Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I don't want to interrupt him.

Mr. LEAHY. I have just checked this morning. I am hoping they are going to be cleared by the end of the day, I tell the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. Again, as he knows, he having let us use his office as temporary quarters for hearings, we have been operating under some difficulty. A lot of our paperwork is in the Judiciary Committee rooms in Dirksen or in my office in the Russell Building. Normally, I could answer his question immediately. I asked this morning that we make sure they are cleared. I know they want to get them in West Virginia. I know they have been approved by the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia and by his colleague. I am hoping that we can have them cleared quickly. Incidentally, nominations were reported last Thursday after most of the Capitol closed down. We were still able to get a quorum because of the Members who stayed in town so we could report them, even though we had recommendations from the other side to get out of here. I appreciate those Senators who stayed so we could get that quorum and get them out. Again, I appreciate the Senator from West Virginia in allowing us the use of his office. We had a number of judicial nominations that came up. Virtually all Republican Senators took the time to come to introduce their judicial nominees. I appreciate that, too.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank my colleague.

Mr. LEAHY. I can actually speak about those better than he can because I have heard his speech enough times. I believe the Senator mentioned a judgeship from Alabama that was qualified last week. I am sorry the Senator from Alabama was unable to be there. I do appreciate him being there for the markup earlier. I thank our colleague, Senator Shelby, for his fine words about the nominee. We are trying to move that nominee from Alabama very quickly. We are doing that to try to help the other Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions. We will keep on the pace, and someday we can go past, if we ever get our offices back.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield for a moment, I also point out the U.S. attorney of North Carolina, U.S. attorney of Michigan, other U.S. attorneys--of North Carolina, one of Arkansas, one of Mississippi, one of Missouri, one of Nevada, one of Maryland, one of West Virginia, one of Louisiana, one of Illinois, one of Washington, one of West Virginia--are also cleared. That could be done, I assume, on a voice vote. They are all nominated by President Bush. The vast majority of them were recommended by Republican Senators. They have all been cleared, and they are ready to go.

Mr. LEAHY. To answer that question, there are some--this is a nominee I have a feeling will go through all right but some questions have been asked. The answers are not back. For all we know, they may have been mailed in to the Judiciary Committee office. We don't know. As the Republican leader knows, we have been somewhat stymied moving papers around here. But this is one where a Senator had asked a question. I notified Senator Hatch. I thought it would be a lot easier to get the questions answered than to bring the name up. Once they are answered, I expect the nominee to go through easily. That follows the tradition our committee has followed for 25 years under both Republicans and Democrats. If they have a question, we put them on the docket, I hope the question would be answered, and she would be on the next Exec. I hope we will get back into our offices so we can find out if that material is there.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. This is an important amendment that will enable the United States to support efforts by Cambodia's Ministry of Women and Veteran's Affairs to combat human trafficking, which as Senator Brownback has noted is a terrible problem in that country. I commend him for his commitment to address this problem and ask that I be added as a cosponsor as well. Madam President, if the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and I were to have our way about it, we would go to final passage, but I have a feeling there are probably some who may not be in favor of that. I don't have anything else. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of Joseph E. Schmitz to be Inspector General, Department of Defense and Sandra L. Pack to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to go back into morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm four additional Federal judges. These nominees all participated in hearings on October 4 and were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last Thursday, when the committee persevered with our previously scheduled meeting in spite of the extraordinary circumstances that prevailed here on Capitol Hill. In spite of the postponement of other matters by other committees, in spite of the closure of the Dirksen Senate Office Building and the unavailability of our hearing and meeting room and in spite of our continuing focus and efforts to finalize an antiterrorism bill, last Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee proceeded to meet and report these 4 judicial nominees, 13 nominees to be U.S. attorneys for districts around the country and an Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice. Then, last Thursday afternoon we held a hearing for an additional five judicial nominees that was chaired by Senator