Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. I hope.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, the statute is unequivocal. The director shall report directly to the Attorney General--do not pass go, do not get out of jail free. The law is clear that the director is not to report to various deputies or assistants, but rather straight to the Attorney General. That kind of unfettered access to the Attorney General will ensure that issues of violence against women remain in the forefront, and part of the decision-making and policy-development done by those at the highest levels of government, isn't that so? Mr. BIDEN: That is right. As the former Director of the Violence Against Women Office said: ``There is a world of difference between full participation in the highest levels of decision-making and being buried in a satellite grant office in the Department.'' When the director is out of the leadership circle and placed in a satellite office, the Violence Against Women Office's involvement in activities decrease; for example, it is no longer involved in educating U.S. Attorneys about their role in local communities' efforts to stop violence or it is no longer involved in deciding whether to bring or appeal specific cases. The new Violence Against Women Office Act will be ensure that the Director has the access he or she needs to fully participate--the fight to end violence against women deserves no less. I thank the Senator for his efforts as our Judiciary Committee Chairman and as a conferee to the Justice Reauthorization Act in moving this important act forward.

Mr. LEAHY. I couldn't agree with you more, Senator. I am particularly pleased that the Violence Against Women Office will now be led by a Director nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. How will this provision affect our nation's fight to end domestic violence and sexual assault?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt.

Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if the Senator will yield to me? I wish to discuss another aspect of the war on terrorism, and that is what we can do through the Justice Department. I wonder if the President will allow me to speak about that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know we are getting down toward the end of the session and sometimes legislation falls by the wayside, but I have seen something in the last couple of days different from anything I have seen in 28 years in the Senate. Last Thursday the other body passed the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act and we filed a bipartisan conference report. I mention this because it has been 20 years since there has been such an authorization act for the Department of Justice because it has been so hard to bring people from across the political spectrum together. The House passed this conference report--by a vote of 400 to 4. I am not sure the way things are these days that we could get a vote of 400 to 4 to agree the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The very same day I checked with every single member on this side of the aisle, every Democrat, and asked if they were willing to have it pass the Senate by voice vote, if need be, or a rollcall vote--it does not make any difference, but to pass it. Every single Democrat--the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, myself, everybody else--agreed, yes, sure, go ahead and pass it. We were told there is an anonymous hold on the Republican side. This bipartisan legislation to authorize the Department of Justice is blocked--legislation to strengthen our Justice Department and the FBI that by agreement of all Members across the political spectrum will increase our preparedness against terrorist attacks, but also prevent crime and drug abuse in our cities and in our rural areas. It improves our intellectual property and antitrust laws. It would strengthen and protect our judiciary. It would give our children a safe place to go after school. This legislation is as motherhood as one could imagine and yet the Republicans have said, no, even though the Republican-controlled House passed it 400 to 4. And even though every single Democrat in the Senate is ready to vote for it, the Republicans have said, no, we want to put an anonymous Republican hold on it and not allow it to go forward, years of work by both the Republicans and Democrats. This bill not only has my support in the Judiciary Committee, it has Senator Hatch's support. It has the support of Chairman Sensenbrenner in the other body, as well as Representative Hyde. Every one of the House and Senate conferees, Republican and Democrat, signed the conference report. That conference report includes significant portions of at least 25 legislative initiatives, all to be flushed down the drain by a Republican hold. When people go home this year to campaign about why they want to stop drugs in their schools, why they want to fight terrorism, why they want their courts strengthened, why they want the Attorney General of the Department of Justice to be able to be strengthened in their fight, let them point out that the reason it was not done was a Republican Senator who wants to do it anonymously. They do not even want to step forward and say who he may be. For too many years, Republican and Democrat administrations have allowed the Department of Justice to escape its accountability to the Senate and the House of Representatives and, through them, to the American people. Congress, the people's representatives, have a strong constitutional interest in restoring that accountability. The House has recognized this. It has done its job. We need to do ours. Senate Democrats are prepared to proceed. Senate Republicans apparently are not. So let me tell you some of the things that are in this bipartisan conference report. First, the conference report provides Federal, State, and local governments with additional tools to battle terrorism. It 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 authorizes funding for the Centers for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Nevada, Vermont, and Pennsylvania. It adds additional uses for grants from the Office of Domestic Preparedness to support State and local law enforcement agencies. Why would anybody on the Republican side oppose that? Another measure in the bill would correct a glitch in a law that helps prosecutors combat the international financing of terrorism. I worked closely with the Bush White House to pass this provision in order to bring the United States into compliance with a treaty that bans terrorist financing--and this is something the Bush administration wants--but without this technical, noncontroversial change, the provision may not be usable. As the President has pointed out, this law is vital in stopping the flow of money to those who would harm Americans. Every Democrat is ready to pass that. It is something President Bush has asked for in his fight against terrorism. Every single Democrat in this body is ready to vote for it, but the Republicans are blocking it from going forward. Worse yet, at a time when the President is going before the U.N. emphasizing our enemies are not complying with international law, by blocking this minor fix--something the President has asked for, something every Democrat is ready to vote for, only the Republicans are blocking--we are leaving ourselves open to a charge that we also are not in compliance with an important antiterrorism treaty. Secondly, this conference report improves our law enforcement efforts. Among other things, it pushes the FBI to reform its outdated computer system. Right now it is something that kids in school 10 years ago had better computer systems. It provides danger pay for FBI agents performing hazardous duty abroad. It provides for increased sentencing enhancements when criminals use body armor in crimes of violence or drug trafficking crimes, something for which every single police agency I have talked with from New York to Texas has asked. I am told the administration supports this and every single Democratic Senator supports this, but it is blocked by the Republicans. It includes Senator Carnahan's Law Enforcement Tribute Act, which authorized grants to States, local governments, and Indian tribes for memorials to honor those who were killed or disabled while serving as law enforcement safety officers. It has the Feinstein-Sessions James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act. That is blocked. These are things that had overwhelming Republican and Democratic support, still has unanimous Democratic support but is blocked by the Republicans. I believe the conference report the Senate Republicans are blocking could help prevent crime from occurring in the first place. We reached a bipartisan agreement to give the Boys and Girls Clubs the funds they need to establish 1,200 additional clubs across the Nation. As a former prosecutor, I know how valuable these are to prevent crime from happening in the first place, to give teenagers and youngsters a place to go. Just last week, I joined with Senator Hatch at the Boys and Girls Club congressional breakfast honoring regional youth of the year and also honoring Senator Strom Thurmond. Republican Senator after Republican Senator praised the work of the Boys and Girls Club, as did I, but now some Republican Senators are anonymously holding up the authorization for the money for the Boys and Girls Club. Senate Republicans are also blocking funding that will put an additional Assistant U.S. attorney in every district in the Nation to implement the President's Project Safe Neighborhoods Initiative aimed at preventing school violence. The President goes out and speaks in favor of this. I happen to agree with the President on this. Everybody agrees with him, and now, when doing what the administration has asked for, we put these assistant U.S. attorneys in there, but that is not going anywhere. Every single Democratic Senator supports it. An anonymous Republican hold blocks it. The conference report strengthens our efforts to prevent domestic violence and protect its victims. By creating a new Violence Against Women Office in the Justice Department, we ensure an increased Federal focus on this tragic and recurring problem. I do not know why preventing domestic violence should be a partisan issue. In my experience as a prosecutor, the police never said we have to determine whether this person who is beaten up in domestic violence is a Democrat or a Republican. You try to save the life of the person who is being beaten and to protect them. This legislation also authorizes programs to reduce drug abuse and recidivism, from adult and juvenile courts, to increased funding for drug treatment in prisons, to funding for police training in South and Central Asia to reduce the flow of drugs into our Nation. All of these proposals are bipartisan. Actually, most of them were in the Hatch- Leahy Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act. Every Democrat is ready to vote for them, but we cannot because the Republicans have an anonymous hold. The conference report contains a number of important intellectual property provisions that will help American innovators and businesses, both big and small. There is a probusiness provision, which includes the Leahy-Hatch Madrid Protocol Implementation Act that has been held up for over 1 year. Every single business organization in the country, big or small, has asked us to pass it. Every single Democrat has said they will vote for it. It is being held by an anonymous Republican hold. This legislation would implement a treaty and allow American businesses to obtain ``one stop'' international trademark registration, a process available only to countries signatory to the Protocol. This would benefit American businesses and companies who need to protect their trademarks when they sell their goods and services in international markets, particularly over the Internet. I hear from companies as large as IBM and Intel. They want this legislation, down to the little mom-and-pop manufacturers in my own State. I tell them all, every single Democrat will vote for that. It is in this bill, as 400 House Members of both parties voted for it. But I also tell everyone in the businesses that ask, it is being held up by an anonymous Republican hold. Another important intellectual property provision is the Hatch-Leahy TEACH Act, to clarify the educational-use exemption in the copyright law and all educators to use the same rich material for distance material over the Internet as they use in face-to-face classroom instructions. The Presiding Officer represents one of the most beautiful areas in upstate New York, where I visit often. I think of my rural Vermont or rural Utah. This allows people in these small schools to be able to have access to what is available in the large metropolitan areas. Every Democrat will vote for it. It is being held up by an anonymous Republican hold. The conference report has a provision modernizing Patent and Trademark Office specifically authorizing friends to augment the investigation and prosecution of intellectual property crimes of privacy online. There is no member of the business community that does not support it, from the largest to the smallest. Every Democratic Senator is ready to vote for it tonight. It is being held up by an anonymous Republican hold. This conference report creates or extends 20 Federal judgeships. Those are more than all the judgeships created during the 6-plus years the Republican party controlled the United States Senate and blocked both Clinton administration judicial nominations and the creation of new Federal judicial positions. We have included new Federal judges in Arizona, Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, among