Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I know one reason. It passed the other body 400 to 4. It came over here. I was asked if we had any objection to moving it quickly. I said, absolutely not. We checked every single member on the Democratic side of the aisle, and they said they would vote for it, every man and woman. But we had a hold put on it from the Republican side of the aisle. They have held it up. They have delayed it. I cannot understand why. Money laundering by terrorists is covered. President Bush, shortly after the attack of September 11 last year, took extraordinary steps to try to choke off some of the sources of financing of these terrorist groups. I applauded the President for doing that. I thought it was the right thing. However, there are some major areas we could not pursue without further legislation, which the administration strongly supports, and which Republicans and Democrats strongly support. That is part of this bill. I would like to turn the spigot off for terrorists' money. That is in this bill. The President of the United States would sign this bill immediately once it got onto his desk. Why the Republicans are holding it up, frankly, I don't know. I know they are holding it up, but I don't know why, especially when the President of the United States would sign this. There is much antiterrorism in here, everything from the authorization of Boys and Girls Clubs to hazardous duty pay for Federal law enforcement officers. This is sort of like voting to acknowledge the sun rises in the east. I don't know what the controversy is.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is right. Unfortunately, in holding this up, they are taking from the President of the United States tools needed to fight international terrorism. They are turning their back on the law enforcement people of this country. We have an authorization for a charter change for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, something they have all supported, we have all supported, Democrats are all for. Republicans are holding that up. There was a charter change in here for the American Legion. All 51 on this side of the aisle have supported it. It is being held up on the Republican side. AMVETS, a charter change for American Veterans. That is being held up by the other side. We support it. This may be the kind of political posturing people think they have to have in an election year. I think it is a crying shame. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is the intention of Senator Hatch and I to move to suspend paragraphs 2 and 3 of rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2215, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I did not know Senator Reed's friend, but after listening to what he said, I feel as though I did know him. The distinguished senior Senator from Rhode Island is fortunate to have had such a friend, but I think his friend was fortunate to know Senator Reed. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Georgia, did not mind the reference to the U.S. Marine Corps. I saw the smile on his face when that reference was made.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I pay tribute to a colleague of ours whose career of public service may never be matched again in the history of our country. My friend Strom Thurmond sits on the other side of the aisle of the Senate Chamber, but I consider him a friend with whom I have worked closely, and I will miss him. I remember when I was first sworn into the Senate in January of 1975. Because of a tied vote in the State of New Hampshire that election year, it was a matter that did not get resolved until we actually went back and did the election over in the middle of the year. I was the most junior Member of a 99-Member Senate. We did not have the Hart Building at the time. We had the Russell Building and the Dirksen Building, and a couple of us very junior Members were in basement offices. Senator Garn of Utah, Senator Laxalt of Nevada, and I were down in the dungeons. When we were sworn in, I had a small reception down there. I invited Members of the Senate to come, not thinking that anybody would actually show up. There were far more noteworthy people being sworn in that day, some to begin subsequent terms, others newly elected. I remember standing there with my mother and father, and one of the very first people to come through that door was Strom Thurmond, walking arm in arm with John Stennis of Mississippi. I remember Strom welcoming me to the Senate and telling my mother and father I seemed like a nice young man, and that I might actually have a career ahead of me. I note that has been the routine of Strom Thurmond, to welcome new Senators from either party. He has done it with hundreds of Senators. This one remembers it well. We often worked in the field of antitrust laws. We worked together on the National Cooperative Production amendments of 1993, the very first high-technology bill signed by President Clinton, and to improve the protections against anticompetitive conduct in the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act. Senator Thurmond has been a legislator. I must admit, when Senator Thurmond and I have worked together, it has raised some eyebrows, and when we have introduced legislation together, some have remarked that either it is brilliant legislation or one of us has not gotten around to reading it. But there are so many issues that we did join together. Of course, there have been occasions when he and I have sat on opposite sides of an issue, but even though there were issues about which we felt deeply, Senator Thurmond always conducted himself with the utmost integrity. He has always told the Senate how he felt. He has done so with the people of South Carolina first and foremost in his mind. I recall him inviting me down to talk to the Strom Thurmond Institute at Clemson. He wanted to put on a debate on economic matters. He had an impartial moderator from the Heritage Foundation. When I walked in, I saw half the Republican party of South Carolina and the Heritage Foundation. I knew I was to be the sacrificial lamb, and I was loving every minute of it. When they stated how much time would be allotted, he stated he should have twice as much time as I because I spoke twice as fast as he did. We had a very good meeting. I am sure I did not change his mind, or most of the minds of the audience, on a couple of issues. We walked out of there arm in arm, laughing, having a good time. I remember a couple of days later Strom coming on the floor and slapping me on the back and saying, I want to thank the king of Vermont, as he said, for going down with him. One of the strangest meetings during that time was when we were in the Senate dining room and I introduced him to Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead. It was a meeting of cultures, very different cultures. I share with Senator Thurmond the distinction of being from a State that has provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with three chairmen over the history of the committee. South Carolina and the State of Vermont have each had three different people