Americans for no other reason than the color of their skin and where their parents or grandparents came from? That was a softball toss. We are not even going to be allowed to know what he thinks about that. Maybe he thinks those were good cases. But if that is the case, then say they are good cases, which actually is what he did. He said there were none he disagreed with. So you have to think that maybe one of the reasons for the controversy over Mr. Estrada is because he appears to have been groomed to be an activist appellate judge and groomed by well-connected, ideologically driven legal activists. For example, those who he declares are his friends--you can have friends whenever you want. I have friends who range across the political spectrum. But I think I also would be willing to state what my political philosophy is, or certainly what my judicial philosophy is if I am going to ask for a lifetime appointment to the bench, just as I have to state what my political philosophy is when I ask the people of Vermont to elect or reelect me. Last week, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus restated their concerns, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project reiterated their concerns. Some of the most respected Latino labor leaders, including Maria Elena Durazo of HEAR, Arturo S. Rodriguez of the UFW, Miguel Contreras of L.A. County Fed., Cristina Vazquez of UNITE, and Eliseo Medina of SEIU have indicated their strong opposition to this nomination. Let me quote from the letter from Antonia Hernandez and Antonio Gonzalez: As a community, we recognize the importance of the judiciary, as it is the branch to which we have turned to seek protection when, because of our limited political power, we are not able to secure and protect our rights through the legislative process or with the executive branch. This has become perhaps even more true in light of some of the actions Congress and the executive branch have taken after 9/11, particularly as these actions affect immigrants. After an extensive review of the public record that was available to us, the testimony that Mr. Estrada provided before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the written responses he provided to the committee, we have concluded at this time that Mr. Estrada would not fairly review issues that would come before him if he were to be confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, we oppose his nomination and urge you to do the same. Two of the Nation's most respected Hispanic leaders. They go on to analyze an array of issues that affect not only the Latino community but all Americans on which they find this nomination wanting. Of course, MALDEF outlined its concerns in advance of the hearing last fall in a memorandum to the White House. As their recent letter says: [T]he Judiciary Committee gave Mr. Estrada ample opportunity to address [their concerns]. Ultimately, Mr. Estrada had the affirmative obligation to show that he would be fair and impartial to all who would appear before him. After reviewing the public record, the transcript and the hearing, and all written responses submitted by Mr. Estrada, we conclude that he failed to meet this obligation. He chose one of two paths consistently at his hearing and in his written responses: either his responses confirmed our concerns, or he chose not to reveal his current views or positions. My view of the record is similar to theirs. It is also shared by the respected Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Senator Schumer chaired a fair hearing for Mr. Estrada last September. Every Senator--Republican and Democrat--had ample time to ask whatever questions they wanted. I was hoping that the hearing would allay concerns because I have been impressed with Mr. Estrada as a person in meeting with him. But what I wanted to know was not Mr. Estrada the person, somebody who lived next door to you, but what would a Judge Estrada--the person sitting up at the bench when you appear there--how would that person be? When he avoided answering question after question after question, then I ended up with more questions than answers. The recent statement from Latino labor leaders makes the following point: Mr. Estrada is a ``stealth candidate'' whose views and qualifications have been hidden from the American people and from the U.S. Senate. Since his nomination, Mr. Estrada has consistently refused to answer important questions about his views and his judicial philosophy. These Latino leaders went on to say that it would be ``simply irresponsible for the Senate to put him on the bench.'' After a thorough review, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund concluded that Mr. Estrada was not sufficiently qualified for a lifetime seat on the Nation's second highest court and said that his ``extreme views should be disqualifying; that he has not had a demonstrated interest in or any involvement with the Hispanic community or Hispanic activities of any kind; and that he lacks the maturity and judicial temperament necessary to be a circuit judge.'' PRLDEF said Mr. Estrada has ``made strong statements that have been interpreted as hostile to criminal defendants' rights, affirmative action and women's rights.'' They expressed concern about his temperament. People they interviewed about Mr. Estrada described him as ``arrogant and elitist'' and that he ```harangues his colleagues' and `doesn't listen to other people,''' that he is not even tempered and he is ``contentious, confrontational, aggressive and even offensive in his verbal exchanges'' with them. As I said before, some of his supporters have said, if a Senator opposes him, that Senator is racist or anti-Hispanic. These claims are offensive and absurd. Well-respected leaders of the Hispanic community itself have raised very serious objections