Schumer, which I attended along with Senators Kennedy, Durbin, and DeWine. Thus, last week while Republicans were voting as a bloc to filibuster the foreign operations appropriations bill and stall initiatives vital to building an international anti-terrorism coalition, the Senate Judiciary Committee continued to do its work. Two weeks ago the Senate confirmed our fourth court of appeals judge for the year, topping the total confirmed in the first year of the Clinton administration and topping the zero from 1996 when a Republican majority in the Senate refused to confirm even a single nominee to the courts of appeals all year. Two weeks ago the Senate also confirmed another district court nominee. That brought the total judges confirmed so far this year to eight, exactly twice the number that had been confirmed by the same time in the first year of the first Bush administration and by the same time in the first year of the Clinton administration. In spite of our record pace since July in confirming judicial nominees, every Republican Senator voted last week to stall Senate consideration of a vital appropriations bill ostensibly to ``protest'' what they contend is a supposed ``slowdown'' on the consideration of judicial nominees. The facts belie their unfounded contention. The Senate's continuing progress in spite of the numerous roadblocks and obstructions erected by Republicans throughout the year was evidenced again last Thursday and will be again today when the Senate votes to confirm another four judges. At the end of this series of rollcall votes on these district court nominees to fill vacancies in Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Nebraska, the Senate will have confirmed 12 judges since July. Since I became chairman, Republicans finally allowed the Senate to reorganize at the end of June and Members were assigned to the Judiciary Committee on July 10, the committee has held seven hearings involving judicial nominees. We have already held as many hearings for judicial nominees as were held during the first year of the first Bush administration and more than were held during the first year of the Clinton administration. In addition, I have scheduled an eighth hearing involving judicial nominees for this week. Our Republican critics have come up with a new statistic in an effort to diminish our accomplishments. Last week they took to talking in terms of average judges per hearing. Since it is their statistic, I guess they can figure it any way they want. I would observe that I can find no time this year when we had included only 1.4 judicial nominees per hearing. I should also observe that after the hearing on Thursday we will have included 23 judicial nominees at eight hearings. Even ``fuzzy math'' would have to concede that we are at more than double the ``average'' Republicans cite. They do not explain that when President Bush unilaterally decided to change the more than 50-year-old practice of involving the American Bar Association in professional peer reviews while nominations were being considered, and that his decision has had consequences at other stages of the process. They do not acknowledge that only two of this President's first 18 nominees were for district court vacancies. They are oblivious to the fact that when early hearings were noticed and held many of these nominees had not completed paperwork and complete files. They ignore the structure and practice for judicial confirmation hearings that has been followed by Republican and Democratic chairmen of the committee for more than 25 years in including three to five district court nominees with a nominee to a court of appeals and to the extent district court nominees did not have completed files or were controversial and not rushed into a hearing there might be a good explanation for the lack of a full complement of nominees at a hearing. They refuse to acknowledge the extraordinary parallel effort we continue to make to hold hearings for the numerous executive branch nominees that are simultaneously pending. They are apparently frustrated that we have already confirmed four nominees to the courts of appeals and will match and likely exceed the number of court of appeals nominees confirmed in either 1989 or 1993. They seek to discount the judges confirmed by referring to three of them as ``Democrats.'' These are nominees from President Bush that they have somehow determined are ``Democrats'' and whose confirmations should not be considered or counted in their partisan view, I guess. The answer to their criticism is very simple: Since July 11 we have held 7 hearings and included 19 judicial nominees. That is more nominees than received hearings by October 18 in the first year of the first Bush administration or by October 18 in the first year of the Clinton administration. Thus, whether measured by confirmations or by judicial nominees who have received hearings, in spite of the change in majority in the middle of this year and the delays that Republicans have caused in the process of reorganizing, we are ahead of the pace of the first year of the Clinton administration and the first year of the first Bush administration. The Republicans' charges of a slowdown could not be farther from the truth. The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate are on pace to match or exceed the confirmations of judges at the end of the first year of the Clinton administration and at the end of the first year of the first Bush administration. In order to obscure