who have shared the Senate Judiciary Committee. With that in mind, I have always asked what I call the Strom Thurmond question at judicial hearings. He has always reminded nominees that the people and lawyers who appear before them, whatever their position in the case, whether rich or poor, white or black, man or woman, whatever their religious or political affiliation, deserve respect and fairness. He has reminded everyone of that. I will miss my friend Strom. He has been named President pro tempore emeritus for a very good reason. I have learned much from the senior Senator from South Carolina. Let me share one additional aspect of Senator Thurmond's legacy to the Senate as he completes this term and retires from office. In addition to all his longevity records and legislative achievements and buildings named for him, there is something else about him I will always remember. When we hold hearings for Federal judges--and we have held a number this year--I am always careful to carry on a tradition that Senator Thurmond started. Senator Thurmond always reminded nominees for high office that it is essential to treat others with courtesy and respect. He always reminded nominees that the people and lawyers who appeared before them, whatever their position in the case, whether rich or poor, white or black, man or woman, whatever their religious or political affiliation, they are each and every one deserving of respect and fairness. Senator Thurmond was right to remind judges--and even Senators--of that simple rule. It is another contribution he has made to all of us that will continue to serve us well. As I said earlier, I will miss Strom Thurmond. He has been named President-Pro-Tempore Emeritus for good reason.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday, the majority leader filed cloture on the bipartisan 21st Century Department of Justice Authorization Act conference report. I commend him for doing that. This is a conference report that passed 400 to 4 last week in the other body. We will be voting on that cloture motion tomorrow. I just want to take a few moments to let Members of this body know what is in the conference report. It was signed by all conferees--Republican and Democrat--Senator Orrin Hatch, and Representatives Sensenbrenner, Henry Hyde, Lamar Smith, myself, and others. I thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for coming to the floor yesterday to support this conference report. She has spoken to me many times about the need for more judgeships along the Texas border with Mexico to handle immigration and criminal cases. Certainly, from what Senator Hutchison has said about that need, she has made a compelling request, and I have included in this conference report three new judges for that part of Texas. Actually, the conference report has one more judge than we passed out of the Senate. We added another one in conference. I suspect technically one could say that was not a matter in conference, but the Senator from Texas made, I thought, a compelling reason for it. I mention that because one of our Federal district judges from Vermont has actually gone down to Texas a couple times to help out, and every time he has gone down, he has called me up and said: They need more judges here because of the load. So I thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. I also want to thank Senator Sessions for his statement in support of this conference report. I mentioned to him on the floor this morning-- and I want to speak again to that--there is a piece of this legislation Senator Sessions originally opposed. If it were here as a freestanding bill, that particular part--a small part of the bill--I believe Senator Sessions would vote against it. But he supports the overall bill and is voting for the whole bill. I thank him for that. I also thank him for his work and his aid on the provisions in the conference report on the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants and the Centers for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama and other States. He had a great deal of input, and I appreciate what he did. We tried throughout all of this effort to make this a bipartisan bill, and he helped with that. Senator Feinstein spoke on behalf of this conference report. She has been a tireless advocate for the needs of California, including the needs of the Federal judiciary along the southern border. She has helped to improve that situation. I was glad to see we could work through that because we had tried for 7 or 8 years to add these additional judges, and they had been blocked. But I came back and said, even though it would be a different President appointing the judges--in this case, President Bush--I was in favor of adding the judges. They should be in there. Among other things, we included five judgeships for the southern district of California. We have also included judges, as I said, for Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois, and Florida. The statistics show all the judges are very much needed. The senior Senator from California gave leadership on the James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program reauthorization, and the anti-drug-abuse provisions in the conference report, and that has been extremely helpful. I should tell my colleagues, this report will strengthen our Justice Department and the FBI, and increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks. It offers our children a safe place to go after school. In this conference report, we put together years of work. Parts of about 25 different bills have been combined in this report. I thought President Bush did absolutely the right thing after the attacks of a year ago, on September 11, as he moved very aggressively to try to clamp off money going to terrorist organizations around the world. As we know, al-Qaida received a lot of money from Saudi Arabia and other countries, and that money has floated all over. The President moved very quickly to stop that. But then they find other ways to move it. We know they still have tens of millions-- hundreds of millions of dollars perhaps--in these terrorist groups. But there is a thing in this conference report called the Madrid Protocol. If we agree to this protocol, this will greatly strengthen the hand of the President to go after this money. The White House supports it. All the antiterrorist groups and the Government support it. That is also in this bill. I mentioned this because I have been asked questions by several Senators exactly what is included. I want them to know. I also want to thank Senator Hatch for his work in this endeavor. We spent a lot of hours in the conference. That is why it passed so overwhelmingly, with the support of both Republican and Democratic leadership in the other body. I would be happy to have it pass unanimously. We could pass it tonight for that matter. I know the legislation is a priority. We have not authorized the Department of Justice in more than two decades. Some might ask: Why should we do it now? We have a far different Department of Justice than we had before September 11. We have a number of changes that had to be made, supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the aisle in the other body, the President of the United States, the Attorney General, and so on. What we have done is tried to assure the administration of justice in our Nation. Our Nation has been radically changed from a year ago. It doesn't have everything that I would have liked or everything everybody would have liked. That is because it is a conference report. It is a consensus document. We did it in a bipartisan way--Democratic chairman from this body and a Republican chairman from the other; a Republican ranking member from this body, a Democratic ranking member of the other body. We know that it will strengthen our Justice Department and the FBI. We will increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks. We will improve our intellectual property and antitrust laws. I hope for the sake of the Justice Department and the Congress and the American people we can pass it. It is remarkable, the number of provisions in here that will help everything from an attack of terrorism, closing off money and so forth, to help with the growing drug problem that strikes not just in the big cities but our rural areas. I come from largely a rural State. The difference between this and the other body, every Senator has significant rural areas. When my son was a student at Emory Law School, I remember going to the State of the distinguished Presiding Officer and traveling around with my son. I come from a rural area. I must say, there are some pretty rural areas in Georgia. But there are in California and Texas and New York and every other State. This helps those States, especially in small areas, do something about the scourge of drugs hitting our youngsters, our future generation. I wanted to give a short summary. There is a lot more. This was so other Members who had been asking me in both parties what is in it, I wanted them to see. It will be voted on tomorrow. I hope as a result of this vote tomorrow we will then just pass it. The White House has indicated the President will be eager to sign it when it arrives. This conference report will strengthen our Justice Department and the FBI, increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks, prevent crime and drug abuse, improve our intellectual property and antitrust laws, strengthen and protect our judiciary, and offer our children a safe place to go after school. This conference report is the product of years of bipartisan work. The conference report was unanimous. By my count, the conference report includes significant portions of at least 25 legislative initiatives. I had hoped that the conference report on H.R. 2215 would not take up much of the Senate's time. There are other matters we do need to address. The majority leader tried to pass this legislation without taking up any floor time last week, but was unable to do so because of an objection to proceeding by unanimous consent. Proceeding by unanimous consent would have ensured that we not take up the Senate's time in debate on this bipartisan legislative package. Yesterday, I came to the floor and sought to allow for two hours of debate before a vote on final passage at 4:30 p.m. We then could have moved on to other matters. Again, that proposal would have taken up a limited amount of the Senate's time. Yet, again, that limited time agreement proposal was rejected. As a result of the objection to proceeding more quickly, we are still considering this conference report and the majority leader was forced to file a cloture petition to bring it to a vote. This legislation is neither complicated nor controversial. It passed the House 400 to 4 in short order. It was signed by every conferee, Republican or Democrat, including Senator Hatch and Representatives Sensenbrenner, Hyde, and Lamar Smith. Senators Sessions and Hutchison came to the floor yesterday to support it. There is no need for extensive debate in the Senate--we can move on to consider other matters as soon as the objection is lifted so we are able to have an up or down vote on the conference report. This legislation is a priority. Congress has not authorized the Department of Justice in more than two decades. I know that Senator Hatch and Representatives Sensenbrenner and Conyers share my view that it is long past time for the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate and the Congress as a whole to restore their proper oversight role over the Department of Justice. Through Republican and Democratic administrations, we have allowed the Department of Justice to escape its accountability to the Senate and House of Representatives and through them to the American people. Congress, the people's representative, has a strong institutional interest in restoring that accountability. The House has recognized this, and has done its job. We need to do ours. I agree with other Members who have spoken that we need to give anti- terrorism priority, but not lose sight of the other important missions of the Department of Justice. The conference report takes such a balanced approach. Some have said that there is nothing new in this legislation to fight terrorism. I think they missed some important provisions in the legislation as well as my floor statements outlining what the conference report contains to help in the anti-terrorism effort. Let me repeat those remarks and highlight what the conference report does on this important problem. The conference report fortifies our border security by authorizing over $20 billion for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and alien registration. It also authorizes funding for Centers for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Nevada, Vermont and Pennsylvania, and adds additional uses for grants from the Office of Domestic Preparedness to support State and local law enforcement agencies. These provisions have strong bipartisan support, including that of Senator Sessions. Another measure in the bill would correct a glitch in a new law that helps prosecutors combat the international financing of terrorism. I worked closely with the White House to pass this provision in order to bring the United States into compliance with a treaty that bans terrorist financing, but without this technical, non-controversial change, the provision may not be usable. This law is vital in stopping the flow of money to those who seek to harm our citizens. Worse yet, at a time when the President is going before the U.N. emphasizing that our enemies are not complying with international law, by blocking this minor fix, we leave ourselves open to a charge that we also are not in compliance with an important anti-terrorism treaty. I agree with other Members who have spoken that we should do more to help the FBI Director in transforming the FBI from a crime fighting to a terrorism prevention agency and to help the FBI overcome its information technology, management and other problems to be the best that it can be. The Judiciary Committee reported unanimously the Leahy- Grassley FBI Reform Act, S. 1974, over six months ago to reach those goals, but an anonymous hold has stopped that legislation from moving forward. This