Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I had the privilege to be presiding while the distinguished Senator from Iowa was speaking of the work he has done putting together this farm bill. I listened. I have been chairman of the Agriculture Committee on one occasion, ranking member on another occasion, when we had to put through the 5-year farm bill. I have worked with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and now Presiding Officer, for over 20 years between the House and the Senate. I know how hard it is to put such a bill together. The distinguished Senator from Iowa worked very closely with all Members--both Republicans and Democrats--in meeting after meeting, conversation after conversation, on the floor, in their offices, in the Senate dining room, walking across the Hill. I have been privy to a number of those conversations. A farm bill has a number of diverse aspects to it. The President seems to wrap everything into some kind of sense of patriotism. We have to be patriotic. We have to have a missile defense system to be patriotic, we have to pass tax credits. Incidentally, the last tax cut and stimulus package they proposed would have given, I believe, a quarter of a billion dollars to Enron. I am not quite sure just what kind of patriotism comes out of giving another $250 million of taxpayers' money to Enron. Maybe it is because I come from Vermont and not Texas, but it didn't seem all that patriotic. But I digress. The point is, everybody in this body is patriotic, Republicans and Democrats. Why don't we just acknowledge that. We wouldn't be here otherwise. Let's think, though, what that means. That means protecting all aspects of our country. The United States is the only significant power in the world able to feed itself and still export food--billions of dollars worth of food. That is part of our national security. We are not energy sufficient. Maybe someday we will be, if we do a better job of conservation. We are food sufficient. We are a nation of over a quarter of a billion people and we can feed ourselves from within our own borders, and that will continue to be true if we continue the incentives that keep people on the land, keep the land productive, protect the environment for farmers so they can keep that land productive, and to be able to tell farmers: You will work hard and long, but you will be able to make a living out of it, your kids can go to college, someday you will be able to retire--all the things people desire. I hope as we go forward the White House would realize we are all in this together. We are not talking about a partisan farm bill. One of the things I have enjoyed the most, serving for 27 years now on the Agriculture Committee, is the bipartisanship of that committee. I value my friendship with the current chairman. I value my friendship with the former chairman, Senator Lugar. They are two of the closest friends I have in this body. I remember Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and Bob Dole working closely together on nutrition matters. This is a diverse group, but I think one thing that united them was their great sense of humor and a passion, a special passion for feeding the children of this country. There have been bipartisan coalitions on that committee ever since I came here. There was a bipartisan coalition that started the WIC Program, one of the best things for children, for pregnant women, for women post partum, after giving birth. These are programs that have come out of there--the School Lunch Program, which has improved the nutrition of our children and is now considered just a staple of Government. Yet as Harry Truman knew at the time of World War II, so many people were rejected for the draft because of lack of nutrition, so he started the School Lunch Program. I say this to commend the tremendous work of the Senator from Iowa. I am proud of him. I am proud to be his friend. I am proud to serve as a member of his committee. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment by Senator Carnahan to retroactively renew family farmer bankruptcy protection and make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code. I commend Senator Carnahan for her continued leadership in protecting family farms across the country. 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. Congress needs to move quickly to restore this safety net for America's family farmers. 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 4 months. Enough is enough. It is past 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. In the current bankruptcy reform conference, I am hopeful Congress will update and expand the coverage of Chapter 12 as Senator Feingold has proposed in the Senate-passed reform bill. In the meantime, the Senate should take the lead and quickly restore and make permanent this basic bankruptcy protection for our family farmers across the country by adopting the Carnahan amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Presiding Officer, and her distinguished colleague, Senator Schumer, for not only the State of New York but for the City of New York. I had the privilege of attending the economic summit in New York City this weekend. I saw the distinguished Presiding Officer on several occasions. In fact, I was beginning to think that somehow she had been cloned because she was attending and speaking and was involved in so many different events. I know the economic summit came to New York City as a gesture of solidarity with the city after the terrible events of last fall. They came there knowing that not only would they bring people from around the world as well as from our own country, but they would bring the press from around the world to show the world that New York City is open, and New York City is in a position to handle, as it always has, any group of any size for any purpose. I want to say that New York City did. I was extraordinarily impressed with the level of everything from communications, certainly to law enforcement--New York's finest was there--to the continuing work at ground zero. My wife and I and our daughter visited to see again the work that continues by these brave men and women from the New York Fire Department, who are still working there. The police department is still working there, and other agencies as well as volunteers. I was gratified to see while we were there a number of foreign visitors going to ground zero. Anybody has to be moved just reading the notes that have been left there by family members. While we were there, foreign delegations were laying wreaths and paying homage. The point, though, is that New York City reflects, really, what is best in America. We have seen a major city of commerce, of education, of entertainment, and of history badly damaged that came right back, and was able to demonstrate that to the rest of the world. As one coming from the State of Vermont, I sometimes hear regional accents at their best when I go to New York City. I am sure that New Yorkers feel the same way when they come to Vermont. But the accent I heard was one of hope, of excitement, of all the best things that are reflected by that city. I commend not only the two Senators, my two friends from New York, but everybody--from the mayor to the Governor, and everyone who has worked so hard on this. New York City is open for business, as it was for some members of the Leahy family. It was a pleasure to be there.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I commend the Majority Leader and our Assistant Majority Leader for bringing the confirmation of Judge Martinez of Texas to a successful conclusion today. I also want to thank Senator Durbin for having chaired the hearing in December that laid the groundwork for the confirmation of Judge Martinez and four other federal judges. At the Committee meeting at which we considered the nomination of Judge Martinez, I inserted in the Record a letter I had recently received from Congressman Silvestre Reyes of Texas strongly endorsing him. Congressman Reyes noted that the court to which Judge Martinez is nominated is facing a criminal caseload of over 2,000 cases with a single active judge in the El Paso region personally trying to manage over 1,100 criminal cases. I say to Congressman Reyes and Judge Briones, help should be on the way very soon in the person of Judge Martinez. It was not so long ago, when the Senate was under Republican control, that it took 943 days to confirm Judge Hilda Tagle to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. She was first nominated in August 1995, but not confirmed until March 1998. When the final vote came, she was confirmed by unanimous consent and without a single negative vote, after having been stalled for almost three years. I recall that the nomination of Michael Schattman to a vacancy on the Northern District of Texas never got a hearing and was never acted upon, while his nomination languished for over two years. I recall just two years ago when Ricardo Morado, who had served as Mayor of San Benito, Texas, and was nominated for a vacancy in the Southern District of Texas, never got a hearing and was never acted upon. These are district court nominations that could have helped solve problems in the trial courts if acted upon by the Senate over the last several years. In addition to these nominees, the Republican-led Senate failed to provide a hearing and failed to take action on the nominations of Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno to the same emergency vacancy on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals over the last four years. In contrast, we are moving expeditiously to consider and confirm Judge Martinez, who was nominated in October, received his ABA peer review in November, participated in a hearing in early December, was reported by the Committee on December 13 and is today being confirmed. In addition, Randy Crane, a nominee to a vacancy on the Southern District of Texas District Court will be having a confirmation hearing in the near future. Just as we have worked hard since July and paid attention to the needs of the district courts in Montana, Kentucky, Kansas and Alabama, whose Chief Judges wrote asking for prompt attention to serious problems, we are responding to the needs of our courts throughout the country. The first two confirmations to the district courts last summer were Judge Cebull and Judge Haddon to the District Court in Montana. The Chief Judge of that court had written to us asking for our immediate attention and help because he had no active associate judge in that district. We responded. Working with Senator Baucus and Senator Burns, a Democrat and a Republican, the two nominees were included in our very first hearing, which held the day after Committee members were assigned. They were both confirmed the following week, on July 20, 2001. Similarly, we heard from the Chief Judge of the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. We responded by holding hearings for three judicial nominees to vacancies in that Court and proceeded to confirm two so quickly that they had to delay being sworn in to wind down their legal practices. Likewise, when we heard from the Chief Judge of the District Court for Kansas, we responded. We moved expeditiously to hold a hearing, report and confirm Judge Robinson to alleviate the emergency situation that the Chief Judge indicated existed in Topeka. Yesterday, as the Senate confirmed the second district court judge for courts in Alabama since November, we learned from Senator Sessions that the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Alabama had written to him to urge action in filling the vacancy in that court and noted that he was the only active judge left. Similarly, today we provide relief to the district courts in Texas. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today. With today's confirmation, the Senate has confirmed four additional judges since returning late last month. The Senate will have confirmed 32 judges since the change in majority last summer. One-quarter of the judges confirmed have been for judicial emergency vacancies, eight so far. Unfortunately, the White House has yet to work with home State Senators to send nominees for an additional 15 judicial emergency vacancies and 31 federal trial court vacancies. Of course, I have yet to chair the Judiciary Committee for a full year; it has been barely six months. But the confirmations we have achieved in those six months are already comparable to the year totals for 1997, 1999 and 2000 and almost twice as many as a Republican majority in the Senate allowed to be confirmed in 1996. The 1996 session was the second year of the last Republican chairmanship. In that 1996 session, only 17 judges were confirmed all year and none were confirmed to the Court of Appeals--none. I expect and intend to work hard on additional judicial nominations through this session and to exceed the total from the 1996 session of only 17 confirmations. In that 1996 session, the fourth judicial confirmation did not occur until April. By contrast, we will have confirmed four additional judges by the middle of the first full week in session this year. The Judiciary Committee held its first hearing of the session on our second day in session, January 24, for Judge Michael Melloy, a nominee to the 8th Circuit from Iowa, and district court nominees from Arizona, Iowa, Texas, Louisiana and the District of Columbia, a total of six judicial nominations. I have set another hearing on the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering for the 5th Circuit for this Thursday, February 7, 2002. I am working to hold another confirmation hearing for judicial nominations, as well, before the end of February, even though it is a short month with a week's recess. I noted on January 25 in my statement to the Senate that we inherited a frayed process and are working hard to repair the damage of the last several years. I have already laid out a constructive program of suggestions that would help in that effort and help return the confirmation process to one that is a cooperative, bipartisan effort. I have included suggestions for the White House, that it work with Democrats as well as Republicans, that it encourage rather than forestall the use of bipartisan selection commissions, that it consider carefully the views of home State Senators. This past summer, by the time I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee, federal court vacancies already topped 100 and were rising to 111. Since July, we have worked hard and the Senate has been diligent in considering and confirming 32 judges, thereby beginning the process of lowering the vacancies on our federal courts. Since I became Chairman, 26 additional vacancies have arisen. Still, we have been able to outpace this high level of attrition and lower the vacancies to under 100. During the last six and one-half years when a Republican majority controlled the process, the vacancies rose from 65 to over 100, an increase of almost 60 percent. By contrast, we are now working to keep these numbers moving in the right directions. Our Majority Leader, with the help of the Assistant Majority Leader, is clearing the calendar of judicial nominations and the Senate has proceeded to vote on every one of them. This is one of the reforms that signals a return to normalcy for the Senate, which had gotten away from such practices over the past six years. Since the change in majority, judicial nominees have not been held on the calendar for months and months or held over without action or returned to the President without action. I have observed that to make real progress will take the cooperation of the White House. The most progress can be made most quickly if the White House would begin working with home State Senators to identify fair-minded, nonideological, consensus nominees to fill these court vacancies. One of the reasons that the Committee was able to work as quickly as it has and the Senate has been able to confirm 32 judges in the last few months is because those nominations were strongly supported as consensus nominees. I have heard of too many situations in too many States involving too many reasonable and moderate home State Senators in which the White House has demonstrated no willingness to work with home State Senators to fill judicial vacancies cooperatively. As we move forward, I urge the White House to show greater inclusiveness and flexibility and to help make this a truly bipartisan enterprise. Logjams exist in a number of settings. To make real progress, repair the damage that has been done over previous years, and build bridges toward a more cooperative process, there is much that the White House could do to work more cooperatively with all home State Senators, including Democratic Senators. Of course, more than two-thirds of the federal court vacancies continue to be on the district courts. The Administration has been slow to make nominations to the vacancies on the federal trial courts. In the last five months of last year, the Senate confirmed a higher percentage of the President's trial court nominees, 22 out of 36, than a Republican majority had allowed the Senate to confirm in the first session of either of the last two Congresses with a Democratic President. Last year the President did not make nominations to almost 80 percent of the current trial court vacancies. As we began this session, 55 out of 69 vacancies were without a nominee. In late January, the White House finally sent nominations for another 24 of those trial court vacancies. After the Committee receives the indication that the nominees have the support of their home State Senators and after the Committee has received ABA peer reviews, these recent nominations will then be eligible to be included in Committee hearings. Because the White House shifted the time at which the ABA does its evaluation of nominees to the post-nomination period, these 24 nominees are unlikely to have completed files ready for evaluation until after the Easter recess. Even then, over two and one-half dozen of the federal trial court vacancies, 31, may still be without eligible nominees. We have accomplished more, and at a faster pace, than in years past. We have worked harder and faster than previously on judicial nominations, despite the unprecedented difficulties being faced by the nation and the Senate. I am encouraged that this confirmation today was not delayed by extended, unexplained, anonymous holds on the Senate Executive Calendar, the type of hold that characterized so much of the previous six and one-half years. Majority Leader Daschle has moved swiftly on judicial nominees reported to the calendar. I thank all Senators who have helped in our efforts and assisted in the hard work to review and consider the dozens of judicial nominations we have reported and confirmed. I thank, in particular, the Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee for their helpful action since this summer. As our action today demonstrates, again, we are moving ahead to fill judicial vacancies with nominees who have strong bipartisan support. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Of course.

Mr. LEAHY. If I might then be recognized after the Senator?

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

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the nominees' home State Senators for working with us on this nomination and by commending the majority leader and our assistant majority leader for bringing this matter to successful conclusion today. Callie Granade is the second nominee being considered from Alabama in the last several weeks and the second confirmed to fill an emergency vacancy. On November 6, the Senate confirmed Judge Karon Bowdre by a vote of 98 to 0 to a longstanding vacancy on the Northern District of Alabama District Court. Today the Senate will take final action to fill a longstanding vacancy on the Southern District of Alabama District Court. This nomination was received on September 5 and reported favorably to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee just a few days before the Senate adjourned last December. It is being taken up in the first days of our return. These Alabama district court vacancies have persisted for years while Senators were unable to agree on acceptable nominees with the previous administration. Unlike the nomination of Ken Simon, which languished for more than 6 months in 2000 without a hearing, both Karon Bowdre and Callie Granade have been considered promptly. I congratulate the nominee and her family on her confirmation today. Confirmation of Ms. Granade will be the seventh confirmation filling a vacancy designated as a judicial emergency since I became chairman last summer. Unfortunately, the White House has yet to work with home- State Senators to send nominees for an additional 15 judicial emergency vacancies and 31 federal trial court vacancies. With today's confirmation, the Senate has confirmed three additional judges since returning late last month. The Senate will have confirmed 31 judges since the change in majority last summer. Of course, I have yet to chair the Judiciary Committee for a full year; it has been barely 6 months. But the confirmations we have achieved in those 6 months are already comparable to the year-end totals for 1997, 1999 and 2000 and nearly twice as many as were confirmed under a Republican majority in the Senate in 1996. The 1996 session was the second year of the last Republican chairmanship. In that 1996 session, only 17 judges were confirmed all year and none were confirmed to the Court of Appeals--none. I expect and intend to work hard on additional judicial nominations through this session and to exceed the number of judges confirmed during the 1996 session. The Judiciary Committee held its first hearing of the session on our second day in session, January 24, for Judge Michael Melloy, a nominee to the 8th Circuit from Iowa, and district court nominees from Arizona, Iowa, Texas, Louisiana and the District of Columbia, a total of six judicial nominations. I have set another hearing on the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering for the 5th Circuit for this Thursday, February 7, 2002. I am working to hold another confirmation hearing for judicial nominations, as well, before the end of February, even though it is a short month with a week's recess. I noted on January 25 in my statement to the Senate that we inherited a frayed process and are working hard to repair the damage of the last several years. I have already laid out a constructive program of suggestions that would help in that effort and help return the confirmation process to one that is a cooperative, bipartisan effort. I have included suggestions for the White House, that it work with Democrats as well as Republicans, that it encourage rather than forestall the use of bipartisan selection commissions, and that it consider carefully the views of home-State Senators. This past summer, by the time I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Federal court vacancies already topped 100 and were rising to 111. Since July, we have worked hard and the Senate has been diligent in considering and confirming 31 judges, thereby beginning the process of lowering the