others. I have heard repeatedly from our Republican friends that although they have blocked the creation of the judges during the previous administration, they want them now. I put them in. Every single Democrat is ready to vote for it and the Republicans are blocking. It is amazing. These judges we have needed for years, blocked during the last administration when the Democrats had the Presidency, now we put them in. I supported putting them in, from northern New York to Alabama. The Republicans say they want them. They will not be appointed by a Democratic president. They will be appointed by a Republican president. I don't know what is going on unless they want to make it look like we are holding this up. Every Democrat will vote for the new judges. But they are being held up by an anonymous Republican hold. I do not want to hear bleeding and caterwauling from the White House or the political mouthpieces from the Department of Justice, asking, Where are the judges. All 50 Democratic Senators will vote for them, as 400 Republicans and Democrats in the House voted for them. It is being held up by an anonymous Republican hold. The conference report prohibits mandatory arbitration in a motor vehicle franchise contract between manufacturers and automobile dealers, to the same effect as the Hatch-Feingold-Leahy-Grassley Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Act, S. 1140. That legislation has more than 60 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats. The automobile dealers lobbied strongly for it. All 50 Democrats are ready to vote for it. Their friends on the Republican side are holding it up. The conference report includes an amendment to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to expand eligibility for compensation for injured uranium miners, mill workers and ore transporters. Many Senators from western States, on a bipartisan basis, such as Senators Daschle, Hatch, Johnson, Domenici, strongly support these changes. We are all ready to vote for them. Republicans are holding it up. Finally, the conference report includes several important immigration provisions to help underserved rural areas with a critical shortage of medical doctors. Women die in childbirth. Teenagers in an accident die because they did not get care. Older people do not get the preventive medicine they need. This allows foreign doctors who are educated in the United States to remain here if they will agree to practice in the underserved areas. It extends H-1B status for certain working aliens and makes it possible for children whose sponsoring parent has died to apply for citizenship, nonetheless. I don't need to tell the Presiding Officer, representing the great State of New York, there were children whose sponsoring parents died in this country. These are all noncontroversial provisions, for all over the country. Every single Democrat Senator said they will vote for it. We cannot bring it to a vote because the Republicans have an anonymous hold. I would not feel as bad about the holds if the Senator holding it up would come forward and state why. Instead, it is a stealth hold. It is a ``during the night'' hold. It is the quiet, anonymous phone call hold that stops it. It repeats an unfortunate pattern of anonymous Republican holds on bipartisan legislation designed to improve our Nation's national security law enforcement, immigration policies, and judicial branch of the government. I am sure my colleagues are tired of hearing how much I enjoyed my earlier career in law enforcement. For 8\1/2\ years I proudly carried a badge, proudly served as chief law enforcement officer of my county. We prosecuted a lot of people. We saw a lot of tragic situations. We helped a lot of people in cases of domestic violence, stopped crimes from happening. Those we were not able to stop, we oftentimes successfully prosecuted afterwards. I never recall anyone, either those in my office or any of the law enforcement agencies we talked about, whether we were dealing with a Democrat or Republican, asking whether someone who was beaten or killed was Democrat or Republican. You never asked a police officer if they were Democrat or Republican. No one asked when sending officers out to protect citizens, facing the potential of death, their political party affiliation. In working with my colleagues, both in the Senate and in the House, we did not look at this as Democrat and Republican. We talked about good law enforcement. That is why every single Democratic Senator has said they will vote for this bill. Our caucus spans the political spectrum. I suspect if we were allowed to bring it to a vote, almost all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would vote for it, yet an anonymous hold is stopping this help to the law enforcement agencies, ranging from the smallest of our towns to our statewide law enforcement agencies, to our Federal law enforcement agencies. Nobody has spoken of any substantive question or issue of any provisions in this conference report. And there are not any. It passed the Republican-controlled house by 400-4. It has been suggested the holds are merely partisan blocking to hold up legislative action and then blame the Democratic Senate majority for inaction created by Republican holds. I repeat, as I have over and over again on this bill, I have checked with every single Democrat Senator; we are ready to vote. We are all ready to vote. If Republicans allowed this bill to come to a vote, it would pass immediately. It should have been passed last Thursday. We had an opportunity. Senator Daschle asked permission to pass it--Senator Hatch said we didn't each have to speak on it, we would put our speeches in afterward--asked to pass it by unanimous consent, but was told the Republicans objected. For the sake of the Justice Department, the Congress, and the American people, we ought to pass it today. Twenty-one years fighting to get it, and here is what is in there: Combating terrorism, improving law enforcement, preventing crime, fighting drug abuse, enhancing intellectual property protection, strengthening the judiciary--adding 20 new judgeships and improving judicial disciplinary procedures-- improving civil justice, and improving immigration procedures. The irony is item after item was worked out with the support of the Bush White House. I spent an awful lot of time on this bill. A lot of my Republican colleagues spent a lot of time on this bill. And our staffs spent 10 times more time on this bill. I think somebody down at the White House, if they take time out from the fundraising and the campaigning, could take a couple of minutes to pick up the phone and call the party, the Members on the other side of the aisle, and say the criminal justice system needs this, the fight against terrorism needs this. This is not just something abstract, this is real. Let's pass it. That is why the Republican-controlled House passed it. I am sorry my friends on the Republican side of the aisle are blocking it. I hope when they think about it, they will come to their senses and let it go through. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday marked the end of the Major League Baseball regular season. Fans everywhere have enjoyed a season with Barry Bonds leading the league in hitting, Alex Rodriguez hitting 57 home runs, and Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling combining as perhaps the greatest pitching duo ever. It has been a tremendous season of achievement for many teams. The Minnesota Twins, a team Commissioner Selig wanted to disband last off-season, won the American League Central Division. The Oakland A's set an American League record with a 20-game winning streak and won the American League's Western Division. Eight teams, and fans from across the country and around the world, are now gearing up for an exciting playoff season. The Twins and the A's, as well as the Anaheim Angels, the St. Louis Cardinals and the San Francisco Giants, have earned the opportunity to continue into the playoffs, to compete for a pennant and even the World Series championship along with last year's champion Arizona Diamondbacks, the New York Yankees and the Atlanta Braves. They are not the eight teams with the highest payrolls or biggest markets. They do share a few things in common: talented players having outstanding seasons, great team play and exceptional management both on and off the field. We are fortunate that this baseball season is being played to its rightful conclusion and that crisis was avoided on August 30, when negotiators for team owners and the Major League Baseball Players Union reached a new collective bargaining agreement. Announced just two hours before another work stoppage, this agreement saved professional baseball from a disastrous screeching halt to yet another baseball season. With this agreement baseball can now go about the business of assessing the future of the sport in Montreal. It is unfortunate that this fine city, its team with a number of outstanding players, and its fans have been left in limbo for the past year over the future of the franchise. For a large number of Vermonters, Montreal provides the closest major league venue. This franchise is the major league affiliate for our own minor league Vermont Expos. There are many dedicated Expos fans in my State. Several local towns are doing their best to show their support for keeping the Expos in Montreal. I ask that a letter recently sent by the St. Albans Town Selectboard to the Mayor of Montreal be printed in the Record. The letter follows: August 12, 2002. Mayor Gerald Tremblay, Montreal, Quebec. Mayor Tremblay, the St. Albans Town Selectboard wishes to express our utmost hope that the city of Montreal tries everything possible to help retain the Montreal Expos. Montreal is a beautiful international city with much diversity and many different types of cultures. We believe the Expos are a large part of the city and it serves to bring many people from Northern Vermont to your city every year. With a downtown stadium, we believe the Expos can flourish once again and help attract many more tourists to your wonderful city. We hope that you and your government are trying everything possible to work with new-interested buyers. If the Town of St. Albans can be of assistance please feel free to contact us. Cordially Yours, Tayt R. Brooks, Vice-Chair. Mr. President, through repeated hearings in the Judiciary Committee, Congress has tried to help the major league baseball owners and players find common ground. After the last work stoppage, we culminated almost a decade of hearings examining labor strife and other problems in major league baseball, when we enacted the Curt Flood Act in 1998. Senator Hatch was the lead sponsor of that measure, and I was his principal cosponsor. It was a bipartisan effort to clarify the law. By that effort we hoped to promote labor peace in Major League Baseball. The principle purpose of the law was to make clear that federal antitrust laws apply to the relationships between major league team owners and players. Clarifying the law was intended to contribute to an atmosphere in which management and labor, owners and players would resolve their differences through collective bargaining rather than through work stoppages. I hope that the Curt Flood Act and our efforts over the last several years, including the hearing we held this Congress at the requests of Senators Wellstone, Dayton, Dorgan and Johnson, contributed in some small way to creating a legal framework and atmosphere in which the parties could resolve their differences through agreement. Fortunately, baseball has avoided its ninth work stoppage since 1972. During the previous eight work stoppages, 1,736 games were lost-- including 938 that were wiped out because of the 1994-95 labor war. Clearly, another work stoppage would have had serious consequences for the professional game. I congratulate Commissioner Selig, Bob Dupuy and their team and Don Fehr and his team on reaching an accord. Earlier this year Forbes Magazine estimated that the New York Yankees were worth $730 million. The New York Mets were the next-highest valued franchise at $482 million, followed by the Los Angeles Dodgers ($435 million) and the Boston Red Sox ($426 million). Even, the Montreal Expos franchise was valued at over $100 million. The average annual salary for major league players this season reportedly is $2.8 million. We all hope the recent labor agreement marks a new era of cooperation in Major League Baseball. I remind both the owners and the players that the responsibility for preserving the best of our national pastime--and for restoring the faith and enthusiasm of the fans across the United States--is their opportunity in the coming months and years. May all of the fans of professional baseball enjoy an exciting post- season, and I wish each of the playoffs teams well.