conference report contains parts of that bipartisan legislation, but not the whole bill, which continues to this day to be blocked from Senate consideration and passage. Since the attacks of September 11 and the anthrax attacks last fall, we have relied on the FBI to detect and prevent acts of catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American people and the institutions of our country. Reform and improvement at the FBI was already important, but the terrorist attacks suffered by this country last year have imposed even greater urgency on improving the FBI. The Bureau is our front line of domestic defense against terrorists. It needs to be as great as it can. Even before those attacks, the Judiciary Committee's oversight hearings revealed serious problems at the FBI that needed strong congressional action to fix. We heard about a double standard in evaluations and discipline. We heard about record and information management problems and communications breakdowns between field offices and Headquarters that led to the belated production of documents in the Oklahoma City bombing case. Despite the fact that we have poured money into the FBI over the last five years, we heard that the FBI's computer systems were in dire need of modernization. We heard about how an FBI supervisor, Robert Hanssen, was able to sell critical secrets to the Russians undetected for years without ever getting a polygraph. We heard that there were no fewer than 15 different areas of security at the FBI that needed fixing. The FBI Reform Act tackles these problems with improved accountability, improved security both inside and outside the FBI, and required planning to ensure the FBI is prepared to deal with the multitude of challenges we are facing. We are all indebted to Senator Grassley for his leadership in the area. Working with Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee we unanimously reported the FBI Reform Act more than 6 months ago only to be stymied in our bipartisan efforts by an anonymous hold. Now, due to Republican objections, the conference report does not contain some of the important provisions in the FBI Reform Act that Senator Grassley and I, and the other members of the Judiciary Committee, agreed were needed. Among the items that are, unfortunately, not in the conference report and are being blocked from passing in the stand-alone FBI Reform bill by an anonymous hold are the following: Title III of the FBI Reform bill that would institute a career security officer program, which senior FBI officials have testified before our Committee would be very helpful; Title IV of the FBI Reform bill outlining the requirements for a polygraph program along the lines of what the Webster Commission recommended; Title VII of the FBI Reform bill that takes important steps to fix some of the double standard problems and support the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, which FBI Ethics and OPR agents say is very important; and Title VIII to push along implementation of secure communications networks to help facilitate FISA processing between Main Justice and the FBI. These hard-working agents and prosecutors have to hand-carry top secret FISA documents between their offices because they still lack send secure e- mail systems. This needs to be fixed and the FBI Reform bill would help. These should not be controversial provisions and are designed to help the FBI. Yet, passage is being blocked of both a stand-alone FBI Reform bill and those provisions we were able to include in this conference report. Some in this body have complained that we included provisions in this conference report that were not contained in either the Senate or House-passed bills. Now, each of the proposals we have included are directly related to improving the administration of justice in the United States. We were asked to include many of them by Republican members of the House and Senate. I would like to point, in particular, to our reauthorization of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which President Bush has sought to eliminate. On March 4 of this year, Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein sent me a letter asking me to include an authorization for SCAAP--which was not authorized in either the House- or Senate-passed bill--in the conference report. I agreed with Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein that we should authorize SCAAP. I still believe that it is the right thing to do. We took the arguments seriously that we needed more judges in certain parts of the country, particularly in border States. We added another new judge for Arizona on top of the two that were added in 1998 and the third that was added in 2000. We added a number of other judges as well, as I have already detailed. Some have criticized the conference report's authorization of funding for DEA police training in South and Central Asia, and for the United States-Thailand drug prosecutor exchange program. I believe that both of these are worthy programs that deserve the Senate's support. I have listened to President Bush and others in his Administration and in Congress argue that terrorist organizations in Asia, including al-Qaida, have repeatedly used drug proceeds to fund their operations. The conferees wanted to do whatever we could to break the link between drug trafficking and terror, and we would all greatly appreciate the Senate's assistance in that effort. Beyond the relationship between drug trafficking and terrorism, the production of drugs in Asia has a tremendous impact on America. For example, more than a quarter of the heroin that is plaguing the northeastern United States, including my State of Vermont, comes from Southeast Asia. Many of the governments in that region want to work with the United States to reduce the production of drugs, and these programs will help. It is beyond me why any Senator would oppose them. Some have complained that the conference report demands too many reports from the Department of Justice, and that these reporting requirements would interfere with the Department's ongoing counterterrorism efforts. It is true that our legislation requires a number of reports, as part of our oversight obligations over the Department of Justice. I assure the Senate, however, that if the Department of Justice comes to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and makes a convincing case that any reporting requirement in this legislation will hinder our national security, we will work out a reasonable accommodation. I think, however, that such a turn of events is exceedingly unlikely, as no one at the Department has mentioned any such concerns. Some Members have complained that the conference report includes pieces of legislation that had not received committee consideration. The Law Enforcement Tribute Act has been mentioned as falling in this category. In reality, the Committee reported that bill favorably on May 16. Complaints have been raised about the motor vehicle franchise dispute resolution provision in the conference report and that this legislation was not considered by the Judiciary Committee. That complaint is misplaced. The