this record pace, our Republican critics compare where we are now, on October 23, with where those Senate's were after they adjourned in late November. The facts are that on October 23, 1989, the Senate had confirmed only seven of President George H.W. Bush's judicial nominees. On October 23, 2001, this year we will have confirmed 12 of the judicial nominees of President George W. Bush. Among the seven nominees confirmed by October 23, 1989 were three to the courts of appeals. This year we have already confirmed four judges for the courts of appeals. By October 23, 1993, the Senate had confirmed eight judicial nominees for President Clinton. Today we confirm our 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th judicial nominees since July this year. Among the nominees confirmed by this date in 1993 were two nominees to the courts of appeals. This year we have already confirmed four judges to the courts of appeals. We are actually confirming more judges and confirming them faster than in either of the first years of either the Clinton or first Bush administration. In addition, I suspect that we are acting faster with respect to more judges, including more nominees to the courts of appeals, than at virtually any time during the last several years in which a Republican majority controlled the Senate and the Judiciary Committee and President Clinton was doing the nominating. Further, in addition to the 12 judges the Senate has confirmed, the Senate Judiciary Committee has included seven additional nominees in confirmation hearings and I have scheduled another hearing later this week for another four judicial nominees, as well as another Department of Justice nominee. Thus, by the end of this week, in addition to the dozen judges confirmed, another 11 will have had hearings before the committee. If the Senate remains in session this year as late into November as it did in 1989 and 1993, we may have the opportunity for another hearing involving several more judicial nominees. The record of the Senate since July is a good one. In spite of unfair criticism and the wrongheaded delays and obstruction of Republicans, the Senate remains on track to meet and exceed the judicial confirmation totals for the first year of the first Bush administration and the first year of the Clinton administration.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see my good friend, the deputy majority leader, the senior Senator from Nevada, in the Chamber. I first note my appreciation for the kind words he has said on several occasions about our efforts in the Judiciary Committee. The Senator and I have been friends from the day he came to the Senate. I value that friendship very much. I also thank our leadership for having us in session today. Let me take a couple moments to say why. This is a trying time for everybody--for our staffs, for the brave men and women of the Capitol Police, who protect us, for Dr. Eisold, and all those who work with him in the Capitol physician's office--for everybody, whether they are doorkeepers, or anybody else, including the young pages, both the Democratic and Republican pages who are here. The work is being done. It has been a difficult time. What would have been more difficult for the Nation would have been if we had not been here today. I think it was essential we be here. We have actually accomplished a great deal by being here. We have held hearings on judges, and voted a number out of committee, as well as a number of U.S. attorneys. We have completed action on an agreement on the counterterrorism bill. It is something that just a few days ago everybody said could not be done. We have done it. We are now at the point simply of drafting, which is not the easiest thing in the world with all the offices closed down. But the staffs of the various committees, including the Judiciary Committee, of course, have been working literally around the clock to get the paperwork done, to get the actual words on paper. So I feel safe in predicting the House and the Senate will vote on a package on the counterterrorism bill that, interestingly enough, will be improved over what we passed in the Senate and improved over what they passed in the other body. The sum is greater than the parts. And that shows what happens when we work together--both bodies; both parties--to get something done. We have actually done the administration a favor by taking time to look at it. The piece of legislation originally proposed by the White House and Attorney General was deeply flawed. Had we accepted their proposal to immediately move forward and pass it, we would have given them a flawed bill which, in the long run, would have hurt their chances to fight terrorism. The distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Minnesota, was one of those who cautioned and counseled both me and others to go slowly, look at what is here, and make sure we do it right. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota, as he always does, offered wise counsel. The distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, stood in this Chamber a number of times and said: We want to get it done right. I believe we have. But lastly, it is important, as a symbol, that we be in session. I feel deeply privileged to be a Member of the Senate. I remember the first day I walked in this Senate Chamber as a Senator-elect. I was a 34-year-old prosecutor from Vermont. I had never been on the floor of the Senate. It was a lameduck session after the elections at the time. We were going to go into the new session, which is when I would be sworn in. I came in as a Senator-elect. I thought to myself: What a thrill, coming in this Chamber and seeing people, giants of the Senate--in fact, two predecessors from the Presiding Officer's home State: Hubert Humphrey and Fritz Mondale. And I have thought it a privilege every day I have walked in this Chamber, every day I have come to this building. I have no idea how long I will be a Senator--none of us do--but I know every single day that I am, I will consider it a day that is a great privilege. And this building, this symbol of democracy, which will be here long after all 100 of us are gone--and I hope for hundreds and hundreds more it will be here--should be open. It should be open. It should tell not just a quarter of a billion Americans that this is the seat of democracy but tell billions of people around the world, especially those who come from countries that are anything but democracies, this symbol stands, this symbol shines, this symbol is open for business. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Daschle for having us in session today. I think he has done the right thing. A great deal of work will get done that needs to be done and can be done quickly. Frankly, I believe we should be here. I hope we will very soon have these galleries open to all tourists. I hope very soon we can have the Capitol Building open to all tourists. I was in my office on Saturday. I came through this building and it was empty. I asked one of the guards why tourists are blocked out. I remember as a teenager coming to Washington for the first time with my parents, the thrill of going through this building, through the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress, because they were open to the American people, as they should be now. I have to think there are a whole lot of parents and their children who can't do that. I am on the Board of Regents at the Smithsonian, and I see that the number of visitors is going way down. That is free to everybody. It should not be that way. This is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, one of the best cities in the world. The people are among the best people anywhere. Washington should be a magnet not only for Americans throughout the country but visitors throughout the world. I want us back here. I have my staff squeezed into cubbyholes and my Capitol office and working out of their homes. We are all connected to the Internet and everything else. We are going to work throughout this weekend. We are going to get the terrorism bill finished, with the bioterrorism piece that I added here in the Senate and the Senators passed. All that is going to be done this weekend because very brave men and women, on my staff and others, are going to work straight through the weekend, but they are going to take 20 hours to do what they might do in 10 hours on other days because of all the disruptions. We have to set the example that the Senate is open and ready for business. We cannot ask some 18-year-old on duty in our armed services in Kosovo to stand sentry duty in the middle of the night next to a minefield and say: But U.S. Senators are not here. The distinguished Presiding Officer has been a Governor, and he is a Senator. He is here. I see my good friend from California who was mayor of San Francisco and stood there at a most difficult time. We are ready to go to work. We will go to work, and the Senate will continue to be the conscience of the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I think it was bad enough. But if my wife is watching this, she is going to wonder who this person is and who is coming home tonight with all these nice things you have said about me. I thank the Senator from Nevada who has helped make it possible. He and Senator Daschle helped us get the rooms under difficult circumstances so we could have this hearing. I had the markup this morning, where we sent out, between judges and U.S. attorneys, about 18 people, virtually all of whom were there on the recommendation of Republican Senators. Because of his help, we were able to get a hearing room for this afternoon. The point the Senator made was a good point. He mentioned the judicial nominee for Nevada. He traveled 3,000 miles to be here for a hearing, assuming, of course, we were going to have the hearing today. Those plans came before the anthrax scare and, all of a sudden, everything shut down. The Senator from Nevada, in his usual way, where he worries about everybody, it seems, came to me and said: People came this distance; can we do something to help them out? Of course, we can. We have been trying to do that to accommodate everybody. There is one thing I find with great amusement, and that is when people say ``look at the vacancies.'' Well, that is right, Mr. President, there are vacancies. President Clinton nominated people for virtually all of those vacancies, and they were not even allowed to have a hearing, to say nothing about a vote. It reminds me of when the same people blocked President Clinton's nominees from having a hearing or a vote, and now they say we have all these vacancies. That is like the kid who killed his parents. When he was brought into court, he said, ``Your Honor, have mercy on me, I am an orphan.'' What can we say about these vacancies? Lordy, lordy, I wish they said that last year when we had the nominees ready to go. Having said that, I don't intend to play that kind of game. We are moving