Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to permit current and retired Federal, State and local law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002. I am pleased that Senators Hatch, Baucus, Domenici, Cleland, McConnell, and Sessions are joining me as original cosponsors in this effort to make our communities safer and to protect law enforcement officers and their families. I am introducing this companion measure to H.R. 218 at the request of the Fraternal Order of Police, which strongly supports this legislation to protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals and to permit officers to respond immediately to a crime when off duty. Many of my friends in the law enforcement community believe that national legislation is necessary due to the patchwork of conceal-carry laws in State and local jurisdictions, and that off-duty and retired officers should be permitted to carry their firearms across state and other jurisdictional lines. Our bipartisan bill will allow thousands of equipped, trained and certified law enforcement officers continually to serve and protect our communities, regardless of jurisdiction, at no cost to taxpayers. This bill is designed to promote better law enforcement and improved public safety. Our legislation would permit qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers across the nation to carry concealed firearms in most situations. The bill, however, preserves any State law that permits citizens from restricting a concealed firearm on private property and preserves any State law that restricts the possession of a firearm on State or local government property. While I support this approach to strike a proper balance between providing law enforcement officers with the uniformity in the law needed to protect public safety, I still have some federalism concerns about the legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves through the legislative process to further preserve essential rights of the states. To qualify for the bill's uniform standards a law enforcement officer must be authorized to use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where he or she works, be in good standing with that agency, and meet any standards established by that agency to regularly qualify to use a firearm. A qualified retired law enforcement officer under the bill must have retired in good standing, been employed at least five years as a law enforcement officer unless forced to retire due to a service- related injury, have a non-forfeitable right to benefits under the law enforcement agency's retirement plan, and annually complete a State- approved firearms training course. As a result, our bipartisan legislation maintains the State or local jurisdiction's power to determine whether a law enforcement officer or retired law enforcement officer is qualified in the use of a firearm. Representative Randy Cunningham introduced a similar bill in the House, H.R. 218, which has garnered more than 250 bipartisan cosponsors. In 1999, the House of Representatives adopted similar legislation, by a vote of 372-53, as a floor amendment during its gun safety debate before the overall legislation was defeated. I applaud my colleagues in the other legislative body for such strong bipartisan showing of support for this legislation. As a former state prosecutor, I know that law enforcement officers are never ``off-duty.'' They are dedicated public servants trained to uphold the law and keep the peace. When there is a threat to the peace or to our public safety, law enforcement officers are sworn to answer that call. Our legislation enables law enforcement officers across the country to be armed and prepared when they answer that call, no matter where or when it comes. I urge my colleagues to support the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to make our communities safer and to protect law enforcement officers and their families.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up expeditiously the Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act of 2002. I thank Senators Campbell, Schumer, Clinton, and Biden for cosponsoring our bipartisan measure. I also commend Representatives Manzullo and Nadler for their leadership on the House version of this bill, H.R. 3297. Named for Chaplain Mychal Judge, who was killed while responding with the New York City Fire Department to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, this legislation recognizes the invaluable service of police and fire chaplains in crisis situations by allowing for their eligibility in the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. Father Judge, while deemed eligible for public safety officer benefits, was survived by his two sisters who, under current law, are ineligible to receive payments through the PSOB Program. This is simply wrong and must be remedied. Indeed, Father Judge is among ten public safety officers who were killed on September 11, but who are ineligible for federal death benefits because they died without spouses, children, or parents. This bill would retroactively correct this injustice by expanding the list of those who may receive public safety officer benefits to the beneficiaries named on the most recently executed life insurance policy of the deceased officer. This change would go into effect on September 11 of last year to make sure the families of Father Judge and the nine other fallen heros receive their public safety officer benefits. In addition, this bill would retroactively restructure the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program to specifically include chaplains as members of the law enforcement and fire units they serve, and would make these chaplains eligible for the one-time $250,000 benefit available to public safety officer who have been permanently disabled as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty, or to the survivors of officers who have died. We have yet another unique opportunity to provide much-needed relief for the survivors of the brave public servants who selflessly risk and sacrifice their own lives everyday so that others might live or be comforted. Finally, I applaud the National Association of Police Organization, the Fraternal Order of Police, and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees for their leadership and strong support for public safety officers and their families. I ask unanimous consent that their letters in support of the Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed beyond the hour of 12:30.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for the farm bill before us. As one of seven Senate conferees on the farm bill, I want to make a few initial remarks today about this major effort. First, I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report. This farm bill helps farmers by providing a safety net; it helps consumers by keeping our food costs low; it expands our nutritional safety net to those most in need; it will mean cleaner waterways, better soils, protected open space, and the preservation of family farms; it will make our drinking water safer, improve the environment, and will give rural America a strong economic boost. I thank Chairman Harkin who worked day and night on this effort. As I know from being chairman of the committee during the 1990 farm bill, it is no easy task to balance the needs of various regions, various commodities and various other priorities within a fixed budget. Make no mistake--this bill is great for all regions, it represents a well-balanced effort. I enjoyed working with the chairman of the conference, Larry Combest. He was fair and patient, and strove to listen to all sides of an issue and to offer helpful ideas as we sought to craft the final product. His chief of staff, Bill O'Connor, has worked on many agriculture issues with me. He is one of the finest examples a truly professional hill staffer--smart and tough, and able to get the job done for his chairman. Also, Lance Kotschwar, the chief counsel for Chairman Combest, deserves a great deal of credit. Ranking member Charlie Stenholm, also an expert on farm bill details, was very helpful in trying to work through some of the complex issues. He is well served by his senior agriculture staff, including Vernie Hubert. I will have more kind words to say about the other body, but I want to make a couple points regarding the Senate. I will have more to say at another time about Ed Barron and his team from my office. Many parts of this bill would not be here without them. The Democratic conferees in the Senate consisted of three chairmen of major committees, and the majority leader. That is quite a batting lineup. We had the majority leader and the chairmen of the Agriculture, Budget, and Judiciary Committees. Leader Daschle, and his superb staff Bart Chilton, Jonathon Lehman and Bev Paul--did a tremendous job trying to balance everyone's interests. Chairman Conrad helped get us the budget to complete a farm bill--and provided the conferees with valuable insights, as did his able staff aide, Tim Galvin. I will make more extensive remarks later in this debate but I want to focus on a few highlights today. This farm bill provides--for the first time--strong provisions for all regions of America. The farm bill provides regional equity--all of America will share in its benefits. For example, for the first time, ever, we have a farm bill which provides national counter-cyclical support for dairy farmers. I have voted many times for programs which have helped cotton, rice, wheat or soybean farmers. This farm bill continues to help them--but also creates a national safety net for all family-size dairy farmers--whether they live in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, or Vermont. I am pleased that we were able to forge bipartisan coalitions in the Senate and the House, from many states, and from all regions, in working out this national effort. Dairy farm families work very hard they get up at 5 in the morning whether it is freezing cold, whether it is a Sunday or a Tuesday, whether they are feeling fine or lousy that day, whether it is a holiday or not. They need a safety net or America may lose its fresh, local supplies of milk. America can not afford to take the risks involved in concentrating dairy production in just a couple areas of the country. Snowstorms, floods, earthquakes, or other emergencies could disrupt transportation or production facilities. This farm bill is not just about farmers. It is about assisting rural towns and communities, and families in need. The Food Research and Action Center notes that: Given the scope of the hunger and food insecurity problem facing our nation's people, we believe that passage of the Farm Bill Conference Report with its investments in the nutrition safety net must be a very high priority for the . . . Senate. They are right. This farm bill provides $6.4 billion to help the neediest families. Most Americans do not realize that the food stamp program is America's largest child nutrition program with the great bulk of assistance going to families with children. In her letter of endorsement, Marian Wright Edelman points out that: We also strongly support the improvements for working families in the Food Stamp program. Adjusting the standard deduction for cost-of-living increases and family size will help the value of food stamps keep pace with inflation. Many provisions in the nutrition title will make it easier for working families to apply for or renew benefits, and will streamline requirements on states so they will find it easier to serve working families. Bob Greenstein, with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that: ``Many of the title's provisions are targeted toward low-income families with children, particularly the working poor.'' This farm bill includes President Bush's strong proposal to assist legal immigrants who--throughout history--have come to America in search of a better life, and have made America a stronger nation. The bill also improves America's first line of defense against hunger--the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Also, the farm bill saves two great farmers' market programs from the chopping block. The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and the much newer farmers' market program for seniors, has provided tremendous incentives for local communities to create local farmers' markets. Anyone shopping at these hundreds of new farmers' markets knows that these programs are great for local farmers, families on WIC, our seniors, and the local communities. On a international theme--I am very pleased that the farm bill includes $100 million in guaranteed funding for the McGovern-Dole Global Food for Education Initiative which I authored with Senator Harkin and others in the Senate. This initiative taps America's agricultural bounty to become a catalyst for lasting change in many struggling nations. Former Senators McGovern and Dole supported this vision and pointed out that this initiative would ``help our farmers while putting food in the stomachs of desperately hungry and malnourished children.'' It has been pilot-tested, and enrollment by children, especially girls, has dramatically increased in the poorest areas of the world. Clearly, the events of September 11, make this initiative even more important. The final bill also contains an unprecedented $1 billion in mandatory funds to assist rural areas in improving the rural infrastructure, attracting jobs, and improving high-speed internet access to businesses and homes. Our farmers and small businesses will get a boost from $240 million included for value-added market development grants. Modeled after the successful pilot program currently run by USDA, this program will provide grants up to $500,000 to help develop, promote, and market, value-added goods--to help build their wealth and expand their enterprise. The bill reauthorizes important water programs that are critical to the infrastructure of rural America--over $360 million will be available nationally to reduce the backlog of loan and grant applications for construction or expansion of water and wastewater systems. Even our firefighters and emergency personnel will receive much needed assistance to help provide for critical training in rural areas. These men and women work tirelessly, often on a volunteer basis, to protect our families and our homes. I am pleased that $50 million has been included to give these forces a boost. Also within the package of conservation programs lies an historic increase in the Farmland Protection Program--which was first pilot- tested in Vermont under a provision which I wrote for the 1990 Farm Bill. Previously funded at only $35 million, and hugely oversubscribed by interested farmers, the Farmland Protection Program will now be funded at almost $1 billion over the next 10 years. Since 1996, the FPP program in Vermont has protected more than 80,000 acres of the State's most precious farmland. It can preserve farmland in many other states under this new farm bill. I am very pleased that this bill sets forth several new initiatives for organic agriculture. This coming October, the National Organic Standards Program will be fully implemented and will create tremendous possibilities for organic producers by enhancing national and international market opportunities for organic products. This farm bill makes strides toward providing the information and resources needed to continue to grow this industry. For the first time, dedicated funding is provided for the organic research and extension initiative, which is also expanded in this bill. In addition, in this farm bill we provided for new organic production and market data initiatives and we establish an organic certification cost-share program. As more and more farms transition to organic production methods, there is a substantial environmental benefit. In many cases organic farming also provides sustainability to the profession of farming, and offers rewards to small farms in particular. In Vermont, the growth of the organic industry means that more farmers will be able to make a decent living doing what they love. The New York, Washington State and Vermont delegations, among others, worked to add $94 million to the bill for direct aid for apple growers who have suffered crop losses in recent years. National apple growers, including several orchards in Vermont, have sustained losses totaling $1.5 billion over the past five years, including an estimated $500 million during the past year. The farm bill also invests $1.3 billion in research to help keep America's farmers competitive in world markets. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this farm bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Tom and Sally Fegley, owners and operators of the award-winning Tom and Sally's Handmade Chocolates. For over a decade, Tom and Sally have been making world-class chocolates at their Brattleboro, VT, facility. Leaving corporate positions in New York, the Fegleys started anew in Vermont with the dream of making high quality chocolate. Starting in 1989, with little knowledge of the chocolate business, the Fegleys volunteered their time as apprentices with a Jersey City chocolatier. After learning the trade, the Fegleys remodeled a vacant warehouse in downtown Brattleboro to house their new business. Through trial and error over the years, the Fegleys have developed and perfected their superb technique for making fine chocolates. Their diligence, passion, and entrepreneurial spirit have been richly rewarded. Tom and Sally's Handmade Chocolates is a true Vermont company. While building their business, the Fegleys have remained involved in their community, allowing school groups and tourists alike to visit their facility and learn about the chocolate-making business. Moreover, their efforts are incredibly innovative, incorporating traditional techniques for making fine chocolates with novelty packaging and light-hearted humor. No doubt, their success can be attributed as much to their creativity as to their business savvy. And with their long commitment to producing the best chocolate possible, they've brought their chocolates to the world through the Internet at www.tomandsallys.com. Thirteen national awards and 1.5 million chocolate cow pies later, the Fegleys continue to make their amazing hand-crafted chocolate in Brattleboro. I am proud that my home State of Vermont has attracted and produced such outstanding entrepreneurs as the Fegleys. I ask that a December article from the Rutland Herald be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Rutland Herald, Dec. 23, 2001] Chocolates and Laughs at tom and sally's handmade, the sweets are sprinkled with humor (By Ellen Ogden) Most people will eat sweets any time of the year; but in the high spirit of the holidays, it would be tempting, if only it were big enough, to dive into a box of chocolates. Especially the handmade kind: hand-dipped and decorated with crystallized violets or fancy fillings, packaged as if each bite were a piece of gold. A joy to the eyes as well as the taste buds. Chocolate is such a treat, you would think anyone who makes it for a living would have fun. ``Truth is,'' says Sally Fegley, co-owner with her husband Tom of Tom and Sally's Handmade Chocolates, ``many fancy chocolatiers take themselves way too seriously.'' Making world class chocolate involves more than just a devotion to the art. It requires expensive packaging and a marketing plan to match. But the Fegleys have learned how to play up the pleasurable side of making chocolate. Tom and Sally's Handmade Chocolates are the best in their class--they've won 13 national awards--but many of their products are packaged in silly ways. For example, their best selling item is a chocolate cow pie, a loosely formed plop of rich Belgian chocolate mixed with a handful of nuts. The idea came to Tom one morning while shaving and they've sold over 1.5 million of these pies, expanding on the line to include a range of over 50 other animals. There are moose pies with almonds, sheep pies with hazelnuts and elephant pies with peanuts. The irony is that Tom and Sally's Handmade Chocolates set out in 1989 to make serious chocolate. ``We left high paying corporate jobs to move to Vermont and make chocolate,'' explains Sally. Dressed in a floppy white chef hat, blonde hair curling out from around the sides and large gold hoop earrings, Sally Fegley laughs easily. Her buoyancy seems consistent with the delightful chocolate aroma that fills the air of their 11,000-square-foot warehouse. She and Tom are wearing matching outfits, white chef top with a chocolate brown apron, each with their names spelled out in big letters. At age 42, they were too young for retirement, but they knew they wanted to live in Vermont. It is a classic story of a couple seeking a career change. They knew they would make a good team. They also shared a love of good chocolate. ``We were convinced that there was no one in the U.S. who was making first-rate chocolate and we were determined to be the first,'' says Sally. While still holding their corporate jobs, they devoted a year to market research. They read, consumed and visited every chocolate venue around New York City. And since they trained in corporate America, they are highly organized and goal oriented. ``From the time we left our jobs and moved to Vermont, we gave ourselves three months to find a building, build the inventory and open the store doors,'' says Sally. Reading and eating chocolate is one thing, but actually making it was something else. They needed hands-on experience before the big move. They offered themselves as volunteers to several chocolate makers around New York to obtain some form of basic training. But they were rejected until they looked beyond the city, and found a three-generation family-run chocolatier in Jersey City who agreed to let them in on some secrets. The both began an apprenticeship to learn about chocolate. Everything was moving along like clockwork. They left Wall Street where she worked at Bank of America and he was at Metropolitan Life. They found a vacant building at 6 Harmony Place in Brattleboro, formerly a bar and electricians' warehouse. ``Right up until the opening day, every batch of chocolate we made failed,'' confesses Sally. It is clear she has told this story many times. Now that they have been in business for over a decade and have won those awards, it is easier to admit to early problems. ``It was still perfectly edible and delicious, but no matter what we did, the chocolate kept coming out gray and streaky.'' Before a chocolatier can mold the chocolate, the chocolate must be melted or tempered. This breaks the crystals and the butterfat; but it must be done at an exact temperature that matches the original chocolate. What the Fegleys had learned to make in Jersey City was based on a domestic chocolate, while what they selected for their Brattleboro operation was a premier Belgian brand, Callebaut. This brand has a more finicky tempering habit and wasn't responding to their learned methods. ``To me, having your own business means trying on all the knowledge and all the skills you've learned in your entire life,'' relates Sally, who called upon an eighth grade science class when the couple had to set up an experiment involving an empirical method