vacancies on our federal courts. Since I became chairman, 26 additional vacancies have arisen. Still, we have been able to outpace this high level of attrition and lower the vacancies to under 100. During the last 6\1/2\ years when a Republican majority controlled the process, the vacancies rose from 65 to over 100, an increase of almost 60 percent. By contrast, we are now working to keep these numbers moving in the right directions. Our majority leader, with the help of the assistant majority leader, is clearing the calendar of judicial nominations and the Senate has proceeded to vote on every one of them. This is one of the reforms that signals a return to normalcy for the Senate, which had gotten away from such practices over the past 6 years. Since the change in majority, judicial nominees have not been held on the calendar for months and months or held over without action or returned to the President without action. I have observed that to make real progress will take the cooperation of the White House. The most progress can be made most quickly if the White House would begin working with home-State Senators to identify fair-minded, nonideological, consensus nominees to fill these court vacancies. One of the reasons that the committee was able to work as quickly as it has and the Senate has been able to confirm 31 judges in the last few months is because those nominations were strongly supported as consensus nominees. I have heard of too many situations in too many States involving too many reasonable and moderate home-State Senators in which the White House has demonstrated no willingness to work with home-state Senators to fill judicial vacancies cooperatively. As we move forward, I urge the White House to show greater inclusiveness and flexibility and to help make this a truly bipartisan enterprise. Logjams exist in a number of settings. To make real progress, repair the damage that has been done over previous years, and build bridges toward a more cooperative process, there is much that the White House could do to work more cooperatively with all home-State Senators, including Democratic Senators. Of course, more than two-thirds of the Federal court vacancies continue to be on the district courts. The administration has been slow to make nominations to the vacancies on the Federal trial courts. In the last 5 months of last year, the Senate confirmed a higher percentage of the President's trial court nominees, 22 out of 36, than a Republican majority had confirmed in the first session of either of the last two Congresses with a Democratic President. Last year the President did not make nominations to almost 80 percent of the current trial court vacancies. As we began this session, 55 out of 69 vacancies were without a nominee. In late January, the White House finally sent nominations for another 24 of those trial court vacancies. After the committee receives the indication that the nominees have the support of their home-State Senators and after the committee has received ABA peer reviews, these recent nominations will then be eligible to be included in committee hearings. Because the White House shifted the time at which the ABA does its evaluation of nominees to the post-nomination period, these 24 nominees are unlikely to have completed files ready for evaluation until after the Easter recess. Even then, over two and one-half dozen of the Federal trial court vacancies, 31, may still be without eligible nominees. We have accomplished more, and at a faster pace, than in years past. We have worked harder and faster than previously on judicial nominations, despite the unprecedented difficulties being faced by the Nation and the Senate. I am encouraged that this confirmation today was not delayed by extended, unexplained, anonymous holds on the Senate Executive Calendar, the type of hold that characterized so much of the previous 6\1/2\ years. Majority Leader Daschle has moved swiftly on judicial nominees reported to the calendar. I thank all Senators who have helped in our efforts and assisted in the hard work to review and consider the dozens of judicial nominations we have reported and confirmed. I thank, in particular, the Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee. I thank them not only for their kind words, but for their helpful action since this summer. As our action today demonstrates, again, we are moving ahead to fill judicial vacancies with nominees who have strong bipartisan support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an editorial from the Washington Post.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after these two votes for such time as I may need to speak about the nominations. I know a number of Senators have schedules they want to keep.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent this be a 10-minute rollcall vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be a 10- minute vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my friend from Utah. Obviously, we cannot determine the course the White House might take. They can make that decision on their own, and I expect will. We can only determine what the Senate does. As I said before, it is advise and consent, not advise and rubberstamp. I only urge the White House to seek, as Presidents have throughout my lifetime, advice from the home State Senators of both parties on judgeships. Senator Hatch and I can move far more quickly on judges when that kind of consensus has been reached, just as we have demonstrated by moving through numerous conservative Republican nominees but for whom there was consensus. Frankly, it would be a much easier job if only the Senator from Utah and I had to make these decisions. Again, I hope the White House will listen to what the two of us have been saying. We have demonstrated we will work together. They also have to help. They have to help in the consultation. They have to help in getting the information on to the FBI, and the ABA reports. They have to also make sure when they speak about these issues they speak accurately. I thank my good friend from Utah for his comments. I will continue to work with him. I also see the distinguished assistant Republican leader. He and the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid, have worked very closely together with each other to try to schedule votes on judges. Both have worked with me and with Senator Hatch. I think that is helpful. It reflects the way the Senate is supposed to work. Our distinguished leaders, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, have worked closely on this and will continue to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, that question is directed toward me. I say to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma that while he was off the floor attending to other duties, I laid out some plans and intentions for the handling of judicial nominees, including those for the courts of appeals--I believe those are some of those mentioned--including Mr. Estrada and others were referenced. With adequate cooperation, we will be able to move forward. We held hearings yesterday on another court of appeals nominee, Michael Melloy, of Iowa; as well as hearings on Robert Blackburn, to be U.S. district judge for the District of Colorado; and James Gritzner, to be U.S. district court judge for the Southern District of Iowa; and Cindy K. Jorgenson, to be U.S. district judge for the District of Arizona; and Richard J. Leon, to be U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia; and Jay C. Zainey, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Those hearings were held within 28 hours of coming back into session.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the majority leader and the assistant majority leader moved to consider additional judicial nominations today. Both Senator Daschle and Senator Reid have been working very diligently to clear these nominations which were put on the Executive Calendar as we went out of session prior to the new year. They have worked very hard to return the Senate's consideration of judicial nominations to a more orderly and open process. I compliment the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Nevada for their efforts and thank them for their leadership. Along with our Senate leaders, many Senators have been working to move away from the anonymous holds and inaction on judicial nominations that characterized so much of the period from 1996 through the year 2000. Since the change in majority last summer, we have already made a difference in terms of both the process and its results. The number of vacancies and the number of confirmations have finally begun to move in the right directions. As we begin this new session, I will take a moment to report where we are in the handling of judicial nominations and to outline the road ahead. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows more of the history of this body than any of the nearly 260 or 270 Senators with whom I have served--I suspect more than a lot of others with whom he has served. I hope he will not feel it presumptuous if I take a few minutes to touch on the history and legacy of the last 6 years as it relates to judicial nominations. Those last 6 years have left a residue of problems that I think are going to take a continuing effort to purge. We are not going to do it in 1 day or 1 weekend, but it is going to have to be a continuing effort of both parties, Republicans and Democrats, and the White House. After going through that history, I am going to offer the steps that we in the majority will take in good faith to undo the damage of the last 6 years. Then I am going to call on the White House to help us take similar steps to help move the process forward. I do this both in my capacity as the Senator from Vermont--a position I honor, and I am always thankful to the people of my great and beautiful State for letting me be here--but also carrying the responsibility my caucus has given me by allowing me to be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the lessons I learned early on in this body from the distinguished Presiding Officer is that if you are the chairman of a committee, you have a responsibility to that committee, to your caucus, but also to the Senate, the whole Senate. I respect that. So let me talk about the Judiciary Committee. In a span of less than 6 months, and in a year that was tumultuous for the Nation and the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, between July and the end of the session in December, held hearings on 34 judicial nominees. We reported 32 and the Senate confirmed 28. As of today, we add 2 more and the Senate has now approved 30 of those judicial nominations. They are conservative Republicans, but nearly all were unanimously approved by Democrats, Republicans and Independent alike on the Judiciary Committee and by the Senate, in a democratically-controlled Senate. We reported more judicial nominees after the August recess than in any of the preceding 6 years, and more than in any similar period over the preceding 6\1/2\ years. The Senate Judiciary Committee during the time I have been chairman did not have and has not yet had a year in which to work. Last session we had less than 6 months. Still, in the last 5 months of last year, the Senate confirmed almost twice as many judges as were confirmed in the first year of the earlier Bush administration. We also confirmed more judges, including twice as many judges to the courts of appeals, as in the first year of the Clinton administration. The Senate confirmed the first new member of the Fifth Circuit in 7 years, the first new judge for the Fourth