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, bipartisan support in the Senate grew for the concept of a Cabinet-level officer with a new department to coordinate homeland security. In fact, Chairman Lieberman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and Senator Specter must be commended for their hard work and prescience in introducing legislation within weeks of the attacks to create a new Department of Homeland Security. The administration initially differed with this approach. Instead, the President invited Governor Ridge to serve as the Director of a new Office of Homeland Security. I invited Governor Ridge in October, 2001, to testify before the Judiciary Committee about how he would improve the coordination of law enforcement and intelligence efforts, and his views on the role of the National Guard in carrying out the homeland security mission, but he declined. Without Governor Ridge's input, the Judiciary Committee continued oversight work that had begun in the summer of 2001, before the terrorist attacks, on improving the effectiveness of the U.S. Department of Justice, the lead Federal agency with responsibility for domestic security. This task has involved oversight hearings with the Attorney General and with officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the weeks immediately after the attacks, the Committee turned its attention to hearings on legislative proposals to enhance the legal tools available to detect, investigate and prosecute those who threaten Americans both here and abroad. Committee members worked in partnership with the White House and the House to craft the new antiterrorism law, the USA PATRIOT Act, which was enacted on October 26, 2001. We were prepared to include in the new anti-terrorism law provisions creating a new cabinet-level officer heading a new Department of Homeland Security but did not, at the request of the White House. Indeed, from September, 2001 until June, 2002, the Administration was steadfastly opposed to the creation of a Cabinet-level Department to protect homeland security. Governor Ridge stated in an interview with National Journal reporters on May 30 that if Congress put a bill on the President's desk to make his position statutory, he would ``probably recommend that he veto it.'' That same month, the White House spokesman also objected to a new Department and told reporters, ``You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is: Creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything.'' In one respect, the White House was correct: Simply moving agencies around among Departments does not address the problems inside agencies such as the FBI or the INS--problems like outdated computers; hostility to employees who report problems; lapses in intelligence sharing; lack of translation and analytical capabilities; along with what many have termed, ``cultural problems.'' The Judiciary Committee and its subcommittees have been focusing on identifying those problems and finding constructive solutions to fix them. To that end, the Committee unanimously reported the FBI Reform Act, S.1974, to improve the FBI, especially at this time when the country needs the FBI to be as effective as it can be in the war against terrorism. Unfortunately, that bill has been stalled on the Senate floor by an anonymous Republican hold. The White House made an abrupt about-face on June 6, 2002, on the issue of whether our national security could benefit from the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security. This was the same day that the Judiciary Committee was continuing its oversight responsibility and was scheduled to hear from FBI Director Robert Mueller and FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley, who was highly critical of the manner in which FBI Headquarters handled the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui. Thirty minutes before the nationally televised testimony from an FBI agent about intelligence failures before the September 11 terrorist attacks, word emerged from the White House that the President had changed his position and announced that he supported the formation of a new Homeland Security Department along the lines that Senator Lieberman and Senator Specter had suggested, though the draft of the President's proposal was not yet completed. Indeed, press reports that day indicate that ``Administration officials said the White House hoped to use the reorganization to deflect attention from the public backbiting that broke out among federal agencies as Congress began investigating intelligence failures surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks.'' Washington Post, June 6, 2002, at 12:52 PM. Two weeks later, on June 18, 2002, Governor Ridge transmitted a specific legislative proposal to create a new homeland security department. It should be apparent to all of us that knitting together a new agency will not by itself fix existing problems. In writing the charter for this new department, we must be careful not to generate new management problems and accountability issues. Yet the Administration's proposal would have exempted the new department from many legal requirements that apply to other agencies. The Freedom of Information Act would not apply; the conflicts of interest and accountability rules for agency advisors would not apply. The new Department head would have the power to suspend the Whistleblower Protection Act, the normal procurement rules, and to intervene in Inspector General investigations. In these respects, the Administration asked us to put this new Department above the law and outside the checks and balances these laws are put there to ensure. Exempting the new Department from laws that ensure accountability to the Congress and to the American people makes for soggy ground and a tenuous start--not the sure footing we all want for the success and endurance of this endeavor. Specifically, the administration's June proposal contained, in section 204, a new exemption requiring nondisclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, of any ``information'' ``voluntarily'' provided to the new Department of Homeland Security by ``non-Federal entities or individuals'' pertaining to ``infrastructure vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities to terrorism'' in the possession of, or that passed through, the new department. Critical terms, such as ``voluntarily provided,'' were undefined. The Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to query Governor Ridge about the Administration's proposal on June 26, 2002, when he testified in his capacity as the Director of the Transition Planning Office for the proposed Department of Homeland Security. At that hearing, a number of Senators made clear that the President should not play politics with the proposal to create a new Department. One senior Republican member of the Judiciary Committee put it bluntly that action on the new Department should take place ``without political gamesmanship,'' I share that view. We all wanted to work with the President to meet his ambitious timetable for setting up the new department. We all know that one sure way to slow up the legislation would be to use the new department as the excuse for the Administration to undermine or repeal laws it did not like or to stick unrelated political items in the bill under the heading of ``management flexibility.'' We all want the same end goal of an efficiently operating Homeland Security Department, but as the same senior Republican member of the Judiciary Committee advised at the June 26 hearing, for the sake of getting the new department underway, ``[t]here may well be areas of debate or issues that we in Congress need to save for another day.'' At that hearing, I cautioned the administration not to use the proposal for the new Department of Homeland Security to: No. 1, increase secrecy in government by creating a huge new exemption to the Freedom of Information Act for private sector security problems; No. 2, weaken whistleblower protections for dedicated Government workers who help fight Government waste, fraud and abuse; or No. 3, cut wages and job security for hardworking Government employees. Governor Ridge's testimony at that hearing is instructive. He appeared to appreciate the concerns expressed by Members about the President's June 18th proposal and to be willing to work with us in the legislative process find common ground to get the legislation done. On the FOIA, he described the Administration's goal to craft ``a limited statutory exemption to the Freedom of Information Act'' to help ``the Department's most important missions [which] will be to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure.'' Governor Ridge explained that to accomplish this, the Department must be able to ``collect information, identifying key assets and components of that infrastructure, evaluate vulnerabilities, and match threat assessments against those vulnerabilities.'' The FOIA already exempts from disclosure matters that are classified; trade secret and commercial and financial information, which is privileged and confidential; various law enforcement records and information, including confidential source and informant information; and FBI records pertaining to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism. These already broad exemptions in the FOIA are designed to protect national security and public safety. Indeed, the head of National Infrastructure Protection Center, NIPC, testified over 5 years ago, in September, 1998, that the private sector's FOIA excuse for failing to share information with the Government was, in essence, baseless. He explained the broad application of FOIA exemptions to protect from disclosure information received in the context of a criminal investigation or a ``national security intelligence'' investigation, including information submitted confidentially or even anonymously. This is from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, ``Hearing on Critical Infrastructure Protection: Toward a New Policy Directive,'' on March 17 and June 10, 1998. The FBI also used the confidential business record exemption under (b)(4) ``to protect sensitive corporate information, and has, on specific occasions, entered into agreements indicating that it would do so prospectively with reference to information yet to be received.'' NIPC was developing policies ``to grant owners of information certain opportunities to assist in the protection of the information (e.g., by sanitizing the information themselves) and to be involved in decisions regarding further dissemination by the NIPC.'' In short, the former administration witness stated: Sharing between the private sector and the government occasionally is hampered by a perception in the private sector that the government cannot adequately protect private sector information from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The NIPC believes that this perception is flawed in that both investigative and infrastructure protection information submitted to NIPC are protected from FOIA disclosure under current law. Nevertheless, businesses have continued to seek a broad FOIA exemption. I expressed my concern that an overly-broad FOIA exemption would encourage government complicity with private firms to keep secret information about critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, reduce the incentive to fix the problems and end up hurting rather than helping our national security. In the end, more secrecy may undermine rather than foster security. Governor Ridge seemed to appreciate these risks and said he was ``anxious to work with the Chairman and other members of the committee to assure that the concerns that [I had] raised are properly addressed.'' He assured us that ``[t]his Administration is ready to work together with you in partnership to get the job done. This is our priority, and I believe it is yours as well.'' Almost before the ink was dry on the Administration's earlier proposal, on July 10, the Administration proposed to substitute a much broader FOIA exemption that would (1) exempt from disclosure under the FOIA critical infrastructure information voluntarily submitted to the new department that was designated as confidential by the submitter without the submitter's prior written consent, (2) provide limited civil immunity for use of the information in civil actions against the company, with the likely result that regulatory actions would be preceded by litigation by companies that submitted designated information to the department over whether the regulatory action was prompted by a confidential disclosure, (3) preempt state sunshine laws if the designated information is shared with state or local government agencies, (4) impose criminal penalties of up to one year imprisonment on government employees who disclosed the designated information, and (5) extend antitrust immunity to companies that joined together with agency components designated by the President to promote critical infrastructure security. Despite the Administration's promulgation of two separate proposals for new FOIA exemption in as many weeks, in July, Governor Ridge's Office of Homeland Security released The National Strategy for Homeland Security, which appeared to call for more study of the issue before legislating. Specifically, this report called upon the Attorney General to ``convene a panel to propose any legal changes necessary to enable sharing of essential homeland security information between the government and the private sector.'' The need for more study of the Administration's proposed new FOIA exemption was made amply clear by its possible adverse environmental, public health and safety affect. Keeping secret problems in a variety of critical infrastructures would simply remove public pressure to fix the problems. Moreover, several environmental groups pointed out that, under the Administration's proposal, companies could avoid enforcement action by ``voluntarily'' providing information about environmental violations to the EPA, which would then be unable to use the information to hold the company accountable and also would be required to keep the information confidential. It would bar the government from disclosing information about spills or other violations without the written consent of the company that caused the pollution. At the request of Chairman Lieberman for the Judiciary Committee's views on the new department, I shared my concerns about the Administration's proposed FOIA exemption and then worked with Members of the Governmental Affairs Committee--and in particular, with Senator Levin and Senator Bennett--to craft a