and deduction. They set up the marble tables with candy-making trays and thermometers and filled each while keeping close tabs on the temperature and the procedure. They finally determined that the thermometers they were using had different calibrations. ``Each batch was off by as little as two degrees, but this made all the difference.'' They are now so confident of their method that they offer educational tours of the process to the public every day. Located five miles north of Brattleboro on Rt. 30, Tom and Sally's is a favorite site for school children who arrive by the busload. It is a pristine facility, with an open floor plan and overhead signs explaining every step of the production. Large picture windows allow natural light, while a dozen employees are busy at the production and packing stations. A typical tour begins in the back of the room, at the nine vats of melting milk, dark and white chocolate. Each vat holds between 125 pounds and 200 pounds of what many consider to be the finest chocolate in the world. Tom, the master of the production , is stationed at one marble table cutting slabs of caramel and marshmallow that will be combined into a layered candy and then hand dipped in dark chocolate. This, his favorite concoction, is dubbed Miss American Pie. Sally explains that there are basically three methods of making Tom and Sally's Handmade Chocolates. They begin with shell molds, trays of high-grade plastic with decorative depressions. The molds are filled with liquid chocolate. Each chocolate piece is hand filled and hand painted, then cooled before another step in the process. It is an exceedingly skilled and time-consuming process. ``The molds are imported from Europe,'' says Sally. ``And they cost $22 apiece. We have hundreds of them.'' The molds, as are all of their equipment and inventory items, clearly labeled and neatly stacked according to the design motif. The high-end confections that result from this molding process sell for $34 per pound, about a dollar each. A more mechanized method is done on what Sally loves to call the ``I LOVE LUCY'' machine. It is otherwise known as an enrober, a conveyor belt with a series of ``waterfalls'' allowing a cascade of chocolate during which each piece of fruit, creme or chocolate filling is given a chocolate coating. ``Remember the `I Love Lucy' segment?'' says Sally with a wide smile. ``Where Lucy and Ethel reverse roles with Ricky and Fred? They take a job at a chocolate factory,'' she explains in vivid detail. Unfortunately, the conveyor belt starts running too fast and they have to determine what to do with all the chocolate. ``There is little choice but to fill their mouths, stuff their pockets and hide chocolate in their shirts in a vain attempt to keep up with the output of the enrobing machine,'' says Sally. This skit encapsulates Sally's fondness for the machine--a comedy routine that reflects her own fun with chocolate. Finally there is the funneling method, and this is where the cow pies fit into the story. Using a large metal funnel filled with warm, tempered chocolate and equipped with a wooden stopper, two-ounce globs of chocolate are ``plopped'' onto a marble table. It is cooled and hardened into a solid mound of chocolate, and then packaged in a clear plastic bag with a catchy novelty tag that describes the contents in a whimsical way. The cow pies began outselling the truffles. Each year Tom and Sally do something new to make chocolate lovers laugh. In fact they are so good at the marketing that they've had to trademark everything to prevent other companies from using their ideas. ``We just spent many thousands of dollars protecting our trademark on Chocolate Body Paint,'' says Tom, of a product that originated as a gag present for the president of the local Rotary Club. Packaged with a paint brush, the label on the treat reads ``heat to 98.6 and apply liberally.'' It is essentially a delicious chocolate fudge sauce for ice cream, but the name was catchy and it sells the product. While making the best chocolate in the world is still their goal, Sally admits that their typical customer is more interested in the funny packaging. Most of their novelty chocolates are sold wholesale to over 8,000 stores across the United States. ``Our niche in the world of chocolate is that we are creative,'' says Sally. ``The best thing about having our own business is that we have the freedom to be creative,'' she adds. ``Can you imagine trying to get approval to make something like chocolate cow pies in a corporate world?''

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote for this amendment because I agree with its general purpose--to reaffirm unequivocally U.S. support for Israel's right to defend itself against acts of terrorism or other forms of aggression. Israel is a friend and ally, and it has faced threats to its survival for over half a century. Since its birth in 1947, we have provided Israel over $50 billion in aid. There is no doubt about our support. While I will vote for this amendment I am uneasy that we are considering this matter at just the time when we are finally seeing real progress in defusing the recent crisis. While some wish it reflected a more balanced approach, this is the only amendment to be considered. The amendment expresses support for Israel ``as it takes necessary steps to provide security for its people.'' I fully support that. But as so many have said, some of the steps taken by Israel in the past weeks and months have been both unnecessary and counterproductive. I fear that, in the long run, these steps may have weakened the security of the Israeli people because of the bitterness and the desire for vengeance that they caused among Palestinian civilians--many of whom had previously shunned violence. And there appears to be far more support for Yasser Arafat today among average Palestinians than there was just a few months ago. The amendment demands that the Palestinian Authority ``dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.'' I fully agree that this needs to happen. I also know, as Secretary of State Powell has said, that Yasser Arafat, whose security apparatus has been largely destroyed by the Israelis, cannot do everything himself even if he wanted to, but he can and must do more. I also know there are people in the West Bank and Gaza who will do anything to sabotage progress toward peace. The amendment singles out Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ``act in concert with the United States to stop the violence.'' They should do that, and condemn more forcefully the suicide bombings. These governments have many problems, and certainly the Saudi Government, with all its wealth, has not always played the constructive role it could. But it is important to recognize the positive things they have done, which this resolution fails to do. The Saudi Government has put forward the only viable peace proposal in the past 18 months. Not even the U.S. administration has done that. Egypt, according to Secretary Powell, has been supportive of U.S. policies in the region. Mr. President, this amendment, which addresses a number of issues, is silent on others that need to be addressed. Given the vastly conflicting reports of what happened at Jenin, an impartial investigation should be done. The use of U.S. weapons also needs to be looked at, particularly since the State Department reports of ``numerous serious human rights abuses perpetrated by Israeli security forces during the year.'' And most important, there needs to be a recognition of the role of the Israeli settlements in the recent explosion of violence. For this amendment to not even mention the role that the settlements play strikes me as a serious omission because until that issue is resolved, I am afraid the bloodshed will continue. It has been widely recognized for years that the United States is the only country that can play the role of intermediary in the Middle East. The situation has become so polarized, and steeped in hatred, that our task is now infinitely harder. It is time for a more forceful strategy for peace because it is clear that normal diplomatic efforts have failed. Both sides say they want to live in peace, but whatever they have gained or suffered in the past few weeks has, I believe, only made peace more elusive. A two-state solution is the only solution, and that means a Palestinian State that is viable, that is worth living for, not a state in name only. And for Israelis, it means being able to live free of terror and fear. Suicide bombings or other deliberate attacks against civilians are acts of terrorism that can never, ever be justified. These bombings should be condemned by everyone, including countries in the Middle East that have either expressly condoned them or tacitly approved them by their silence. The strategy of the Palestinian leadership has been a disaster for Israelis, for Palestinians, for the entire region. Mr. Arafat has repeatedly deceived his own people. Palestinians are an industrious, compassionate, proud people. They deserve far better. Mr. Arafat has survived this latest storm, but he needs to act immediately to prove that he wants peace and can be trusted. As long as either side deprives the other of the freedom, the dignity, and the security to which all people are entitled, the bloodshed will continue. The President was right when he said there has been a lack of leadership on both sides. That is why, more than ever, stronger U.S. leadership is needed--leadership that receives the support of both sides. I hope this amendment encourages that leadership.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today I proudly join with Senators Campbell, and Clinton to introduce the Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act of 2002. I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership and strong support for public safety officers and their families. I also commend Representative Nadler and Representative Manzullo for their leadership on the House version of this bill. This bill aims to restructure the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program to expressly include chaplains as members of the law enforcement and fire units in which they serve, and would make these chaplains eligible for the benefits available to public safety officers who have died or who have been permanently disabled as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty. In addition, the Act would expand the list of those who may receive benefits in the event of a public safety officer's death in the line of duty by including as potential beneficiaries the persons named on the most recently executed life insurance policy of the deceased officer. In short, this legislation will ensure that the families of chaplains killed in the line of duty receive due payments through the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. On September 11, 2001, Father Mychal Judge, a chaplain with the New York City Fire Department, was killed by falling debris as he ministered to victims of the horrific terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. He was survived solely by his two sisters. Current law allows the Bureau of Justice Assistance to determine whether or not a public safety officer died as a direct or proximate cause of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty, and, if such criterion is met, directs the BJA to pay a monetary benefit of $250,000 to the surviving family members of the officer. In the case of Father Judge, the BJA correctly determined that he was eligible for payment of death benefits. However, Father Judge had no wife or children, and outlived his parents, and no benefits were paid to his life insurance beneficiaries, his sisters, as they were ineligible under existing law to qualify as his beneficiaries and receive death benefits. This case is not unique, of the approximately 450 public safety officers killed in the September 11 attacks, there are 10 individuals known to have died without spouses, children or parents, so the $250,000 death benefit will not be paid. This is simply wrong. For the purpose of determining benefit eligibility, the U.S. Code limits ``public safety officers'' to law enforcement officers; firefighters; rescue crews; FEMA employees; and members of State, local, or tribal emergency management or civil defense agencies who perform official duties in cooperation with FEMA. While the language of existing law could be interpreted to include chaplains, the Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act would resolve any existing ambiguities. It specifically recognizes chaplains as public servants eligible for Public Safety Officers' Benefits so long as they serve as officially recognized or designated members of a legally organized volunteer fire or police department, or are officially recognized or designated public employees of a legally organized fire or police department, and was responding to a fire, rescue, or police emergency when injured or killed. Additionally, this legislation would expand the list of those allowed to receive such benefits in the event of an officer's death in the line of duty. Current law restricts such beneficiaries to the spouse, child, or parent of the decedent. Our bill would expand this list, which would still give priority to spouses and children, but, in the event that neither survived the officer, would allow the monetary benefit to be paid to the individual designated by such officer as a beneficiary under the officer's most recently executed life insurance policy. In the event that there was no such individual named or that an individual so named did not survive the officer, the benefit would then be paid to the parents of the officer. Before us we have yet another unique opportunity to provide much- needed relief for the survivors of the brave public servants who selflessly risk and sacrifice their own lives everyday so that others might live or be comforted. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on legislation to support our nation's public safety officers who put their lives at risk every day to protect us, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill expeditiously.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today I proudly join with Senators Campbell, and Clinton to introduce the Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act of 2002. I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership and strong support for public safety officers and their families. I also commend Representative Nadler and Representative Manzullo for their leadership on the House version of this bill. This bill aims to restructure the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program to expressly include chaplains as members of the law enforcement and fire units in which they serve, and would make these chaplains eligible for the benefits available to public safety officers who have died or who have been permanently disabled as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty. In addition, the Act would expand the list of those who may receive benefits in the event of a public safety officer's death in the line of duty by including as potential beneficiaries the persons named on the most recently executed life insurance policy of the deceased officer. In short, this legislation will ensure that the families of chaplains killed in the line of duty receive due payments through the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. On September 11, 2001, Father Mychal Judge, a chaplain with the New York City Fire Department, was killed by falling debris as he ministered to victims of the horrific terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. He was survived solely by his two sisters. Current law allows the Bureau of Justice Assistance to determine whether or not a public safety officer died as a direct or proximate cause of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty, and, if such criterion is met, directs the BJA to pay a monetary benefit of $250,000 to the surviving family members of the officer. In the case of Father Judge, the BJA correctly determined that he was eligible for payment of death benefits. However, Father Judge had no wife or children, and outlived his parents, and no benefits were paid to his life insurance beneficiaries, his sisters, as they were ineligible under existing law to qualify as his beneficiaries and receive death benefits. This case is not unique, of the approximately 450 public safety officers killed in the September 11 attacks, there are 10 individuals known to have died without spouses, children or parents, so the $250,000 death benefit will not be paid. This is simply wrong. For the purpose of determining benefit eligibility, the U.S. Code limits ``public safety officers'' to law enforcement officers; firefighters; rescue crews; FEMA employees; and members of State, local, or tribal emergency management or civil defense agencies who perform official duties in cooperation with FEMA. While the language of existing law could be interpreted to include chaplains, the Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act would resolve any existing ambiguities. It specifically recognizes chaplains as public servants eligible for Public Safety Officers' Benefits so long as they serve as officially recognized or designated members of a legally organized volunteer fire or police department, or are officially recognized or designated public employees of a legally organized fire or police department, and was responding to a fire, rescue, or police emergency when injured or killed. Additionally, this legislation would expand the list of those allowed to receive such benefits in the event of an officer's death in the line of duty. Current law restricts such beneficiaries to the spouse, child, or parent of the decedent. Our bill would expand this list, which would still give priority to spouses and children, but, in the event that neither survived the officer, would allow the monetary benefit to be paid to the individual designated by such officer as a beneficiary under the officer's most recently executed life insurance policy. In the event that there was no such individual named or that an individual so named did not survive the officer, the benefit would then be paid to the parents of the officer. Before us we have yet another unique opportunity to provide much- needed relief for the survivors of the brave public servants who selflessly risk and sacrifice their own lives everyday so that others might live or be comforted. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on legislation to support our nation's public safety officers who put their lives at risk every day to protect us, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill expeditiously.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to turn to another important topic--the situation in Colombia. Two weeks ago, Colombia's President, Andres Pastrana, was in Washington for what may have been his last official visit before the elections in May to choose his successor. He cannot run again under Colombia's Constitution. While I am sorry to see him leave, I am proud that he is departing through a democratic transfer of power, confirming, once again, his commitment to democracy in Colombia. I respect President Pastrana. I admire his attempts to bring peace to Colombia and his successes in improving relations between our two nations. I do, however, have concerns about the administration's request for more assistance to Colombia. The reason we are given as to why we are spending such large sums of money in Colombia seems to change frequently--from fighting an insurgency to combating terrorism to protecting democracy to reducing the flow of drugs. Before we spend even more money down there, I hope the administration will articulate a clear plan, look carefully at the billions we have spent with little to show for it, and understand Colombia's need to take more responsibility for their own problem. Colombia should not be blamed for America's drug problem. Even if no cocaine or heroin came here from Colombia, illegal drugs would still come into this country. As long as Americans spend billions on illegal drugs, somebody else is going to supply it. In many ways Colombia fits into larger issues about our foreign assistance programs. I think it is time for us to re-examine the way foreign aid is being used. During the cold war, we would give foreign aid to countries simply because they claimed to be anti-Soviet Union. It didn't make any difference how it was used. After the Cold War, we starting giving money, while paying little attention to human rights violations by foreign militaries or security forces, to nations that would say that they would help fight drug trafficking. Today, I am worried that we are starting down a road where we give all sorts of assistance to governments that claim to be antiterrorist, irrespective of their commitment to democracy, human rights, or economic reform. I have said over and over again that we should increase foreign assistance to many areas of the world. We have moral and strategic reasons for doing that. But we ought to at least stand for something when we provide this assistance. We can deliver a strong message that, while we don't expect an absolute replication of our form of government, we do expect you to respect human rights and other basic American values if you use our tax dollars. There is no reason that countries cannot respect these values and use foreign aid effectively--these things go hand and hand. We have had some wonderful successes where we have done both. We have had some colossal disasters where we have not. Madam President, I have known Colombia's President Pastrana for several years, and consider him a friend. He has worked diligently for peace, often at great personal risk, and while he ultimately was unable to obtain the peace agreement with the guerrillas that he so deeply wanted, his administration will be remembered for other achievements. Today, thanks to his efforts and those of Colombia's fine Ambassador, Luis Moreno, Colombia's relations with the United States, which had suffered under previous Colombian administrations, are strong and based on mutual respect. I want to thank President Pastrana for his friendship, for the dignity that he restored to the presidency, for his dedication to his people. Although we did not always agree about U.S. policy toward Colombia, President Pastrana always treated me with respect and warmth. I am grateful to him, and wish him the best in the future. While I regret that I was unable to travel to his country during his term of office, I am determined to do so and look forward to visiting him there when I do. The issue of U.S. policy toward Colombia is the subject of considerable concern in Washington, both because of President Pastrana's recent visit, and because of President Bush's supplemental appropriations request, which proposes to shift the focus of our assistance program in Colombia from counter-narcotics to counter- terrorism. I am of mixed minds about this proposal, and want to take a moment to discuss some of my concerns. Before we rush to bring the war against international terrorism to Colombia's jungle as the Administration and some in Congress now urge, we would do well to understand that country's feudal history. We should also review what has been done with the nearly $2 billion we have appropriated for Colombia in the past two years. ``Plan Colombia,'' devised by the Clinton Administration and the Colombian Government to counter the flourishing trade in cocaine from Colombia to the United States, called for $7.5 billion. Colombia was to contribute $4 billion, and, were told at the time, the U.S. share was $1.6 billion. Donations by other countries, mostly the Europeans, have not materialized. The Colombian Government's support has also fallen far short. For fiscal year 2003, the Bush Administration seeks another $439 million in counter-drug aid, plus $98 million in military aid, for a total of $537 million. So far, U.S. tax dollars have paid for a fleet of aircraft to spray chemical herbicide over large areas of the country planted in coca, combat helicopters to protect the planes from ground fire, and training and equipment for counter-drug battalions. More funds were provided for economic programs to give coca farmers alternative sources of income and to reform Colombia's dysfunctional justice system. Because of the Colombian military's poor human rights record, Congress conditioned aid on the prosecution of military officers implicated in serious abuses, and on the severing of the military's links with illegal paramilitary groups. These groups, like the guerrillas, have been designated by the Administration as terrorist organizations. By any objective measure, Plan Colombia's results have been, at best, disappointing. First, the State Department predicted a 30 percent reduction in coca cultivation by the end of 2002. Although 84,250 hectares were sprayed last year, coca cultivation in Colombia actually rose, by at least 21,100 hectares. There has not been any reduction in the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S., and virtually no one in the Administration thinks there will be. Second, while aerial spraying may at some point reduce the coca crop, there is vast territory ripe for future cultivation and a huge U.S. demand for drugs. Serious questions have been raised about the health and environmental impact of the spraying which need to be satisfactorily answered if this program is to continue. Manual eradication, as was done in Bolivia and Peru, should be reconsidered, and we should target the large growers, drug labs and traffickers. Moreover, any of these eradication efforts will ultimately fail without economic alternatives for those displaced by coca eradication. Third, U.S.