Circuit in 3 years, and the first new judge for the Tenth Circuit in 6 years. Of course, more than two-thirds of the Federal court vacancies continue to be on the district courts, and the administration has been slow to make nominations to the vacancies in these trial courts. In the last 5 months of last year, the Senate confirmed a higher percentage of the President's district court nominees than a Republican majority had allowed the Senate to confirm in the first session of either of the last two Congresses with a Democratic President. Last year, the White House did not make nominations to almost 80 percent of the current trial court vacancies. When we came back to session, we began with 55 out of the 69 vacancies without nominees. Since the change in majority last summer, we have acted in the Senate to build better practices into the confirmation process for Federal judges and to make it more orderly. We made some progress at the end of last year when, after many months, the White House and our Republican colleagues finally agreed to limited steps to update and to simplify the committee questionnaire, which seemed to have grown like Topsy over the years. And we have opened up the process as never before. For the first time, the Judiciary Committee is making public the blue slips sent to home State Senators. Until last summer these matters were treated as confidential materials. They were restricted from public view. We have moved nominees with less time from hearings to the committee's business meeting agenda, and then onto the floor, where nominees have received timely rollcall votes and confirmations. Over the preceding 6\1/2\ years, at least eight judicial nominees who completed a confirmation hearing were never considered by the committee and were simply abandoned without any action. Before my chairmanship, there were at least eight judicial nominees who got a hearing but never even got a vote--not a vote on the floor, Mr. President, they never got a vote in committee. Also, the past practices of extended unexplained anonymous holds on nominees after a hearing were not evident in the second half of last year, as they had been in the recent past. By the time the Judiciary Committee was reorganized and began its work last summer, the vacancies on the Federal courts were peaking at 111. That is what I faced as the Committee began its work--111 vacancies. Since then, 25 additional vacancies have arisen. Through hard work in the limited time available to us, we were able to outpace this high level of attrition. By contrast, when my friends on the other side of the aisle took charge of the Senate in January 1995, until the majority shifted last summer, judicial vacancies rose from 65 to more than 100, an increase of almost 60 percent. The Judiciary Committee simultaneously, during those last 5 months of last year, held 16 confirmation hearings for executive branch nominees. We sent to the Senate nominees who were confirmed for 77 senior executive branch posts, including the Director of the FBI, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, the Associate Attorney General, the Director of ONDCP, the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, 7 assistant attorneys general, and 59 U.S. attorneys. Senators may recall that soon after the Senate confirmed Judge Roger Gregory as the first new Federal judge nominated by this President last July, the White House counsel said in an interview that he did not expect the Senate to confirm more than five judges before the end of 2001. Just think about that: The White House said last July that they did not expect the Senate to confirm more than five judges before the end of 2001. Of course, that estimate of 5 was actually an upward revision. Initially some on the other side of the aisle, after the midyear change of majority, had proclaimed that the Democratic majority would not confirm a single judge. The White House, I think, trying to appear more bipartisan, upped the estimate from zero to 5. Of course, we achieved much more than that and confirmed more than 5 times the number of judges that the White House counsel had predicted. One might have thought from the constant barrage of partisan criticism that 2001 resembled 1996, a year in which a Senate Republican majority confirmed only 17 judges, none of them appellate-level nominees. The worst fear of some, it has been clear, is that Democrats would treat Republican nominees as poorly as Democratic judicial nominees were treated by a Republican Senate. That is not what has happened. In just 5 months we went on to confirm 28 additional judges, as I have said, more than five times the number the White House predicted we would confirm. Think of that, Mr. President--five times what the White House was telling the American people we would confirm. The Senate can be proud of its record in the first session of the 107th Congress of beginning to restore steadiness in its handling of judicial nominees. I want to build on that record in the second session of the 107th. Yesterday the Judiciary Committee held another hearing for judicial nominees. That was the 12th since July. This morning the Senate is confirming the first two judges of this session and the 29th and 30th since the change in majority last summer. The legacy of strife over the filling of judicial vacancies that we all must work to overcome began in 1996, when months went by without the Republican Senate acting on judicial nominations from a Democratic President. Later that same year, outside groups began forming to raise money on their pledge to block action on judicial nominees and to ``kill'' Clinton nominees. As the new session opened in 1997, efforts were launched on the Republican side of the aisle to slow the pace of Judiciary Committee and Senate proceedings on judicial nominations and to erect new obstacles for nominees. The results were soon apparent delaying the process, and they persisted throughout the remainder of President Clinton's administration. Those times stand in sharp contrast to the last 5 months of last year, in which I noticed a hearing within 10 minutes of becoming chairman of the full committee, chaired unprecedented hearings during the August recess, and held hearings and votes throughout the period after September 11 and during the closure of our offices and hearing rooms after Senator Daschle and I received anthrax filled letters. I want to emphasize that. During that time, 50 men and women who were nominated and who went through all the vetting, FBI backgrounds, and everything else, never received a hearing and a committee vote, many after waiting for years. They included Judge James A. Beaty, Jr., Judge James Wynn, and J. Rich Leonard, nominees to longstanding vacancies on the Fourth Circuit; Judge Helene White, Kathleen McCree-Lewis and Professor Kent Markus, nominees to the Sixth Circuit; Allen Snyder and Professor Elana Kagan, nominees to vacancies on the D.C. Circuit; and James Duffy and Barry Goode, nominees to the Ninth Circuit; Bonnie Campbell, the former Attorney General of Iowa and former head of the Violence Against Women Office at the Department of Justice, nominated to the Eighth Circuit; Jorge Rangel, H. Alston Johnson, and Enrique Moreno, each nominated to the Fifth Circuit; Robert Raymar and Robert Cindrich, among the nominees to the Third Circuit; and District Court nominees like Anabelle Rodriguez, John Bingler, Michael Schattman, Lynette Norton, Legrome Davis, Fred Woocher, Patricia Coan, Dolly Gee, David Fineman, Ricardo Morado, David Cercone, and Clarence Sundram. None of these qualified nominees was given a vote. Over the course of those years, Senate consideration of nominations was often delayed for not months but years. It took more than four years of work to get the Senate to vote on the nominations of Judge Richard Paez and Judge William Fletcher; almost three years to confirm Judge Hilda Tagle; more than two years to confirm Judge Susan Mollway, Judge Ann Aiken, Judge Timothy Dyk, Judge Marsha Berzon, and Judge Ronald Gould; almost two years to confirm Judge Margaret McKeown and Judge Margaret Morrow and more than a year to confirm several others during the preceding 6\1/2\ years of Republican control. During those years, the Republican majority in the Senate went an entire session without confirming even a single judge for the Courts of Appeals. As few as three appellate nominees were granted hearings and committee votes in an entire session. During that time, the Republican majority averaged eight hearings a year for judicial nominees and had as few as six during one entire session. One session of Congress, the Republican majority allowed only 17 judges to be confirmed all year, and that included not a single judge to any Court of Appeals. All the while, the judicial vacancy rate continued to worsen. The problems did not end when President Clinton left office. New problems have arisen through unilateral actions taken by the Bush administration in its handling of judicial nominations. Fifty years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower started a policy of having the American Bar Association do a review of judicial nominees. That practice by President Eisenhower was followed by President Kennedy. It was then followed by President Johnson. It was then followed by President Nixon. It was then followed by President Ford. It was then followed by President Carter. It was then followed by President Reagan. It was then followed by the first President Bush. It was then followed by President Clinton. But when this new White House came in, they decided summarily to end that 50-year practice. Senators are still going to ask at least to have that ABA background done. It does not mean that peer review is controlling, by any means. What is happening now is that instead of having that ABA peer review done simultaneously with the FBI background check and having the ABA report come to the Senate around the same time as the FBI report, the Administration sends up the nominee, and the Senate has to wait 6 or 8 weeks more to get the ABA vetting. The vetting processes could have done both at the same time and potentially save 2 months in the process. This unilateral approach in vetting nominees and disregarding the Senate's longstanding practice is similar to another disregarding of the longstanding practice that encouraged consultation with home-State Senators, both Republicans and Democrats. That has needlessly complicated the Senate's handling of several of the nominations. I realize we are looking back over the first year of a new administration. But I am laying out this history to them because it is a history of the handling of nominees that has worked fairly well for Republicans and Democrats alike since President Eisenhower's time. Maybe we ought to go back to the things that have worked. In addition, the White House has not responded to our repeated requests to help the Senate work through residual issues caused by the Republican Senate's earlier actions and inactions related to several circuit courts. We hear about all the vacancies on the circuit courts without mention of the fact that there have been previous qualified nominees for the vacancies on whom the Republican-controlled Senate refused to proceed. That has created problems that have grown and festered over time. They are not going to be remedied immediately, especially in the absence of White House cooperation. One of the best friends I have in the Senate is Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Senator Hatch and I can sit down and work out many of these things. But we cannot do it by ourselves if the White House is uninterested