and concerns about his nomination. In fact, to say that those who vote against him are racist or anti-Hispanic is as false as the statements made last fall that those who voted against Judge Pickering were anti- Christian. No one has worked harder to increase Hispanic representation on our courts than PRLDEF, MALDEF, and the congressional Hispanic caucus. In fact, they didn't begin their review of Mr. Estrada's record with the expectation of opposing his nomination. Instead, they started with their strong record of supporting more diversity on the Federal bench, something they have done for years, President after President, urging more diversity on the Federal bench. This was before the 10 Hispanics on the court of appeals. I know President Clinton listened to them because he appointed eight of those 10. They actually would have had three more had the Republican-controlled committee allowed them to come to a vote. Now there is all this talk about how can we possibly be stopping President Bush when he is trying so hard to have Latinos on the bench. There are 42 vacancies that have existed in the 13 circuit courts of appeal during President Bush's tenure. Mr. Estrada is the only Hispanic he has nominated. Unlike the eight that were confirmed of President Clinton's and the other three that he had in there, 11 that he nominated, President Bush has nominated one, and he had 42 chances to nominate. Out of those 42 chances, the only one he nominates is not somebody who could form a consensus within the Hispanic or non-Hispanic community, but he has one that is rejected by much of the Hispanic community, is guaranteed to be divisive. And one more time--one more time but consistent as always--the administration seeks to divide, not to unite, something that has been their hallmark. They didn't find any Hispanics to nominate for the four vacancies on the Tenth Circuit. That includes New Mexico and Colorado, both States with large Hispanic populations. They didn't find any Hispanics to nominate for the three vacancies in the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, certainly a State with a large Hispanic population, or the six vacancies on the Ninth Circuit. They couldn't find any Hispanics to nominate there, but that includes California and Arizona, certainly States with large Hispanic populations. There are three vacancies on the Second Circuit, no Hispanics, even though that includes New York and Puerto Rico. Certainly, they should have found some there. Or the Third Circuit, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, they couldn't find any Hispanics there to appoint. And we know that there are some outstanding Hispanic lawyers in each of those circuits. Some are sitting on the State courts doing a superb job where there is a record and where there would be a consensus and where you would have somebody who would unite rather than divide. In fact, there are more than 1,000 local, State, or Federal judges of Hispanic heritage, and out of those 1,000, for these 42 vacancies, the President finds one, and that one is there with no experience, no background as a judge, and is there solely because he has been put forward to carry on a particular judicial ideology. I don't want to leave the impression that the President sent nobody up here of Latino descent. He did. And a Democratic-controlled Congress confirmed them all. Judge Christina Armijo of New Mexico, Judge Phillip Marinez, and Randy Crane of Texas, Judge Jose Martinez of Florida, Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum, and Jose Linares of New Jersey--they were all nominated. We confirmed every one of them. In fact, we just held a hearing on Judge James Otero of California. I told him at the end of the hearing that I assumed we would be confirming him very quickly. Actually, we would have, had the nominee had his hearing last year, had his paperwork been completed. But also, as I have said before, there are 10 Latino appellate judges currently seated in the Federal courts. Eighty percent of them were appointed by President Clinton. Even there, a number of them were denied Senate consideration for years while the Republicans controlled the Senate. For example, the confirmation of Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit took more than 1,500 days, even though he was strongly supported by both his home State Senators. And after Republicans delayed Judge Paez for 5 years, 39 voted against him. Judge Sonia Sotomayor is in the Second Circuit, my circuit; everybody agreed that she was a superb candidate, but then for month after month after month--we wanted to bring her up for a vote--an anonymous hold on the Republican side of the aisle blocked consideration--anonymous hold after anonymous hold. The irony there is that she had a strong court record. She had first been appointed to the Federal bench by the first President Bush. He appointed her. She had this record. She had a unanimously well qualified, the highest rating possible. They stalled her and stalled her with an anonymous hold. Finally, the embarrassment got too much. And when it came to a vote, 29 Republicans voted against her. Now a number of the circuit court nominees President Clinton sent up here never even received a hearing or vote. Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno of Texas were both nominated to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. President Clinton was able to find qualified Hispanics for the Fifth Circuit, but the Republican leadership would not allow them to come to a vote. And Christine Arguello of Colorado was nominated to the Tenth Circuit. An awful lot of President Clinton's judicial nominees were never even given hearings or votes. Many of them were qualified Hispanics, African American, or women. That is why during the past Congress, in the year and a half the Democrats were in control, we tried to restore fairness to the confirmation process. We tried to address the vacancies we had inherited. Even though those vacancies were caused because Republicans would not allow votes on Democratic nominees, we brought forward Republican nominees for the same places. Diversity has been the greatest strength of our Nation. That diversity of backgrounds should be reflected in our Federal courts, not just on the streets of our cities and towns. We also should accept the fact that race or ethnicity or gender are no substitute for the wisdom, experience, fairness, and impartiality that qualify someone to be a Federal judge--especially a Federal judge--entrusted with a lifetime appointment. No potential candidate for a lifetime appointment to the Federal courts should get a presumption of competence or entitlement. You are not automatically competent or entitled simply because you are appointed. It makes no difference which party the President is from. If it were otherwise, we should do away with the advise and consent clause of the Constitution and change it to advise or rubber stamp, or something like that. Nominees should be treated fairly, but the proof of suitability for a lifetime appointment rests on the nominee and on the administration. The Senate is not required to prove they are qualified for a lifetime appointment. We have to satisfy ourselves as individual Senators, as 100 Senators, that they are qualified and suitable for this lifetime appointment. It is up to the nominee himself or herself and the administration to make the case that allows us to reach the conclusion that they are qualified. We have to look at their records, listen to their answers to the questions--if they will answer the questions--and if they refuse to answer the questions, I don't know why any Senator would think that he or she has an obligation to vote for this person if they will not even answer the question of why they are qualified, beyond a political connection, to a lifetime appointment on what is supposed to be an independent, nonpolitical Federal bench. Certainly, we know the benefits of diversity and how it contributes to achieving and improving justice in America. That is fine. We should look at that and the President should. All of these questions should be looked at, and the answers to the questions should be looked at. But if all we have are questions and no answers, where do we go? As Antonia Hernandez wrote in the Wall Street Journal: The fact that a nominee is Latino should not be a shield from full inquiry, particularly when a nominee's record is sparce, as in Mr. Estrada's case. She continued: It is vital to know more about a nominee's philosophies for interpreting and applying the Constitution and the laws. It was in connection with the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd, a white male and former staffer to Senator Thurmond, that Republicans argued he would bring diversity to the Fourth Circuit. Maybe that is their sense of diversity. I suspect it is not the sense of many others. Be that as it may, each Senator has to make up his or her mind about the qualifications. I defy any Senator to make up his or her mind satisfactorily when they don't have a record before them or answers to questions. The Fourth Circuit was a Federal circuit court that had the longest history without an African-American judge, speaking of diversity. It wasn't until President Clinton's recess appointment of Judge Roger Gregory that the Fourth Circuit was finally desegregated. The reason we were not able to get him through before was the Republican majority used blue slips and secret objections to block the integration of that court for years during the Clinton administration as the Clinton administration nominated one qualified African American after another. He was accorded a hearing, but they did say Judge Shedd would bring diversity to that court. In that regard, I am glad that common sense came out, and I applaud the two Senators from Virginia-- Republican Senators--for convincing the President to renominate Judge Gregory, this outstanding African-American jurist. I commend both Senator Allen and Senator Warner for standing up for him. When he came to the Senate floor and we had a rollcall vote on him, every Senator, except one, voted for him. It shows the quality of the nominee, but also it is a strong signal to that court that here is a judge who has been looked at by both Republicans and Democrats in 1990, and 100 Senators came to the conclusion that he was qualified. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and a CHC civil rights task force scorecard.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before my voice goes, I see the distinguished Senator from Utah in the Chamber. Obviously, he will be recognized next. Then I hope we will go to Senator Schumer. I will have more to say, but the spirit is more willing than the vocal cords. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the First Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003. I thank the Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle, and Assistant Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation that will supply our nation's first responders with the support they so desperately need to protect homeland security and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. I want to begin by thanking each of our Nation's brave firefighters, emergency rescuers, law enforcement officers, and other first responder personnel for the jobs they do for the American public day in and day out. Our public safety officers are often the first to respond to any crime or emergency situation. On September 11, the Nation saw that the first on the scene at the World Trade Center were the heroic firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel of New York City. These real-life heroes, many of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice, remind us of how important it is to support our State and local public safety partners. But while we ask our Nation's first responders to defend us as never before on the front lines against the dark menace of domestic terrorism, we have failed to supply them with the Federal support they need and deserve to protect us, as we expect and need them to protect us. Since March 12, 2002, the Federal Homeland Security Advisory System has kept State and local first responders on Yellow Alert, an ``elevated'' threat level declared when there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks, requiring increased surveillance of critical locations. On top of this, from September 10 to September 24 last year, Attorney General Ashcroft declared our country at Orange Threat level, a ``high'' condition indicating a high probability of a terrorist attack and when additional precautions by first responders are necessary at public events. Only hours ago, in fact, counterterrorism officials warned that the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is at a higher level than in previous months due to the possibility of impending military action against Iraq. Debate has already begun at the new Department of Homeland Defense on whether to put out an alert warning or to actually raise the national threat level to Orange again. Counties, cities and towns in my home state of Vermont and across the U.S. find themselves overwhelmed by increasing homeland security costs required by the Federal government. Indeed, the National Governors Association estimates that states incurred around $7 billion in security costs over the past year alone. As a result, the national threat alerts and other Federal homeland security requirements have become unfunded Federal mandates on our State and local governments. Rutland County Sheriff R.J. Elrick, President of the Vermont Sheriffs' Association, recently wrote to me, ``We are in dire need of financial support to keep our personnel trained and equipped to meet the challenges here at home as we continue our vigilant commitment to fight terrorism.'' I will ask unanimous consent to place after my remarks in the Record the letter from the Vermont Sheriffs' Association, as well as letters from the Professional Firefighters of Vermont, the Vermont Ambulance Association, and the Vermont Association of Police Chiefs, and Chief Doug Hoyt of Montpelier, Chief Anthony Bossi of Rutland City, Chief David Demag of Essex, and Chief Jeffery Whitesell of Winhall. When terrorists strike, first responders are and will always be the first people we turn to for help. We place our lives and the lives of our families and friends in the hands of these officers, trusting that when called upon they will protect and save us. Just how, without supplying them with the necessary resources, do we expect our Nation's first responders to realistically carry out their duties? Our State and local law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency personnel are full partners in preventing, investigating and responding to terrorist acts. They need and deserve the full collaboration of the Federal government to meet these new national responsibilities. Washington is buzzing about the literally hundreds of billions of additional dollars the President plans to ask Congress to provide for our military services to fight the war on terrorism abroad. The same cannot be said for helping security here at home, which is shamefully overlooked. For a year and a half I have been working hard to remedy that, with allies like our distinguished Democratic Leader and Assistant Democratic Leader, and New York Senators Schumer and Clinton. As former chair and now ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have made it a high priority to evaluate and meet the needs of our first responders. For these reasons, I am proud to introduce the First Responders Partnership Grant Act to give our nation's law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency personnel the resources they need to do their jobs. Our legislation will establish a grant program at the Department of Justice to provide $4 billion nationwide in annual Federal funds to support State and local public safety officers in their efforts to protect homeland security and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Similar to the highly successful Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Programs, the First Responder Grants will be made directly to State and local government units for overtime, equipment, training and facility expenses to support our law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency personnel. The First Responder Grants may be used to pay up to 90 percent of the cost of the overtime, equipment, training or facility. In cases of fiscal hardship, the Justice Department can waive the local match requirement of 10 percent to provide federal funds for communities that cannot afford the local match. In a world shaped by the violent events of September 11, day after day we call upon our public safety officers to remain vigilant. We not only ask them to put their lives at risk in the line of duty, but also, if need be, give their lives to protect us. If we take time to listen to our Nation's State and local public safety partners, they will tell us that they welcome the challenge to join in our national mission to protect our homeland security. But we cannot ask our firefighters, emergency personnel, and law enforcement officers to assume these new national responsibilities without also providing new federal support. The First Responders Partnership Grant Program will provide the necessary federal support for our state and public safety officers to serve as full partners in the fight to protect our homeland security. We need our first responders for the security and the life-saving help they bring to our communities. All they ask is for the tools they need to do their jobs for us. And for the sake of our own security, that is not too much to ask. I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Bennett to introduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act of 2003.'' Our bipartisan legislation will enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions, while erasing an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. This is the same bill we introduced the past two Congresses. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the President's 2001 tax cut bill and in the Finance Committee's version of the Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, CARE, Act. I would like to thank Senators Bingaman, Cochran, Daschle, Durbin, Graham of Florida, Kennedy, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Warner for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists, writers, and composers who donate works to museums and libraries to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the work. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. If we as a Nation want to ensure that art works created by living artists are available to the public in the future, for study or for pleasure, this is something that artists should be allowed to do as well. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists and it hurts museums and libraries, large and small, that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. The sharp decline in donations to the Library of Congress clearly illustrates this point. Until 1969, the Library of Congress received 15 to 20 large gifts of manuscripts from authors each year. In the four years following the elimination of the deduction, the Library received only one such gift. Instead, many of these works have been sold to private collectors and are no longer available to the general public. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. These losses are an unintended consequence of the tax bill that should now be corrected. More than 30 years ago, Congress changed the law for artists in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. Under this legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions, would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/ collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel. In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes. It could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the donee's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works, or related activities. This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works, how the same work is treated before and after an artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value. Last Congress, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that our bill would cost $50 million over 10 years. This is a moderate price to pay for our education and the preservation of our cultural heritage. I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill could, and I believe would, make a critical difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party, where it may become lost to the public forever.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Bennett to introduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act of 2003.'' Our bipartisan legislation will enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions, while erasing an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. This is the same bill we introduced the past two Congresses. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the President's 2001 tax cut bill and in the Finance Committee's version of the Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, CARE, Act. I would like to thank Senators Bingaman, Cochran, Daschle, Durbin, Graham of Florida, Kennedy, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Warner for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists, writers, and composers who donate works to museums and libraries to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the work. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. If we as a Nation want to ensure that art works created by living artists are available to the public in the future, for study or for pleasure, this is something that artists should be allowed to do as well. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists and it hurts museums and libraries, large and small, that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. The sharp decline in donations to the Library of Congress clearly illustrates this point. Until 1969, the Library of Congress received 15 to 20 large gifts of manuscripts from authors each year. In the four years following the elimination of the deduction, the Library received only one such gift. Instead, many of these works have been sold to private collectors and are no longer available to the general public. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. These losses are an unintended consequence of the tax bill that should now be corrected. More than 30 years ago, Congress changed the law for artists in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. Under this legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions, would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/ collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel. In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes. It could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the donee's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works, or related activities. This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works, how the same work is treated before and after an artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value. Last Congress, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that our bill would cost $50 million over 10 years. This is a moderate price to pay for our education and the preservation of our cultural heritage. I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill could, and I believe would, make a critical difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party, where it may become lost to the public forever.