-funded economic programs have produced little in the way of viable alternatives. It is dangerous and difficult to implement these programs in conflict zones where coca is grown. The Colombian Government has not invested enough of its own money in these areas, and however much it has invested has produced few tangible results. Nor has it done enough to reform its sagging economy. This needs to be a partnership, and our support for alternative income programs should focus where the needs are greatest and programs can be sustained. Fourth, senior military officers implicated in the murders of civilians, or who abet paramilitary violence and drug trafficking, have not been jailed despite the conditions on U.S. aid. Many remain on active duty and some have been promoted. Human rights investigators and prosecutors have been threatened, killed or forced to flee the country. While some soldiers have been suspended, none have been prosecuted and some have joined paramilitaries. Under our law, the Secretary of State must certify that certain human rights conditions have been met prior to the release of military aid. Earlier this year, a number of high-ranking Administration officials traveled to Colombia, and informed Colombian military officers that more progress was needed. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, no such progress has taken place and therefore, to his credit, the Secretary has not made the certification. However, I am told the certification could come at any time, and if that is true I hope that it is based on facts and reflects a good faith application of the law. Fifth, top paramilitary leaders, implicated in hundreds of murders, travel around the country and give press interviews despite numerous warrants for their arrest. One has to ask why these arrest warrants, many of which have been pending for years, have not been executed? Local military commanders share airfields, intelligence and logistics, and in some instances even coordinate attacks. While some members of paramilitaries have been captured, their influence has grown throughout the country and they are responsible for a large share of targeted assassinations and gruesome attacks against unarmed civilians. Like the guerrillas, the paramilitaries are deeply involved in drug trafficking. Continued U.S. aid to the Colombian military must be tied to accountability for abuses and to aggressively fighting the paramilitaries, particularly the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (``AUC''). Sixth, President Pastrana's brave efforts to negotiate peace, cynically spurned by the guerrillas, have collapsed. The violence has intensified and the guerrillas, especially the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (``FARC''), have sharply escalated kidnappings, assassinations and other terrorist acts. They are unlikely to be able to defeat the Colombian military, but they can lay siege to cities by cutting off water and power supplies. Colombia's generals are now asking the U.S. for aid to fight the war. Americans need to understand that Colombia is really two ``countries,'' which is at the heart of its problems. The thinly populated, impoverished eastern half, which the government has ignored for generations, is mired in the 19th Century, while the sophisticated, urban west is edging toward the 21st. There are deeply rooted social, economic and political reasons why Latin America's oldest conflict is no closer to resolution, and why drug money, corruption and lawlessness permeate Colombian society. These problems, which ultimately only Colombians can solve, will not be fixed by attacking the symptoms, and an all out war against the twin terrorist threats--guerrillas and paramilitaries--would cost far more, take far longer, and wreak more havoc than anyone in Washington has acknowledged so far. Until now we have confined our aid to fighting drugs. In the first sign of a shift, the Administration asked Congress for an additional $98 million to protect 100 miles of an oil pipeline that has been a frequent target of guerrilla attacks that have cost Colombia $500 million a year in oil revenues. The White House is now seeking broad, new counter-terrorism authority in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental, opening the door to a deeper, open-ended U.S. involvement in Colombia. If we go down that road what would be the likely result? Colombia is not Afghanistan, and no one supports sending U.S. troops. But while no two countries are the same, we gave over $5 billion to the military of El Salvador, a country with \1/50\th the land area of Colombia, and they could not defeat the guerrillas there. Are we, and the Colombian people who currently spend a meager 3 percent of GDP on the army, prepared for a wider war, the huge cost, many more displaced people, and the inevitable increase in civilian casualties? Is the only alternative to continue a limited, ineffective counter-drug strategy, and the growth in public support for the AUC which may ultimately pose a greater threat to the country than the FARC? Can the military be made to see their oft-times allies, the AUC, as terrorists to be fought as aggressively as the FARC? Should we send an envoy of the caliber of Richard Holbrooke to push for a cease fire, and actively support a much more inclusive negotiating strategy than was pursued previously? What about attacking the security problems that have given rise to the AUC, by strengthening Colombia's National Police, who have a cleaner human rights record and who may be more effective in responding to kidnappings and other terrorist acts? We want to help Colombia, particularly as the FARC has evolved from a rebel movement with a political ideology to a drug-financed terrorist syndicate. But we and the Colombians need to be clear about our goals and what it would take to achieve them. We should not commit ourselves to a costly policy that is fogged with ambiguity, and we should not subvert our other objectives of promoting the rule of law, protecting human rights, and supporting equitable economic development. Goal- setting should also be coordinated, after the elections in May, with Colombia's new president, who may favor an entirely different approach. Finally, just as Colombians need to take far more responsibility for their own problems, Colombia cannot solve America's drug problem. Too often, we unfairly blame Colombia, and the other Andean nations, for the epidemic of drug addiction in our own country. Our meager attempts to reduce demand for drugs have failed, and unless we devote far more effort to what we know works--education and treatment--the drugs will keep coming and Americans will keep dying. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am always happy for the cooperation of the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I do compliment him on the two judges who will be confirmed today, recommended by him, and his efforts to get a consensus for them. I am well aware we can have dueling press conferences. I have mentioned a number of courts of appeals judges were heard out of order at the request of Republican Senators, and I am sure if some of those same Senators were then to speak of the fact that some of the judges, their own nominees especially, were heard ahead of others, that they would see delicious irony in that. I know we are supposed to recess. I yield the floor. nomination of michael baylson

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, the Senate is voting on the 47th and 48th judicial nominees to be confirmed since last July when the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized after the shift in the Senate majority. With today's votes on Percy Anderson and Jack Walter to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Senate will have confirmed its 38th and 39th district court judges in the less than 10 months since I became chairman this past summer. This is addition to the 9 judges confirmed to the Courts of Appeals. So the total number of Federal judges confirmed since the change in Senate majority will now be 48. Moreover, with the confirmations of these nominees, the Senate will have resolved 9 judicial emergencies since we returned to session and helped fill 16 emergency vacancies since I became chairman this past summer. The confirmation of these nominees today demonstrates, again, the speed with which President Bush's nominees are receiving consideration by the Judiciary Committee and the Senate. Percy Anderson, is a nominee to the U.S. District Court in the District of California. He is filling a judicial emergency vacancy that has been pending for more than 1,360 days. Mr. Anderson was nominated to fill the vacancy left by the elevation of Kim McLane Wardlaw in 1998. I recall that President Clinton nominated Frederic Woocher to fill this judicial emergency vacancy on May 27, 1999. Mr. Woocher was one of those who received a hearing before the Judiciary Committee but was never placed on the agenda to receive a vote. He was one of the lucky judicial nominees who got a hearing, with the support of his home-state Senators, but his nomination was ultimately frustrated by never being considered by the Judiciary Committee. Like Allen Snyder of the District of Columbia, Bonnie Campbell of Iowa, Clarence Sundram of New York, Anabelle Rodriguez and others, he was never allowed Judiciary Committee consideration and never received a vote. After 19 months, his nomination was returned to President Clinton, without receiving a vote in the Judiciary Committee at the time the Senate adjourned at the end of 2000. Jack Walter, a well-qualified nominee to the Central District of California with excellent federal court experience, is nominated to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Judge John G. Davies in 1998. That seat is a judicial emergency vacancy that has been vacant for more than 1,370 days--almost 4 years. I recall that President Clinton nominated Dolly M. Gee to fill this judicial emergency vacancy on May 27, 1999. Her nomination was returned to President Clinton, without any action by the Senate, at the end of 2000. After 19 months, that nomination, which was supported by both home-State Senators was returned to the President without a hearing or any consideration and was one of the scores of nominees on which the Senate did not take action over the 6\1/2\ years that preceded the shift in majority. Federal court vacancies rose from 63 in January 1995 to 110 in July 2001, when the Senate majority shifted back to the Democrats and the Judiciary Committee was reassigned Members for this Congress. For example, the Central District in California currently has six vacancies. Today we are acting to fill two of those vacancies on this important Court. I can certainly understand the interest of Chief Judge Marshall of that District and why she attended the committee hearing on these nominations 2 weeks ago to support these nominees. I say to Chief Judge Marshall, help should be on the way very soon. I commend Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer for their efforts to get these vacancies filled with qualified nominees. I recall that in the 6\1/2\ years that preceded the shift in Senate extensive delays attended even those nominations that were ultimately successful. That is, in spite of the strong support of the two Senators from California, judicial nominations for the District Court that serves Los Angeles, one of the fastest growing areas in the nation with a staggering caseload, were greated delayed if considered at all. We are trying to change that practice. During the years of a Republican Senate majority nominees such as Judge Virginia Phillips, Judge Christina Snyder, and Judge Margaret Morrow were delayed for months and months. Virginia Phillips was first nominated back in May 1998 to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the District Court and was not confirmed until November 1999. Christina Snyder was first nominated to the District Court in May 1996 and was not confirmed until November 1997-- 542 days after her initial nomination. The case of Judge Margaret Morrow is particularly egregious--she was pending before the Senate for 16 months, had to be reported favorably on two occasions by the Judiciary Committee, was held up by an anonymous hold on the Senate floor calendar over a period of more than 7 months, and was not confirmed until 644 days after the date of her initial nomination. In contrast, the Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee is moving expeditiously to fill the judicial emergency vacancies in the Central District of California. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Walter were not nominated until late January this year. They promptly received a hearing on their nominations on April 11, 2002, once the paperwork on their nominations was received and within three weeks of the Committee having received their ABA peer review ratings. Had the Administration not taken action that resulted in delaying the ABA peer reviews, the time might well have been even faster. Senator Hatch noted at their hearing that both of these nominees were first nominated in the last year of the Administration of President George H.W. Bush and did not have hearings before the end of that Senate session in October 1992. I recall that 66 judges were confirmed during the last year of the Bush administration, which set a record, but I do not know why these nominations were not considered. For anyone to try to assert that these nominations have been pending for over 10 years, however, would be extraordinarily unfair and wrong. They were not confirmed in 1992, and not renominated for 10 years, until January 2002. These nominations were not sent to the Senate until this January and the files were not completed until late March. Indeed, for them to have been pending for 10 years the Republican Senate majority that controlled judicial nominations from January 1995 through July 2001 would be at fault. I would not make that criticism of the Senate Republicans of my predecessor as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The confirmation of these nominees today demonstrates our commitment promptly to consider qualified, consensus nominees. Mr. Walter and Mr. Anderson participated in bipartisan selection processes, and they are the first two nominees who have emerged from a bipartisan selection process that Senators Feinstein and Boxer established last year with the administration. Both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Walter received unanimous support from the bipartisan commission and appear to be well-qualified. Both come to the Senate with more than 25 years' experience as trial attorneys. I would like to commend Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their efforts to establish the bipartisan commission which has produced such fine nominees. The Senate's consideration of these nominations illustrates the effect of the reforms to the process that the Democratic leadership has spearheaded, despite the poor treatment of too many Democratic nominees in the past. There have been no anonymous holds and other obstructionist tactics employed with regard to these nominees even though such tactics were employed with the nominations of Judge Morrow, Judge Snyder, Judge Phillips, Mr. Woocher and Ms. Gee. As our action today demonstrates, again, we are moving at a fast pace and confirming conservative nominees. Since the change in Senate majority, the Democratic majority has moved to confirm President Bush's nominees at a faster pace than the nominees of prior Presidents. The rate of confirmations in the past 10 months actually exceeds the rates of confirmation in the past three presidencies. It took 15 months for the Senate to confirm 46 judicial nominees for the Clinton administration. We have exceeded that number of confirmations today and in five fewer months. Also, in 1993, President Clinton had a Senate led by his own party, and we are considering Republican President George W. Bush's nominees at a faster pace in the Democratic-led Senate. The pace at the beginning of the Clinton administration amounted to the confirmation of 3.1 judges confirmed per month. In the first 15 months of the George H.W. Bush administration, only 27 judges were confirmed. The pace at the beginning of the George H.W. Bush administration amounted to 1.8 judges confirmed per month. In President Reagan's first 15 months in office, 54 judges were confirmed. The pace at the beginning of the Reagan administration amounted to 3.6 judges confirmed per month. By comparison, with today's confirmations, in the less than 10 months since the shift to a Democratic majority in the Senate, President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a rate of 4.8 per month, a faster pace than for any of the last three Presidents. During the preceding 6\1/2\ years in which a Republican majority most recently controlled the pace of judicial confirmations in the Senate, 248 judges were confirmed. Some like to talk about the 377 judges confirmed during the Clinton administration, but forget to mention that more than one-third were confirmed during the first two years of the Clinton administration while the Senate majority was Democratic and Senator Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee. The pace of confirmations under a Republican majority was markedly slower, especially in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. During the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate, judicial confirmations averaged 38 per year--a pace of consideration and confirmation that we have already exceeded under Democratic leadership in fewer than 10 months, in spite of all of the challenges facing Congress and the Nation during this period and all of the obstacles Republicans have placed in our path. We have confirmed 48 judicial nominees in less than 10 months. This is almost twice as many confirmations as George W. Bush's father had over a longer period--27 nominees in 15 months--than the period Democrats have been in the Senate majority. Our Republican critics like to make arguments based on false rather than fair comparisons. They complain that we have not done 24 months of work in the less than 10 months we have been in the majority. That is an unfair complaint. A fair examination of the rate of confirmation shows, however, that Democrats are working harder and faster on judicial nominees, confirming judges at a faster pace than the rates of the past 20 years. I ask myself how Republicans can justify seeking to hold the Democratic majority in the Senate to a different standard than the one they met themselves during the last 6\1/2\ years. There simply is no answer other than partisanship. This double standard is most apparent when Republicans refuse fairly to compare the progress we are making with the period in which they were in the Senate majority with a President of the other party. They do not want to talk about that because we have exceeded the number of judges they confirmed per year. They would rather unfairly compare the work of the Senate on confirmations in the less than 10 months since the shift in majority to full, 2-year Congresses. I say that it is quite unfair to complain that we have not done 24 months of work on judicial vacancies in the less than 10 months since the Senate reorganized. These double standards asserted by the Republicans are wrong and unfair, but that does not seem to matter to Republicans intent on criticizing and belittling every achievement of the Senate under a Democratic majority. The Republican critics also refuse to recognize the fact that we are making progress with respect to Court of Appeals vacancies, as well. With this week's vote on Jeffrey Howard to the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, the Senate confirmed its 9th judge to our Federal Courts of Appeals. In less than 10 months since I became Chairman this past summer, the Senate has confirmed 9 judges to the Courts of Appeals and held hearings on two others, with another circuit judge hearing scheduled for tomorrow. This is more circuit judges than were confirmed in all 12 months of 2000, 1999, 1997, and 1996, 4 of the 6 years of Republican control of the Senate during the Clinton administration. It is triple the number of circuit judges confirmed in 1993, when a Democratic Senate majority was working with a President of the same party and received some cooperation from the Clinton administration. It exceeds the number of Court of Appeals judges confirmed by a Republican Senate majority in the first 12 months of the Reagan administration and it equals the number of circuit judges confirmed in the first 12 months of the first Bush administration. The Republican-controlled majority averaged only seven confirmations to the Courts of Appeals per year. Seven. In the less than 10 months