in working with us. They ought to understand that we are able to work out most of our problems. They ought to take advantage of that and work with us. Let us turn to look at where we go from here. I think we made a good beginning in the first 6 months of Democratic leadership in the Senate. But the way forward is not easy. If we want to have continued progress, it is going to require leadership and cooperation and good will not only within the Senate but by the White House. These are the steps that the Judiciary Committee will take in good faith. I want to lay this out for my colleagues. First, we are going to restore steadiness in the hearing process. The committee will hold regular hearings at a pace that will exceed the pace of the last 6 years. Following longstanding committee practice, each hearing typically will involve several nominees--a circuit court nominee and a number of district court nominees. Since the Senate's reorganization last July, we have convened judicial nominations hearings each and every month. I mention that because, by contrast, in the 72 months that the Republican majority most recently controlled scheduling such hearings, in 30 of those months no hearings were held at all, and in another 34 months only one hearing was held. Yesterday we held our 12th hearing since July. If we are able to keep pace, we will hold more hearings this session than were held in any of the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control and more than twice as many as were held in some of those years. Secondly, we will include hearings for a number of controversial nominees who do not have a blue slip problem. We will convene a hearing the week after next on the nomination of Charles W. Pickering for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I fully expect we will also have hearings on other nominations for which consensus will be difficult, including such nominees as Judge Priscilla Owen, Professor Michael McConnell, and Miguel Estrada. Third, we will continue to seek a cooperative and constructive working relationship not only with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle but also with the White House. I ask the White House to help make the confirmation process more orderly and less antagonistic, and thus make it more productive. Finding our way forward out of the legacy of the last 6 years is going to require some White House cooperation. The President represents one of our three branches of Government. We in the Senate represent one. We are talking about working together in matters that affect our third branch. I take very seriously the advise and consent clause of the Constitution. It does not say: Advise and rubberstamp. It says advise and consent. The distinguished Presiding Officer, the President pro tempore, knows better than anybody else in this body the kind of debate that went on at the founding of this country on the constitutional requirement of advice and consent. Our Founders made very sure we, the people, had a voice in these appointments. This is a democracy, not a regency. I will strive--whether we have a Democratic President or a Republican President--to uphold the right, and not just the right, the duty of the Senate, to fulfill its advise and consent role. It is one of the most important roles this body has ever had because it is exclusively in this great Chamber, in this great body. Senators really do not follow their oath of office if they do not uphold that right and that privilege and that duty of advice and consent. I have heard the distinguished Presiding Officer speak of the number of Presidents with whom he has served. He very correctly has pointed out, we do not serve under a President, we serve with a President. I have enormous respect for all Presidents I have served with, Republicans and Democrats. They are a major part of our Democratic framework. Whoever is President carries an awesome burden and should be helped in carrying out that burden. But we carry an awesome burden on advice and concept, as well. Let us try to bring the duties and rights and obligations at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue closer to the duties and rights and obligations at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and see how we might work together. So today I ask the President, for his part, to consider several steps, each of which makes a tangible improvement in the consideration of judicial nominations. First, the most progress can be made quickly if the White House would begin working with home State Senators to identify fair-minded, nonideological, consensus nominees to fill these court vacancies. One of the reasons that the committee and the Senate were able to work as rapidly as we did in confirming now 30 judges in the last few months was because those nominations were strongly supported as consensus nominees by people from across the political and legal spectrums. I have heard of too many situations, in too many States, involving too many reasonable and constructive home State Senators, in which the White House has shown no willingness to work cooperatively to find candidates to fill vacancies. The White House's unilateralism is not the way the process is intended to work. It is not the way the process has worked under past administrations. I urge the White House to show greater inclusiveness and flexibility and to help make this a truly bipartisan enterprise. Logjams persist in several settings, the legacy of the last 6 years. To make real progress, the White House and the Senate should work together to repair the damage and move forward. As I said before, the Constitution directs the President to seek the Senate's advice and consent in his appointments to the Federal courts. The lack of effort on the advice side of that obligation gives rise to a general impression, heightened by the White House's refusal to work cooperatively with some home State Democratic Senators, and by its unwillingness to listen to suggestions to continue the bipartisan commissions that have been a tradition, for years, in many States, that the White House and some in the Senate are intent on an ideological takeover of our courts. With the circuits so evenly split in so many places, nominees to the Courts of Appeals may have a significant impact on the development of the law for decades to come. Some of us are concerned that there not be a rollback in the protections of individual rights, civil rights, workers' rights, consumers' rights, business rights, privacy rights, and environmental protection. Secondly, I ask the President to reconsider his early decision on peer review vetting. It has needlessly added months to the time required to begin the hearing process for each nominee. For more than 50 years, the American Bar Association was able to conduct its peer reviews simultaneously with the FBI background check procedures. As I said earlier, that meant that when nominations were sent to the Senate, the FBI report and the ABA report were sent at approximately the same time, and we could start moving forward to review nominations and schedule hearings from that day. We had occasions last year when we proceeded with hearings with fewer District Court nominees than I would have liked because recent nominees' files were not yet complete. I worry that same problem will be repeated this year. For example, in relation to the FBI and the ABA background materials on the 24 District Court nominations that we received in the last day or so, we are not going to have all that material until March or April. That is regrettable. It was avoidable. We could have had it all here today so we could start reviewing those nominations and considering them for hearing agendas right away. Now, no Senator is bound by the recommendations of the ABA. And I would never suggest that a Senator be bound by that. Each Senator is bound by their own conscience and their own sense of what is right. But the White House can make it clear that it is not bound either but that it is restoring a traditional practice--not because it intends to be bound by the results of that peer review but solely to remove an element of delay that it had inadvertently introduced into the confirmation process. The White House can expressly ask the ABA, if they want, not to send the results of its peer reviews to the executive but only to transmit them to the committee. Few actions available to either the Senate or the White House could make as constructive a contribution as would the President's resolution of this problem. I ask him to seriously and thoughtfully consider taking it. It would take 1 minute of decision; it would save months of time. In conclusion, whether we succeed in improving the confirmation process is going to depend in large measure on whether our goals are shared by Republican Senators and the White House. We will not have repaired the damage that has been done if we make progress this year and the improvements we are able to make are not institutionalized and continued the next time a Democratic President or, for that matter, a different Republican President is the one making judicial nominations. In the statements I have heard and read from the Republican side, I have not heard them concede any shortcomings in the practices they employed over the previous 6\1/2\ years, even though since the change in majority last summer, we have exceeded their pace and productivity over the prior 6\1/2\ years. If their efforts were acceptable or praiseworthy as some would argue, I would expect them to commend our better efforts since last July. If they did things they now regret, their admissions would go far in helping establish a common basis of understanding and comparison. Taking that step would be a significant gesture. It is something that has not yet occurred. I wish it would. Whether it occurs or not, I want to move forward. The nominees voted on this morning and those included at our most recent hearings yesterday are clear evidence, again, that consensus nominees with widespread bipartisan support are more easily and quickly considered by the committee and confirmed by the Senate. I believe there was not a single vote against either of the judges confirmed today. There are still far too many judicial vacancies. We have to work together to fill them. We have finally begun moving the confirmation and vacancy numbers in the right directions. The way forward is difficult. Democrats alone cannot achieve what should be our common goal of regaining the ground lost over the last 6 years. But all of us together can achieve that. I invite each with a role in this process to join that effort. If I could close on a personal note, as I said before, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Utah, is a close personal friend. I have been in the position of ranking member of that committee while he was chairman. I know many times he had to urge actions to move forward, actions with which many in his caucus did not agree. But he did, and I commend him for it. For my part, I pledge, during this year or whatever time I am chairman, to meet on a regular basis with my friend from Utah to try to iron out as many problems as we can. I believe there is a mutual respect between the two of us. But I would also urge the White House to realize that they do not act in a vacuum, to understand it is a democracy, to take a moment to reread the advice and consent clause. Let us work together. Things will go a lot faster and a lot better that way. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Is the Senator from Vermont correct that following my statement the distinguished senior Senator from Utah is to be recognized?