more narrow and responsible exemption that accomplishes the Administration's goal of encouraging private companies to share records of critical infrastructure vulnerabilities with the new Department of Homeland Security, without providing incentives to ``game'' the system of enforcement of environmental and other laws designed to protect the nation's public health and safety. I commend Chairman Lieberman and Senators Levin and Bennett and their staffs for diligently working with me to refine the FOIA exemption in a manner that satisfies the Administration's stated goal, while limiting the risks of abuse by private companies or government agencies. Specifically, section 198 on ``Protection of Voluntarily Furnished Confidential Information'' of the Lieberman Amendment to H.R. 5005 reflects the compromise solution we reached with the Administration and other Members interested in this important issue. This section exempts from the FOIA certain records pertaining to critical infrastructure threats and vulnerabilities that are furnished voluntarily to the new Department and designated by the provider as confidential and not customarily made available to the public. This provision improves on the Administration's July 18 proposal in the following ways: First, section 198 limits the FOIA exemption to ``records'' submitted by the private sector, not ``information'' from the private sector. Therefore, if companies provide information to the new Department that is documented in an agency-created record, that record will be subject to the FOIA and not exempt simply because private sector information is referenced or contained in the record. Moreover, this section makes clear that portions of records that are not covered by the exemption should be released pursuant to FOIA requests, unlike the Administration proposals which would have allowed the withholding of entire records if any part is exempt. Second, section 198 limits the FOIA exemption to records pertaining to ``the vulnerability of and threats to critical infrastructure (such as attacks, response, and recovery efforts)'' not all ``critical infrastructure information.'' Third, section 198 does not provide any civil liability or antitrust immunity that could be used to immunize bad actors or frustrate regulatory enforcement action. Fourth, section 198 limits the FOIA exemption to records submitted to the new Department of Homeland Security, as in the administration's initial June 18 proposal, since the stated goal of the exemption is to help that Department provide a centralized function of collection, review and analysis of critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. Records submitted by private companies to other agencies are not covered by the new exemption, even if the same document is also submitted to the new Department. Fifth, section 198 does not preempt state or local sunshine laws. Sixth, section 198 narrowly defines ``furnished voluntarily'' to ensure that records submitted by companies to obtain grants, permits, licenses or other government benefits are not exempt, but are still subject to the FOIA process. This section is a significant improvement over both versions of the Administration's proposed new FOIA exemptions. Unfortunately, other critical areas that were mentioned at the June 26 hearing with Governor Ridge, on which he assured us he would work with us to find common ground, remain stumbling blocks. The Administration has threatened a veto over the issue of ``management flexibility.'' At the same time we are seeking to motivate the government workers who will be moved to the new Department with an enhanced security mission, the Administration is insisting on provisions that threaten the job security for these hardworking government employees. The Administration should not use this transition as an excuse to cut the wages and current workplace security and rights of the brave employees who have been defending the nation. That is not the way to encourage retention or recruitment of the vital human resources on which we will need to rely, and it is a sure way to destroy the bipartisanship we need.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am fortunate to represent a State whose citizens have long been involved in international affairs. Whether through military or diplomatic service, volunteering for the Peace Corps, studying abroad, or because we live on a great international border, Vermonters have strong views about these issues. I was in Vermont this past weekend, and as always I had the opportunity to speak to many Vermonters from all walks of life. I can say, beyond any doubt, that Vermonters across the political spectrum are very concerned about our policy toward Iraq. They are worried that we are shifting our focus away from ending the violence in the Middle East, eliminating al-Qaida, and rebuilding Afghanistan even though that Herculean task has barely begun. The President has sent to Congress a proposed resolution for the use of military force against Iraq. It would permit the President to take any action whatsoever to ``defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.'' While I hope this is the beginning of a consultative, bipartisan process to produce a sensible resolution and to act on it at the appropriate time, the current proposal is an extraordinarily over- broad, open-ended resolution that would authorize the President to send American troops not only into war against Iraq, but also against any nation in the Gulf or Middle East region, however one defines it. Declaring war, or providing the authority to wage war, is the single most important responsibility given to Congress under the Constitution. As history has shown, wars inevitably have unforeseen, terrible consequences, especially for innocent civilians. Blank-check resolutions, such as the one the President proposes, can likewise be misinterpreted or used in ways that we do not intend or expect. It has happened before, in ways that many people, including Members of Congress, came to regret. That is why a thorough debate is so necessary. And that is also why this Vermonter will not vote for a blank check for this President or any President. My conscience and the Constitution do not allow it. The timing of the debate is also important. Congress is being asked to send Americans into battle, even though diplomatic efforts have not yet been exhausted. Nor do we have a complete assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies of the threat that Iraq poses to the United States. I will have more to say when the debate on the resolution occurs. But I do want to take a few minutes to share some initial thoughts as we begin to consider this difficult question. The question we face is not whether Saddam Hussein is a menace to his people, to his neighbors and to our national security interests. The Iraqi regime has already invaded Iran and Kuwait, gassed members of its own population, and repeatedly flouted international conventions against armed aggression. It is clear that Iraq has tried to develop a range of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with which Iraq might threaten the entire Gulf region. I would like to see Saddam Hussein gone as much as anyone. But the question is, how immediate is this threat and what is the best way to deal with it, without undercutting our principal goal of protecting the American people from terrorism, promoting peace in the Middle East, and other important U.S. national security priorities? Some administration officials have suggested that to ask questions about going to war in Iraq is somehow unpatriotic, or indicative of a lack of concern about national security. That is nothing more than election year partisan politics at its worst. These questions are being asked by Americans in every State of the Union. Until recently our focus has been, rightly so, on destroying al-Qaida and other terrorist networks. While that challenge has already cost billions of dollars and continues to occupy the attention and resources of the Department of Defense and the U.S. intelligence community, the administration has suddenly shifted gears and is now rushing headlong toward war with Iraq. Some have argued that Congress must act now to strengthen the President's hand as the administration negotiates at the United Nations. But what we would really be saying is that regardless of what the Security Council does, we have already decided to go our own way. I contrast that with the situation in 1990 when the United States successfully assembled a broad international coalition to fight the Gulf War. The Congress passed a resolution only after the U.N. acted. President Bush deserves credit for focusing the world's attention on international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I have said this over and over again. But the process that has brought us to the brink of preparing for war with Iraq has been notable for its confusion. The statements of administration officials have been fraught with inconsistencies. They claim to speak for the American people, but average Americans are urging the administration to proceed cautiously on Iraq and to work with the United Nations and the Congress. Our allies are confused and angry about the way this has been handled. Our friends in the Middle East are fearful of what lies ahead. Fortunately, the President heeded calls to go to the United Nations, and in his speech to the General Assembly he described in great detail Saddam Hussein's long history of deception and defiance of U.N. resolutions. I commended that speech. I am also pleased that it focused on enforcing those resolutions, especially concerning weapons of mass destruction. But the American people need to hear more than generalized accusations and threatening ultimatums. They need to know the scope and urgency of the problem, Saddam's current and future capabilities, the options for solving the problem, and the short and long-term implications of each course of action, including the very real dangers of unintended consequences. I agree with the President when he says that Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted and that disarming Iraq is the goal. But the first way to try to accomplish this is not through precipitous, unilateral military action. Rather, it is by building an alliance and working through the United Nations. Earlier this week, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, warned the administration of the dangers of attacking Iraq without the backing of the United Nations: We are a global nation with global interests, and undermining the credibility of the United Nations does very little to help provide stability and security and safety to the rest of the world, where we have to operate for economic reasons and political reasons. Working through the United Nations to readmit the weapons inspectors could be effective in disarming Iraq. Rolf Ekeus the former executive chairman of UNSCOM, has stated: International weapons inspectors, if properly backed up by international force, can unearth Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. If we believe that Iraq would be much less of a threat without such weapons, the obvious thing is to focus on getting rid of the weapons. Doing that through an inspection team is not only the most effective way, but would cost less in lives and destruction than an invasion. A study by the Carnegie Endowment, co-authored by former U.S. military and United Nations officials, supports this view: ``With sufficient human and technological resources, time, and political support, inspections can reduce Iraq's [weapons of mass destruction] threat, if not to zero, to a negligible level.'' There are distinct advantages to this approach. For one, if Iraq again refuses to comply with U.N. demands, there will be a much stronger case for more forceful action. It would also help mitigate potential damage to our relations with other nations whose support we need to achieve other important U.S. goals, such as capturing terrorists or promoting peace in the Middle East. Diplomacy is often tedious. It does not usually make the headlines or the evening news, and much has been made of our past diplomatic failures. But history has shown over and over that diplomacy can not only protect our national interests, it can also enhance the effectiveness of military force when force becomes necessary. Many experts believe that, despite deception by the Iraqis, the U.N. inspection process destroyed much of the Iraqi weapons program, and new inspections could succeed in substantially disarming Saddam. However, the U.N. regime broke down when Saddam Hussein starting blocking the inspections and the Security Council was divided on how to respond. I support the unconditional return of inspectors backed up by an international military force. But, the world must not repeat the mistakes of 1998. We have already seen some troubling signs of diplomatic double talk from the Iraqis, particularly on the issue of unimpeded access for the inspectors. The international community cannot tolerate deception and defiance on the part of the Iraqis, and Secretary Powell is right to push for a new U.N. resolution. Other members of the Security Council should join United States and British efforts to craft a strong new resolution with a deadline for Iraqi compliance. The U.N. has a responsibility to enforce its demands. If the U.N. does not act to ensure that the inspection regime is effectively structured, we will end up back where we were in 1998. Saddam will play the same cat and mouse game, the U.N. will look toothless, and we will be not be able to destroy the Iraqi weapons program. We need a strengthened inspection regime that has preexisting authority from the Security Council to deploy military force