the Democrats have been in the majority, we have already exceeded the annual number of Court of Appeals judges confirmed by our predecessors. In an entire session of the 105th Congress, the Republican majority did not confirm a single judge to fill vacancies on the Courts of Appeals. That year has greatly contributed to the doubling of vacancies on the Courts of Appeals during the time in which the Republican majority controlled the Senate. The Republican majority assumed control of judicial confirmation in January 1995 and did not allow the Judiciary Committee to be reorganized after the shift in majority last summer until July 10, 2001. During the period in which the Republican majority controlled the Senate and in which they delayed reorganization, the period from January 1995 through July 2001, vacancies on the Courts of Appeals increased from 16 to 33, more than doubling. When members were finally assigned to the Judiciary Committee on July 10, we began with 33 Court of Appeals vacancies. That is what I inherited. Since the shift in majority last summer, 5 additional vacancies have arisen on the Courts of Appeals around the country. With this week's confirmation of Jeffrey Howard, we have reduced the number of circuit court vacancies to 29. Rather than the 38 vacancies that would exist if we were making no progress, as some have asserted, there now remain 29 vacancies. That is more than keeping up with the attrition on the Circuit Courts. While the Republican Senate majority increased vacancies on the Courts of Appeals by over 100 percent, it has taken the Democratic majority less than 10 months to reverse that trend, keep up with extraordinary turnover and, in addition, reduce circuit court vacancies by more than 10 percent overall, from 33 down to 29, or 12.1 percent. This is progress. Rather than having the circuit vacancy numbers skyrocketing, as they did overall during the prior 6\1/2\ years--more than doubling from 16 to 33--the Democratic-led Senate has reversed that trend. The vacancy rate on the Courts of Appeals is moving in the right direction--down. Despite claims to the contrary, under Democratic leadership, the Senate is confirming President Bush's Circuit Court nominees more quickly than the nominees of other Presidents were confirmed by Senates, even some with majorities from the President's own party. The number of confirmations to the Circuit Courts has exceeded those who were confirmed over 10-month time frames at the beginning of past administrations. With the confirmation of Jeffrey Howard, 9 Circuit Court nominees will have been confirmed in less than 10 months. This number greatly exceeds the number of Court of Appeals confirmations in the first 10 months of the Reagan administration (three), the first Bush administration (three), and the Clinton administration (two). This is three times the number of Court of Appeals nominees confirmed in the comparable 10-month periods of past administrations. With nine circuit judges confirmed in the less than 10 months since the Senate reorganized under Democratic leadership, we have greatly exceeded the number of circuit judges confirmed at the beginning of prior presidencies. Our achievements also compare quite favorably to the total 46 Court of Appeals nominees confirmed by the Republican majority in the 76 months during which they most recently controlled the Senate. Their inaction led to the number of Courts of Appeals vacancies more than doubling. With a Democratic Senate majority, the number of circuit vacancies is going down. Overall, in little less than 10 months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations and we will have our 17th hearing this week. That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control of the Senate. In contrast, one-sixth of President Clinton's judicial nominees--more than 50--never got a committee hearing and committee vote from the Republican majority, which perpetuated longstanding vacancies into this year. Vacancies continue to exist on the Courts of Appeals in part because a Republican majority was not willing to hold hearings or vote on more than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's Court of Appeals nominees in 1999 and 2000 and was not willing to confirm a single judge to the Courts of Appeals during the entire 1996 session. Despite the newfound concern from across the aisle about the number of vacancies on the circuit courts, no nominations hearings were held while the Republicans controlled the Senate last year. No judges were confirmed during that time from among the many qualified circuit court nominees received by the Senate on January 3, 2001, or from among the nominations received by the Senate on May 9, 2001. Had the Republicans not delayed and obstructed progress on Court of Appeals nominees during the Clinton administration, we would not now have so many vacancies. Had the Republicans even reversed course just this past year and proceeded on the circuit court nominees sent to the Senate in January, the number of circuit court vacancies today could be in the low 20's, given the pace of confirmation of circuit nominees since the shift in majority last summer. I do not mean by my comments to appear critical of Senator Hatch. Many times during the 6\1/2\ years he chaired the Judiciary Committee, I observed that, were the matter left up to us, we would have made more progress on more judicial nominees. I thanked him during those years for his efforts. I know that he would have liked to have been able to do more and not have to leave so many vacancies and so many nominees without action. I hope to continue to hold hearings and make progress on judicial nominees. In our efforts to address the number of vacancies on the circuit and district courts we inherited from the Republicans, the Committee has focused on consensus nominees for all Senators. In order to respond to what Vice President Cheney and Senator Hatch now call a vacancy crisis, the Committee has focused on consensus nominees. This will help end the crisis caused by Republican delay and obstruction by confirming as many of the President's judicial nominees as quickly as possible. Most Senators understand that the more controversial nominees require greater review. This process of careful review is part of our democratic process. It is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system of government that does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to one person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines, to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the mainstream of legal thought, and whose decisions would further divide our nation. The committee continues to try to accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. The Court of Appeals nominees included at hearings so far this year have been at the request of Senators Grassley, Lott, Specter, Enzi and Smith from New Hampshire five Republican Senators who each sought a prompt hearing on a Court of Appeals nominee who was not among those initially sent to the Senate in May 2001. Each of the previous 46 nominees confirmed by the Senate has received the unanimous, bipartisan backing of the committee. Some on the other side of the aisle have falsely charged that if a nominee has a record as a conservative Republican, he will not be considered by the Committee. That is simply untrue. Senator Hatch has emphasized that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Walter were nominated by the George H.W. Bush Administration and the current Bush Administration. I do not think that either President Bush thought he was nominating liberals to the bench. I do not think so either. These are two more examples of conservative nominees being strongly supported by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and throughout the Senate. Another recent example is the nomination of Jeffrey Howard. Just 2 years ago, he campaigned for the Republican nomination for Governor of New Hampshire and he has been a prominent figure in Republican politics in New Hampshire for many years. Thus, it would be wrong to claim that we will not consider President George W. Bush's nominees with conservative credentials. We have done so repeatedly. The next time Republican critics are bandying around charges that the Democratic majority has failed to consider conservative judicial nominees, I hope someone will ask those critics about the many other conservative nominees we have proceeded to consider and confirm. The nominees being voted on today participated in bipartisan selection processes and appear to be the type of qualified, consensus nominees that the Senate has been confirming expeditiously to help fill vacancies on our Federal courts. I am proud of the tremendous work we have done since the change in the majority and the way the committee and the Senate have considered nominees fairly and promptly.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish the Senator had the courtesy of telling the chairman what he was going to recommend. I would have pointed out to him that under the Senate practice and procedure, that cannot be done. Therefore, I object.

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with today's votes on Judge William Griesbach to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Justice Joan Lancaster to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, the Senate will have confirmed its 40th and 41st district court judges in the less than 10 months since I became chairman this past summer. This is in addition to the nine judges confirmed to the courts of appeal. With today's votes, the total number of Federal judges confirmed since the change in Senate majority will now be 50. As our action today demonstrates, again, we are moving to confirm President Bush's nominees at a faster pace than the nominees of prior Presidents. It took almost 14 months for the Senate to confirm 50 judicial nominees for the Reagan administration. It took more than 15 months for the Senate to confirm 50 judicial nominees for the Clinton administration. And it took nearly 18 months for the Senate to confirm 50 judicial nominees for the George H.W. Bush administration. At the risk of offending some of my colleagues, we have confirmed 50 judicial nominees in 10 months--while it took the Senate nearly twice that amount of time to confirm the same number of his father's judicial nominees and nearly 50 percent more time to confirm the same number of President Clinton's and President Reagan's nominees. With today's confirmations, in the fewer than 10 months since the shift to a Democratic majority in the Senate, President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a rate of five per month, a pace nearly double that of the average for the last three Presidents, two of whom had Senates led by their own party. The confirmation of these nominees today demonstrates our commitment promptly to consider qualified, consensus nominees. I commend Senator Kohl and Senator Feingold who worked with Chairman Sensenbrenner to utilize a bipartisan commission process to recommend District Court nominees as has been the practice in Wisconsin for over 20 years. Once confirmed, Judge Griesbach, who is a well-regarded judge in Eastern Wisconsin, will be the first District Judge to sit in Green Bay, WI. Justice Lancaster, like Judge Griesbach, received the support of her Senators, Democrats who endorsed this Bush nominee. Both nominees appear to be the type of qualified, consensus nominees that the Senate has been confirming expeditiously to help fill vacancies on our Federal courts. I congratulate them and their families. With today's votes on Judge Griesbach and Justice Lancaster, in fewer than 10 months of Democratic leadership, 50 judicial nominees have been confirmed. That number exceeds the number of judicial nominees confirmed during all of 2000, 1999, 1997 and 1996, four out of six full years under Republican leadership. I would like to commend all Senators, but in particular the members of the Judiciary Committee, for their efforts to consider scores of judicial nominees for whom we have held hearings and on whom we have had votes during the last several months.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today I am introducing the Seniors Safety Act of 2002, a bill to protect older Americans from crime. I am pleased to have Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Torricelli, Harkin, Bingaman, Feingold, and Johnson as cosponsors for this anti-crime bill. The Seniors Safety Act contains a comprehensive package of proposals to address the most prevalent crimes perpetrated against seniors, including proposals to reduce health care fraud and abuse, combat nursing home fraud and abuse, prevent telemarketing fraud, and safeguard pension and employee benefit plans from fraud, bribery, and graft. In addition, this legislation would help seniors obtain restitution if their pension plans are defrauded. Older Americans are the most rapidly growing population group in our society, making them an even more attractive target for criminals. The Department of Health and Human Services has predicted that the number of older Americans will grow from 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 to 20 percent by 2030. In Vermont, seniors comprise about 12 percent of the population, and it is expected that that number will increase to 20 percent by 2025. As the Nation's crime rates dropped dramatically during the 1990s, crime against seniors remained stubbornly resistant. This may be because elders are susceptible to more fraud crimes and fewer violent crimes than younger Americans. According to a 2000 Justice Department study, more than 9 out of 10 crimes committed against older Americans were property crimes, most especially theft. As our Nation addressed our violent crime problem, we did not take a comprehensive approach to deterring the crimes that so affect the elderly, like telemarketing fraud, health care fraud, and pension fraud. The Seniors Safety Act provides such a comprehensive approach, and I urge the Senate to do its part to make it law. The Seniors Safety Act instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review current sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, amend the guidelines to include the age of a crime victim as a criterion for determining whether a sentencing enhancement is proper. The bill also requires the Commission to review sentencing guidelines for health care benefit fraud, increases statutory penalties both for fraud resulting in serious injury or death and for bribery and graft in connection with employee benefit plans, and increases criminal and civil penalties for defrauding pension plans. One particular form of criminal activity, telemarketing fraud, disproportionately impacts Americans over the age of 50, who account for over a third of the estimated $40 billion lost to telemarketing fraud each year. The Seniors Safety Act continues the progress we made in the 105th Congress with passage of the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act and in the 106th Congress with the Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act, which included provisions from the Seniors Safety Act that I introduced in the last Congress. The legislation I introduce today addresses the problem of telemarketing fraud schemes that too often succeed in swindling seniors of their life savings. Some of these schemes are directed from outside the United States, making criminal prosecution more difficult. The act would provide the Attorney General with a new, significant crime-fighting tool to prevent telemarketing fraud. Specifically, the act would authorize the Attorney General to block or terminate telephone service to telephone facilities that are being used to conduct such fraudulent activities. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals manage to acquire a new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors from being victimized. The bill also establishes a ``Better Business Bureau''-style clearinghouse at the Federal Trade Commission to provide seniors, their families, and others who may be concerned about a telemarketer with information about prior fraud convictions and/or complaints against the particular company. In addition, the FTC would refer seniors and other consumers who believe they have been swindled to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Criminal activity that undermines the safety and integrity of pension plans and health benefit programs threatens all Americans, but most especially those seniors who have relied on promised benefits in planning their retirements. Seniors who have worked faithfully and honestly for years should not reach their retirement years only to find that the funds they relied upon were stolen. This is a significant problem. According to the Attorney General's 1997 Annual Report, an interagency working group on pension abuse brought 70 criminal cases representing more than $90 million in losses to pension plans in 29 districts around the country in 1997 alone. The Seniors Safety Act would add to the arsenal that Federal prosecutors have to prevent and punish fraud against retirement plans. Specifically, the Act would create new criminal and civil penalties for defrauding pension plans or obtaining money or property from such plans by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. In addition, the act would enhance penalties for bribery and graft in connection with employee benefit plans. The only people enjoying the benefits of pension plans should be the people who have worked hard to fund those plans, not crooks who get the money by fraud. Health care spending consists of about 15 percent of the gross national product, or more than $1 trillion each year. Estimated losses due to fraud and abuse are astronomical. A December 1998 report by the National Institute of Justice, NIJ, states that these losses ``may exceed 10 percent of annual health care spending, or $100 billion per year.'' As more health care claims are processed electronically, without human involvement, more sophisticated computer-generated fraud schemes are surfacing. Some of these schemes generate thousands of false claims designed to pass through automated claims processing to payment, and result in the theft of millions of dollars from Federal and private health care programs. Defrauding Medicare, Medicaid and private health plans increases the financial burden on taxpayers and beneficiaries alike. In addition, some forms of fraud may result in inadequate medical care, harming patients' health as well. Unfortunately, the NIJ reports that many health care fraud schemes ``deliberately target vulnerable populations, such as the elderly or Alzheimer's patients, who are less willing or able to complain or alert law enforcement.'' We saw a dramatic increase in criminal convictions for health care fraud cases during the 1990s. These cases included convictions for submitting false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance plans; fake billings by foreign doctors; and needless prescriptions for durable medical equipment by doctors in exchange for kickbacks from manufacturers. In 1997 alone, $1.2 billion was awarded or negotiated as a result of criminal fines, civil settlements and judgments in health care fraud matters. We can and must do more. The Seniors Safety Act would allow the Attorney General to bring injunctive actions to stop false claims and illegal kickback schemes involving Federal health care programs. The bill would also provide law enforcement authorities with additional investigatory tools to uncover, investigate, and prosecute health care offenses in both criminal and civil proceedings. In addition, whistle-blowers who tip off law enforcement about health care fraud would be authorized under the Seniors Safety Act to seek court permission to review information obtained by the Government to enhance their assistance in False Claims Act lawsuits. Such qui tam, or whistle-blower, suits have dramatically enhanced the Government's ability to uncover health care fraud. The act would allow whistle-blowers and their qui tam suits to become even more effective. Finally, the act would extend anti-fraud and anti-kickback safeguards to the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. These are all important steps that will help cut down on the enormous health care fraud losses. As life expectancies continue to increase, long-term care planning specialists estimate that over 40 percent of those turning 65 eventually will need nursing home care, and that 20 percent of those seniors will spend 5 years or more in homes. Indeed, many of us already have experienced having our parents, family members or other loved ones spend time in a nursing home. We owe it to them and to ourselves to give the residents of nursing homes the best care they can get. The Justice Department has cited egregious examples of nursing homes that pocketed Medicare funds instead of providing residents with adequate care. In one case, five patients died as result of the inadequate provision of nutrition, wound care and diabetes management by three Pennsylvania nursing homes. Yet another death occurred when a patient, who was unable to speak, was placed in a scalding tub of 138- degree water. This act provides additional peace of mind to residents of nursing homes and those of us who may have loved ones there by giving Federal law enforcement the authority to investigate and prosecute operators of nursing homes for willfully engaging in patterns of health and safety violations in the care of nursing home residents. The act also protects whistle-blowers from retaliation for reporting such violations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today I am introducing the Seniors Safety Act of 2002, a bill to protect older Americans from crime. I am pleased to have Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Torricelli, Harkin, Bingaman, Feingold, and Johnson as cosponsors for this anti-crime bill. The Seniors Safety Act contains a comprehensive package of proposals to address the most prevalent crimes perpetrated against seniors, including proposals to reduce health care fraud and abuse, combat nursing home fraud and abuse, prevent telemarketing fraud, and safeguard pension and employee benefit plans from fraud, bribery, and graft. In addition, this legislation would help seniors obtain restitution if their pension plans are defrauded. Older Americans are the most rapidly growing population group in our society, making them an even more attractive target for criminals. The Department of Health and Human Services has predicted that the number of older Americans will grow from 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 to 20 percent by 2030. In Vermont, seniors comprise about 12 percent of the population, and it is expected that that number will increase to 20 percent by 2025. As the Nation's crime rates dropped dramatically during the 1990s, crime against seniors remained stubbornly resistant. This may be because elders are susceptible to more fraud crimes and fewer violent crimes than younger Americans. According to a 2000 Justice Department study, more than 9 out of 10 crimes committed against older Americans were property crimes, most especially theft. As our Nation addressed our violent crime problem, we did not take a comprehensive approach to deterring the crimes that so affect the elderly, like telemarketing fraud, health care fraud, and pension fraud. The Seniors Safety Act provides such a comprehensive approach, and I urge the Senate to do its part to make it law. The Seniors Safety Act instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review current sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, amend the guidelines to include the age of a crime victim as a criterion for determining whether a sentencing enhancement is proper. The bill also requires the Commission to review sentencing guidelines for health care benefit fraud, increases statutory penalties both for fraud resulting in serious injury or death and for bribery and graft in connection with employee benefit plans, and increases criminal and civil penalties for defrauding pension plans. One particular form of criminal activity, telemarketing fraud, disproportionately impacts Americans over the age of 50, who account for over a third of the estimated $40 billion lost to telemarketing fraud each year. The Seniors Safety Act continues the progress we made in the 105th Congress with passage of the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act and in the 106th Congress with the Protecting Seniors from Fraud Act, which included provisions from the Seniors Safety Act that I introduced in the last Congress. The legislation I introduce today addresses the problem of telemarketing fraud schemes that too often succeed in swindling seniors of their life savings. Some of these schemes are directed from outside the United States, making criminal prosecution more difficult. The act would provide the Attorney General with a new, significant crime-fighting tool to prevent telemarketing fraud. Specifically, the act would authorize the Attorney General to block or terminate telephone service to telephone facilities that are being used to conduct such fraudulent activities. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals manage to acquire a new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors from being victimized. The bill also establishes a ``Better Business Bureau''-style clearinghouse at the Federal Trade Commission to provide seniors, their families, and others who may be concerned about a telemarketer with information about prior fraud convictions and/or complaints against the particular company. In addition, the FTC would refer seniors and other consumers who believe they have been swindled to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Criminal activity that undermines the safety and integrity of pension plans and health benefit programs threatens all Americans, but most especially those seniors who have relied on promised benefits in planning their retirements. Seniors who have worked faithfully and honestly for years should not reach their retirement years only to find that the funds they relied upon were stolen. This is a significant problem. According to the Attorney General's 1997 Annual Report, an interagency working group on pension abuse brought 70 criminal cases representing more than $90 million in losses to pension plans in 29 districts around the country in 1997 alone. The Seniors Safety Act would add to the arsenal that Federal prosecutors have to prevent and punish fraud against retirement plans. Specifically, the Act would create new criminal and civil penalties for defrauding pension plans or obtaining money or property from such plans by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. In addition, the act would enhance penalties for bribery and graft in connection with employee benefit plans. The only people enjoying the benefits of pension plans should be the people who have worked hard to fund those plans, not crooks who get the money by fraud. Health care spending consists of about 15 percent of the gross national product, or more than $1 trillion each year. Estimated losses due to fraud and abuse are astronomical. A December 1998 report by the National Institute of Justice, NIJ, states that these losses ``may exceed 10 percent of annual health care spending, or $100 billion per year.'' As more health care claims are processed electronically, without human involvement, more sophisticated computer-generated fraud schemes are surfacing. Some of these schemes generate thousands of false claims designed to pass through automated claims processing to payment, and result in the theft of millions of dollars from Federal and private health care programs. Defrauding Medicare, Medicaid and private health plans increases the financial burden on taxpayers and beneficiaries alike. In addition, some forms of fraud may result in inadequate medical care, harming patients' health as well. Unfortunately, the NIJ reports that many health care fraud schemes ``deliberately target vulnerable populations, such as the elderly or Alzheimer's patients, who are less willing or able to complain or alert law enforcement.'' We saw a dramatic increase in criminal convictions for health care fraud cases during the 1990s. These cases included convictions for submitting false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance plans; fake billings by foreign doctors; and needless prescriptions for durable medical equipment by doctors in exchange for kickbacks from manufacturers. In 1997 alone, $1.2 billion was awarded or negotiated as a result of criminal fines, civil settlements and judgments in health care fraud matters. We can and must do more. The Seniors Safety Act would allow the Attorney General to bring injunctive actions to stop false claims and illegal kickback schemes involving Federal health care programs. The bill would also provide law enforcement authorities with additional investigatory tools to uncover, investigate, and prosecute health care offenses in both criminal and civil proceedings. In addition, whistle-blowers who tip off law enforcement about health care fraud would be authorized under the Seniors Safety Act to seek court permission to review information obtained by the Government to enhance their assistance in False Claims Act lawsuits. Such qui tam, or whistle-blower, suits have dramatically enhanced the Government's ability to uncover health care fraud. The act would allow whistle-blowers and their qui tam suits to become even more effective. Finally, the act would extend anti-fraud and anti-kickback safeguards to the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. These are all important steps that will help cut down on the enormous health care fraud losses. As life expectancies continue to increase, long-term care planning specialists estimate that over 40 percent of those turning 65 eventually will need nursing home care, and that 20 percent of those seniors will spend 5 years or more in homes. Indeed, many of us already have experienced having our parents, family members or other loved ones spend time in a nursing home. We owe it to them and to ourselves to give the residents of nursing homes the best care they can get. The Justice Department has cited egregious examples of nursing homes that pocketed Medicare funds instead of providing residents with adequate care. In one case, five patients died as result of the inadequate provision of nutrition, wound care and diabetes management by three Pennsylvania nursing homes. Yet another death occurred when a patient, who was unable to speak, was placed in a scalding tub of 138- degree water. This act provides additional peace of mind to residents of nursing homes and those of us who may have loved ones there by giving Federal law enforcement the authority to investigate and prosecute operators of nursing homes for willfully engaging in patterns of health and safety violations in the care of nursing home residents. The act also protects whistle-blowers from retaliation for reporting such violations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise today to recognize a group of Vermonters who have long served our state. It is with much pride and admiration that I congratulate the United Way of Chittenden County for 60 years of service in the greater Burlington area. For the past 60 years, the United Way of Chittenden County has been providing relief and assistance to its community. In October of 1942, founders Henry Way, C.P. Hasbrook, and I. Munn Boardman started the Burlington Community Chest. The chest's first campaign raised over $100,000 to help organizations like the Burlington Boys Club, the YMCA and the Salvation Army. Over the years, the chest evolved into the United Way of Chittenden County, one of Chittenden County's foremost benefactors, a community-based, problem-solving organization. This past year, the United Way of Chittenden County raised a record $3.75 million to help its neighbors, both local and afar. This is a remarkable sum, and one that reflects the strong commitment of the United Way to support the welfare and growth of Vermont and her people. The United Way of Chittenden County has become much more than a fundraising organization. They now train volunteers and coordinate a vast number of mentoring opportunities in Chittenden County, working with both national programs, like America Reads and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, and local groups, including Vermont's many museums, schools, and conservation societies. The United Way works to make Chittenden County a stronger community, tending to those in need. The many people who work and volunteer for the United Way become community supporters and community leaders. After graduating from law school, I was recruited to do my part and volunteer for the United Way of Chittenden County. It was a meaningful experience and one that has remained in the front of my memory during my 27 years in the U.S. Senate. Just as impressive as the volunteers of the United Way are those who benefit from the United Way's programs. They too become active and contributing members and leaders of their communities. The organization's actions following the unspeakable events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated the strength and commitment of the United Way of Chittenden County. The United Ways of Vermont contributed $400,000 to the September 11th Fund, including over $200,000 from the United Way of Chittenden County. At the same time, the United Way of Chittenden County still managed to raise more funds for Vermont's programs than any previous year. This accomplishment is due in no small part to Campaign Chair Lisa Ventriss, whose devotion ensured that the United Way will continue helping Vermonters, even while it contributes to a national cause of such gravity and importance. This feat is a testament to the generosity and dedication of the United Way of Chittenden County, and of all Vermonters. I would like to thank Gretchen Morse, the executive director of the United Way of Chittenden County, for her commitment to this organization's success and Vermont's well-being. Her leadership has helped keep the United Way of Chittenden County one of the most cost- effective charities of its kind. Indeed, 85 cents of every dollar collected by the United Way of Chittenden County goes directly back to the community, a number well above the national average. Given this organization's unyielding support, it is no surprise that the United Way State of Caring Index now ranks Vermont as the fifth most caring State in the Union. Sixty years after its founding, the United Way of Chittenden County remains a model for charitable organizations across the State and across the country. I join the people of Chittenden County, VT, and the entire Nation in thanking the United Way for six decades of community service.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will pass H.R. 4167, to retroactively renew family farmer bankruptcy protection until June 1, 2002. After months of inaction, the House of Representatives finally passed this legislation two days ago to reinstate Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code. It is past time for Congress to act to restore this basic safety net for America's family farmers. Unfortunately, too many family farmers have been left in legal limbo in bankruptcy courts across the country since Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code expired on October 1, 2001. Since last November, Senator Carnahan and I have tried to pass S. 1630, a Carnahan-Grassley bipartisan bill to retroactively restore chapter 12. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the bill to the Senate on November 8, 2001, but it has been subject to a secret hold by the minority for the last six months. This is the third time in the last year that this Congress must act to retroactively restore basic bankruptcy safeguards for family farmers because Chapter 12 is still a temporary provision despite its first passage into law in 1986. Our family farmers do not deserve these lapses in bankruptcy law that could mean the difference between foreclosure and farming. In 2000 and into last year, for example, the Senate, then controlled by the other party, failed to take up a House-passed bill to retroactively renew chapter 12 and, as a result, family farmers lost chapter 12 bankruptcy protection for 8 months. The current lapse of chapter 12 has lasted more than 6 months. Enough is enough. Our family farmers do not deserve these lapses in bankruptcy law that could mean the difference between foreclosure and farming. It is time for Congress to make chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a stable safety net for our nation's family farmers. I strongly support Senator Carnahan's bipartisan amendment to make chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code that is part of the Senate-passed farm bill. The Senate unanimously approved the Carnahan amendment by a 93-0 vote. Unfortunately, the House majority is objecting to including the Carnahan amendment in the farm bill conference report. In the current bankruptcy reform conference, I am hopeful Congress will update and expand the coverage of chapter 12. In the meantime, the farm bill conference should make permanent basic bankruptcy protection for our family farmers across the country by adopting the Carnahan amendment. I commend Senator Carnahan for her continued leadership in protecting family farms across the country.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is voting on the 46th judicial nominee to be confirmed since last July when the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized after the Senate majority changed. With today's vote on Jeffrey Howard to the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, the Senate will confirm its 46th judicial nominee and its 9th judge to our Federal Courts of Appeals in the less than 10 months since I became chairman this past summer. This is the 18th judge confirmed since the beginning of this session in late January. Under Democratic leadership, in less than 4 months the Senate has confirmed more judges than were confirmed in all 12 months of 1996 under Republican leadership. The Senate has confirmed more judges in the last 10 months than were confirmed in 4 out of 6 full years under Republican leadership. The number of judicial confirmations over these past 10 months--46--exceeds the number confirmed during all 12 months of 2000, 1999, 1997, and 1996. Mr. Howard is the 9th Court of Appeals judge confirmed in the less than 10 months since the Judiciary Committee was permitted to reorganize last July. This is more circuit judges than were confirmed in all 12 months of 2000, 1999, 1997, and 1996, 4 of the 6 years of Republican control of the Senate during the Clinton administration. It is triple the number of circuit judges confirmed in 1993, when a Democratic Senate majority was working with a President of the same party and received some cooperation from the administration. It exceeds the number of Court of Appeals judges confirmed by a Republican Senate majority in the first 12 months of the Reagan administration and it equals the number of circuit judges confirmed in the first 12 months of the first Bush administration. As our action today demonstrates, again, we are moving at a fast pace and confirming conservative nominees. Since the change in Senate majority, the Democratic majority has moved to confirm President Bush's nominees at a faster pace than the nominees of prior Presidents. The rate of confirmations in the past 10 months actually exceeds the rates of confirmation in the past three Presidencies. It took 15 months for the Senate to confirm 46 judicial nominees for the Clinton administration. The pace at the beginning of the Clinton administration amounted to 3.1 judges confirmed per month. In the first 15 months of the first George H.W. Bush administration, only 27 judges were confirmed. The pace at the beginning of the George H.W. Bush administration amounted to 1.8 judges confirmed per month. In President Reagan's first 15 months in office, 54 judges were confirmed. The pace at the beginning of the Reagan administration amounted to 3.6 judges confirmed per month. By comparison, in the less than 10 months since the shift to a Democratic majority in the Senate, President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a rate of 4.6 per month, a faster pace than for any of the last three Presidents. During the preceding 6\1/2\ years in which a Republican majority most recently controlled the pace of judicial confirmations in the Senate, 248 judges were confirmed. Some like to talk about the 377 judges confirmed during the Clinton administration, but forget to mention that more than one-third were confirmed during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration while the Senate majority was Democratic and Senator Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee. The pace of confirmations under a Republican majority was markedly slower, especially in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. During the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate, judicial confirmations averaged 38 per year, a pace of consideration and confirmation that we have already exceeded under Democratic leadership in fewer than 10 months, in spite of all of the challenges facing Congress and the Nation during this period and all of the obstacles Republicans have placed in our path. We have confirmed 46 judicial nominees in less than 10 months. This is almost twice as many confirmations as George W. Bush's father had over a longer period, 27 nominees in 15 months, than the period we have been in control of the Senate. Our Republican critics like to make arguments based on false rather than fair comparisons. They complain that we have not done 24 months of work in the less than 10 months we have been in the majority. That is an unfair complaint. A fair examination of the rate of confirmation shows, however, that Democrats are working harder and faster on judicial nominees, confirming judges at a faster pace than the rates of the past 20 years. I ask myself how Republicans can justify seeking to hold the Democratic majority in the Senate to a different standard than the one they met themselves during the last 6\1/2\ years. There simply is no answer other than partisanship. This double standard is most apparent when Republicans refuse fairly to compare the progress we are making with the period in which they were in the Senate majority with a President of the other party. They do not want to talk about that because we have exceeded the number of judges they confirmed per year. They would rather unfairly compare the work of the Senate on confirmations in the less than 10 months since the shift in majority to full, 2-year Congresses. I say that it is quite unfair to complain that we have not done 24 months of work on judicial vacancies in the less than 10 months since the Senate reorganized. These double standards asserted by the Republicans are wrong and unfair, but that does not seem to matter to Republicans intent on criticizing and belittling every achievement of the Senate under a Democratic majority. Republicans have been imposing a double standard on circuit court vacancies as well. The Republican attack is based on the unfounded notion that the Senate has not kept up with attrition on the Courts of Appeals. Well, the Democratic majority in the Senate has more than kept up with attrition and we are seeking to close the vacancies gap on the Courts of Appeals that more than doubled under the Republican majority. In less than 10 months since the change in majority and reorganization, the Senate has confirmed 9 judges to the Courts of Appeals and held hearings on two others, with another circuit judge hearing scheduled for this week. In contrast, the Republican-controlled majority averaged only seven confirmations to the Courts of Appeals per year. Seven. In the less than 10 months the Democrats have been in the majority, we have already exceeded the annual number of Court of Appeals judges confirmed by our predecessors. The Senate in the last 10 months has confirmed more Court of Appeals judges than were confirmed in 2000, 1999, or 1997, and nine more than the zero from 1996. In an entire session of the 105th Congress, the Republican majority did not confirm a single judge to fill vacancies on the Courts of Appeals. That year has greatly contributed to the doubling of vacancies on the Courts of Appeals during the time in which the Republican majority controlled the Senate. The Republican majority assumed control of judicial confirmation in January 1995 and did not allow the Judiciary Committee to be reorganized after the shift in majority last summer until July 10, 2001. During the period in which the Republican majority controlled the Senate and in which they delayed reorganization, the period from January 1995 through July 2001, vacancies on the Courts of Appeals increased from 16 to 33, more than doubling. When Members were finally assigned to the Judiciary Committee on July 10, we began with 33 Courts of Appeals vacancies. That is what I inherited. Since the shift in majority last summer, five additional vacancies have arisen on the Courts of Appeals around the country. With this week's confirmation of Jeffrey Howard, we have reduced the number of circuit court vacancies to 29. Rather than the 38 vacancies that would exist if we were making no progress, as some have asserted, there now remain 29 vacancies. That is more than keeping up with the attrition on the Circuit Courts. Since our Republican critics are so fond of using percentages, I will say that we will have filled almost a quarter--29 of 38, or 23.8 percent--of the vacancies on the Courts of Appeals in the last 10 months. In other words, by confirming four more nominees than the five required to keep up with the pace of attrition, we have not just matched the rate of attrition but surpassed it by 80 percent. While the Republican Senate majority increased vacancies on the Courts of Appeals by over 100 percent, it has taken the Democratic majority less than 10-months to reverse that trend, keep up with extraordinary turnover and, in addition, reduce circuit court vacancies by more than 10 percent overall--from 33 down to 29, or 12.1 percent. This is progress. Rather than having the circuit vacancy numbers skyrocketing, as they did overall during the prior 6\1/2\ years--more than doubling from 16 to 33--the Democratic-led