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object--I understand there is no objection.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand under the unanimous consent request I am to be recognized, but the distinguished Senator from Illinois and the distinguished Senator from Oregon are here, and I ask unanimous consent it be in order first to recognize the distinguished Senator from Illinois for 2 minutes, then the distinguished Senator from Oregon for 1 minute, and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, the Republican assistant leader, for 30 seconds, and then we revert back to my original time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will pass an important piece of legislation dealing with America's borders. This bill, S. 1400, has bipartisan support for extending the deadline requiring aliens to present a border passing card with a biometric identifier to enter the United States from Mexico. This deadline expired earlier this year. The bill would extend the requirement by one year to allow the State Department to finish the difficult job of converting the old border crossing cards used by Mexicans entering the United States. This is a major task, and the State Department has already accomplished a great deal, issuing millions of new biometric border crossing cards. As our State Department continues to work to finish this task, however, we should not punish lawful Mexican workers who are still waiting for new cards, or the American businesses that depend upon them as customers and employees. This bill is one piece of major border security introduced by Senators Kennedy and Brownback. I am a proud cosponsor of their bill, S. 1749, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. We should pass that bill in its entirety, and I hope that we do so before the end of this session. In the meantime, we should pass S. 1400 without delay. This measure's original sponsors were Senator Kyl of Arizona and Senator Brownback, the Ranking Republican on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. It is cosponsored by Senator Gramm, Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Domenici. I am glad to be able to accommodate them and urge prompt action by the Senate on this measure.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am also very concerned that we develop policies to more adequately protect our maritime vulnerabilities and protect the public from the threats emerging as a result of maritime trade. I would be happy to work with Chairman Hollings and Ranking Member McCain next year to evaluate whether any gaps in our criminal laws to protect our maritime safety and seaport security exist and the appropriate steps we should take to close those gaps and at the same time ensure that the rights of port employees are protected. Mr. President, I have also expressed to Chairman Hollings my concerns that we properly limit access to and use of sensitive law enforcement information relating to background checks which are provided for in this bill. Chairman Hollings has assured me that the bill sets strict and appropriate limits as to both when such access will be required and how the information will be used once obtained. Additionally, the Chairman understands my continuing concern over the need for appropriate due process protections for employees of ports at all levels who may be subject to background checks. These would include a hearing that would consider mitigating and extenuating circumstances related to the individual in question. Am I correct that it is the intent of the Chairman to ensure that the Department of Transportation and the nation's ports carry out background checks with proper safeguards in place that ensure due process protections for employees. And will the Chairman commit to work with me to that end? I would like to ask Chairman Hollings if he could explain these provisions?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to the Senate is finally passing the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. I thank Senator Hatch, the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, for his hard work and support of this legislation. The last time Congress properly authorized spending for the entire Department of Justice (``DOJ'' or the ``Department'') was in 1979. Congress extended that authorization in 1980 and 1981. Since then, Congress has not passed nor has the President signed an authorization bill for the Department. In fact, there are a number of years where Congress failed to consider any Department authorization bill. This 21- year failure to properly reauthorize the Department has forced the appropriations committees in both houses to reauthorize and appropriate money. We have ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long. Our bipartisan legislation is an attempt to reaffirm the authorizing authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee for working in a bipartisan manner to pass similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, is divided into two divisions: the first division is a comprehensive authorization of the Department; and the second division is a comprehensive authorization of expired and new Department grants programs and improvements to criminal law and procedures. Division A of our bipartisan legislation contains four titles which authorize appropriations for the Department for fiscal year 2002, provide permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department to efficiently carry out its mission, clarify and harmonize existing statutory authority, and repeal obsolete statutory authorities. The bill establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms, such as DOJ Inspector General authority to investigate allegations of misconduct by employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), intended to better enable the Congress and the Department to oversee the operations of the Department. Finally, the bill creates a separate Violence Against Women Office to combat domestic violence. Title I authorizes appropriations for the major components of the Department for fiscal year 2002. The authorization mirrors the President's request regarding the Department except in two areas. First, the bill increased the President's request for the DOJ Inspector General by $10 million. This is necessary because the Committee is concerned about the severe downsizing of that office and the need for oversight, particularly of the FBI, at the Department. Second, the bill authorizes at least $10 million for the investigation and prosecution of intellectual property crimes, including software counterfeiting crimes and crimes identified in the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (Public Law 105-147). The American copyright industry is the largest exporter of goods from the United States, employing more than 7 million Americans, and these additional funds are needed to strengthen the resources available to DOJ and the FBI to investigate and prosecute cyberpiracy. Title II permanently establishes a clear set of authorities that the Department may rely on to use appropriated funds, including establishing permitted uses of appropriated funds by the Attorney General, the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Prison System, and the Detention Trustee. Title II also establishes new reporting requirements which are intended to enhance Congressional oversight of the Department, including new reporting requirements for information about the enforcement of existing laws, for information regarding the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and the submission of other reports, required by existing law, to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Section 206(e) expands an existing reporting requirement regarding copyright infringement cases. Title II also provides the Department with additional law enforcement tools in the war against terrorism. For instance, section 201 permits the FBI to enter into cooperative projects with foreign countries to improve law enforcement or intelligence operations. Section 210 of the committee approved bill also provided for special ``danger pay'' allowances for FBI agents in hazardous duty locations outside the United States, as is provided for agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration. At the insistence of a Republican Senator, section 210 have regrettably been removed from the bill to ensure final passage. Title III repeals outdated and open-ended statutes, requires the submission of an annual authorization bill to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and provides states with flexibility to use existing Truth-In-Sentencing and Violent Offender Incarceration Grants to account for juveniles being housed in adult prison facilities. Title III requires the Department to submit to Congress studies on untested rape examination kits, and the allocation of funds, personnel, and workloads for each office of U.S. Attorney and each division of the Department. In addition, Title III provides new oversight and reporting requirements for the FBI and other activities conducted by the Justice Department. Specifically, section 308 codifies the Attorney General's order of July 11, 2001, which revised Department of Justice's regulations concerning the Inspector General. The section insures that the Inspector General for the Department of Justice has the authority to decide whether a particular allegation of misconduct by Department of Justice personnel, including employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, should be investigated by the Inspector General or by the internal affairs unit of the appropriate component of the Department of Justice. Section 309 directs the Inspector General of the Department to appoint an official from the Inspector General's office to be responsible for supervising and coordinating independent oversight of programs and operations of the FBI until the end of the 2003 fiscal year. This section also requires the Inspector General of the Department to submit to Congress not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act an oversight plan for the FBI. This section further requires the Attorney General to submit a report and recommendation to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act on whether there should be established a separate office of Inspector General for the FBI that shall be responsible for supervising independent oversight of programs and operations of the FBI. In addition, the bill as passed by the committee, contains language offered as an amendment by Senator Feinstein to authorize a number of new judgeships. I strongly support Senator Feinstein's amendment, and believe that the need for these new judgeships is acute. Title IV establishes a separate Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) within the Department. The VAWO is headed by a Director, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In addition, Title IV enumerates duties and responsibilities of the Director, and authorizes appropriations to ensure the VAWO is adequately staffed. I strongly support a separate VAWO office within the Department of Justice. The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act should result in a more effective, as well as efficient, Department of Justice for the American people. Division B of our bipartisan legislation includes eight titles which compile a comprehensive authorization of expired and new Department of Justice grants programs and improvements to criminal law and procedures. Title I authorizes Department of Justice grants to establish 4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs across the country before January 1, 2007. This bipartisan amendment authorizes Department of Justice grants for each of the next 5 years to establish 1,200 additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. In fact, this will bring the number of Boys and Girls clubs to 4,000. That means they will serve approximately 6 million young people by January 1, 2007. I am very impressed with what I see about the Boys and Girls Clubs as I travel around the country. In 1997, I was very proud to join with Senator Hatch and others to pass bipartisan legislation to authorize grants by the Department of Justice to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. We increased the Department of Justice grant funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs from $20 million in fiscal year 1998 to $60 million in fiscal year 2001. That is why we have now 2,591 Boys and Girls Clubs in all 50 States and 3.3 million children are served. It is a success story. I hear from parents certainly across my State how valuable it is to have the Boys and Girls Clubs. I hear it also from police chiefs. In fact, one police chief