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I listen to my friend from Wyoming and my friend from California and others who are speaking in this Chamber today, I am reminded of what I heard throughout the State of Vermont this past weekend while I was home--whether it was people who stopped me in a grocery store and just wanted to reach out and touch somebody-- perhaps we would embrace for a moment--or whether it was coming out of mass on Sunday at the church, where the same thing occurred--the people have felt such sorrow and shock. There is no other way you could express yourself. Those of us who have grown up seeing the space program have seen so many of the triumphs. I still remember our own colleague, Senator John Glenn, a man I was elected with in the same year, in his amazing orbit of the Earth. Then later, when he was well into his 70s, he had another trip as an astronaut. We saw that too. We saw man's first steps on the moon, of which every one of us remembers exactly where we were when that occurred. We also remember exactly where we were when the Challenger was destroyed. And I suspect we will always remember exactly where we were when we got the news about the Columbia space shuttle. Today we are so connected automatically, with live television, radio, and friends and neighbors calling us when something such as this happens, a tragedy which unites not only the whole country but the whole world. Everybody seems to know it almost immediately. So, as so many other Senators, I rise to pay tribute to the seven astronauts who lost their lives in the Columbia tragedy last Saturday morning. Here was this magnificent space vessel, with these seven wonderful, exemplary human beings, streaking across the sky dozens of miles above the Earth at eight times the speed of sound; and then, suddenly, Columbia disintegrated. A clergyman in Florida aptly described the fiery contrails we watched repeatedly on Saturday as: ``a glistening tear across the face of the heavens.'' There is nothing I could write that would say it any better. We were and are sad not only because of the loss of these heroes and the interruption of space exploration, but because this tragedy reminds us of other astronauts who have paid the ultimate price. As with every national tragedy, we rise from the shock and the sadness through commemoration and perseverance. We heard the President of the United States, who spoke shortly after the tragedy, and again eloquently today, as did others in Texas. The President tells us--and we know in our hearts--we cannot forget these heroes: Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Blair Salton Clark, and Ilan Ramon. Each represented a special kind of intelligence, dedication and energy we should all aspire to, and certainly all young people in this country should aspire to. Over and over we have read their biographies, their stories. We have heard their neighbors, their friends, their teachers, their classmates, and their fellow astronauts tell of the barriers they had to overcome in their lives and the almost superhuman rise above senseless bias and discrimination. They will be missed, but they will continue to stand as models. I hope we will continue to read of their stories because they are role models for us here in the United States, but also for those in Israel, as with COL Ramon, and for those in India, and really for everyone across the globe. Someone said: This is such a public tragedy. But that is the way the space program has been. We have shown publicly our triumphs, and we have shown publicly our disasters. We have shown the fears and the overwhelming thrills over the years. I close with this, Mr. President: To remind everybody we are at the bicentennial of the congressional authorization for the Lewis and Clark exploration of the West, when President Thomas Jefferson said: Go forth to explore the West and our boundaries. And the Congress said to go forth. Lewis and Clark knew no frontiers. They did not know what they would find. And these astronauts knew no frontiers. We Americans have never known frontiers. So we will find the cause of Columbia's loss. We will fix it. The shuttle program will continue. The manned space program will move forward. We will return to space. It is our destiny, I believe. And there, in the spirit of the seven, we will again invest our knowledge and resources to learn about our origins, our daily lives, and, maybe, catch a glimpse of the future. I see my friend from Oregon in the Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Campbell to introduce the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003,'' which permits current and retired law enforcement officers to carry a firearm and be prepared to assist in dangerous situations. During his time in the Senate, Senator Campbell has been a leader in the area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff, he knows the difficulties law enforcement officers face due to the patchwork of conceal-carry laws in State and local jurisdictions. He and I have worked together on several pieces of law enforcement legislation, such as the Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grant Acts of 1998 and 2000. I look forward to working with him on our bipartisan bill. I am pleased that 30 Senators, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch and Committee Members