Senate has reversed that trend. The vacancy rate is moving in the right direction--down. Despite claims to the contrary, under Democratic leadership, the Senate is confirming President Bush's Circuit Court nominees more quickly than the nominees of other Presidents were confirmed by Senates, even some with majorities from the President's own party. The number of confirmations to the Circuit Courts has exceeded those who were confirmed over 10 month time frames at the beginning of past administrations. With the confirmation of Jeffrey Howard, 9 Circuit Court nominees will have been confirmed in less than 10-months. This number greatly exceeds the number of Court of Appeals confirmations in the first 10 months of the Reagan administration (three), the first Bush administration (three), and the Clinton administration (two). This is three times, or 300 percent, the number of Court of Appeals nominees confirmed in the comparable 10-month periods of past administrations. With nine circuit judges confirmed in the less than 10 months since the Senate reorganized under Democratic leadership, we have greatly exceeded the number of circuit judges confirmed at the beginning of prior presidencies. Our achievements also compare quite favorably to the 46 Court of Appeals nominees confirmed by the Republican majority in the 76 months during which they most recently controlled the Senate. Their inaction led to the number of Courts of Appeals vacancies more than doubling. With a Democratic Senate majority, the number of circuit vacancies is going down. Overall, in little less than 10 months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations. That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control of the Senate. In contrast, one-sixth of President Clinton's judicial nominees--more than 50--never got a committee hearing and committee vote from the Republican majority, which perpetuated longstanding vacancies into this year. Vacancies continue to exist on the Courts of Appeals in part because a Republican majority was not willing to hold hearings or vote on more than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's Court of Appeals nominees in 1999 and 2000 and was not willing to confirm a single judge to the Courts of Appeals during the entire 1996 session. Despite the newfound concern from across the aisle about the number of vacancies on the circuit courts, no nominations hearings were held while the Republicans controlled the Senate in the 107th Congress last year. No judges were confirmed during that time from among the many qualified circuit court nominees received by the Senate on January 3, 2001, or from among the nominations received by the Senate on May 9, 2001. Had the Republicans not delayed and obstructed progress on Courts of Appeals nominees during the Clinton administration, we would not now have so many vacancies. Had the Republicans even reversed course just this past year and proceeded on the circuit court nominees sent to the Senate in January, the number of circuit court vacancies today could be in the low twenties, given the pace of confirmation of circuit nominees since the shift in majority last summer. The Democratic leadership acted promptly to address the number of circuit and district vacancies that had been allowed to grow when the Senate was in Republican control. The Judiciary Committee noticed the first hearing on judicial nominations within 10 minutes of the reorganization of the Senate and held that hearing on the day after the committee was assigned new members. That initial hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee on whom the Republican majority had refused to hold a hearing the year before. We held unprecedented hearings for judicial nominees during the August recess. Those hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee who had been a Republican staff member of the Senate. We proceeded with a hearing the day after the first anthrax letter arrived at the Senate. That hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee. In less than 10 tumultuous months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations--including 11 circuit court nominees--and we are hoping to hold another hearing this week for half a dozen more nominees, including another Court of Appeals nominee. That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control of the Senate. The Republican majority never held 16 judicial confirmation hearings in 12 months. We will hold our 17th judicial confirmation hearing this week. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding regular hearings on judicial nominees and giving nominees a vote in committee, in contrast to the practice of anonymous holds and other obstructionist tactics employed by some during the period of Republican control. The Democratic majority has reformed the process and practices used in the past to deny committee consideration of judicial nominees. We have moved away from the anonymous holds that so dominated the process from 1996 through 2000. We have made home State Senators' blue slips public for the first time. I do not mean by my comments to appear critical of Senator Hatch. Many times during the 6\1/2\ years he chaired the Judiciary Committee, I observed that, were the matter left up to us, we would have made more progress on more judicial nominees. I thanked him during those years for his efforts. I know that he would have liked to have been able to do more and not have to leave so many vacancies and so many nominees without action. I hope to continue to hold hearings and make progress on judicial nominees in order to further the administration of justice. In our efforts to address the number of vacancies on the circuit and district courts we inherited from the Republicans, the committee has focused on consensus nominees for all Senators. In order to respond to what Vice President Cheney and Senator Hatch now call a vacancy crisis, the committee has focused on consensus nominees. This will help end the crisis caused by Republican delay and obstruction by confirming as many of the President's judicial nominees as quickly as possible. Most Senators understand that the more controversial nominees require greater review. This process of careful review is part of our democratic process. It is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system of government that does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to one person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines, to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the mainstream of legal thought, and whose decisions would further divide our nation. The committee continues to try to accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. The Court of Appeals nominees included at hearings so far this year have been at the request of Senators Grassley, Lott, Specter, Enzi, and Smith of New Hampshire--five Republican Senators who each sought a prompt hearing on a Court of Appeals nominee who was not among those initially sent to the Senate in May 2001. Each of the previous 45 nominees confirmed by the Senate has received the unanimous, bipartisan backing of the committee. Mr. Howard was given a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee due to Senator Bob Smith's efforts. The Senator from New Hampshire is not someone with whom I agree on all issues. Indeed, we have had our disagreements on judicial nominations. He has applied a litmus test over the years and voted against nominees he felt were not against abortion. He voted against at least 20 Clinton judicial nominees. Nonetheless, when Senator Smith spoke to me about his support for Mr. Howard, I accommodated Senator Smith's request that we proceed promptly with a hearing on him. Mr. Howard is being confirmed by the U.S. Senate today, because Senator Smith worked to have this nomination considered favorably. Some on the other side of the aisle have falsely charged that if a nominee has a record as a conservative Republican, he will not be considered by the committee. That is simply untrue. Take, for example, the nomination of Jeffrey Howard. Just 2 years ago, he campaigned for the Republican nomination for Governor of New Hampshire. He has been a prominent figure in Republican politics in New Hampshire for many years. He served as the New Hampshire Attorney General, the State Deputy Attorney General, and the Chief Counsel in the Consumer Protection Division. He also served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Hampshire and the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General during the first Bush administration. Thus, it would be wrong to claim that we will not consider President George W. Bush's nominees with conservative credentials. We have done so repeatedly. The committee voted unanimously to report Mr. Howard's nomination to the floor, even though a minority of the ABA committee found the nominee to be not qualified for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. No Senator is bound by the recommendations of the ABA, but we have always valued their contribution to the process and the willingness of the members of the ABA standing committee to volunteer their time, efforts and judgment to this important task. Based on the judgment of each individual Member about the qualifications of a particular nominee, the Judiciary Committee has reported out other Bush nominees who received mixed ABA peer review ratings and even some with negative recommendations. Mr. Howard is well-regarded by his home-State Senators. The next time Republican critics are bandying around charges that the Democratic majority has failed to consider conservative judicial nominees, I hope someone will ask those critics about Jeffrey Howard, as well as the many other conservative nominees we have proceeded to consider and confirm.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today in the Senate Judiciary Committee we passed en bloc by unanimous consent three Sense of Congress resolutions introduced by Representative Joe Crowley, Senator Tom Harkin, and Senator Ted Stevens, respectively, to honor the police officers, firefighters and emergency personnel who responded to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I am pleased that the full Senate is now taking up these resolutions for final passage. I thank Senator Schumer, and, in particular, the Fraternal Order of Police and its president, Steve Young, for their leadership and strong support for honoring the fallen September 11 first responders. There were so many examples of bravery and courage on September 11 and there is no doubt that the extraordinary heroism of our police officers, firefighters and emergency personnel should be recognized. Last year, I was proud to work with Senator Stevens, Senator Hatch and other members of the committee to enact legislation, which I cosponsored, to authorize the President to award and present the Medal of Valor to public safety officers, upon the selection and recommendation of the Medal of Valor Review Board, for extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty. Well before the terrorist attacks, Congress and the President decided that the award would have the most meaning if firefighters and police and other public safety officers themselves--the peers of those who will be honored--made the selections of candidates. All 11 members of the Medal of Valor Review Board have now been appointed and the Board met for the first time last month. I have full faith that the Medal of Valor Review Board members will work quickly to award the Medal of Valor to their fellow public safety officers involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I certainly support awarding the Public Safety Medal of Valor to the fallen heros of September 11. Since my time as a Chittenden County States' Attorney in Vermont, I have taken a keen interest in law enforcement in my home State and around the country. Vermont has the reputation of being one of the safest states in which to live, work and visit, and rightly so. In no small part, this is due to the hard work of those who have sworn to serve and protect us. We should do all we can to support and protect them and all public safety officers nationwide. I am proud of my legislative record in support of the public safety officers in Vermont and the Nation. For example, Senator Campbell and I authored the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Acts of 1998 and 2000 to create and then expand the $25 million Department of Justice program to provide grants to law enforcement officers to buy bulletproof vests. This grant program has funded almost 1,000 lifesaving vests for Vermont officers and more than 300,000 vests for officers across the country. Specifically in response to the terrorists attacks of September 11, I negotiated a retroactive $100,000 increase in the total benefit under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Congress needed to act immediately to provide much-needed relief for the families of the brave men and women of law enforcement who sacrificed their own lives for their fellow Americans. Although an increase in the PSOB benefits can never be a substitute for the loss of a loved one, it was the right thing to do for the families of our fallen heros. In addition, I helped draft legislation to create the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund to provide fair and quick compensation to terrorist victims and their families. I look forward to continuing to work in a bipartisan manner with my Senate colleagues on legislation to support our Nation's public safety officers who put their lives at risk every day to protect us.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate is considering H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. This bill mirrors S. 1749, which Senator Kennedy introduced with Senators Feinstein, Brownback, Kyl, and others. I am one of 58 cosponsors of S. 1749, which has commanded extraordinary bipartisan support and the sponsorship of most of the members of the Judiciary Committee, from which H.R. 3525 was discharged. Indeed, this bill reflects the results of sustained bipartisan negotiation, and represents the consensus view of Senators across the ideological spectrum. In other words, this is legislation the Senate should pass without delay. As a Senator from Vermont, I know what a serious issue border security is. For too long, Congress has taken a haphazard approach to border security, meeting many of the needs of our southwest border but neglecting our border with Canada. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, we have taken a far more comprehensive approach. Congress took its first steps to strengthen our borders in the USA PATRIOT Act, which authorized tripling the number of Border Patrol personnel, INS Inspectors, and Customs Service agents serving along our northern border, and $100 million in funding for improved technology for the INS and Customs Service's use in monitoring the border. As the author of those provisions, I am pleased that the administration has requested substantial increases in funding for border security personnel. I urge the Congress not only to fund this priority, but to ensure that the northern border receives at least half of any new supply of border security enforcement officers. The legislation before us today builds on the first steps taken in the USA PATRIOT Act to strengthen substantially the security of our borders. It will further increase the number of INS Inspectors and INS investigative personnel, and authorize raises for Border Patrol agents and inspectors so that we can retain our experienced border security officers, who have been so overworked over the past 7 months. The bill also authorizes funding for training of INS personnel for more effective border management, and for improving the State Department's review of visa applicants abroad. In addition, it authorizes $150 million for the INS to improve technology for border security, another important follow-up to the USA PATRIOT Act. Beyond authorizing badly needed funding for our borders, this legislation includes a number of important security provisions, a few of which I would like to highlight today. First, it requires the Attorney General and Secretary of State to issue only machine-readable and tamper-resistant visas, and travel and entry documents using biometric identifiers, by October 26, 2003. They must also have machines that can read the documents at all ports of entry by that date. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of State to establish terrorist lookout committees within each U.S. mission abroad, to ensure that consular officials receive updated information on known or potential terrorists in the Nation where they are stationed. Third, the bill will foster information sharing between other Government agencies and the State Department and INS, and shorten the deadline established in the USA PATRIOT Act to develop a technology standard to identify visa applicants. Fourth, the legislation requires all commercial vessels or aircraft entering or departing from the United States to provide complete passenger manifests. Fifth, this bill would substantially strengthen existing law for the monitoring of foreign students. The Government would be required to collect additional information about student visa applicants, and educational institutions would be obligated to report visa holders who did not appear for classes. In addition, the INS Commissioner would perform periodic audits of educational institutions entitled to accept foreign students. I will vote for this bill because it will help protect our Nation and our borders. More than ever since September 11, those issues are fundamental priorities for this Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and look forward to its becoming law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the confirmation of Judge Legrome Davis to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will be the 17th judge confirmed since the beginning of this session. Under Democratic leadership, in less than 4 months the Senate has confirmed as many judges as were confirmed in all 12 months of the 1996 session under Republican leadership. In fact, included among the 17 judges whom we will have confirmed since January this year are 2 judges to our Courts of Appeals. That stands in sharp contrast to the 1996 session in which the Republican majority did not allow even a single Court of Appeals nominee to be confirmed--not one. I submit that we have already done better in less than 4 months than our predecessors and critics did during the entire 12 months of the 1996 session. The confirmation of Judge Davis today illustrates the progress being made under Democratic leadership and the fair and expeditious way in which we have considered nominees. Judge Legrome Davis was first nominated to the position of U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by President Clinton on July 30, 1998. The Republican-controlled Senate took no action on his nomination and it was returned to the President at the end of 1998. On January 26, 1999, President Clinton renominated Judge Davis for the same vacancy. The Senate again failed to hold a hearing for Judge Davis and his nomination was returned to the President on December 15, 2000, after 2 more years of inaction in a second full Congress while the Senate was controlled by a Republican majority. Under Republican leadership, Judge Davis' nomination languished before the Committee for 868 days without a hearing. Unfortunately, Judge Davis was subjected to the kind of inappropriate partisan rancor that befell so many other nominees to the district courts in Pennsylvania and to the Third Circuit during the years Republicans controlled the Senate. I want to note emphatically, however, that I know personally that the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, supported Judge Davis's nomination and worked hard to get him a hearing and a vote. The lack of Senate action on Judge Davis's initial nominations are in no way attributable to a lack of support from the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. Far from it. In fact, I give Senator Specter credit for getting President Bush to renominate Judge Davis earlier this year and want to commend him publicly for all he has done to support this nomination from the outset. This year we have moved expeditiously to consider Judge Davis. Judge Davis was nominated by President Bush in late January 2002, the Committee received his ABA peer review on March 12, he participated in a confirmation hearing the next week on March 19, and he received a unanimous vote by the Judiciary Committee on April 11--less than 3 months after his nomination, and less than 1 month after his paperwork was completed. The saga of Judge Davis recalls for us so many nominees from the period of January 1995 through July 10, 2001, who never received a hearing or a vote and who were the subject of secret anonymous holds by Republicans for reasons that were never explained. At Judge Davis' recent confirmation hearing Senator Santorum testified that Judge Davis did not get a hearing after President Clinton nominated him because local Democrats objected. I was the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee during those years and never heard that before. My understanding at the time, from July 1998 until the end of 2000, was that Judge Legrome Davis would have had the support of every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate. He was not included in the May 2000 hearing for a few other Pennsylvania nominees. His not being included was a part of the discussion on the record, a discussion about unwillingness of some to act on nominees in a presidential election year although Senator Specter emphasized his personal commitment to supporting Judge Davis. Senator Hatch never indicated to me that he thought Democratic opposition was the reason he could not include Judge Legrome Davis in a hearing over those 3 years. Judge Davis has served as a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas in the First Judicial District in Pennsylvania for more than 13 years. Prior to serving as a judge, he had an extensive career litigating criminal cases in State courts. He has participated in numerous task forces and a variety of pro bono projects aimed to improve the judicial system. He is well-qualified and has broad bipartisan support. I know that Judge Davis and his family are glad that this day has finally arrived. I expect that the people served by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will be happy with the Senate's action today. Judge Davis will be the 45th judicial nominee to be confirmed since last July when the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized after the Senate majority changed. With today's vote on Judge Davis, the Senate will confirm its 45th judicial nominee in the less than 10 months since I became Chairman this past summer. The Senate has confirmed more judges in the last 10 months than were confirmed in 4 out of 6 full years under Republican leadership. The number of judicial confirmations over these past 10 months 45 exceeds the number confirmed during all 12 months of 2000, 1999, 1997 and 1996. As our action today demonstrates, again, we are moving at a fast pace to fill judicial vacancies with nominees who have strong bipartisan support. Those partisan critics who assert that our rate of confirming President Bush's judicial nominees is bad are ignoring the facts. They willfully confuse the actual ``pace,'' or rate, of confirmation with the misleading percentages they like to construct. The facts are that looking at the number of confirmations in similar time periods shows that we are confirming President Bush's nominees at a faster pace than the nominees of prior presidents, including those who worked closely with a Senate majority of the same political party. The rate of confirmation in the past 10 months actually exceeds the rates of confirmation in the past three presidencies. For example, in the first 15 months of the Clinton administration, 46 judicial nominees were confirmed, a pace on average of 3.1 per month. In the first 15 months of the first Bush administration, 27 judges were confirmed at a pace of 1.8 judges per month. Likewise, in President Reagan's first 15 months in office, 54 judges were confirmed, a pace of 3.6 per month. In less than 10 months since the shift to a Democratic majority in the Senate in less than two thirds of the time period--President George W. Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a rate of more than 4.5 judges per month, a faster pace than for any of the past 3 Presidents. During the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate, judicial confirmations averaged 38 per year a pace of consideration and confirmation that we have already exceeded under Democratic leadership over these past 10 months in spite of all of the challenges facing Congress and the Nation during this period and all of the obstacles Republicans have placed in our path. At the end of today, we have confirmed 45 judicial nominees in just 10 months. This is almost twice as many confirmations as George W. Bush's father had over a longer period--27 nominees in 15--months than the period we have been in the majority in the Senate. The Republican critics typically compare apples to oranges to mischaracterize the achievements of the last 10 months. They complain that we have not done 24 months of work in the less than 10 months we have been in the majority. That is an unfair complaint. A fair examination of the rate of confirmation shows that Democrats are working harder and faster on judicial nominees, confirming judges at a faster pace than the rates of the past 20 years. The double standards asserted by Republican critics are just plain wrong and unfair, but that does not seem to matter to Republicans intent on criticizing and belittling every achievement of the Senate under a Democratic majority. I would like to commend the members of the Judiciary Committee and our Majority Leader and Assistant Majority Leader for all of their hard work in getting us to this point. The confirmation of the 45th judge in less than 10 months, especially these last 10 months, in spite of the unfair and personal criticism to which they have each been subjected, is an extraordinary achievement and a real example of Senators acting in a bipartisan way even when the other side makes it as difficult as possible. Republicans have been imposing a double standard on circuit court vacancies as well. The Republican attack is based on the unfounded notion that the Senate has not kept up with attrition on the Courts of Appeals. Well, the Democratic majority in the Senate has more than kept up with attrition, and we have been acting to close the vacancies gap on the Courts of Appeals that more than doubled under the Republican majority. Just this week, the Senate confirmed Judge Terrence O'Brien to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by a vote of 98 to zero. His confirmation was the eighth circuit court nominee to be confirmed in the almost 10 months since I became Chairman this past summer. Just today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the 11th Court of Appeals nominee to come before the Committee in less than 10 months. Thus, another Court of Appeals nominee is already on the Senate Executive Calendar and being scheduled for floor action. In a little less than 10 months since the change in majority, the Senate has confirmed 8 judges to the Courts of Appeals and held hearings on 3 others. In contrast, the Republican-controlled majority averaged only 7 confirmations to the Courts of Appeals per year. Seven. In the less than 10 months the Democrats have been in the majority, we have already exceeded the annual number of Court of Appeals judges confirmed by our predecessors. The Senate in the last 10 months has confirmed as many Court of Appeals judges as were confirmed in all of 2000 and more than were confirmed in 1997 or 1999, and 8 more than the zero from 1996. Another way to put it is that within the last 10 months, the Democratic majority in the Senate has confirmed as many Court of Appeals judges as were confirmed in the 2000 and 1996 sessions combined and confirmed more Court of Appeals judges than were confirmed in the 1999 and 1996 sessions combined or in the 1997 and 1996 sessions combined. The Republican majority assumed control of judicial confirmations in January 1995 and did not allow the Judiciary Committee to be reorganized after the shift in majority last summer until July 10, 2001. During that period from 1995 through July 10, 2001, vacancies on the Courts of Appeals increased from 16 to 33, more than doubling. When I became chairman of a Committee to which Members were finally assigned on July 10, we began with 33 Courts of Appeals vacancies. That is what I inherited. Since the shift in majority last summer, 5 additional vacancies have arisen on the Courts of Appeals around the country. With this week's confirmation of Judge O'Brien, we have reduced the number of circuit court vacancies to 30. That is, we have kept up with attrition by confirming 5 Court of Appeals judges and then acted to lower the number of vacancies by already confirming 3 additional judges. Those are the facts. Since our Republican critics are so fond of using percentages, I will say that we will have now reduced the vacancies on the Courts of Appeals by almost 10 percent in the last 10 months. In other words, by confirming 3 more nominees than the 5 required to keep up with the pace of attrition, we have not just matched the rate of attrition, but surpassed it by 60 percent. I add this facetiously to show how ridiculous their use of percentages is in this setting. Rather than the 38 vacancies that would exist if we were making no progress, as some have asserted, there are now 30 vacancies--that is more than keeping up with the attrition on the Circuit Courts. Republican critics unfairly seek to attribute to the Democratic majority the lack of action by the Republican majority before the historic change last summer. While the Republican Senate majority increased vacancies on the Courts of Appeals by over 100 percent, it has taken the Democratic majority less than 10 months to reverse that trend, keep up with extraordinary turnover and, in addition, reduce circuit court vacancies overall. This is progress. Rather than having the circuit vacancy numbers skyrocketing, as they did overall during the prior 6\1/2\ years--more than doubling from 16 to 33--the Democratic-led Senate has reversed that trend. The vacancies numbers are moving in the right direction--down. It is not possible to repair the damage caused by longstanding vacancies in several circuits overnight, but we are improving the conditions in the 5th, 10th and 8th Circuits, in particular. The confirmation of Judge O'Brien this week made the second judge confirmed to the 10th Circuit in the last 4 months. Next week we will proceed with a nominee to the 6th Circuit. Overall, in little less than 10 months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations. That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control of the Senate. In contrast, one-sixth of President Clinton's judicial nominees--more than 50--never got a Committee hearing and Committee vote from the Republican majority, which perpetuated longstanding vacancies into this year. Vacancies continue to exist on the Courts of Appeals in large part because a Republican majority was not willing to hold hearings or vote on more than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's Court of Appeals nominees in 1999 and 2000, and was not willing to confirm a single judge to the Courts of Appeals during the entire 1996 session. Despite the new-found concern from across the aisle about the number of vacancies on the circuit courts, no nominations hearings were held while the Republicans controlled the Senate in the 107th Congress last year. No judges were confirmed during that time from among the many qualified circuit court nominees received by the Senate on January 3, 2001, or from among the nominations received by the Senate on May 9, 2001. The Democratic leadership acted promptly to address the number of circuit and district vacancies that had been allowed to grow when the Senate was in Republican control. The Judiciary Committee noticed the first hearing on judicial nominations within 10 minutes of the reorganization of the Senate, and held that hearing on the day after the Committee was assigned new members. That initial hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee on whom the Republican majority had refused to hold a hearing the year before. We held unprecedented hearings for judicial nominees during the August recess. Those hearings included a Court of Appeals nominee who had been a Republican staff member of the Senate. We proceeded with a hearing the day after the first anthrax letter arrived at the Senate. That hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee. In a little less than 10 tumultuous months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations--including 11 circuit court nominees--and we are planning to hold another hearing next week for half a dozen more nominees, including another Court of Appeals nominee. That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control of the Senate. The Republican majority never held 16 judicial confirmation hearings in 12 months and we have to do so in less than 10 months. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding regular hearings on judicial nominees and giving nominees a vote in Committee, in contrast to the practice of anonymous holds and other obstructionist tactics employed by some during the period of Republican control. The Democratic majority has reformed the process and practices used in the past to deny Committee consideration of judicial nominees. We have moved away from the anonymous holds that so dominated the process from 1996 through 2000. We have made home State Senators' blue slips public for the first time. I do not mean by my comments to appear critical of Senator Hatch. Many times during the 6\1/2\ years he chaired the Judiciary Committee, I observed that, were the matter left up to us, we would have made more progress on more judicial nominees. I thanked him during those years for his efforts. I know that he would have liked to have been able to do more and not have to leave so many vacancies and so many nominees without action. I hope to hold additional hearings and make additional progress on judicial nominees. In our efforts to address the number of vacancies on the circuit and district courts we inherited from the Republicans, the Committee has focused on consensus nominees for all Senators. In order to respond to what Vice President Cheney and Senator Hatch now call a vacancy crisis, the Committee has focused on consensus nominees. This will help end the crisis caused by Republican delay and obstruction by confirming as many of the President's judicial nominees as quickly as possible. Most Senators understand that the more controversial nominees require greater review. This process of careful review is part of our democratic process. It is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system of government that does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to one person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines, to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the mainstream of legal thought, and whose decisions would further divide our nation. The Committee continues to try to accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. The Court of Appeals nominees included at hearings so far this year have been at the request of Senator Grassley, Senator Lott, Senator Specter, Senator Enzi and Senator Smith from New Hampshire--five Republican Senators who each sought a prompt hearing on a Court of Appeals nominee who was not among those initially sent to the Senate in May 2001. Next week's hearing will continue that effort and include a Court of Appeals nominee from Tennessee at the request of Senator Thompson. Each of the 45 nominees confirmed by the Senate has received the unanimous, bipartisan backing of the Committee. Only Judge Roger Gregory has had a single vote cast against his confirmation in all of the Senate votes on all of these nominees. The confirmation of Judge Davis is the 45th judicial nominee to be confirmed since I became Chairman last July. Like Judge Roger Gregory, this is the confirmation of a qualified nominee who could not get a hearing when the Republican majority controlled the Senate. I had hoped that at the end of the day, justice would be done. I am glad that this is that day, and that at the end of today Judge Davis will also have been considered and confirmed. These consensus nominees could and should have been acted upon before this year. I thank Judge Davis for his commitment and patience, and congratulate him and his family on this important day.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their unanimous and positive vote on the last nominee. I will bring everybody up to date. Today, the Senate is voting on the 44th judicial nominee to be confirmed since last July when the Senate Judiciary Committee was reassigned new members in connection with the reorganization of the Senate after the shift in majority. The confirmation of Judge Africk will be the third district court judgeship we have filled in Louisiana and the seventh judgeship filled overall in the Fifth Circuit since July, including the first new judge for the Fifth Circuit in seven years. In fact, it was this Senate's confirmation of Judge Edith Brown Clement last fall that created this vacancy, which we are now proceeding to fill without delay. In the past few months, the Senate has also confirmed Judge Kurt Engelhardt and Judge Jay Zainey to fill vacancies on the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Senate has confirmed Judge Michael Mills to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The Senate has also confirmed Judge Philip Martinez to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the Western District of Texas and Judge Randy Crane to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Of course many of the vacancies in the Fifth Circuit are longstanding. Judge Clement was confirmed to fill a judicial emergency on the Fifth Circuit. Judge Martinez and Judge Crane likewise filled what had been judicial emergencies. These many vacancies and emergencies are the legacy of the years of inaction. For example, despite the fact that President Clinton nominated Jorge Rangel, a distinguished Hispanic attorney, to fill a Fifth Circuit vacancy in July 1997, Mr. Rangel never received a hearing and his nomination was returned to the President without Senate action at the end of 1998. On September 16, 1999, President Clinton nominated Enrique Moreno, another outstanding Hispanic attorney, to fill a vacancy on the Fifth Circuit but that nominee never received a hearing either. When President Bush took office last January, he withdrew the nomination of Enrique Moreno to the Fifth Circuit. The Senate has moved quickly to confirm Judge Armijo in New Mexico and Judges Martinez and Crane in Texas, who were among the very few Hispanic judicial nominees sent so far by this Administration to us. The Senate received Judge Africk's nomination the last week in January and his paperwork was complete on March 6. Judge Africk was scheduled for the very next confirmation hearing on March 19. He has been serving as a federal magistrate in the Eastern District of Louisiana for more than a decade. Judge Africk is a member of the Federalist society and a registered Republican. His confirmation, along with that of Judge Clement, Judge Wooten in South Carolina, Judge Mills in Mississippi, Judge Caldwell in Kentucky, Judge Granade in Alabama, Judge Hartz to the Tenth Circuit, and so many others, shows that the Senate has been very accommodating to this Administration's conservative nominations. The Senate is making progress on judicial confirmations. Under Democratic leadership, the Senate has confirmed more judges in the last nine months than were confirmed in four out of 6 full years under Republican leadership. The number of judicial confirmations over this time--44--exceeds the number confirmed during all 12 months of 2000, 1999, 1997 and 1996. During the preceding 6\1/2\ years in which a Republican majority most recently controlled the pace of judicial confirmations in the Senate, 248 judges were confirmed. Some like to talk about the 377 judges confirmed during the Clinton administration, but forget to mention that more than one-third were confirmed during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration while the Senate majority was Democratic and Senator Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee. The pace of confirmations under a Republican majority was markedly slower-- especially in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. Thus, during the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate, judicial confirmations averaged 38 per year a pace of consideration and confirmation that we have already exceeded under Democratic leadership over these past nine months in spite of all of the challenges facing Congress and the Nation during this period and all of the obstacles Republicans have placed in our path. I ask myself how Republicans can justify seeking to hold the Democratic majority in the Senate to a different standard than the one they met themselves during the last 6\1/2\ years. There simply is no answer other than partisanship. This double standard is most apparent when Republicans refuse fairly to compare the progress we are making with the period in which they were in the Senate majority with a President of the other party. They do not want to talk about that because we have exceeded, in just 9 months, the average number of judges they confirmed per year. They would rather unfairly compare the work of the Senate on confirmations in the past 9 months to a period more than twice as long, the work of previous Senates and Presidents over entire 2-year Congresses. They say it is unacceptable that the Democratic-led Senate has not yet confirmed as many judges in nine months as were confirmed in 24-month-periods at other times. I would say it is quite unfair to complain that we have not done 24 months of work on judicial vacancies in the little more nine months we have had since the Senate reorganized. After all, we have already topped their efforts for 12- month periods and are still hard at work. These double standards are wrong and unfair, but that does not seem to matter to Republicans intent on criticizing and belittling every achievement of the Senate under a Democratic majority. Republicans have been imposing a double standard on circuit court vacancies as well. The Republican attack is based on the unfounded notion that the Senate has not kept up with attrition on the Courts of Appeals. This is a case of the arsonist coming forward and saying: We need a better fire department around here. Look at all these buildings that are burning down. All these vacancies were there because Republicans refused to hold hearings on the Court of Appeals nominees. We are now holding such hearings. The Democratic majority in the Senate has more than kept up with attrition and we are seeking to close the vacancies gap on the Courts of Appeals that more than doubled under the Republican majority. Just this week, the Senate confirmed Judge Terrence O'Brien to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by a vote of 98 to zero. His confirmation was the eighth circuit court nominee to be confirmed in the little more than nine months since I became Chairman this past summer. We have already confirmed eight Court of Appeals nominees and held hearings on 11 Court of Appeals nominees. In comparable periods at the beginning of the Clinton administration, with a Senate majority of the same party as the President, the confirmations numbered only two and hearings were held on only three. In the comparable period during the administration of George H. W. Bush, within the first 10 months the Senate had confirmed only three Court of Appeals judges and had hearings on only four. The facts on what Republicans are now calling the judicial vacancies crisis in our Courts of Appeals are important and startling. The Republican majority assumed control of judicial confirmations in January 1995 and did not allow the Judiciary Committee to be reorganized after the shift in majority last summer until July 10, 2001. During that period, from 1995 through July 2001, vacancies on the Courts of Appeals more than doubled, increasing from 16 to 33! When I became chairman of a committee to which members were finally assigned on July 10, we began with 33 Court of Appeals vacancies. That is what I inherited. Since the shift in majority last summer, five additional vacancies have arisen on the Courts of Appeals around the country. With this week's confirmation of Judge O'Brien, we have reduced the number of circuit court vacancies to 30. Rather than the 38 vacancies that would exist if we were making no progress, as some have asserted, there are now 30 vacancies--that is more than keeping up with the attrition on the Circuit Courts. Since our Republican critics are so fond of using percentages, I will say that we will have now reduced the vacancies on the Courts of Appeals by almost 10 percent in the last nine months. In other words, by confirming three more nominees than the five required to keep up with the pace of attrition, we have not just the matched the rate of attrition but surpassed it by 60 percent. While the Republican Senate majority increased vacancies on the Courts of Appeals by over 100 percent, it has taken the Democratic majority nine months to reverse that trend, keep up with extraordinary turnover and, in addition, reduce circuit court vacancies by almost 10 percent overall. Alternatively, Republicans should note that since the shift in majority away from them, the Senate has filled more than 20 percent of the vacancies on the Courts of Appeals in a little over 9 months. This is progress. Rather than having the circuit vacancy numbers skyrocketing, as they did overall during the prior 6\1/2\ years--more than doubling from 16 to 33--the Democratic-led Senate has reversed that trend and the vacancy rate is moving in the right direction, down. That is not to say that our job is completed, but a fair review of our efforts should acknowledge the progress we have made. It is not possible to