Judiciary Committee fully considered this proposal and reported Senator Hatch's Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act last October 31. It has been stalled from the Senate floor by anonymous holds. The same complaint was incorrectly leveled at the section dealing with FBI danger pay. Yet, the Judiciary Committee did consider and approve this proposal as part of the original DOJ Authorization bill, S. 1319. The complaint that the Federal Judiciary Protection Act was not considered by the Committee is likewise misplaced. On the contrary, this legislation, S. 1099, was passed the Judiciary Committee and the Senate by unanimous consent last year and in the 106th Congress, as well. The provisions on the U.S. Parole Commission were included in the conference report without Committee consideration but was included because the Bush Administration included it in its budget request and it makes sense. Some have complained about the provision establishing the FBI police to provide protection for the FBI buildings and personnel in this time of heightened concerns about terrorist attacks. When this legislation was considered by the Judiciary Committee as part of the FBI Reform Act, S. 1974, which was reported unanimously on a bipartisan basis, no member on the Committee raised any objection at the time. Similarly, the complaint about the lack of Committee consideration of the report on information technology to keep the Congress better informed about how the FBI is updating its obsolete computer systems, is misplaced. This legislation was considered by the Judiciary Committee as part of the FBI Reform Act, S. 1974, and no objection was raised. This conference report is a comprehensive attempt to ensure the administration of justice in our nation. It is not everything I would like or that any individual Member of Congress might have authored. It is a conference report, a consensus document, a product of the give and take with the House that is our legislative process. It will strengthen our Justice Department and the FBI, increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks, prevent crime and drug abuse, improve our intellectual property and antitrust laws, strengthen and protect our judiciary, and offer our children a safe place to go after school. I hope that it will merit the support of every Member of the U.S. Senate. At the very least, it deserves an up-or-down vote. I was pleased to see some Republicans come to the floor yesterday to support this conference report, and I urge those who are blocking its consideration to relent and let the Senate vote up or down without further delay or tactics of obstruction. I hope that the critics will reconsider their opposition and their filibuster of this conference report and permit the Senate to vote up or down on this bipartisan bill. For the sake of the Justice Department, the U.S. Congress, and the American people, we should pass this legislation today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Sure.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to make sure that it is clearly stated and make sure it is clear in the Record. The charter changes for the American Legion, the charter changes for AMVETS, the charter changes for Veterans of Foreign Wars are in a separate bill that has the Republican hold on it. However, there is no opposition from members of the Judiciary Committee. I am told there is no Democrat who opposes those charter changes. I am told that every Democrat in the Senate is perfectly willing to pass the charter changes for the American Legion, for the AMVETS, and for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and as soon as the Republican hold is lifted on the charter changes for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and AMVETS, we can pass it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am glad we are on the Department of Justice authorization. As I said earlier, I appreciate the fact the distinguished majority leader moved to it. This is actually a very important bill. At a time when it seems so much good legislation is being stalled, it would be a shame if this was, too. I know since January of last year Senate Democrats have tried to bridge the gap and make bipartisan progress on campaign finance reform, corporate accountability, and a real Patients' Bill of Rights, and a number of bipartisan anticrime, antidrug, antiterrorism bills. We worked with the administration after September 11 on the USA Patriot Act; we passed that in record time. We created the September 11 victims' trust fund and we enhanced border security. We tried to work as supportive partners in the effort against terrorism. Throughout that effort in the Judiciary Committee, we rose above the bitterness and partisanship that had been exhibited by my predecessors during the last 6 years of the previous administration. We have held more hearings on more judicial nominees and held more committee votes on them and confirmed more judges in 15 months than the Republicans were willing to confirm in the last 30 months when they controlled the Senate. I emphasize that for the 30 months prior to the change in the control of the Senate, the Republicans controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee during both the time of President Clinton and President Bush. In the 15 months we have been in control--it has been only with President Bush--we have put through twice as many judges in 15 months. We put through more judges in 15 months than they did in 30 months. I mention this because some at the White House, who should know better, talk about the holdup on judges but do not like it when they are reminded that we have done more under President Bush than they did for both President Bush and President Clinton during a period twice as long. It is an interesting point. I remember Adlai Stevenson once said to some of his Republican friends: If you promise to stop talking lies about us, I will stop talking the truth about you. But I find the statements and statistics continue, so I thought I would throw a little truth on the matter. I mention this because we have tried to go more than halfway. As I said, during 15 months, we moved more judges than the Republicans did during 30 months. We have reached out in order to pass legislation from our committee--and the distinguished Presiding Officer is a valued member of that committee--and passed out piece after piece either unanimously or by a strong bipartisan majority. We passed intellectual property legislation, consumer legislation, anticrime legislation, antidrug legislation, but then mysterious Republican holds came up and stopped them. Here are some of the bills we passed out of the committee that have been held up on the Republican side: the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act; the Hatch-Leahy Drug Abuse Education Prevention and Treatment Act; the DREAM Act, championed by Senators Durbin and Hatch; a charter amendment to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, something totally without partisanship. We passed it unanimously, as the distinguished Senator from Washington State knows. We passed out a charter amendment to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a nonpartisan request. We cannot get it through the Senate because it is being held up on the Republican side of the aisle. We passed out a charter amendment for AMVETS, a wonderful veterans organization. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I voted for it and it was voted unanimously out of our committee. It is being held up on the Republican side of the aisle. We passed out a charter amendment for the American Legion. Every Democrat voted for that. Every Democrat has agreed: Move that through the Senate. It is being held up on the Republican side. Now we find there is a Republican hold on the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. This is the first one in 21 years. It passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 400 to 4. The chief sponsor is a leading Republican Member of the House. We strengthen our Justice Department, increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks, prevent crime and drug abuse, improve our intellectual property and antitrust laws, strengthen our judiciary, and offer our children a safe place to go after school. It is a product of years of work. I commend Senator Daschle for bringing this up for a vote. Let me show my colleagues some charts. This is not a hodgepodge where one might go in and look as to whether you wear a green tie or paisley tie or drive a blue car or a black car; this is something that really affects Americans. It was passed by the House of Representatives. If it is allowed to come to a vote, it could pass easily in this body: border security, domestic preparedness, suppression of financing terrorism treaty. Let me mention the last part. We worked this out with the Bush administration. They said there is a difficulty in following the money used by terrorists around the world. We know how quickly President Bush and Secretary O'Neill moved after September 11 last year to freeze the assets of some of these terrorist groups, and I commend the President for that action; I praise the President for doing that. But I wish the President now would tell his own party that we have the legislative tools that President Bush has asked for to go after the money of terrorists, and it is being blocked on the Senate floor by a Republican hold. Let's pass this. Let's do what we all know has to be done. This is not partisan--grabbing the money of terrorist organizations that are after the United States. That is not a Democratic or Republican issue. But when every single Democrat said they will vote to go after that money, it is time for the anonymous Republican who has a hold to let us go forward. Let me show a few other items that are in the bill. We improve law enforcement. We have FBI reform and FBI agent danger pay. Some of these FBI agents are working in some of the most dangerous places, especially overseas. Sometimes their mere presence targets them for assassination. This is agent danger pay. We ought to be doing that. The Body Armor Act is something every law enforcement agency from which I have heard wants to protect police officers from those who would attack them. I cannot understand why this is being held up on the other side. We ought to go forward with this bill. We ought to pass it. We ought to tell our law enforcement officers that we will help them. Senator Carnahan's Law Enforcement Tribute Act is in this legislation. It authorizes grants to States, local governments, and Indian tribes for memorials to honor killed or disabled officers while serving as law enforcement safety officers. How can anybody oppose that without looking terribly political? Senator Carnahan deserves credit for this bill. Senator Feinstein and Senator Sessions joined in a bipartisan effort on the Body Armor Act. That should be allowed to go through. Then we have some ways to stop crime from happening in the first place. We reached a bipartisan agreement to give the Boys and Girls Clubs the funds they need for 1,200 additional clubs across the Nation. Next to motherhood and apple pie, I cannot imagine anything that should have more support than helping the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. We have an excellent one in Burlington, VT. I know it very well. It just celebrated its 40th birthday. I remember that Boys and Girls Club back in the days when I was State's attorney. I know those kids who went there had a place to go, had a place to learn, had a place to gather, had a place to constructively work, and were not the kids who got in trouble. They were not the ones I saw in juvenile court. They were not the ones who made our crime list. They were the ones who made the star list in our community. I mention this because Senator Hatch and I went to the Boys and Girls Club congressional breakfast honoring the regional youth of the year. We also honored Senator Thurmond. I heard, and I know they were sincere, Republican Senator after Republican Senator come forward and say we have to authorize and expand the Boys and Girls Clubs. All right. Let's do it. Last week, we offered to pass this bill on a voice vote to zip it through. We polled every single member of this side of the aisle. They were all in support of that Boys and Girls Club authorization, as they were the Body Armor Act and the help for law enforcement. Every single Democrat was ready to vote for it. We were willing to have it go by on a voice vote. An anonymous objection came from the Republican side. I know in an election year some politics gets played, but not with the Boys and Girls Clubs and not with the Violence Against Women Office. We want to increase Federal focus on this tragic and recurring problem. Preventing domestic violence is not a partisan issue. I remember going into the emergency rooms of our hospitals at 3:00 in the morning when I was in law enforcement. I saw the results of domestic violence. I saw women beaten so badly that even though we had an idea who may have beaten them, they could not even tell us through a broken jaw, swollen lips, and bloody faces. I saw that. I saw domestic violence even in a bucolic State like mine, but the amount of domestic violence is the same in every State. It was not just those battered individuals I saw in the emergency room--at least we had hopes they would be brought back to health. We at least had hopes that medical care would return them to their ability to function--I still have nightmares sometimes of some of the others I saw, but I didn't see them in the emergency room. I saw them one floor up in the morgue. This happens in every single State, and I never heard a police officer say: I wonder if this victim is Republican or Democrat. The police officer said: Why don't we do something to stop it? Here is a chance to do something. Let's vote for it. The Crime Free Rural States Grants, we have crime in our cities, but we also have crimes in our rural areas. The distinguished Presiding Officer was Governor in one of our finest States, a State that is a part of the American heartland, a State I have had the pleasure of visiting. In fact, there were Leahys who moved out to Nebraska in the 1850s when my great-grandfather