to back up the inspectors if there is resistance from Iraq. I hope that the Administration works with the United Nations, not so much the other way around, to make this happen. If Iraq resists the inspections, and the President decides to use military force, then the procedure is clear. He can seek a declaration of war from the Congress, and the Congress can vote. But voting on such a resolution at this time would be premature. A decision to invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein should be based on a complete assessment of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and the threat Iraq poses to the United States. What is the evidence-- as opposed to assertions and assumptions--that Iraq is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon? What is the evidence that Iraq is capable of launching, or has any intention of launching, an attack against us or one of our allies? And there are more questions that are as yet unanswered. What is the evidence that Saddam Hussein wants to commit suicide, which such an attack would guarantee? Why is containment, a strategy which kept the Soviet Union with its thousands of nuclear warheads and chemical and biological weapons at bay for 40 years, not valid for Saddam Hussein, a cold, calculating tyrant who cares above all about staying in power? I am not sure how these questions can be answered without an updated National Intelligence Estimate. As the Washington Post has reported, there are conflicting views within the intelligence community on Iraq, and without this estimate, which pulls together the different assessments by various parts of the intelligence community, Congress is being asked to give a blank check without all of the facts. I am not going to write a blank check under any circumstances and I am certainly not going to do it with less than all of the facts. We also must assess whether an attack could spin out of control and draw the entire Middle East into war. As Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged, an Iraqi attack on Israel could spark a deadly spiral of escalation in which Israeli retaliation prompts responses from other Arab states. Israel has a right of self-defense, and Prime Minister Sharon has said that Israel would retaliate. At the very least, it would further inflame Arab populations whose governments are key to bringing lasting peace to the Middle East and reducing the breeding grounds for extremist Islamic fundamentalism and international terrorism. Some of those breeding grounds are within the borders of some of our closest friends in the region and we should not lose sight of that. We also must fully assess the costs of a war. The Gulf War cost tens of billions of dollars, but ultimately other nations helped to defray those costs. The President's Economic Adviser said that this war could cost as much as two hundred billion dollars, and that assumes it does not spread beyond Iraq. As the combat in Afghanistan showed, once again, we have the finest fighting forces in the world. We can be confident that we would win a war with Iraq, but there would be American lives lost, especially if Iraq lures U.S. troops into urban combat. We have to remember that it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting. If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once again become havens for terrorists. The President would need to show that a post-Saddam Iraq would not be a continual source of instability and conflict in the region. While Iraq has a strong civil society that might be able to become a democracy, in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq another dictator could rise to the top or the country could splinter into ethnic or religious conflict. To ensure that this does not happen, does the administration foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and if so, for how many years and for how many billions of dollars at a time when the U.S. economy is weakening, the Federal deficit is growing, and poverty is increasing here at home? Is the administration committed to investing the resources it is going to take to rebuild Iraq, even when we are falling short of what is needed in Afghanistan? In Afghanistan, the Taliban was vanquished with a minimum of U.S. casualties, but destroying al-Qaida, which is the primary goal of our efforts in Afghanistan, is proving far more difficult. We are told that while al-Qaida's leadership has been badly disrupted, its members have dispersed widely. Although there is a growing belief that Osama bin Laden is dead, we have no proof. In addition, the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is critical. There are thousands of homeless Afghans and a real threat of widespread hunger or famine this winter. There are families who lost loved ones or their homes were destroyed in the violence perpetrated by the Taliban, years of civil war, or from mistakes made during military operations by U.S. and coalition forces. Yet the administration, despite calls by President Bush for a Marshall plan, did not ask for a single cent for Afghanistan for fiscal year 2003. In addition, $94 million for humanitarian, refugee, and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan, which Congress added in the supplemental appropriations bill, was not deemed an emergency by the President. Some relief organizations have already been told that they may have to shut down programs for lack of funds. This is happening in a country that so desperately needs the most basic staples such as water, education and medical help. Afghans who have returned to their homes from outside the country may become refugees once again. Many other nations have yet to fulfill pledges of assistance to Afghanistan, but if the President is serious about a Marshall Plan, and I believe he is right, then we need to do much more to help rebuild that country. Yet, as we continue to face difficult challenges in Afghanistan and hunting down members of al-Qaida, not to mention a number of challenges here at home such as the economy, we are suddenly being thrust into a debate about Iraq. It is a debate that will have lasting consequences for our standing in the world as a country that recognizes the importance of multilateral solutions to global problems and that respects international law. General Wesley Clark, who headed the successful U.S. and NATO military campaign in Kosovo, recently addressed this problem directly, when he wrote: The longer this war [on terrorism] goes on--and by all accounts, it will go on for years--the more our success will depend on the willing cooperation and active participation of our allies to root out terrorist cells in Europe and Asia, to cut off funding and support of terrorists and to deal with Saddam Hussein and other threats. We are far more likely to gain the support we need by working through international institutions than outside of them. The world cannot ignore Saddam Hussein. I can envision circumstances which would cause me to support the use of force against Iraq, if we cannot obtain unimpeded access for U.N. inspectors or the United States is threatened with imminent harm. But like many Vermonters, based on what I know today, I believe that in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more enemies over the long run, we must act deliberately, not precipitously. The President has taken the first step, by seeking support from the United Nations. Let us give that process time. If it fails, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. But I am reminded of my first year as a U.S. Senator. The year was 1975, and there were still 60 or 70 Senators here who had voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution a decade earlier. That vote was 88-2, and many of those Senators, Democrats and Republicans, spoke of that vote as the greatest mistake of their careers. That resolution was adopted hastily after reports of a minor incident which may, in fact, not have occurred at all. It was interpreted by both the Johnson and Nixon administrations as carte blanche to wage war in Vietnam for over a decade, ultimately involving over half a million American troops and resulting in the deaths of over 58,000 Americans. I am not suggesting that the administration is trying to deceive Congress or the American people, and I recognize that the situation in Iraq today is very different from Vietnam in 1964. But we learned some painful and important lessons back then. And one that is as relevant today as it was 38 years ago, is that the Senate should never give up its constitutional rights, responsibilities, and authority to the executive branch. It should never shrink from its Constitutional responsibilities, especially when the lives of American servicemen and women are at stake. So when we consider the resolution on Iraq, I hope we will remember those lessons, because under no circumstances should the Congress pass a blank check and let the administration fill in the amount later. The Constitution does not allow that, and I will not do that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note my objection to Hatch amendment No. 4693 on cybersecurity to amendment No. 4471.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will confirm the nomination of Judge Reena Raggi to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This is the 14th circuit court nominee to be considered by the Senate since the change in Senate majority and reorganization of the Judiciary Committee 14 months ago. That is an average of one Court of Appeals judge a month since the Democratic majority has been in place. This pace is almost double that maintained by the Republicans during their 6\1/2\ years of control of the Senate. This is also the 78th judicial nominee we have confirmed in the past 14 months. In contrast, our Republican predecessors voted on only 46 of President Clinton's more moderate Court of Appeals nominations in their 76 months of control for an average of closer to one circuit court confirmation every other month. In fact, during the entire 1996 session the Senate Republicans stalled all Court of Appeals nominees and not a single one was confirmed. Court of Appeals vacancies went from 16, when the Republicans took over in January 1995, to 33 by the time they finally relinquished control last summer and allowed the Judiciary Committee to reorganize. During the Republican stall on judicial confirmations, vacancies more than doubled on the Courts of Appeals. However, since last summer, the Democratic majority has exceeded the rate of attrition and confirmed 14 circuit court judges, in addition to 64 district court judges. Even with extraordinary attrition of 10 new circuit vacancies during this period, we have lowered the number of Court of Appeals vacancies from the 41 it would have been if Democrats were blocking judges as Republicans falsely claim, to 27. There are now fewer circuit court vacancies than when the 107th Congress began. Republicans confirmed no circuit court nominees or any judicial nominees during their 6 months of control last year. They could have confirmed some of the nine circuit judges re-nominated by President Clinton, if they were truly concerned about the circuit court vacancy level. They could have done that to demonstrate some commitment to fairness and the bipartisanship they claim. But they did not. The President could have urged that those circuit court nominees be confirmed to demonstrate true bipartisanship and to address the injustices of the stalling tactics of the members of his party in the Senate. He did not. Instead, he withdrew all those circuit court nominees last spring then later renominated only one of them, occasioning more needless delay. I would like to reflect on what could have been, but for the purposeful obstruction by Republican Senators of the confirmation of more than a score of President Clinton's circuit court nominees. If Republicans had not blocked the confirmation of almost two dozen, 22, circuit court nominees, and many more district court nominees, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would have begun with 11 circuit court vacancies, instead of the 33 we inherited. With the 10 new circuit court vacancies that arose over these past 14 months, there would have been a total of 24 circuit court vacancies for this President to fill. Given the Democratic pace of considering circuit court nominees, even without any significant cooperation or consultation from the White House, our circuit courts would today be left with only 10 vacancies. That is what might have been, but for the determined, strategic blocking of so many circuit court nominees during the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate. Instead, after 14 circuit confirmations, there remain 27 circuit court vacancies--still fewer than at the start of this Congress but far from where we could have been. The Judiciary Committee has already voted on 83 of this President's judicial nominees, including 17 nominees to the Courts of Appeal. Two additional circuit court nominees have had hearings and another is scheduled for a hearing this coming week. The Senate Judiciary Committee has already voted on more circuit and district court nominees than in any of the previous 6\1/2\ years of Republican control. In fact, Democrats have given votes to more judicial nominees and, in particular, to more nominees to the Courts of Appeals, than in 1996 and 1997 combined, and than in the last 30 months of the Republican majority control in 1999, 2000 and early 2001. Judge Raggi was appointed to the Federal trial court in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan. She has a solid record of accomplishment in both the private and public sectors. She received the strong support of her two Democratic Senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and of the New York legal community. Even though Judge Raggi is a conservative Republican, we have every reason to believe that she will serve with distinction on the Second Circuit as a fair and impartial judge. Her record is in sharp contrast to the record of the other circuit court nominee that the Judiciary Committee considered on the very same day: Justice Priscilla Owen, a nominee whose record was too extreme even for the very conservative Texas Supreme Court. Justice Owen's written opinions demonstrated her willingness to substitute her policy preferences for those of the Texas legislature and her determination to distort precedent. Even her fellow judges criticized her approach. The administration's claim that Democrat's have created a glass ceiling for female judicial nominees is patently ridiculous. It is unfortunate that just 21 percent of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees are women, in contrast to 30 percent of President Clinton's judicial nominees. The percentage of women nominated by this President has been cut by almost a third compared with the prior administration. In fact, so far, President George W. Bush is appointing almost the same proportion of women to the Federal bench as his father, despite the passage of more than a decade since then in which the number of women practicing law and with judicial experience has increased exponentially. With today's vote, the Democratic-led Senate has already confirmed 17 female judicial nominees of this President, including four to the Courts of Appeal Judge Edith Brown Clement to the Fifth Circuit, the first nominee to be confirmed to that court in more than 6 years; Judge Julia Smith Gibbons to the Sixth Circuit, the first nominee to be confirmed to that court in more than 5 years; Judge Sharon Prost to the Federal Circuit; and now Judge Reena Raggi to the Second Circuit. In all, Democrats have held hearings for 19 of the women nominated to the Federal bench by this President, and 18 of them have been voted on by the Judiciary Committee. A few of the remaining female nominees lack home-State consent, and some were nominated only recently and so lack completed paperwork. This Democratic-led Senate has regularly scheduled hearings and votes, unlike during the prior 6\1/2\ years of Republican control when so many women and minorities nominated to the Federal bench were never accorded hearings or votes. Today's vote serves as another example of the Democrats ' proven record of action and fairness on this President's judicial nominees. Judge Raggi is a conservative Republican. I voted for her confirmation in committee and vote to confirm her today, based on her overall record, her testimony before the committee and the bipartisan support she has received. Far from payback for Republican actions in the recent past, today's Democratic-led Senate's action is being taken notwithstanding those wrongs and to help fill vacancies that Republican obstruction helped create. Despite the right-wing and partisan din about blockades and obstructionism, Democrats are actually achieving almost twice as much as our Republican counterparts did to provide judicial resources to the Federal courts. We would be even farther along if so many circuit court nominees of the prior administration had not been purposely blocked and defeated, and if we received more timely reviews from the ABA, and received the nominations of more moderate, mainstream judicial nominees.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, the Senate confirmed the 74th, 75th, 76th, and 77th judicial nominations from President George W. Bush. We have confirmed more of President Bush's nominees in less than 15 months than were confirmed in the last 30 months that a Republican majority controlled the Senate and the pace of judicial confirmations. We have done more in half the time. We have also already confirmed more of President George W. Bush's judicial nominations since July 2001, than were confirmed in the first two full years of the term of his father President George H.W. Bush. We are recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month and this week I understand that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has a number of meetings and events planned. It seems a good time to take stock of where we are with regard to judicial nominees who are Hispanic. I am informed that out of all of President George W. Bush's judicial nominations less than 10 are Hispanic or Latino; indeed, the percentage of nominees who are Hispanic is approximately 6 percent, which is, or course, less than half of the percentage of Hispanics in the population of the United States. Earlier this year the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund issued a report ``Opening the Courthouse Doors: The Need for More Hispanic-American Judges.'' The report urged the President to take action to address the persistent problem of Hispanic under-representation in Federal judgeships by nominating ``qualified Hispanic candidates who have also had a demonstrated interest and a meaningful involvement in the work and activities of the Hispanic community.'' I regret that the President has not heeded this recommendation. President Clinton nominated more than 30 Hispanic candidates for judicial vacancies. Unfortunately, some of them were denied hearings and votes during the years in which a Republican majority controlled the Senate process. Qualified, mainstream Hispanic nominees such as Christine Arguello of Colorado, Enrique Moreno of Texas, and Jorge Rangel also of Texas, who were nominated to circuit courts and Anabelle Rodriquez of Puerto Rico and Ricardo Morado of Texas, who were nominated to district courts, were defeated without a hearing or a vote. Others, such as Judges Rosemary Barkett of Florida, Sonia Sotomayor of New York, Carlos Lucero of Colorado, Jose Cabranes of Connecticut, Kim Wardlaw of California, Fortunado Benavides of Texas, and Richard Paez of California who were nominated to the circuit courts were eventually confirmed, many after lengthy delays by Republicans and Republicans' efforts to vote down their nominations. For example, three of President Clinton's first 14 judicial nominees were Hispanic. One of them, Judge Barkett of Florida, who was nominated to the Eleventh Circuit, was targeted by Republicans for defeat based on their claims about her judicial philosophy or ideology. Despite numerous procedural efforts by Republicans, then in the minority, to delay and defeat her nomination, Judge Barkett was eventually confirmed. Although she had received a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating from the ABA, 36 Republicans voted against her confirmation. Once Republicans took over the Senate in 1995, they slowed down the confirmation process dramatically, especially for circuit court nominees. They delayed the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor to the Second Circuit and tried to defeat her nomination because the Republican leadership feared she could be elevated to the Supreme Court. Even though Judge Sotomayor, like Judge Barkett, received a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating from the ABA, 29 Republicans voted against her confirmation on grounds of judicial philosophy or ideology. Republicans also delayed the confirmation of Judge Richard Paez for over 1,500 days, and after numerous procedural efforts to defeat his nomination through delay, Republicans mustered 39 votes against his confirmation. Others Hispanic nominees, like Judge Fuentes who was nominated to the Third Circuit, had to wait a year to be confirmed. This was not because Republicans were busy confirming other circuit court nominees. In the 15 months after he was nominated, Republicans allowed only seven circuit court nominees to be confirmed. In contrast, the Democratic-led Senate has confirmed 13 of this President's circuit court nominees in less than 15 months, and two others are awaiting a vote on the floor. President Clinton also appointed Judge Ricardo Urbino to the District Court in D.C., Judges Daniel Dominguez, Salvador Casellas, and Jay Garcia Gregory to the District Court in Puerto Rico, Judge Victor Marrero to the District Court in the Southern District of New York, Judges David Briones, Orlando Garcia, and Hilda Tagle to the District Courts in Texas, Judges Mary Murguia and Frank Zapata to the District Courts in Arizona, Judge Carlos Murguia to the District Court in Kansas, and Judge Adalberto Jordan to the District Court in Miami. Republicans delayed on a number of Hispanic nominees to the District Courts, including Judge Tagle who waited more than 30 months to be confirmed while Ms. Rodriguez waited more than 30 months to never be confirmed during the period of Republican control of the Senate. In contrast, rather than reflecting the growing Hispanic population and increasing numbers of qualified Hispanic lawyers who are potentially judicial nominees, the Bush Administration's nominations have resulted in very few Hispanic judicial nominees compared to the Clinton Administration. President Bush has chosen only 8 Hispanics out of the 128 judicial nominations he has made. That is most regrettable. Since the change in majority, we have moved quickly on the few Hispanic nominees who have been forwarded by this White House. Judge Christina Armijo was confirmed in May, 2001. Judge Phillip Martinez was confirmed last September. Judge Randy Crane was confirmed in March. Judge Jose Martinez was confirmed last week. Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum, who was nominated in July and whose ABA peer review was recently received, is participating in a confirmation hearing this week. Unfortunately, because the White House nominated Judge James Otero and Jose Linares in July and August and has changed the 50-year tradition regarding ABA peer reviews, the ABA peer reviews on these recent nominees have not been received or they, too, would have had hearings. Each of the other Hispanic nominees to federal trial courts participated in a confirmation hearing within 60 days of having a completed file. In addition, I am planning another confirmation hearing to include Miguel Estrada. Thus, Democrats will have held hearings on every Hispanic judicial nominee submitted by the President who has a completed file. The Democratic majority has proceeded to vote to confirm every Hispanic district court nominee who has had a hearing. Moreover, we have proceeded without the years of delay that used to accompany consideration of minority judicial nominees. In ``Justice Held Hostage,'' the bipartisan Task Force of Federal Judicial Selection of the Citizens for Independent Courts, co-chaired by Mickey Edwards and Lloyd Cutler, reported that during the period of Republican control of the Senate judicial nominees who were ethnic minorities or women took longer to get considered by the Senate, were less likely to be voted on and less likely to be confirmed--if they were considered at all by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. I recall all too well the months and years it took for the Republican-controlled Senate to confirm Hispanic judicial nominees like Judge Sotomayor, Judge Paez, and Judge Tagle, in addition to other women or minorities like Judge Margaret Morrow, Judge Marsha Berzon, Judge Ann Aiken, Judge Margaret McKeown, and Judge Susan Oki Mollway. I also recall the numerous women and people of color who were nominated to the federal bench by President Clinton but who were never given hearings by the Republicans, like Judge Roger Gregory, Judge Helene White, Jorge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Kathleen McCree Lewis. Judge White of the Michigan Court of Appeals waited over 1,500 days but was never given a hearing or a vote. Still others, like Bonnie Campbell, were given a hearing but never given a vote on their nominations. These are just a few of the women and minorities whose confirmations were delayed or defeated through delay. President Clinton worked hard to increase the diversity of the federal bench and 12 percent of his appointments to the circuit courts were Latino. It would have been closer to 16 percent if all of his Hispanic nominees to the circuit courts had been accorded hearings and votes. By contrast, President Bush has nominated only one Hispanic to the dozens of circuit court vacancies that have existed during his term. Thus, as of today, 3 percent of this President's circuit court nominees are Hispanic. Between the circuit vacancies that were blocked by Republicans and the new ones that have arisen during the past 15 months, President Bush has had the opportunity to choose nominees for 41 vacancies on the circuit courts--13 of these have already been confirmed. This President has chosen only one Hispanic to fill any of these 41 vacancies, and none to any of the following vacancies: the four vacancies in the Tenth Circuit, which includes Colorado and New Mexico, among other States; the three vacancies on the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas; the six vacancies on the Ninth Circuit, which includes California and Arizona, among other States; none to the three vacancies in the Second Circuit, which includes New York; and none to the three vacancies on the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey and Pennsylvania. If this White House had looked a little harder and were not so focused on packing the circuit court bench with a narrow ideology, it could have found many qualified nominees, like Enrique Moreno, Jorge Rangel, Christina Arguello and others to fill these vacancies. Instead, President Bush did not choose to re-nominate these individuals who had been unfairly blocked by members of his party, and he also withdrew the nomination of Enrique Moreno to the Fifth Circuit, a nomination that the ABA had rated ``Well Qualified.'' So when Republicans try to take credit for President Clinton's Hispanic nominees and try to blame Democrats for the lack of Hispanic nominees by President Bush, they should be confronted with the facts and asked why they opposed so many of President Clinton's qualified Hispanic nominees and why so many of them voted against Judge Paez and Judge Sotomayor and Judge Barkett, and why so many Hispanic nominees were delayed for years and why so many were never given hearings or votes. Of course the facts have not prevented unfounded accusations by critics of the Democratic majority. The Republican press conference accusing Senate Democrats of being anti-Hispanic was an example of such inflammatory and baseless accusations. As the Congressional Hispanic Caucus meets this week with Hispanic leaders from across the country, I welcome their views on the few Hispanic judicial nominees sent to the Senate by the President and their help in encouraging this White House to work more closely with Senators from both political parties to nominate qualified, mainstream Hispanic nominees to the federal bench. Our diversity is one of the great strengths of our Nation, and that diversity of background should be reflected in our federal courts. Race or ethnicity and gender are, of course, not substitutes for the wisdom, experience, fairness and impartiality that qualify someone to be a federal judge entrusted with lifetime appointments to the federal bench. White men should get no presumption of competence or entitlement. Hispanic and African American men and women should not be presumed to be incompetent. All nominees should be treated fairly, but no one is entitled to a lifetime appointment to preside over the claims of American citizens and immigrants in our federal courts. We must, of course, carefully examine the records of all nominees to such high offices, but we know well the benefits of diversity and how it contributes to achieving and improving justice in America.