as fast as we can. I point out to Senators that we have had a few problems. The Senator from Nevada pointed out that when the Republicans controlled the Senate, they didn't hold a single hearing or confirm a single judge. They have all been done since we took over, and they are all President Bush's nominees. We have had a few things going. I wasn't given a committee until July, about 2 or 3 weeks before the August recess. That is why I had staff stay here--to hold hearings during August. We have had a couple of things going on before that committee. I am sure nobody has forgotten what happened 5 weeks ago in this country, on September 11, with the Pentagon and the World Trade Towers. We have been drafting a massive antiterrorism bill. We were given a deeply flawed piece of legislation by the Attorney General and the White House. I have worked with them and have tried to improve it, and we have done that. So now we have something both Republicans and Democrats can support, and we are going to pass it next week. That has taken a great deal of time. As the Senator from Nevada has pointed out several times on the floor, speaking of the various Members and staff who have worked on it, I can go home at night, but most of them stay and spend the rest of the night working on it. So a lot has been done. My earlier reason for coming to the Chamber was to thank the Senator from Nevada, and the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, for keeping us in today. We accomplished an enormous amount. We accomplished more than any piece of legislation written today, more than any nominee, more than anything we voted on: we demonstrated to the United States of America that the Senate is open for business. Senators are here doing their duty. Again, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his long-term friendship and for his kind words. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.

Mr. LEAHY. I don't always enjoy the statements I hear on the floor, but I must admit, I was relishing this one.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to do that. I am trying to do it in a relatively compressed amount of time, while some Senators are still around. There are a lot of judges on that list. Two Senators from each State will want to introduce them, plus those that are on the agenda. The distinguished majority leader has helped us in finding space in the Capitol to do it. We are also going to try to finish the terrorism bill, if we can. We are trying to juggle all that. I ask Senators to please show up on time when we start because there is going to be only so much of a window. If people don't show up, if we can't get a quorum, we can't go forward. I picked this time when everybody has to show up for a vote anyway, the best time to get a quorum, and we will go on with the others so that my staff and I can get back to finishing up the work of the terrorism bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the notice of Members, the Senate Judiciary Committee had originally been scheduled to meet tomorrow for a markup. We have about 14 or 15 nominations on the list, ranging from U.S. attorneys to Federal judges--actually more than that. I forget the exact number. The Dirksen Building in which we were scheduled to meet is going to be closed, as will the Russell and Hart Buildings. For those Senators who may have an interest, I am arranging for a meeting room off the Senate Chamber, probably in the President's room. We will start the meeting about halfway through the vote, whenever we have the vote, which I understand now is sometime between 12 and 12:30. I have talked to a number of Senators. This seems to be the most convenient way because we don't know where else we will get a meeting room. Senators on the Judiciary Committee should plan, if they possibly can, to vote here relatively early, when the rollcall starts. Come to the room. We will make sure somebody is here to tell them where it is going to be. Obviously, if somebody wants to debate something, they can. We will try to move those nominations out as quickly as possible. Having heard the travel plans of some Senators, we may try to get them moved out prior to or within the same amount of time as the rollcall vote. I urge Senators to get over there and make a quorum. As soon as we have a quorum, we will start moving. For several Senators who have inquired, mostly from the other side of the aisle, who have judges up for nomination hearings tomorrow--I know the Senators from Alabama and Oklahoma and others do--we are going forward with those hearings. Senator Schumer, the distinguished senior Senator from New York, will be chairing. Again, I think we may have arranged a room right back here.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?

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. If the leader will yield--so I won't leave any question--I had a meeting and markup in the Judiciary at 12. If the vote is going to be at 11, we will start that meeting of the Judiciary Committee--I understand it will be in the President's room. It will probably start about 11:05, 11:10. Again, I urge Senators to show up and make a quorum because I have talked to enough Republicans and Democrats and it is going to be hard to have a quorum much beyond the end of that vote. So, please, I urge Senators to be there at 11:05, 11:10. Vote in the beginning in the well and then come on in and we can get 12, 14, 15 nominations, ranging from U.S. attorneys to judges, out of there.