and his brothers came over from Ireland, some staying in Vermont, some staying in New York and others going to Nebraska. I know how beautiful a State it is, and I know there are both cities and rural areas. I know how hard the distinguished Presiding Officer as Governor fought against crime in both areas. He knows, as I do, that crime is a fact of life in rural areas. It is sometimes more difficult to fight because there are not all the needed resources available. It might be a small sheriff's department. The chief of police may be the whole police force. We can help. This legislation authorizes programs that will reduce drug abuse and recidivism, mandatory, to increased funding for drug treatment in prisons, to funding for police training in South and Central Asia. These proposals are not Republican or Democrat; these are bipartisan. Most of them were in the Hatch-Leahy Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act. Drug courts, drug-free prisons, reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act--one of the saddest things is going to juvenile court and seeing 12- or 13-year-old boys and girls who are already recidivists, people who have committed crimes that one would think a child that age would not even know about. In going back through the reports, there are steps that could have been taken 2, 3, or 4 years before that might have prevented that. Now these boys and girls are people who are probably going to end up in an adult jail somewhere, lost to society and lost to themselves. We should have stopped it. That help is in here. That is one of the reasons the House of Representatives, facing some of the same kind of partisan divisions that we face in this great body, passed it 400 to 4. I do not need to tell the distinguished Presiding Officer the need for these kinds of investments. He has had the experience both as a Governor, a Senator, and a parent. He knows what we have to do, just as I do. Let's go ahead and do it. Let's set aside the partisanship for a while and let's do something. There are intellectual property provisions in this bill. We are in the United States seeing an enormous loss of jobs. In the last 2 years, we have had the biggest drop in jobs that I can remember, the largest number of layoffs we have seen in years. The economy is in a tailspin. The stock market has had a greater drop than at any time since the Presidency of Herbert Hoover. If anything, we should be helping American innovators and businesses, both big and small. We want these businesses to prosper. We want these businesses to be able to compete on a worldwide scale. We want these businesses to hire the people of Nebraska, Vermont, South Dakota, New York, California, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, and all our other States. So we put in the Leahy- Hatch Madrid Protocol Implementation Act. What this does is the sort of thing that the President and all the people around him say we need, something to simplify life for businesses. We would implement a treaty to allow American businesses to have one stop for international trademark registration which they can do only to countries that sign on to the protocol. American businesses and companies that need to protect their trademarks if they sell their goods and services in international markets, especially over the Internet, would be helped by this legislation. Every single business leader I have heard of, regardless of their political background--from chambers of commerce, to business leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike--say pass this bill. I checked on this side of the aisle. Every single Democrat is ready to vote for it right now. It has been held up for over a year by a Republican hold. I say to some of the businesses, talk to the Members of the Republican Party. The Democrats are ready to pass it. We have another provision in the TEACH Act, an exemption that allows educators to use the same rich material of distance learning over the Internet as in face-to-face classrooms. Let me state why that is important. In rural areas--such as Nebraska or Vermont--there may be a number of small schools that cannot each support a library and sometimes cannot afford a teacher in a specialized area such as science, history, or math. Together they can, but you have to link them. So copyright laws apply. We worked that out. This is a no- brainer. It will help the kids. It should be a no-brainer for the Senate to pass. We reauthorize and modernize the Patent and Trademark Office and give them funds they need. When I hear the baloney that comes out of the political people in the Attorney General's office and the White House about judges, this would be the one they should want. There are 20 new judges included to be appointed by President Bush. For a little bit of history, this is more than were created during the 6-plus years that the Republican Party controlled the Senate. The Clinton administration wanted to create these judgeships. They wanted to create new Federal judicial positions, and they were blocked by the Republicans. I believed the judicial positions were needed when President Clinton was President. I thought it was wrong that the Republicans stopped us from doing that. I did not want to do the same thing to President Bush that they did to President Clinton. Two wrongs do not make a right. So it was included. These are Federal judges in States we know are Republican and will be chosen by Republican Senators--in Arizona, Alabama, Texas. We include them just the same. Why did that not pass last week? One may wonder, finally, having blocked it for 6 years during the Clinton administration, now they have 20 judges President Bush may appoint--one may wonder why it has not been passed by a Democratic-controlled Senate. The Democratic-controlled Senate wanted to. But I will tell you the secret: A Republican Senator held it up. That is what happened. I hope no one comes down and says, We need more judges. We have 20 judgeships included, mostly in Republican States. There are a lot of other provisions, including the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. A lot of western Senators want that. We get into immigration matters. I talked a lot about rural areas. Let me talk about the rural underserved medical areas. Every Senator has rural areas in their State. My State happens to be predominantly rural. But even the States of New York, California, Texas, and Illinois have large rural areas. It is very hard sometimes to get doctors into those areas. If you have someone injured in a farming accident, there may not be a doctor. That injured person may die for want of needed medical treatment. You may have a woman in a difficult childbirth. She may die or her baby may die for want of medical care. There may be an elderly person who just needs a certain amount of preventive care to lead a happy, productive life. We have worked on the visa provisions of INS to allow doctors from outside this country to serve in rural areas: Extend their visa providing they will stay in rural areas and help where there is a need. It allows grandparents to apply for citizenship on behalf of orphaned