told me, rather than giving him a couple more police officers, fund a Boys and Girls Club in his district; it would be more beneficial. This long-term Federal commitment has enabled Vermonters to establish six Boys and Girls Clubs--in Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes. In fact, I believe the Vermont Boys and Girls Clubs have received more than a million dollars from the Department of Justice grants since 1998. In May of this year at a Vermont town meeting on heroin prevention and treatment, I was honored to present a check for more than $150,000 in Department of Justice funds to the members of the Burlington club to continue helping young Vermonters find some constructive alternatives for both their talents and energies, because we know that in Vermont and across the Nation Boys and Girls Clubs are proving they are a growing success at preventing crime and supporting young children. Parents, educators, law enforcement officers, and others know we need safe havens where young people can learn and grow up free from the influence of the drugs and gangs and crime. That is why the Boys and Girls Clubs are so important to our Nation's children. Indeed, the success already in Vermont has led to efforts to create nine more clubs throughout my home State. Continued Federal support would be critical to these expansion efforts in Vermont and in the other 49 States as well. Title II and III is the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001. I am pleased that we have included in this package the version of S. 304 that the Judiciary Committee passed unanimously on November 29. This legislation ushers in a new, bipartisan approach to our efforts to reduce drug abuse in the United States. It was introduced by Senator Hatch and I in February. Senator Hatch held an excellent hearing on the bill in March, the Judiciary Committee has approved it, and the full Senate should follow the Committee's lead. This is a bill that is embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as law enforcement officers and drug treatment providers. I have wanted to pass legislation like this for years. This legislation provides a comprehensive approach to reducing drug abuse in America. I hope that the innovative programs established by this legislation will assist all of our States in their efforts to address the drug problems that most affect our communities. No community or State is immune from the ravages of drug abuse. Earlier this year, I held two town meetings up in Vermont to talk about the most pressing drug problem in my State: heroin. Vermont has historically had one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, but we are experiencing serious troubles because of drug abuse. I was pleased that so many Vermonters--parents, students, teachers, and concerned community members, as well as professionals from our State's prevention, treatment, and enforcement communities--took time out of their busy schedules to discuss the way Vermont's heroin problem affects their lives. They have informed my thinking on these issues and rededicated me to reducing the scourge of drug abuse throughout our nation. This bill will provide necessary assistance to Vermont and every other State. It contains numerous grant programs to aid States and local communities in their efforts to prevent and treat drug abuse. Of particular interest to Vermonters, S. 304 establishes drug treatment grants for rural States and authorizes money for residential treatment centers for mothers addicted to heroin, methamphetamines, or other drugs. This legislation also will help States and communities reduce drug use in prisons through testing and treatment. This is an effort I proposed in the Drug Free Prisons Act, which I introduced in the last Congress. It will fund programs designed to reduce recidivism through drug treatment and other services for former prisoners after release. As Joseph Califano, Jr., the president of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse and former secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, told the National Press Club in January. ``The next great opportunity to reduce crime is to provide treatment and training to drug and alcohol abusing prisoners who will return to a life of criminal activity unless they leave prison substance free and, upon release, enter treatment and continuing aftercare.'' This legislation will accomplish both of those goals. In addition, this bill will authorize drug courts--another step I proposed in the Drug Free Prisons Act--and juvenile drug courts. Through this legislation, we extend food stamps to people who are ineligible under current law due to a past drug offense, but have completed or are enrolled in drug treatment. Senator Hatch and I wanted to go further, and the Judiciary Committee approved language that would have also extended food stamps to those who were pregnant, seriously ill, or had dependent children. At Senator Kyle's insistence, those provisions have regrettably been removed from this amendment. This legislation also includes a grant program to assist State and local law enforcement in developing new ways to fight crime. This National Comprehensive Crime-Free Communities Act will provide funding for 250 communities, including at least one from every State, to support crime prevention efforts. It also provides funding for each State to assist local communities by, among other things, providing training and technical assistance in preventing crime. Our bipartisan bill, S. 304, represents a major step forward for our drug policy. It is a bill that has been very important to Senator Hatch, and it has been very important to me. I think it will greatly benefit Vermonters, and citizens of every State, and I urge the Senate to give this bill its full support. Title IV is similar to S. 1315, the Judicial Improvement and Integrity Act of 2001, introduced by myself and Senator Hatch, to protect witnesses who provide information on criminal activity to law enforcement officials by increasing maximum sentences and other improvements to the criminal code. This title would do a number of things, such as: No. 1. Protect witnesses who come forward to provide information on criminal activity to law enforcement officials by increasing maximum sentences where physical force is actually used or attempted on the witness; No. 2. Eliminate a loophole in the criminal contempt statute that allows some defendants to avoid serving prison sentences imposed by the Court; No. 3. Eliminate a loophole in the statute of limitations that makes some defendants immune from further prosecution if they plead guilty then later get their plea agreements vacated; No. 4. Grant the government the clear right to appeal the dismissal of a part of a count of an indictment, such as a predicate act in a RICO count; No. 5. Insure that courts may impose appropriate terms of supervised release in drug cases; No. 6. Give the District Courts greater flexibility in fashioning appropriate conditions of release for certain elderly prisoners; and No. 7. Clarify the District Court's authority to revoke or modify a term of supervised release when the defendant willfully violates the obligation to pay restitution to the victims of the defendant's crime. The only difference between this amendment and the earlier bill which was cosponsored by Senator Hatch is additional language in the provision dealing with newly imposed terms of supervised release for certain elderly prisoners. The new language would limit such new terms to the unserved portion of the prison term which the judge is considering amending. I thank Senator Hatch for his assistance on this legislation. Title V is the Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act, which makes clerical and other technical amendments to title 18, United States Code, and other laws relating to crime and criminal procedure and is similar to H.R. 2137 as passed by the House of Representatives by 374-0 vote. I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Senator Hatch for their leadership on this technical corrections legislation. Title VI clarifies that an attorney for the Federal Government may provide legal advice and supervision on certain undercover activities for the purpose of investigating terrorism. Title VI of the bill modifies the McDade law, 28 U.S.C. 530B, which was included in the omnibus appropriations bill at the end of the 105th Congress. The McDade law was intended to codify the principle--with which I strongly agree--that the Justice Department may not unilaterally exempt its lawyers from State ethics rules that apply to all members of the bar. Unfortunately, the McDade law has had serious unintended consequences for Federal law enforcement, delaying important criminal investigations, preventing the use of effective and traditionally accepted investigative techniques, and serving as the basis of litigation to interfere with legitimate federal prosecutions. Of particular concern, the McDade law is wreaking havoc on law enforcement efforts in Oregon, where an attorney ethics decision by the State Supreme Court--In re Gatti, 330 Or. 517 (2000)--has resulted in a complete shutdown of all undercover activity. The loss of this essential crime-fighting tool poses a serious and continuing problem for law enforcement in that State, and threatens to hamstring investigations into all manner of criminal activity, including terrorism. I have introduced a bill, together with Senators Hatch and Wyden, that would remedy the problems caused by the McDade law while adhering to its basic premise: The Department of Justice does not have the authority it long claimed to write its own ethics rules. The proposed legislation, S. 1437, would clarify the ethical standards governing the conduct of government attorneys and address the most pressing contemporary question of government attorney ethics--namely, the question of which rule should govern government attorneys' communications with represented persons. The Senate approved S. 1437 on October 11, 2001, as part of a broader antiterrorism bill (S. 1510), but the House dropped this reasonable corrective legislation from the final antiterrorism package (H.R. 3162). Title VI of Division B of the bill that the Senate passes today is a subset of S. 1437, which will restore to Federal law enforcement in Oregon the ability to use undercover techniques to investigate terrorist activities. This legislation is a much-needed step in the right direction; however, it is hardly a complete solution for the many serious problems caused by the McDade law. At a time when we need our Federal agents and prosecutors to move quickly to catch those responsible for the recent terrorist attacks, and to prevent further attacks, we need to address these problems in a thorough and comprehensive manner. I therefore urge my colleagues in the House both to approve title VI of this bill, and to consider the other provisions of S. 1437. We cannot afford to wait until more investigations are compromised. Title VII contains amendments, authored by Senator Sessions, that modify the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-561) to enhance participation by local crime labs and to allow for DNA backlog elimination. Dr. Eric Buel, the Director of the Vermont Forensic Laboratory, has written to me to endorse these changes to the Coverdell Act, which I was proud to cosponsor last year. I support this title to help bring the necessary forensic technology to all states to improve their criminal justice systems. Title VIII contains the Ecstasy Prevention Act, authored by Senator Graham, which authorizes several Department of Justice grant programs to combat Ecstasy drug abuse. I commend Senator Graham for his leadership in fighting Ecstasy use. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers and other members of the upcoming conference to bring the important business of re-authorizing the Department back before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Clearly, regular reauthorization of the Department should be part and parcel of the Committees' traditional role in overseeing the Department's activities. Swift passage into law of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act will be a significant step toward restoring our oversight role.