Schumer, Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, DeWine, Craig, Graham, and Cornyn, as well as Assistant Democratic Leader Reid and Assistant Republican Leader McConnell--have joined Senator Campbell and me as original cosponsors of this bill in an effort to make our communities safer and better to protect law enforcement officers and their families. In the last Congress, Senator Hatch and I worked together to reach consensus and have the Judiciary Committee approve this legislation by an 18-1 vote. I thank Senator Hatch for his past support and look forward to working with him again on our bipartisan bill. We introduce this measure in the Senate at the request of the Fraternal Order of Police, which strongly supports this legislation to protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals and to permit officers to respond immediately to a crime when off duty. Last year, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee, I was honored to work closely with FOP's National President, Lt. Steve Young, whose death earlier this month was a sad loss for all of us. Steve was dedicated to this legislation because he understood the importance of having law enforcement officers across the nation armed and prepared whenever and wherever threats to our peace or to our public safety arise. I will continue my close work with the FOP and its new National President, Major Chuck Canterbury, to pass this legislation into law. There are approximately 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers currently serving in the United States. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 16,400 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. A total of 1,694 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty over the last decade, an average of 170 deaths per year. Roughly 5 percent of officers who die are killed taking law enforcement action while in an off-duty capacity. On average, more than 62,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year, resulting in some 21,000 injuries. Until 2001, violent crime in this country had declined each of the preceding 8 years. Indeed, it had declined by 40 percent since it peaked at 4 million violent crimes in 1993. Community policing and the outstanding work of so many law enforcement officers played a vital key in our crime control efforts. Unfortunately, during the past two years the downward trend in violent crime ended and violent crime turned upward. Last month, the FBI reported that crime rose slightly in the first half of 2002, including a 2.3 percent increase in murders. The preliminary numbers for 2002 follow an increase in crime in 2001 that was the first in a decade, coinciding with a struggling economy that many experts say could be a contributing factor. Crime rose in 2001 by 2.1 percent, compared with the year before. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 is designed to protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals and to allow thousands of equipped, trained and certified law enforcement officers, whether on or off duty or retired, to carry concealed firearms in most situations, thus enabling them to respond immediately to a crime. Our bipartisan bill will allow thousands of equipped, trained and certified law enforcement officers continually to serve and protect our communities, regardless of jurisdiction, and at no cost to taxpayers. To qualify for the bill's uniform standards a law enforcement officer must be authorized to use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where he or she works, meet the standards of the agency to regularly use a firearm, not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, and be carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. A qualified retired law enforcement officer under the bill must have retired in good standing, have been qualified by the agency to carry or use a firearm, have been employed at least 15 years as a law enforcement officer unless forced to retire due to a service-connected disability, have a nonforfeitable right to retirement plan benefits of the law enforcement agency, annually meet State firearms training and qualifications that are the same as active law enforcement officers, not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, and be carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. I have heard from many representatives of the law enforcement community, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Officers, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, CCPOA, that national legislation is necessary because of the current patchwork of state and local conceal-carry laws. I have also received letters of support for the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act from a variety of Vermont law enforcement officials, including Chief Osburn Glidden of Williston, Officer Wade Johnson of Hinesburg, Chief Trevor Whipple of Barre, Officer Bonnie Hotchkiss of Barre, Sergeant Mike Manning and Sergeant David Yustin of the Vermont State Police, and nine Field Supervision Correctional Officers assigned to the Vermont Department of Corrections Barre Community Correctional Service Center. As a former State prosecutor, I know that law enforcement Officers are never ``off-duty.'' They are dedicated public servants trained to uphold the law and keep the peace. When there is a threat to our public safety, law enforcement officers are sown to answer that call. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act will enable law enforcement officers in Vermont and across the nation to be armed and prepared when they answer that call, no matter where, when, or in what form it comes. I urge my colleagues to support the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to make our communities safer and to protect law enforcement officers and their families.