children, grandparents who saw their grandchildren orphaned in the tragedy of last September 11. These are some items included. This is as much a bipartisan piece of legislation as I have seen in 28 years. The people supporting this legislation are wide ranging. By golly, I just happen to have a chart. Let's see who is in favor of this: Boys and Girls Clubs of America; the Coalition for Juvenile Justice; the Fraternal Order of Police; Family Violence Prevention Fund; National Automobile Dealers Association; National Association of Counties; National Association of Police Organizations; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Mental Health Association; National Network to End Domestic Violence; Presbyterian Church, Washington office; Volunteers of America; U.S. Council for International Business; National Association of Manufacturers; the International Trademark Association; American Intellectual Property Law Association; U.S. Copyright Office; the American Library Association; Association of American Universities; American Research Libraries; Intellectual Property Owners Association; American Intellectual Property Law Association; Avon Products; Nintendo; Warner Brothers; IBM--I could go on. That is about as broad a cross section supporting this as we will see in the Senate. I am not sure what game is being played. I urge my good friends on the other side of the aisle to come forward, belly up to the bar, pay the price, pass the bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters of support.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we don't have one of the leaders on the floor at the present time. I was going to ask that we proceed to a vote. But I am not going to do that until the other side is represented here. But I know everyone on this side is ready to vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tell my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Nevada, that I checked. I know his office also checked on our side of the aisle. Everybody is in favor. We were told that the Democratic side of the aisle wanted to let it go through in wrap-up last week. I am told there is a lot of legislation in here sponsored by distinguished members of the Republican Party who support it. But the hold has been a continuing hold on the Republican side. I can't understand why. This is as close to a motherhood bill as I have seen here in years.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. The committee of conference went across the political spectrum. Every conferee--Republican and Democrat--signed that conference report. They passed it 400 to 4 in the House. I am amazed that we are still even on the floor. I have been advised by the Republican side that a Republican Senator wants to come over and speak. Otherwise, I would have said let us go to a vote now. Obviously, I don't want to cut off any Senator who wishes to speak. But I tell my friend from Nevada that, as far as this Senator is concerned, I am perfectly willing to go to a vote anytime we want. It is now 4:30. I can't imagine why we need to wait beyond 5 o'clock. Again, just before the Senator from Nevada came to the floor I read a list.

Mr. LEAHY. I am sure he was. I read a list of all those who support it. This is probably as broad a spectrum--National Association of Manufacturers to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. It sure encompasses a lot. We have a charter change for the Veterans of Foreign Wars in here; a charter change for AMVETS; a charter change for the American Legion. All of those organizations support it. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I pushed that through. This is something that the AMVETS and Veterans of Foreign Wars discussed and asked for, this charter change. They all support it. All the Republicans and Democrats on the committee support it. We ought to pass it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. No, but I will. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my good friend from Louisiana for her usual courtesy and cooperation.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, due to her good work on the bill, of which she is a prime sponsor, reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act is in this bill. It tracks the Leahy-Hatch-Kennedy-Landrieu bill. We also have authorized funding for the Centers for Domestic Preparedness. I note that because it has been the persuasive persistence of my friend from Louisiana that has improved this bill so much, and I commend her.

Mr. LEAHY. I hope so.

Mr. LEAHY. I cannot speak for Senator Hatch, Mr. President, but I will be happy to vote later this afternoon at 4:30 or so.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for moving to the Department of Justice Authorization Act. This is the first one in 21 years. I note for my friend from South Dakota and my friend from Nevada, this passed the House of Representatives 400 to 4. The conferees, Republicans and Democrats, endorsed it unanimously. It should be able to pass, I hope, easily here. I spoke at some length yesterday about all the items that law enforcement has asked for in this bill. I know the distinguished Senator from Louisiana is waiting to speak. I will take only a few seconds. I wish to emphasize again, this is legislation that passed 400 to 4 in the other body. It has been endorsed across the political spectrum--law enforcement, antiterrorist groups, schools, those small towns in rural America facing drug problems. They are all looking for the adoption of this conference report. The high-tech industry is looking for the passage of the Madrid Protocol which is in the bill. There are 20 new judge positions. Actually, we were trying to get these authorized during the last 6 years of President Clinton's term, and they were blocked. Now with President Bush in office, I put the same 20 in to show bipartisanship. They are back in there and should be passed. President Bush can nominate the people for these positions. I cannot believe either side would hold us up. I hope we will have a consent agreement for a limited amount of debate at some point and then go to a vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I also see my friend from Kentucky. I want to go back to the bill.

Mr. LEAHY. I am wondering, I know the distinguished Senator from Kentucky can say more in less time than most people I know, and brilliantly. Could he perhaps say it in 5 minutes?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am trying to be helpful. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky be recognized for 10 minutes and then the floor revert to the senior Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. As you stated earlier, the pending Justice reauthorization conference report establishes an independent Violence Against Women Office, and isn't it true that this Office will be an autonomous and separate office within the Department of Justice and no longer underneath the jurisdiction of the Office of Justice Programs?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Wan Kim and Michael Volkov, who are detailed to Senator Hatch's staff, during the course of debate on H.R. 2215.