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate has confirmed its 76th and 77th new judges since the change in majority last summer, with the vote on Arthur Schwab, who is nominated to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the vote earlier this morning on Jose Martinez, who is nominated to the Southern District of Florida. In less than 15 months we have confirmed more judges that the Republican majority confirmed in its final 30 months in the majority. We have been more than twice as productive as they were and Republicans are nonetheless complaining that we have not worked three or four times as fast as they did to fill vacancies their inaction perpetuated. The Senate has now confirmed more judges than were confirmed in all of 1989 and 1990, the first two years of the first Bush Administration, and almost 40 percent more confirmations than in the first 15 months of the Reagan or Clinton Administration, both of which were cooperating with a Senate majority of the same political party. Another stark comparison would be between how we have proceeded this year and how the recent Republican majority proceeded in the years they were in the Senate majority but the President was a Democrat. In the 1996 session for example, the second full year in which the Republican majority was in control of progress on President Clinton's judicial nominees, the Republican majority allowed only 17 judges to be confirmed the entire year. Not a single circuit court judge was confirmed that entire session all year--not one. By contrast, just since January, in this the second session of this Congress, this Democratic Senate has already confirmed 180 percent more judges than were confirmed in the second year of the Republican majority. We have also already confirmed seven judges to the circuit courts, which is seven more than were confirmed in the 1996 session.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest we go ahead with the vote. I will ask for the yeas and nays once it is reported.

Mr. LEAHY. I understand.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is available to the Senator from Vermont in his capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Americans, very appropriately, honored the memory of the brave men and women who died in that terrible time. Our thoughts were and are with those who perished that day, the loved ones they left behind, and the heroes who acted with fearlessness, bravery and hope. The world has changed during the last year, but, fortunately, the principles on which this country was founded have not changed. I want to especially commend Chief Judge William Sessions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont for proceeding with an immigration and naturalization ceremony in Vermont yesterday. What a wonderful gesture, granting citizenship to a new group of Americans and reminding us that we are a nation of immigrants and that our borders are open to immigrants who come to America seeking freedom, opportunity and a better life for their children. Whether our relatives came here for religious or political freedom in the 17th or 18th centuries, or to escape famine and persecution in the 19th and 20th centuries, many of us are descendants of those immigrants. Senator Kennedy reminded us all earlier this year that immigrants are not the problem, terrorists are the problem. When the President appeared last night on Ellis Island, framed against the backdrop of the Statue of Liberty, that setting likewise reminds us that we are a nation of immigrants. Let this country, and what it stands for, always be a beacon of hope and freedom for the oppressed and downtrodden. I am glad to see the President before the U.N. today. When our President speaks before the United Nations, we should not be looking at it as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. We want him, in his representation of our Nation and as our chief spokesperson on foreign policy, to be successful, and I wish him that success. I also appreciate his invitation to be there for the speech. Of course, our Senate votes will keep me here. The Judiciary Committee continues working hard to make progress on judicial nominations and on legislation to respond to the new challenges that face our great nation. The Senate met on September 12 last year, and the Judiciary Committee held a business meeting on September 13. I kept the agenda that day to consensus items and bipartisan legislation. I felt strongly that we did not need partisan bickering but that we needed to come together and show that we can unite and that there is much that unites us all. We were able to report the first United States Attorneys nominated by President Bush. We worked on our bill to authorize the activities of the Department of Justice, a bipartisan drug use prevention, treatment and rehabilitation bill and the bipartisan Drug Competition Act. That same afternoon we held a confirmation hearing for judicial nominations, including a judicial nominee from Mississippi. Just as we continued to meet and work in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on September 11, we also proceeded with hearings through and in the immediate aftermath of the receipt of the anthrax letters sent to Majority Leader Daschle and to me. We worked hard to improve what became the USA PATRIOT Act with bipartisan support in the weeks that followed in September and into late October. In addition to our work on this landmark legislation, as well as continued oversight of the Justice Department, the FBI and the INS, we continued to hold judicial nominations hearings to help fill vacancies in our Federal courts with fair-minded judges. We have now reported 80 judicial nominees out of committee. With today's confirmation of Judge Corrigan for the Middle District of Florida, we will confirm our 75th judicial nomination from President George W. Bush. We have confirmed more of President Bush's nominees in less than 15 months--75--than were confirmed in the last 30 months that a Republican majority controlled the Senate and the pace of judicial confirmations--73. We have also now confirmed more of President George W. Bush's judicial nominations since July, 2001--75--than were confirmed in all of 1989 and 1990, the first 2 years of the term of his father President George H.W. Bush--73. As I have noted through the year, we could have accomplished even more with a modicum of cooperation from the White House. I regret that the administration and some Senate Republicans have been unwilling to acknowledge what we have accomplished in this regard but have, instead, chosen a strident posture and rejected our efforts toward bipartisan cooperation. The administration has chosen division rather than consensus with respect to its selection of Federal judges, which is unfortunate and unnecessary. The White House has insisted on sending forth a number of nominees who are divisive. Their records evidence judicial activism to reach ultra-conservative outcomes. Thus, in addition to reporting favorably 80 judicial nominees since the change in majority, the Judiciary Committee has, after a hearing and careful consideration, voted against reporting two nominations. I regret that with respect to the important matter of our independent Federal judiciary, a matter that affects all Americans, the White House has chosen the path of partisanship. I regret that some in the White House and among Republicans would rather raise campaign funds and stir up their most extreme supporters than fill judicial vacancies quickly with consensus nominees. Senate Republicans are running away from their own record. It is revealing that they refuse to make a fair comparison to the actual results during their most recent period of Senate control, which shows starkly how far we have come. Had they, in the 6\1/2\ years they were in the Senate majority, acted as fairly and as quickly on President Clinton and President Bush's judicial nominees as we have, we would have far fewer vacancies. The truth is that we have done about twice as much as they. With today's vote, the Democratic-led Senate will confirm its 75th judge-- exceeding the number of circuit and district court nominees the Republican Senate majority was willing to confirm in the last 30 months of their control of the process. Democrats have done more than Republicans did in less than half the time. Likewise, in less than 15 months of Democratic control of the committee, we have held more hearings, for more nominees, and voted on more nominees in committee, and the Senate has confirmed more nominees, than the Republicans did in their first 15 months of control of the committee in 1995 and 1996. That today the Senate will confirm the 75th judge since July, 2001, is indication both of what we have been able to accomplish and what could be accomplished with some cooperation from the White House and Senate Republicans. I have noted how simple procedural accommodations that I suggested would have already resulted in another 10 to 15 fewer vacancies and more confirmations. Unfortunately, my efforts to increase cooperation with the White House have been rebuffed. We continue to get the least cooperation from any White House I can recall during my 26 years in the Senate. This is not the way to get judges through the Senate. Rather, with cooperation, with work, with something more than just words, nominees get through. A New York Times editorial this week, on September 10, noted: ``We must fight the enemies of freedom abroad without yielding to those at home.'' We know that the terrorists are our enemy; they attacked all of us last September 11 and in the attacks that preceded it on U.S. embassies and the USS Cole and the 1993 World Trade Center attack. Republicans are wrong to try to make Democrats or the Judiciary Committee the enemy. We all want to ensure an independent and impartial Federal judiciary as a protector of our freedoms. Thus, ends-oriented, ideologically driven nominees selected to push the circuit courts and the law in a rightward direction are going to be scrutinized and may well be rejected. I hope that, as we did in the days immediately following September 11, 2001 last year, we can come together and demonstrate unity. Since last July, we have greatly reformed the confirmation process and brought it out of the shadows and into the light of day. We now hold hearings, debate nominations, cast our votes, and abide by those votes. That was not the committee practice in the recent past, when secret holds and anonymous objections stalled scores of nominees by President Clinton. We have returned to the Democratic tradition of regularly holding hearings, every few weeks, rather than going for months without a single hearing. In fact, we have already held 23 judicial nominations hearings, including one the week of September 11, 2001, and others during the period in which committee offices and hearing rooms were closed because of the anthrax letters. Yesterday I noticed our 24th hearing to be held next week. I intend to call Professor Michael McConnell of Utah as a nominee at that hearing. Despite the fact that the committee has already acted upon and the Senate has already confirmed Judge Harris Hartz last December and Judge Terrence O'Brien this April to the 10th Circuit, the first new 10th Circuit judges in 7 years, I will proceed with a third hearing on a 10th Circuit nominee at the request of Senator Hatch. The other circuit court for which we have held hearings on three nominees has been the 5th Circuit. There, we proceeded with nominees at the request of Senator Lott and Senator Hutchison. In addition, at the nominations hearing next week we will hear from District Court nominees from