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are about to pass the foreign operations conference report for fiscal year 2002. I want to again thank Senator McConnell, Chairman Byrd, and Senator Stevens for their support throughout this process. I also want to recognize Chairman Kolbe, who worked extraordinarily hard to get this conference report passed in the House, and Congresswoman Lowey, who was extremely helpful. This was a collaborative effort in every sense of the word. Mr. President, the attacks of September 11th hold important lessons that are relevant to this conference report. They showed us how our security is directly and indirectly linked to events and conditions around the world. With the exception of the cost of deploying our Armed Forces, the $15.3 billion in this conference report is what we have available to protect our security outside our borders. These funds are used to combat poverty, which engulfs a third of the world's people who barely survive, and often succumb, on less than $2 per day. The misery, despair and ignorance that poverty breeds is unquestionably one of the reasons for the resentment felt by so many people toward the United States. The funds in this conference report are used to protect the environment and endangered wildlife, to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, and to help prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. We support agriculture research at American universities, and we promote exports through loans and guarantees for American companies competing in foreign markets. Mr. President, we call these programs ``foreign assistance.'' They are held up as proof of America's generosity. But anyone paying attention can see that is only part of the story. These funds directly, and indirectly, protect our economy, our democracy, our national security. It is in our self-interest, plain and simple. This conference report contains 1 percent of the total federal budget. On a per capita basis that amounts to about $40 per American citizen per year--the cost of a pair of shoes. To use another example, next year we plan to spend about $150 million on children's education in poor countries where many children, especially girls, receive only a few years of schooling. That is less than most American cities spend on children's education, yet that is all we have for the whole world. A year ago, some might have asked what children's education in Afghanistan or other countries has to do with America's security. Today it should be obvious. People who are educated, who can earn money to feed and clothe their families, and participate meaningfully in the political process, are not training to be terrorists. For years, organizations working on the front lines in poor countries have appealed to the Congress and the administration to significantly increase the amount of funding to address the inter-related problems of population growth, poverty, political and economic instability, corruption, environmental degradation, narco-trafficking, and terrorism. Year after year, the Congress and the administration have turned a deaf ear. Is it any wonder that Afghanistan today is a destroyed country that became a haven for terrorists? Part of the problem is misconceptions about the foreign operations budget. People think it's some kind of give-away, when in fact, we use it to protect our security. Mr. President, since September 11th, a large majority of the American public, and a broad, bipartisan cross-section of Members of Congress-- Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives--have called for substantial increases in funding to address the causes of poverty and disillusionment that persists not only in many Muslin countries, but among a third of the world's population. We can no longer pretend that spending 1 percent of our $2 trillion Federal budget is a serious response to these national security needs. The widening gap between rich and poor nations is the best evidence of that. Many have made these points before. Today they are a common refrain. Senators Feinstein, Gordon Smith, and I have introduced a resolution calling for tripling the foreign assistance budget. Others have proposed similar legislation. There have been numerous speeches, editorials, and other commentary. Yet we have yet to see any effective response from the political process. Our foreign assistance budget--I would prefer to call it our international security budget--has fallen in real terms since the 1980s. Rumor has it that the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for International Affairs will be at about the fiscal year 2002 level--in other words, business as usual, despite the lessons of September 11. That would be extraordinary short sighted. We cannot possibly deal a lasting blow to international terrorism without a multi-prong strategy--addressing the social and economic causes of terrorism and conflict with foreign assistance, diplomacy, and law enforcement, and when necessary, military force. Mr. President, the security of an American citizen is worth a lot more than the price of a pair of shoes, yet that is how much we are spending on the prevention part of this strategy. It is, frankly, ludicrous. We argue over a few million dollars to alleviate the suffering in refugee camps, which are fertile grounds for terrorist recruits. We debate about another $5 or $10 million to help the world's poorest families start businesses, to work their way out of poverty. We rob Peter to pay Paul to get a few more millions for children's education or programs to improve health care. We struggle, year after year, to increase funding for family planning and reproductive health to the level it was six years ago. Have we so soon forgotten the lessons of September 11? We are the richest, most powerful nation in history, yet we continue to act as though the rest of the world barely matters to us. We cannot put those lessons into effect without Presidential leadership. If President Bush, today, were to ask every American to support a tripling of our foreign operations budget, and he explained why it is important too our national security and to combating international terrorism, does anyone think the Congress would not respond or that the public would object? The polls show unequivocally that the public understands these issues. This conference report is the best we could do with what we had, and we owe a debt of gratitude to Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens. But we need a multi-prong strategy if we are going to combat international terrorism and protect our other security around the world. I hope someone in the White House is listening, because this is what the President should be saying to America and the world. Mr. President, I want to briefly mention a few of the important provisions in this conference report. It provides sufficient funding for the Export Import Bank to support export financing well above the fiscal year 2000 level. This is of great importance to American companies who compete for markets in developing countries. It provides increases for the Foreign Military Financing and International Military Education and Training programs. It includes additional funding for international peacekeeping and for assistance for the former Yugoslavia, including Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia. It includes $475 million for the prevention and treatment of HIV/ AIDS, including $50 million for the Global Fund to combat AIDS, TB and malaria. This falls short of what our country should be providing, but it is a significant increase above last year's level. The conference report also increases funding for other infectious disease and children's health programs. These programs are desperately needed to strengthen the capacity of developing countries to conduct surveillance and respond to diseases like polio and measles. But they are equally important for combating the spread of biological agents used in acts of terrorism, like anthrax. It includes $625 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. This is in addition to the $1.3 billion for Plan Colombia that we appropriated last year. We include several conditions on our assistance to the Colombian Armed Forces, and on the aerial spraying of chemical herbicides which are used to eradicate coca. The conference report provides $34 million for the UN Population Fund, and $446.5 million for USAID's family planning and reproductive health programs. Although still less than what the United States was providing for these activities in the mid-1990's, it is an increase above the fiscal year 2001 level. With 100 million new births each year--95 percent of which are in developing countries many of which cannot feed their people today, these programs are of vital importance in combating poverty. The conference report contains the usual earmarks for the Middle East countries. It also continues various limitations or restrictions on assistance to several governments beyond those I have already mentioned, where there is a history of corruption or human rights violations that have gone unpunished. Mr. President, I want to again thank Senator McConnell for his invaluable help.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing the Smith-Leahy Federal Judiciary Protection Act, S. 1099. In the last two Congresses, I joined as an original cosponsor of identical legislation introduced by Senator Gordon Smith, which unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate but was not acted upon by the House of Representatives. I commend the Senator from Oregon for his continued leadership in protecting public servants in our Federal government. Our bipartisan legislation would provide greater protection to Federal judges, law enforcement officers, and United States officials and their families. Federal law enforcement officers, under our bill, include United States Capitol Police Officers. United States officials, under our bill, include the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries and Members of Congress. Specifically, our legislation would: increase the maximum prison term for forcible assaults, resistance, intimidation or interference with a Federal judge, law enforcement officer or United States official from 3 years imprisonment to 8 years; increase the maximum prison term for use of a deadly weapon or infliction of bodily injury against a Federal judge, law enforcement officer or United States official from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years; and increase the maximum prison term for threatening murder or kidnapping of a member of the immediate family of a Federal judge or law enforcement officer from 5 years imprisonment to 10 years. Our bipartisan bill has the support of the Department of Justice, the United States Judicial Conference, the United States Sentencing Commission and the United States Marshal Service. It is most troubling that the greatest democracy in the world needs this legislation to protect the hard working men and women who serve in our Federal government. Just a few months ago, I was saddened to read about death threats against my colleague from Vermont after his act of conscience in declaring himself an Independent. Senator Jeffords received multiple threats against his life, which forced around-the-clock police protection. These unfortunate threats made a difficult time even more difficult for Senator Jeffords and his family. We are seeing more violence and threats of violence against officials of our Federal government. In July, we commemorated the lives of two Capitol Police officers, Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, who were slain in the line of duty in the Capitol Building in 1998. A courtroom in Urbana, Illinois, was firebombed recently, apparently by a disgruntled litigant. And we also continue to mourn the victims of the horrible tragedy of the bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City in 1995. In my home state during the summer of 1997, a Vermont border patrol officer, John Pfeiffer, was seriously wounded by Carl Drega, during a shootout with Vermont and New Hampshire law enforcement officers in which Drega lost his life. Earlier that day, Drega shot and killed two state troopers and a local judge in New Hampshire. Apparently, Drega was bent on settling a grudge against the judge who had ruled against him in a land dispute. I had a chance to visit John Pfeiffer in the hospital and met his wife and young daughter. As a federal law enforcement officer, Agent Pfeiffer and his family will receive greater protection under our bill. After the tragic events of September 11, it is even more important that we protect the dedicated women and men throughout the Federal Judiciary and Federal government in this country who do a tremendous job under difficult circumstances. They are examples of the hard- working public servants that make up the federal government, who are too often maligned and unfairly disparaged. It is unfortunate that it takes acts or threats of violence to put a human face on the Federal Judiciary, law enforcement officers and U.S. officials, to remind everyone in our democracy that these are people with children and parents and friends. They deserve our respect and our protection.