repair the damage caused by longstanding vacancies in several circuits overnight, but we are improving the conditions in the 5th, 10th and 8th Circuits, in particular. The confirmation of Judge O'Brien this week made the second judge confirmed to the 10th Circuit in the last 4 months. With this week's vote on Judge O'Brien, in a little more than nine months since the change in majority, the Senate has confirmed eight judges to the Courts of Appeals and held hearings on three others. In contrast, the Republican-controlled majority averaged only seven confirmations to the Courts of Appeals per year. Seven. We have confirmed eight circuit judges and there are almost 3 months left until the 1-year anniversary of the reorganization of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee and we have already exceeded the annual number of Court of Appeals judges confirmed by our predecessors. The Senate in the last nine months has confirmed as many Court of Appeals judges as were confirmed in all of 2000 and more than were confirmed in 1997 or 1999, and eight more than the zero from 1996. Overall, in little more than 9 months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations. That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control of the Senate. In contrast, one-sixth of President Clinton's judicial nominees--more than 50--never got a Committee hearing and Committee vote from the Republican majority, which perpetuated longstanding vacancies into this year. Vacancies continue to exist on the Courts of Appeals in part because a Republican majority was not willing to hold hearings or vote on more than half 56 percent--of President Clinton's Court of Appeals nominees in 1999 and 2000 and was not willing to confirm a single judge to the Court of Appeals during the entire 1996 session. Despite the new-found concern from across the aisle about the number of vacancies on the circuit courts, no nominations hearings were held while the Republicans controlled the Senate in the 107th Congress last year. No judges were confirmed during that time from among the many qualified circuit court nominees received by the Senate on January 3, 2001, or from among the nominations received by the Senate on May 9, 2001. The Democratic leadership acted promptly to address the number of circuit and district vacancies that had been allowed to grow when the Senate was in Republican control. The Judiciary Committee noticed the first hearing on judicial nominations within 10 minutes of the reorganization of the Senate and held that hearing on the day after the Committee was assigned new members. That initial hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee on whom the Republican majority had refused to hold a hearing the year before. We held unprecedented hearings for judicial nominees during the August recess. Those hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee who had been a Republican staff member of the Senate. We proceeded with a hearing the day after the first anthrax letter arrived at the Senate. That hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee. In a little more than nine tumultuous months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations--including 11 circuit court nominees--and we are hoping to hold another hearing soon for half a dozen more nominees, including another Court of Appeals nominee. That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control of the Senate. The Republican majority never held 16 judicial confirmation hearings in 12 months. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding regular hearings on judicial nominees and giving nominees a vote in Committee, in contrast to the practice of anonymous holds and other obstructionist tactics employed by some during the period of Republican control. The Democratic majority has reformed the process and practices used in the past to deny Committee consideration of judicial nominees. We have moved away from the anonymous holds that so dominated the process from 1996 through 2000. We have made home State Senators' blue slips public for the first time. I do not mean by my comments to appear critical of Senator Hatch. Many times during the 6\1/2\ years he chaired the Judiciary Committee, I observed that, were the matter left up to us, we would have made more progress on more judicial nominees. I thanked him during those years for his efforts. I know that he would have liked to have been able to do more and not have to leave so many vacancies and so many nominees without action. I hope and intend to continue to hold hearings and make progress on judicial nominees in order to further the administration of justice. In our efforts to address the number of vacancies on the circuit and district courts we inherited from the Republicans, the Committee has focused on consensus nominees for all Senators. In order to respond to what Vice President Cheney and Senator Hatch now call a vacancy crisis, the Committee has focused on consensus nominees. This will help end the crisis caused by Republican delay and obstruction by confirming as many of the President's judicial nominees as quickly as possible. Most Senators understand that the more controversial nominees require greater review. This process of careful review is part of our democratic process. It is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system of government that does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to one person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines, to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the mainstream of legal thought, and whose decisions would further divide our Nation. The committee continues to try to accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. The Court of Appeals nominees included at hearings so far this year have been at the request of Senator Grassley, Senator Lott, Senator Specter, Senator Enzi and Senator Smith from New Hampshire--five Republican Senators who each sought a prompt hearing on a Court of Appeals nominee who was not among those initially sent to the Senate in May 2001. Each of the previous 43 nominees confirmed by the Senate has received the unanimous, bipartisan backing of the Committee. The confirmation of Judge Africk makes the 44th judicial nominee to be confirmed since I became chairman last July, and I hope to confirm our 50th nominee by the end of this month. I am extremely proud of the work this committee has done since the change in the majority. I am proud of the way we have considered nominees fairly and expeditiously and the way we have been able to report to the Senate so many qualified, non-ideological, consensus nominees to the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join all Vermonters in congratulating David and Ann Scoville on receiving the National Crime Victim Service Award of 2002. We thank them for all they do to help the victims of crime and to help the public understand victims' needs. Nearly 20 years ago the Scovilles suffered every parent's nightmare-- the disappearance and murder of their daughter, Patricia. The crime that took her from them remains unsolved to this day--a situation that has compounded the Scovilles' suffering and one that also torments many other families. Through their lives and examples, the Scovilles have become role models for grieving families who have suffered similar losses. They have summoned the courage and compassion to harness their pain for positive outcomes. They have made it their work to help other families escape the anguish they endured, and to help raise the awareness of public officials about the importance of victims' participation throughout all phases of the criminal justice process. Victims of murder, rape, domestic violence, sexual assault and other crimes deserve the understanding and support of the American people and of the Congress. We have a duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the rights and dignity of crime victims, rather than one that complicates or even exacerbates the suffering of those already victimized. Congress has listened to their counsel and to the counsel of other victims of crime. Over the past two decades many of us have worked hard to pass laws that have provided victims with greater rights and assistance, including stronger protection for witnesses of crime; a Victims' Bill of Rights; protection for female victims of violence; mandatory restitution for crime victims; special awareness of the needs of victims with disabilities; special programs for victims of terrorism; and an act for victims of trafficking. We continue the fight to win more rights and help for victims of crime, largely because the victims' rights agenda in Congress has been advanced, year by year, by advocates like the Scovilles. I, with Senator Kennedy, have introduced the Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2001, which focuses on protecting victims' rights, including victims' enhanced participatory rights at trial and sentencing. This legislation requires that a responsible official consult with victims prior to detention hearings, and consider victims' views about any contemplated plea agreement. It calls for the presiding judge to inquire regarding victims' views on detention, and prohibits the court from entering a judgment upon a guilty plea without regarding victims' views. The bill also provides for enhanced victims' rights regarding the right to attend the trial and sentencing. Victims are also given specific rights regarding notice of sentence adjustment, discharge from a psychiatric facility and executive clemency. In addition to these improvements to the Federal system, this legislation proposes several programs to help States provide better assistance for victims of State crimes. These programs would improve compliance with State victims' rights laws, promote the development of state-of-the-art notification systems to keep victims informed of case developments and important dates on a timely and efficient basis, and encourage further experimentation with the community-based restorative justice model in the juvenile court setting. We were able to include much of the Crime Victims Assistance Act in last year's USA PATRIOT Act supported by Republicans and Democrats. One major provision that remains to be achieved, however, is to eliminate the artificial cap on the Crime Victims' Fund, which has prevented millions of dollars from reaching victims and from supporting essential services for them. While we have greatly improved our crime victims assistance programs and made advances in recognizing crime victims' rights, we still have more to do. I commend David and Ann Scoville for their leadership and look forward to continuing to work with them to advance crime victims' rights legislation, and to make a difference in the lives of crime victims.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is voting on the 43rd judicial nominee to be confirmed since last July when the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized after the Senate majority changed. With today's vote on Judge Terrence O'Brien to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the Senate will confirm its eighth circuit court judge in little more than 9 months, since I became chairman this past summer. The Senate is making progress on judicial confirmations. Under Democratic leadership, the Senate has confirmed more judges in the last 9 months than were confirmed in 4 out of 6 full years under Republican leadership. The number of judicial confirmations over these past 9 months--43 exceeds the number confirmed during all 12 months of 2000, 1999, 1997 and 1996. During the preceding 6\1/2\ years in which a Republican majority most recently controlled the pace of judicial confirmations in the Senate, 248 judges were confirmed. Some like to talk about the 377 judges confirmed during the Clinton administration, but forget to mention that more than one-third were confirmed during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration while the Senate majority was Democratic and Senator Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee. The pace of confirmations under a Republican majority was markedly slower, especially in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. Thus, during the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate, judicial confirmations averaged 38 per year--a pace of consideration and confirmation that we have already exceeded under Democratic leadership over these past 9 months, in spite of all of the challenges facing Congress and the Nation during this period, and all of the obstacles Republicans have placed in our path. I ask myself how Republicans can justify seeking to hold the Democratic majority in the Senate to a different standard than the one they met themselves during the last 6\1/2\ years. There simply is no answer other than partisanship. This double standard is most apparent when Republicans refuse to compare fairly the progress we are making with the period in which they were in the Senate majority with a President of the other party. They do not want to talk about that because we have exceeded, in just 9 months, the average number of judges they confirmed per year. They would rather unfairly compare the work of the Senate on confirmations in the past 9 months to 2 years of work of previous Senates and Presidents. They say it is unfair that the Democratic-led Senate has not yet confirmed as many judges in 9 months as were confirmed in 24-month-periods at other times. I would say it is quite unfair to complain that we have not done 24 months of work on judicial vacancies in the 9 months we have had since the Senate reorganized. These double standards and different standards are just plain wrong and unfair, but that does not seem to matter to Republican's intent on criticizing and belittling every achievement of the Senate under a Democratic majority. Republicans have been imposing a double standard on circuit court vacancies as well. The Republican attack is based on the unfounded notion that the Senate has not kept up with attrition on the Courts of Appeals. Well, the Democratic majority in the Senate has more than kept up with attrition and we are seeking to close the vacancies gap on the Courts of Appeals that more than doubled under the Republican majority. The Republican majority assumed control of judicial confirmation in January 1995 and did not allow the Judiciary Committee to be reorganized after the shift in majority last summer until July 10, 2001. During that period from 1995 through July 2001, vacancies on the Courts of Appeals increased from 16 to 33, more than doubling. When I became chairman of a committee to which Members were finally assigned on July 10, we began with 33 Court of Appeals vacancies. That is what I inherited. Since the shift in majority last summer, five additional vacancies have arisen on the Courts of Appeals around the country. Prior to today's vote on Judge O'Brien, the 7 circuit judges confirmed had reduced the number of circuit vacancies to 31. With today's confirmation, there will be 30 vacancies. Rather than the 38 vacancies that would exist if we were making no progress, as some have asserted, there are now 30 vacancies, that is more than keeping up with the attrition on the circuit courts. Since our Republican critics are so fond of using percentages, I will say that we will have now reduced the vacancies on the Courts of Appeals by almost 10 percent in the last 9 months. While the Republicans' Senate majority increased vacancies on the Courts of Appeals by over 100 percent, it has taken the Democratic majority 9 months to reverse that trend, keep up with extraordinary turnover and, in addition, reduce circuit court vacancies by almost 10 percent. Alternatively, Republicans should note that since the shift in majority away from them, the Senate has filled more than 20 percent of the vacancies on the Courts of Appeals in a little over 9 months. This is progress. Rather than having the circuit court vacancy numbers skyrocketing, as they did overall during the prior 6\1/2\ years more than doubling from 16 to 33--the Democratic-led Senate has reversed that trend and the vacancy rate is moving in the right direction, down. It is not possible to repair the damage caused by longstanding vacancies in several circuits overnight, but we are improving the conditions in the 5th, 10th and 8th Circuit, in particular. Judge O'Brien will be the second judge confirmed to the 10th Circuit in the last 4 months. With today's vote on Judge O'Brien, in a little more than 9 months since the change in majority, the Senate has confirmed eight judges to the Courts of Appeals and held hearings on three others. In contrast, the Republican-controlled majority averaged only seven confirmations to the Courts of Appeal per year. Seven. In the last 9 months, the Senate has now confirmed as many Court of Appeals judges as were confirmed in all of 2000 and more than were confirmed in all of 1997 or 1999. It is eight more than the zero confirmed in all of 1996. We have confirmed eight circuit court judges and there are almost 3 months left until the 1-year anniversary of the reorganization of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee and we have already exceeded the annual number of Court of Appeals judges confirmed by our predecessors. Overall, in little more than 9 months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations. That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control of the Senate. In contrast, one-sixth of President Clinton's judicial nominees--more than 50--never got a committee hearing and committee vote from the Republican majority, which perpetuated longstanding vacancies into this year. Vacancies continue to exist on the Courts of Appeals in part because a Republican majority was not willing to hold hearings or vote on more than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's Court of Appeals nominees in 1999 and 2000 and was not willing to confirm a single judge to the Courts of Appeals during the entire 1996 session. Despite the newfound concern from across the aisle about the number of vacancies on the circuit courts, no nominations hearings were held while the Republicans controlled the Senate in the 107th Congress last year. No judges were confirmed during that time from among the many qualified circuit court nominees received by the Senate on January 3, 2001, or from among the nominations received by the Senate on May 9, 2001. The Democratic leadership acted promptly to address the number of circuit and district vacancies that had been allowed to grow when the Senate was in Republican control. The Judiciary Committee noticed the first hearing on judicial nominations within 10 minutes of the reorganization of the Senate and held that hearing on the day after the committee was assigned new members. That initial hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee on whom the Republican majority had refused to hold a hearing the year before. We held unprecedented hearings for judicial nominees during the August recess. Those hearings included a Court of Appeals nominee who had been a Republican staff member of the Senate. We proceeded with a hearing the day after the first anthrax letter arrived at the Senate. That hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee. In a little more than 9 tumultuous months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations including 11 circuit court nominees and we are hoping to hold another hearing soon for half a dozen more nominees, including another Court of Appeals nominee. That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control of the Senate. The Republican majority never held 16 judicial confirmation hearings in 12 months. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding regular hearings on judicial nominees and giving nominees a vote in committee, in contrast to the practice of anonymous holds and other obstructionist tactics employed by some during the period of Republican control. The Democratic majority has reformed the process and practices used in the past to deny committee consideration of judicial nominees. We have moved away from the anonymous holds that so dominated the process from 1996 through 2000. We have made home state Senators' blue slips public for the first time. I do not mean by my comments to appear critical of Senator Hatch. Many times during the 6\1/2\ years he chaired the Judiciary Committee, I observed that, were the matter left up to us, we would have made more progress on more judicial nominees. I thanked him during those years for his efforts. I know that he would have liked to have been able to do more and not have to leave so many vacancies and so many nominees without action. I hope and intend to continue to hold hearings and make progress on judicial nominees in order to further the administration of justice. In our efforts to address the number of vacancies on the circuit and district courts we inherited from the Republicans, the committee has focused on consensus nominees for all Senators. In order to respond to what Vice President Cheney and Senator Hatch now call a vacancy crisis, the committee has focused on consensus nominees. This will help end the crisis caused by Republican delay and obstruction by confirming as many of the President's judicial nominees as quickly as possible. Most Senators understand that the more controversial nominees require greater review. This process of careful review is part of our democratic process. It is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system of government that does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to one person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines, to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the mainstream of legal thought, whose decisions would further divide our Nation. The committee continues to try to accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. The Court of Appeals nominees included at hearings so far this year have been at the request of Senators Grassley, Lott, Specter, Enzi and Smith of New Hampshire five Republican Senators who each sought a prompt hearing on a Court of Appeals nominee who was not among those initially sent to the Senate in May, 2001. In contrast to past practices, we are moving expeditiously to consider and confirm Judge O'Brien, who was nominated in September, 2001. The committee did not receive his ABA peer review until the end of October. He participated in a hearing in March, was reported by the committee on April 11th and is today being confirmed. Judge O'Brien comes to the Senate highly recommended by friends and colleagues. I was pleased to have him participate in a confirmation hearing at the request of Senator Enzi. Judge O'Brien has more than 20 years of experience as a State court judge, has served on his home state's judicial ethics commission, and has a record of community service with organizations such as the United Way and the Rotary Club. I congratulate his family on his confirmation to the Circuit Court. I am extremely proud of the work this committee has done since the change in the majority. I am proud of the way we have considered nominees fairly and expeditiously and the way we have been able to report to the Senate so many qualified, non-ideological, consensus nominees to the Senate.