California, Delaware, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Texas. By proceeding next week we are able to proceed with a full complement of District Court nominees. That leaves only one District Court nominee with the support of home-State Senators and an ABA peer review who has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. Today's vote is on the nomination of Judge Corrigan to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Judge Corrigan has an extensive career, serving as a general litigator in private practice for over 14 years and as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Florida since 1996. He received a unanimous ``Well-Qualified'' rating from the ABA and has strong bipartisan support. While so many nominees of President Clinton had that rating but were never given a vote by the Republican majority, Judge Corrigan received a hearing and a vote within days of his file being complete in July. The confirmation of Judge Corrigan today will bring additional resources to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Judge Corrigan was nominated to fill a new position Congress created by statute in 1999 to address the large caseload facing the federal courts in Florida. He makes the second Florida district court nominee that we will have confirmed in one week. I congratulate Judge Corrigan and his family. During the Clinton administration, we all worked very hard in cooperation with Senators Graham and Mack to ensure that the Federal courts in Florida had its vacancies filled promptly with consensus nominees and had the judicial resources it needed to handle its caseload. Due to bipartisan cooperation among the Senators and with the White House, during the Clinton administration, the Senate was able to confirm 22 judicial nominees from Florida, including 3 nominees to the 11th Circuit. It is most unfortunate that such tradition of cooperation, coordination and consultation has not been continued by the current administration. My recollection is that the only Florida nomination that generated any controversy or opposition was that of Judge Rosemary Barkett of the Florida Supreme Court to the 11th Circuit. I do recall that Judge Barkett was strongly and vociferously opposed by a number of Republican Senators because of what they viewed as a judicial philosophy with which they did not agree. Those voting against her confirmation include Senators Hatch, Grassley, McConnell, Specter, and Thurmond, all of whom are now on the Judiciary Committee, as well Senators Lott, Nickles, and Hutchison of Texas. Judge Barkett received the highest rating of the ABA, ``Well Qualified,'' and yet 36 Republicans voted against her confirmation, but she was confirmed with bipartisan support, including the support of her home-State Senators. Indeed, there was extended opposition both before the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, the cooperation, coordination and consultation that Senator Mack and Senator Graham shared with the Clinton White House do not seem to be the model for the way this White House has chosen to communicate with Senator Graham and Senator Nelson. That is most unfortunate. It is a tribute to Senator Graham and to Senator Nelson that we have made the progress that we have. I know that it has not been easy. They have been more than gracious in their willingness to support these nominees. We urge the White House to work with these Senators to nominate qualified, consensus nominees for the remaining vacancies in the courts. With today's vote, the Democratic majority in the Senate has demonstrated once again how it is fairly and expeditiously considering President Bush's judicial nominees. We have worked very hard to provide bipartisan support for the White House's nominations in spite of its lack of willingness to work with us in partnership.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 2928 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leaders for allowing me this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Jeffords, introduced legislation, the Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002, in honor of former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. With the forbearance of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, I will only speak for a couple minutes. I, obviously, strongly support what Senator Jeffords has done and appreciate his work and the work of the members of his staff. In Vermont, we are extremely pleased with the success of the Lake Champlain program to date. With the additional resources in this bill, we are confident that the problems that Lake Champlain encounters--the problems of pollution and of other matters--can be addressed. Lake Champlain is a magnificent lake standing between Vermont and New York. It is a lake that is enjoyed by people who fish, sail, who are involved in economic activities, and, of course, it has tremendous economic and historical value to this Nation, from the time of the Revolutionary War on. The basin program shows what happens when two States, Vermont and New York, and one province, the Province of Quebec, get together and work on a common watershed and link their people, their governments--local, State, and Federal--together in almost unprecedented cooperation to save this great big beautiful lake. It has been a model for watersheds throughout the Nation. I am pleased to join in introducing this legislation. I believe it will ensure that our children and our grandchildren will enjoy this lake in the same way Senator Jeffords and I did when we were children. I am very pleased to join with my colleagues from Vermont and New York as we introduce the Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002 in honor of former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I was with Senator Moynihan in 1990 that we were able to enact the first comprehensive piece of legislation to make Federal resources available to help our states address the challenges facing Lake Champlain. I want to thank Senator Jeffords and his staff for all the work they have put into this effort. I know that many hours have gone into the research, discussion and editing to get where we are today. I also want to thank Senators Clinton and Schumer who are our valuable New York partners in all things related to Lake Champlain. Our initial 1990 Lake Champlain legislation was very successful. It brought together various agencies, interest groups and government entities to develop a comprehensive pollution prevention and restoration management plan for the Lake. Through long hours and a cooperative effort, the Vermonters and New Yorkers involved came up with a good plan which was signed by Governors Dean and Pataki in 1996. While we have several priority action items ranging across a wide spectrum of Lake related issues, the Big three remain phosphorus reduction, toxic contaminant prevention and clean-up and management of aquatic nuisance species. Our legislative proposal today rightfully moves from an emphasis on research and planning to one of clean-up implementation and, quite importantly, monitoring the progress of that clean-up. We are very pleased with the success of the Lake Champlain Basin Program to date, and with the additional resources envisioned in this bill, we are confident that the problems Lake Champlain is encountering can be addressed successfully. The Basin Program stands as a fine example of how two States and one province can work together as a common watershed linking its citizens and their governments at all levels--local, State and Federal. Indeed, the Lake Champlain model has been held up many times in recent years as an example for other watersheds around the world. We are happy to share our successes, and even our failures, with conservation initiatives internationally. I am excited about the prospects of this legislation and I hope the full Senate will give Vermont and New York its ringing endorsement once it has received committee review. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Jeffords, introduced legislation, the Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002, in honor of former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. With the forbearance of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, I will only speak for a couple minutes. I, obviously, strongly support what Senator Jeffords has done and appreciate his work and the work of the members of his staff. In Vermont, we are extremely pleased with the success of the Lake Champlain program to date. With the additional resources in this bill, we are confident that the problems that Lake Champlain encounters--the problems of pollution and of other matters--can be addressed. Lake Champlain is a magnificent lake standing between Vermont and New York. It is a lake that is enjoyed by people who fish, sail, who are involved in economic activities, and, of course, it has tremendous economic and historical value to this Nation, from the time of the Revolutionary War on. The basin program shows what happens when two States, Vermont and New York, and one province, the Province of Quebec, get together and work on a common watershed and link their people, their governments--local, State, and Federal--together in almost unprecedented cooperation to save this great big beautiful lake. It has been a model for watersheds throughout the Nation. I am pleased to join in introducing this legislation. I believe it will ensure that our children and our grandchildren will enjoy this lake in the same way Senator Jeffords and I did when we were children. I am very pleased to join with my colleagues from Vermont and New York as we introduce the Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002 in honor of former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I was with Senator Moynihan in 1990 that we were able to enact the first comprehensive piece of legislation to make Federal resources available to help our states address the challenges facing Lake Champlain. I want to thank Senator Jeffords and his staff for all the work they have put into this effort. I know that many hours have gone into the research, discussion and editing to get where we are today. I also want to thank Senators Clinton and Schumer who are our valuable New York partners in all things related to Lake Champlain. Our initial 1990 Lake Champlain legislation was very successful. It brought together various agencies, interest groups and government entities to develop a comprehensive pollution prevention and restoration management plan for the Lake. Through long hours and a cooperative effort, the Vermonters and New Yorkers involved came up with a good plan which was signed by Governors Dean and Pataki in 1996. While we have several priority action items ranging across a wide spectrum of Lake related issues, the Big three remain phosphorus reduction, toxic contaminant prevention and clean-up and management of aquatic nuisance species. Our legislative proposal today rightfully moves from an emphasis on research and planning to one of clean-up implementation and, quite importantly, monitoring the progress of that clean-up. We are very pleased with the success of the Lake Champlain Basin Program to date, and with the additional resources envisioned in this bill, we are confident that the problems Lake Champlain is encountering can be addressed successfully. The Basin Program stands as a fine example of how two States and one province can work together as a common watershed linking its citizens and their governments at all levels--local, State and Federal. Indeed, the Lake Champlain model has been held up many times in recent years as an example for other watersheds around the world. We are happy to share our successes, and even our failures, with conservation initiatives internationally. I am excited about the prospects of this legislation and I hope the full Senate will give Vermont and New York its ringing endorsement once it has received committee review. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, later this afternoon in my home State of Vermont, the chief judge of the Federal district court, Judge William Sessions, will have an immigration ceremony, and I might say that I can't think of anything more fitting. We will have memorials and other events throughout the State of Vermont today, just as we will in other States. Many of us had been at the Pentagon earlier this morning, heard the moving statements, and saw the resolve of the men and women who protect this Nation. We heard our President and Secretary of Defense and others. It is right that throughout the country we have different events to mark this occasion. I want to especially compliment Judge Sessions for what he is doing in Vermont. If there is anything that speaks to the resiliency of this Nation, the greatness of this Nation, it is welcoming immigrants, saying our borders are not sealed, our borders are open. We want to welcome people who will continue to make this country great, just as did my paternal great-grandparents and my maternal great-grandparents who came to this country not speaking any English but who sought employment and a new life. My grandfathers were stone cutters in Vermont, immigrant stock. My wife was the first generation of her family to be born here in the United States. It is immigrants who have made this Nation strong. What Judge Sessions is doing is telling us that our borders and our country and our arms are still open to the mix of people from throughout the world who will continue to give us the diversity we need, just as our Constitution gives us diversity and guarantees that diversity in the first amendment. We now have new Americans who will be here with the same rights and privileges the rest of us have, and the Nation will be a better place for it. I yield the floor.